Posted: May 14, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Friday was a good day in River City as Mayor Loveridge’s special panel cleared Riverside Councilman Steve Adam’s alleged ethics violations.  Yes, that’s right, the celebratory smile and giddiness goes along with the pic!  In response to the special panel make-up, Mayor Ron Loveridge states, “These were not personal choices, we chose from the pool that applied”.   Well, I can understand that, but what about City Manager Brad Hudson’s reply to the City’s settlement of Lts. Darryl Hunt and Tim Bacon law suite, well, it was surprisingly as follows,  “…the city would be better off  without those two around, so we paid them to retire”.  Sounds like another law suit Brad, how much money has the taxpayer paid out just in settlements and law suits just because of what you may have said to somebody?  Come to find out the city is not insured, they were dropped back in 2008.  Currently, we are as they call it, “self insured”, that means settlements are paid out using taxpayer money.  The question is, Does Mayor Love’s special panel serve any real purpose, or are they as the English Royalty are viewed, an instrument of perception.   And is it almost possible to say, that we may be able to predict the outcome of any complaint made against City Hall by this special panel?  The city charter says council members should not be involved in personnel matters such as promotions. Rumored allegations are that their was interference by Councilman Steve Adams, who incidently is a fomer RPD Police Officer.

Earlier in the meeting, Melsh indicated and noted that Hudson said in his deposition that he couldn’t recall details of events surrounding the promotions at issue.  That’s a good one Hudson.. Sorry Hudson, no one believes that one! Especially with your track record.

  1. […] Well okay, but we know Bailey has a few skeletons in his closet that can be called out for behavior expected of a public official serving the residents of Riverside.  Let’s not forget Councilman Steve Adam’s sliding by complaints. […]

  2. […] Was Pete Esquevel’s testimony in favor of Councilman Steve Adam a contradiction to his tes… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s