Archive for June, 2011

Anonymous sources say City Manager Brad Hudson was given an ultimatum: BE FIRED OR RESIGN?  NOT SO!   At Tuesday’s closed sessions at City Hall, Brad Hudson was scheduled for his Performance Evaluation to be reviewed by the Council and Mayor Pro Tem Chistopher Mac Arthur.  Neithertheless, the council and mayor pro tem ‘s scheduled evaluation was circumvented by Hudson revealing he would be resigning.  Though we are told the City knew he was looking for a new job for some time, in reality it wasn’t a real shock to them as they indicated to the public.  The Sacramento Bee stated that the interview process began in February 2011 for the Chief Executive Officer postion.  We still do not know if the City of Riverside did anything to retain him,  in lieu of two years remaining on his contract.  Currently, Hudson has yet to present his resignation letter.  Brad’s spending from his discretionary slush fund of $50,000 for each item with no limit on the quantity of times it can be paid out, has been under scrutiny of alleged misconduct and questionable accountability.   The resignation is at the surface, a subterfuge to hide much more than the council would like you to know.  Wrongdoing by the City Manager would ultimately and legally make the Council responsible.  Will the council have enough gumption to tell the community the truth?  According to the Sacramento Bee Brad Hudson will become Sacramento’s County Chief Executive Officer, his annual compensation in Riverside was $424,000.00 making him one of the highest paid city executives in California.   The question is, why would you leave his base salary of $295,000.00 to make $258,000.00 in Sacramento?  No one just chooses to make this move, especially to Sacramento.  This goes along with former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis, who applied for a job in Gilbert, Arizona for Town Manager, but raised red flags when his past service came into question.  Brad Hudson has been at the forefront of allegations of misconduct, nepotism and favoritism.   The allegation have increase two fold the last few months with most of them coming from fired employees, accusing the City Manager of preferential contract awarding.   This in lieu of the use of Police Cold Plate Vehicles, Request for Official Badges, Fraudulently Using the City Hall Address to Register a Firearm, Illegally Purchasing a Firearm and being in part responsible for the demolition of the Press Bindery.  This beginning with a criminal conviction for credit card forgery at age eighteen.  At the evening City Council session the the law firm Hudson hired, Cihigoyenetche,Grossberg & Clouse, is requesting an addtional amount of $50,000.00, not to exceed $100,000.00 for continued personnel investigations.  This was the firm that was to investigate the favoritism allegations of himself as well as the varacity of the chain of events.  The City Council and the Mayor have continued to deny these allegations, and have defended the City Manager.   This is also the person who knowingly supported the actions of Chief Russ Leach, who left in disgrace, and out of 91 applicants hired retired LAPD Deputy Chief now Chief Sergio Diaz, who has criticized Riversidian commenters in the Press Enterprise as Cheeto eaters in their underwear, in reference to the realities of police business.  The theatrics of City Council wishing Brad well stink to high heaven, probably from all the leaking sewers…

UPDATE: 06/14/2011: CITY COUNCIL BOMBSHELL: During Public Comment today, Citizen Auditor, as she would like to be known, Vivian Moreno asked all on the dais if City Manager Brad Hudson was having an affair with Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham?  If true, there is a obvious conflict of interest.  That questioned sure quieted the dais.  Before her, Ward 1 City Council Candidate Dvonne Pitruzello stated this was a City Manager that has raped our sewage funds, our water fund, our electric fund and our workmans compensation funds.  He has paid for properties with it and other projects with it.  The City calls them inter-fund loans, but she gave Chief Financial Officer Paul Sundeen a lesson in finance terminology, by stating these were inter-agency loans.  She also made known to Brad Hudson that you can run, but you cannot hide because criminal activity has no jurisdiction.   Made known that the City Council has a City Manager that they are responsible for, whether or not they were aware of what they were voting on, and not only have a fiduciary but ethical responsibility of that final vote.  Federal CDBG funds that were forged, with inference to Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham, and Dvonne even gave her phone number out, and stated she has the documentation to back it up.  Questioned Councilman Mike Gardner statement, “We had to pay for talent”, regarding Brad Hudson. “This is not talent, Mike”.   Criticized the council regarding terms use to describe Hudson’s positive moral compass as a leader. Questioned the Council about the expensive pavers on the Main Street Mall in which Brad Hudson personally sent a helicopter to Mexico to get, which she was told were special because they were waterproof, but when she looked into it they were just pavers (Anonymous sources state that they were not even water permeable, expensive, and paid for twice, and Mexican Made not American Made)..  Questioned the construction of a house built  with funds that was to be used on the construction of a police station.  She stated that restrictive Police Asset Forfeiture Funds were used to purchase cars for city council.  No reporting of the City Managers discretionary fund, and when she requested the documents, the spending was ridiculous because it was the councils responsibility to oversee these funds, and they allowed the city manager by doing this, to place our city in bankruptcy. And it will be in bankruptcy because all those loans will come do in 2012.  Questioned the money used to built the Raincross Promenade, that continues to remain empty.  The city use of sewer money, electric money and workmans comp money that was given to the developer to build those, and a portion of those were to go to  low income people. 

 Sources are also are stating that City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Brad Hudson were seen last Friday night, 06/10/2011, with two unidentified ladies at Duane’s Restaurant at the Mission Inn. Hopefully this dinner was paid appropriately.  The question is , will Greg Priamos be next?

UPDATE:06/15/2011: 12:16pm: Anonymous Sources are stating that the City of Riverside is worse off than they thought, and the city can’t pay the bonds that are due in July 01, 2012.

UPDATE:06/15/2011: 02:52pm: The question arises, who will be the Interim City Manager.  Sources say it would be counterproductive to hire from Brad Hudson’s surrounding emloyees, such as Deanna Lorson, Paul Sundeen or Belinda Graham.  These people are partly to blame for the budget problems, and were the enablers behind Hudson spending wildly, they cannot be trusted to fix the broken monetary policies at City Hall.

UPDATE:06/15/2011:11:55pm: The house built with construction funds used for a police station.  Does it have a well known City Executive’s name on it?  In addition, most of the Council continue to drink the Kool-Aid and still don’t get it!  Sources say, this is exactly what Brad Hudson stated about the council, “They just don’t get it!”  This is the one time TMC is in agreement with Brad Hudson.  Ward 1 Councilman Mike Gardner, elected for a second term, does not get it. “There’s a reason that city managers typically don’t last longer than three to five years,” Gardner said. “Either you make your bosses mad and they replace you, or you make the citizenry mad to some extent and they complain about you.”  Mike, it’s time to put aside childish excuses and thinking and do the right thing you were elected to do.  Stop the charades, you’ll get more support if you do.  Toward Sacramento, how much Kool-Aid does Sacramento County Chairwoman Roberta MacGlashan drink, stated, “officials don’t believe Hudson ordered Riverside contracts steered to friends”.  Well even if she doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid, which is even worse, Brad Hudson found a workable nitch.  It appears to be a kind of Nancy Hart (City Council Representative for Riverside Ward 6), type of community in their thinking, possibly laughing out loud for no reason, perfect for the antics of Brad Hudson.


Supervisor chair, Roberta MacGlashen’s mismanagement is further revealed in this  terrible selection of Hudson whose apparently the only qualified applicant in  Calif at a 1/4 million dollars a year.  MacGlashen, is full of myths and  this one is a whopper; one  reason’s these salaries are so inflated is because we  are falsely informed that only a man of Hudson’s alleged skill level can do this  job. Hudson sounds like a first class pos.  MacGlashen, is also the one  that is concealing the county council’s, Robert Ryan’s, bogus false legal advice  to the Superior court’s  state statutory committee (JJDPC) to thwart a  valid felony complaint against the probation dept and chief Don L.  Meyer.  When MacGlashen’s total abuse of the office failed to obstruct  that issue she then called an internal 911 to the sheriff’s that are now  criminally investigating this citizen for threats & harassment of the board  of supervisor’s, county council, prob dept, JJDPC, Little Hoover Commission; and  who else Roberta, oh yah, the superior court?  It certainty appears that  board chair, Roberta MacGlashen, is an unethical supe and anyone she brings to  the table should be heavily scrutinized.

Mr Hudson, I look forward to  speaking with you soon since Steve Szalay swept it under the carpet.

Jake  Wallace, 209-470-5175    Read more:

UPDATE: 06/16/2011: 03:30pm: Brad Hudson still has 2 years remaining on his contract with the City of Riverside, has not submitted a formal resigation letter and flew to Sacramento the next day after the Tuesday closed sessions city council meeting to solidify his position as Sacramento County Chief Executive Officer.  These chain of events do not reflect a prepared state of affairs.  The story with the Sacramento Bee describing Brad’s new position was published for release 11:30 pm Tuesday the 15, 2011.  Was it calculated, one week after elections?  In an interview Wednesday in Sacramento, Hudson said he leaves Riverside having  accomplished his goals.  Is he leaving or is he running?

UPDATE: 06/17/2011: 12:15pm:  SACRAMENTO BEE STATED THAT Chairwoman Roberta MacGlashan said the selection came about two weeks ago, after an extensive search for  leaders with experience in California counties. This would be a week prior to the elections.  Did the mayor and city council know this then, with two years remaining on Hudson’s contractual obligation with the City?  Why did Brad make this decision, was it with or without the City Council or the Mayors knowledge? Were things getting hotter on the City Hall seventh floor? Is there more comming down the pipeline? Did it have anything to do with the Connie Leach Grand Jury Investigation received by the city?

UPDATE: 06/17/2011: 04:00pm: According to the Sacramento Press, Brad Hudson was one of five candidate in consideration for the new chief county executive position.  Process for his consideration began in early February of 2011, and he will be offered a five year contract.  He will replace interim chief executive Steve Szalay.  Former state Sen. John J. Benoit (R-Riverside) worked with Hudson at the local level when Benoit was a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and said that Hudson’s move will be “a great loss for Riverside, but a huge gain for Sacramento.”  The rumor around downtown riverside is that Brad Hudson was looking for another job for some time.  Did the City Council & Mayor know this information prior to Tuesday”s closed session meetings, as they indicate they were shocked to hear the news that he was resigning?  Or the acceptance of Hudson in Sacramento regardless of his background, reveals a much bigger picture.  A reflection of the status quo phoenomenom of which Hudson is part of, and the primary reason that California is economically suffering.

From the history that follows this guy, it is once again apparent that the Sac County Supervisors are not doing background checks, but rather relying on corrupt advisors.  –Commenter Sacrameto Press




First let’s start with the introduction of the Not Ready, City Official Players, City Manager Brad Hudson, Tom Boyd, Siobhan Foster, All City Council Members, Chief Financial Officer Paul Sundeen and City Attorney Greg Priamos, who are played by themselves.  We also have the Ready To Receive Contractor Players, Albert Webb & Associates and CDM, oh, not to forget the Incidental Law Firm Cihigoyenetche,Grossberg & Clouse played by themselves.  Now, the Whistleblowers are played by method actors Warren Huang, Craig Justice and Deputy Attorney Raychele Sterling. Well, now you’ve got a story.  Now tell me, who wouldn’t pay good money to see these theatrics play out at your local government owned Fox Theatre on a Saturday night, which by the way is currently presenting only the best in government entertainment.

The mystery begins with the alleged questioning of City Engineer Warren Huang by Riverside County DA’s office regarding a sewer design contract that apparently went to CDM: Camp Dresser & McKee.  This story all bubbled to the surface when Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling, who according to Greg Priamos Office, was placed on administrative leave, then they decided to fire her, for reasons still unknown.  Raychele received an email from employees  of the Public Works Department stating that they were directed by their superiors to assign projects to allegedly the Albert Webb firm, because Albert is a personal friend of Brad Hudson and wants him to receive as many projects as possible.  Raychele then sent an email to City Council Members in March 2011 alleging concerns to City Officials regarding these employees and the allegations of steered contracts to friends of the City Manager Brad Hudson. Also, emphasizing that the City Manager threatened to fire them if they complained or made as much as a diminutive inference to the process.   And of course, City officials have denied any wrongdoing and said an internal investigation found nothing improper.  So these employees are bad people? According to whom?  Is this why most fired city employees sue the city and settle? And the public never hears about it?  The cost becomes enormous, so enormous the  taxpaying community will never see the figures.

Being awarded a contract is all about who wins the bid by the scoring process.  The standard scoring process is based on past performances, averaging the numbers, getting a total, and voilà, you have a winning bid for a contractor.  But it always seems as when you don’t like the numbers you find the need to use the creative fuzzy math process.  Let’s see I got contractor “A”  but boss wants contractor “B”.   The accepted standard process gives me contractor “A”, but if I use the fuzzy math process, I get contractor “B”, boss is happy, I still have my job, which is important because I’m an at-will employee and life is good again.  Now that’s the situation, and of course you guessed it  the usual suspects always seem to keep bubbling up to the surface.

Albert A. Webb Associates President Matthew Webb said in April that the company has earned its jobs based on merit and that contracts with Riverside are only a small portion of the company’s  business. So the small portion of Albert Webbs business was as follows, but still trying to understand what part was small, wow, twelve payouts in a single day from the general fund?…and just received a $308,495.00 contract April 2011.  Albert Webb states he is also good friends with Brad Hudson, Council Members Chris Mac Arthur and William “Rusty” Bailey.  I’m sure it means nothing but I thought I just mentioned it.

Well Greg Priamos knows nothing and says nothing, Paul Sundeen says the allegations are baseless and that’s that.  Brad Hudson knows nothing and says nothing but hires the Law Firm of  Cihigoyenetche,Grossberg & Clouse around April 29, 2011 to investigate the allegations of favoritism on himself, and evidently they are still investigating them to this day.

Raychel Sterling wrote that according to the scoring sheets it showed CDM was not the highest ranked firm.   Now that Raychele was fired for bringing to light an injustice, does that make her a whistleblower?  This would enthrall the City again, into another brutal lawsuit.  City Council, do you know what is really going on in your back yard?  Greg, how much have you costed us, as taxpayers, in law suits so far?  Are you the next to go?  Well, we’ll just have to crunch the numbers on that one, I just know it has to be more than the cost of a junk bond.  Huang and Justice told Sterling that they were called into Public Works Director Siobhan Foster’s office, where “they were told that ‘she did not like the results of the scoring,’ and that the scoring needed to be ‘fixed’ so that CDM was selected” because Albert A. Webb Associates was to be a subcontractor on the job, according to the email.  Ahhh, now we are getting somewhere, so Siobhan Foster states to Huang and Justice that the numbers aren’t right and we need to go to the creative fuzzy math process.  Remember, the fuzzy math process is priceless and dependable, the numbers always come out the opposite of what you originally calculate. Remarkable!  What does Siobhan Foster have to say about this?  According to the Press Enterprise, Siobhan Foster did not return phone calls.  Hopefully, she is out filling pot holes, which I as a Riversidian have been complaining about.


There is gold in those streets I’m told, if you are a contractor that wins a city contract through the bid process in the City of Riverside, and the best part is you don’t have to be on top of the scoring due to the implementation of the Fuzzy Math Process. But according Tom Boyd, Deputy Public Works Director, paving a street twice has become a bit “fuzzy” as well.  Can anyone tell me where the accountability and responsibility lies?  I for one can say Tom Boyd definitely does not care about the expense to the taxpayer of a measly $17,000.00.  Please Tom, embrace and engage in the communication process, to do otherwise is costly to the community.  With your long work record with the city and your high level of experience, how does something as this really happen? There is nothing like a story which brews under the ground, and it begins in the sewers, then stinks to high heaven.  Tom Boyd states, “This appears to be an isolated mix-up, we haven’t changed anything. If it only happens once, there’s no sense in getting to exactly what happened.”  According to city sources it may occur quite often, Main Street Mall was another example.  But Tom, even if it only happens once, isn’t that one time to much? And an occurence to investigate?  I’ve known people in the Private Sector fired for lesser offenses than that.  I also understand the communication process should not be a problem; but Mr. Deputy Public Works Director, isn’t your  department right next to City Engineering?  Someone is breaching their fiduciary duty to the people once again.  A measly $17,000.00 may not be a lot for wonderfully vested paid position as Public Works Director, but during a time when many in the community are losing their homes, trying to pay their bills, and trying to pay for basic necessities such as placing food on the table, $17,000.00 is a lot of money.  That’s an insult to the taxpaying community.  Maybe Tom Boyd should give the $17,000.00 out of his own pocket, to replace what he should have caught.  The real question is two fold, are we just seeing imcompetance, or bid fixing by adjusting the scoring? That’s where the “fuzzy math comes in I’m told.  Could paving a street twice quite possibly be on purpose? The second time around it now cost the taxpayer $32,000.00 to do the street paving.  Tom Boyd says it’s the “high price of oil.”  I’ve had this conversation before, but it was about “high price of beef.”  Well in any case this what would be much more diabolical to assume, that is , to assume that there is something much diabolical occurring than meets the eye.  This would began to go into that territory of “favoritism” again, and just maybe, “money laundering”?  Comments Welcomed, and one final note, our streets are full of the proverbial “pot holes”, someone please introduce Siobhan Foster to one. 

A new site has shown its face come up regarding City Manager Brad Hudson.  He is known among the community and inner sanctum of City Hall as the powerhouse of the city. The mover and  shaker of the tethered pieces of Main Street development with no architectural significance.  We know that at TMC that we didn’t vote for him either.  In City of Riverside I understand he may be a little wet, but not all washed up yet.   The “I Didn’t Vote For Brad” site describes a question and answer manifesto regarding why I didn’t vote for brad, and allows you to copy a printable badge which can be printed to your heart’s desire and place anywhere Brad may take notice.  The site also  references articles regarding Brad in the Press Enterprise, Blog,  as well as our TMC site.  Regardless, if you are out there, contact TMC and tell us your thoughts of the site and its intention.  And one more thing, don’t let Chief Sergio Diaz get wind of the un-politically correct term “manifesto”, you may trigger an investigation.  You  may want to change that to platform, resolution, proclamation, declaration or my favorite, public notice.  Onward, to Emerald City!


The question that many employees that work for the City of Riverside are having is why are their vested employees and at-will employees.  Ordinarily, the Private Sector in California is an at-will state, once you go to the Public Sector, it doesn’t apply.  The standard in the Public Sector is that executive positions are usually at-will, and the rest are vested positions.  But we are finding a mix of vested and at-will employees within middle and upper management positions, and of course there are the rank and file still continue to remain vested per union contract.  Vested positions cannot be changed to at-will positions by the City council or the City Manager, it must take a vote of the  people. The city could be enthralled into a serious class action lawsuit if this is true. The question is, were mid and upper management positions which were originally vested changed to at-will without a vote of the people?  This then becomes the legal question.

Sources are asking,for example, if the position was vested before the City Manager Brad Hudson came to the city, would be illegal of him to have changed the position to at-will without a vote of the people,  Therefore the at-will position advertised would be an illegal and fraudulent offer to that employee.  This would also violate Skelly Rights.  The purpose of the Skelly rule is to allow employees an opportunity to respond to the charges and to request a reduction or elimination of the discipline. It also allows for an opportunity to check out the evidence that management has against the employee.

Therefore, this offer would be contrary to public policy. Usually a city charter can override only if it states “at-will”, but it appears that the City of Riverside Charter does  not.  If the city manager came in and declared that vested positions are now at-will, this would be illegal.  Legally, a vested position will remain a vested position, even if an employee came in and was told at-will was the position. You may have agreed to it, which would be a fraudulent offer, and if you were terminated, the position would legally return back to vested.  Remember only “you” can waive your right of being vested if you wanted to change to “at-will.”  A city manager cannot state “vested” positions are now “at-will”, or even the city council cannot change this.  If this was what you were told, a Labor Relations Attorney would be in order to sue the city.  The city cannot vote out rights given by the voters. Rank and file employees, for example, are vested, and their mid management positions vested.

If your contract is terminated, when you are hired there is an implied contract, the contract states that you are at-will, one can still sue the city council civily, because they allowed the city manger to make this illegal decision. Remember, the City Council and the Mayor are ultimately responsible since the City Manager serves at their pleasure.  Look at the history of the city for laws regards at-will and vested.  January 2007 the city became a Charter City, and this change could by some become questionable. Since City Charter process could be abused, and be used more like a weapon than a tool.  Therefore, the at-will classification can give the city the license to steal and avoid transparency, if anything is said, an employee can be fired and a gag order placed.  That’s why the whistleblower act is important.  The first US law adopted specifically to protect whistleblowers was the 1863 United States called the False Claims Act (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the Civil War.  The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government and protects them from wrongful dismissal.  A whistleblower is now defined as  a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged misconduct, dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a directthreat to public interest, such as fraud  health/safety violations, and corruption.  Therefore, if you were fired based on the whistleblower law, you may have been unlawfully terminated and have grounds for a lawsuit.


Sources are stating that Dom Betro, running for City Council, does not reside at his Riverside Ward 1 home, in order to be elgible as a candidate.  That would be a violation of the 1974 Political Reform Act.  Back in june 2007 Dom Betro was the part of a Grand Jury investigation of selling public land cheaply.  His term was inundated by merchants vs. parking meters, camera tickets, the issue of eminent domain and favoritism with developers, alleged FBI Investigation, alleged improprieties with a campaign manager, a question of his residence and even a documented altercation with protesters outside the Fox Theatre. Not to  mention the actions against Riversiders for Property Rights and Ken Stansbury, in which hundreds of  thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent to extinguish the right of the community to be heard against, what many in the community are stating “a rogue government”.   This was done of course, with the best of the best, Best, Best & Krieger Attorneys, but not in your interest, but theirs. Quite shameful of Betro.  The new mailer toward Mike Gardner by Betro  states don’t be fooled again, but if anybody experienced the wrath of Betro, don’t be fooled twice.

In light of the City of Riverside being a public entity reporting the use of publicly owned vehicle appears more trickier due their exempt status over the private sector.  If a vehicle is noted as a safety officer vehicle, it maintains exempt status.  Placing cold plates on public vehicles would indicate exempt status. Both of these would not be TAXABLE.  Therefore city council members who had cold plate vehicles, paid no taxes.  An imminent abuse of the use of cold plates are that public vehicles can be used for personal purposes and not be taxed.  This isn’t rocket science, and city hall knows it, but inadvertently play the “I didn’t know that” card, then when that they do know, “we will make it right and fix it” card. Then there is the cover-up part, “Now, we can go forward and put this behind us, and get to something really important, the work of the people.”

A monthly $350.00 fuel expense, by the way, is taxable according to the IRS.  One city council member, Mike Gardner, takes the $350.00 fuel expense.  Pocketing the money for other than  what it was intended would be a form of abuse.  You just can’t pocket the money for personal use just because you have a Segway. Regardless, his $4,200 per year allowance is taxable.  Still, in my opinion $350 is to much.  Since no one has an idea of how to track themselves, the best way is to submit your expenses for reimbursement. In this manner they our forced to be responsible for documenting their own expenses. But the cast of characters have done more than consistently perjure themselves, and in my opinion, have broken the law without having to take responsible punishment.  Preferential treatment? That’s a good question.  You, me and  especially the public at large would definitely not be able to get away with any of this activity.  The five year old explanations abound, “I dunno”, “I didn’t know that” or “the difference between personal use and business can be blurry”.  Well I’m here to clarify, because the IRS is very clear regards to the use of vehicles for business.  Many people think there is a culture of entitlement looming in City Hall, and that many there are very bad people, but it doesn’t compare with the IRS, who can just be bad to work with.  This makes me worried that even Chief Financial Officer, Paul Sundeen, should have counseled city hall personal regards to these rules, especially City Attorney, Greg Priamos should have given the legal implications of these rules.  But we probably didn’t think of calling BB&K for a consult. Not only are there legal implications for councilpeople who didn’t report personal use, but the city could have implications for not reporting the value of the vehicle as wages and/or documenting the use.  This should be embarrassing for the city but also a reflection of a lack of leadership qualities and a dereliction of duty.  City Hall states that council members can utilize their public vehicles for personal use as long as they report it to the IRS.  No one in the private sector could even think of getting away with this.  Steve Adams states he uses his taxpayer vehicle half the time for business and half the time for personal, based on a 50/50 rule. Folks it doesn’t exist!  Andy Melendrez says sixty percent of the time he uses it for business and forty for personal, based on a 60/40 rule. Again,it doesn’t exist.   According to City Finance Director, Bret Mason, he agrees there is no formula, council members are responsible for reporting their personal mileage totals for tax purposes.  Well, folks, again even Bret is wrong.  It is the Cities fiduciary duty to the taxpayer to be the watch dog of public vehicles, and to follow IRS rules according to their Fringe Benefit Guide.

I believe many of these elected officials just don’t get it.  You join the armed service to be of service to your country by defending it.   Public service is the same, you run to be elected because you want to be of service to the community.  Therefore, no perks or entitlements.  This would lead to corruptible offenses and abuses, of which we now see.  All you have to do is hear what comes out of their mouth as in the case of city councilman, Paul Davis, who whines that the $350.00 monthly allowance wouldn’t even cost his gas, let alone a car payment, insurance and maintenance.  Would you want this person representing your community? This is a slap and insult to the community at large.   But why should the City of Riverside be the exception, where other small cities no where the size of ours are following IRS rules and have no confusion as to the requirements.  City councilman Steve Adams who later this year turned in his Chrysler 300, insisted the city uses the 50/50 rule to ensure council members don’t underpay their taxes, since the IRS counts personal use of a city owed vehicle as a taxable benefit.  Steve a career politician is unfortunately wrong on this issue, and its not me saying it, it’s the IRS.  You can run, but you cannot hide from the IRS…  when I contacted the IRS this is what was collaborated except the run and hide part. The City is beginning to find themselves in the unfortunate position of being the fish out of water, a place you don’t want to be.  Especially when you are being watched.

Paul Davis ran up 6,879 miles in six months and claimed no personal use; well that’s a document I’ll be requesting, to see the where, why, and when the city business took place. Andy Melendrez states Tom DeSantis, Ex-Assistant City Manager, told him of the 60/40 rule. Well if you know Tom’s track record here at the city and the county, it’s not completely consistent, and I believe he was documenting car use on post-it notes.  Adams, Rusty, Hart and Melendrez claimed fifty percent and reported that business portion to the IRS.  But Andy Melendrez, stated earlier of the 60/40 rule. OK these people are representing the people, but do they really know what they are doing? That’s the question. Further, if doing the people work is such a hardship, why would they feel inclined to do it at all?  There are sacrifices for the common good to make things better.  Again, these are people who do not care about our city, this I deduce based on their statements.

Without getting deep into details of IRS tax law, anytime you use a public vehicle for personal use, it is taxable and considered income.  The income is based on the value of the vehicle.  Otherwise, you are required to substantiate the business use in order to exclude the value of the vehicle use as income.  Responsible parties for documentation are yourself/councilperson and the City.  Therefore, when records/documentation are not provided by the employee/councilperson, the value of that vehicle as provided by the original purchase price or lease value, for the period of time the employee/councilperson uses it, is converted to wages by the employer/City.  It is then up to the employee/councilperson to substantiate business use to the IRS.  If records/documentation are provided by the employee or councilperson, the business portion will be deducted minus the personal use if it applies, with the value of the personal use converted to taxable wages.   Cold Plates, un-taxable, nice while it lasted…..IRS well, they don’t take tax evasion lightly.