According to a August 2013 sewer bond rating by Standard & Poor, the outlook is negative. One of the concerns S & P had was relationship between declining revenue and rising debt service, which almost tripled to $18.3 million in 2013, from $6.2 million in 2012 and from a mere $817,000.00 in 2010 and 2011. These increases were directly related to $241 million in bonds issuance in 2009, of which $204 million were Build America Bonds.
In 2011 Moody’s assigned a rating of “Negative Outlook,” as a result of the $241 million in bonds and the debt service associated with it. Not included in the rating is the concern of debt service of $6 million of the proposed bond issuance of $100 million in 2015! Therefore, one can visualize the grave concern and if extrapolated according to the current number, one can derive why S & P came to their opinion.
Standard & Poor’s view is that the sewer funds maintenance of strong cash levels is important for credit quality, this is reflected in their single A rating. Further, the concern is the sewer funds inability to significantly improve margins and DSC ( Debt Service Coverage) from recurring revenue could lead to additional downward movement in the rating.
Another concern S & P argued was the application of large cash reserves to soften (lessen) rate increases. According to S & P this is an acceptable practice in most cases, though the degree of subsidization in the City of Riverside, historically (the city’s track record) and as projected (forecasted) for the next few years, in S & P’s viewpoint, appears “aggressive.”
An additional concern is the additional $100 million bond issuance scheduled for 2015 which is expected to increase debt service requirements further to the tune of $6million!
Currently, the City of Riverside is in a court battle with the City of Jurupa Valley a CSD ( Community Service District) which the our City wishes Jurupa, as well as other CSD’s such as Rubidoux, Edgemont and Highgrove to pay a portion of the sewer construction. The City of Jurupa Valley responded with this press release.
TMC opinion of which this boils down to is the legacy of former City Manager Brad Hudson. We are seeing the repercussions of his decisions which unfortunately, will impact the residents of the City of Riverside, the taxpayer, in the course of higher taxes. Unfortunately, to some, as Mayor Bailey, he was are “Moral Compass.” If only he knew of his background…maybe he did…
As the City stated, Hudson got things done, you know now how he did it. Even former Councilwoman Nancy Hart use to say, bless her ignorant heart, “I just don’t know where you find the money Brad!” The taxpayer and their children will pay for it dearly.
Even back in 2009, a PE article recognized the need for massive sewer upgrade in the City of Riverside, and the question even then of sewer fund monies being borrowed leads to the need for a forensic audit by the State Controllers Office.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
The City Councilman that we believe will approve the new tax hike will be, of course, Steve Adams, Chris Mac Arthur, Mike Gardner and possibly Jim Perry. The City Councilman we believe will not approve to vote on the hike are, Paul Davis, Mike Soubirous and maybe, Andy Melendrez. We’re on the fence with Andy..
People have forgotten that Council approved a sewer rate hike five years ago that included new rate hikes for 2009 through 2014. For 2014, the rate would now include CPI (Consumer Price Index). But the rate hike + CPI is no longer high enough to cover the new proposed $100,000,000.00 bond issuance, which it needs to continue the sewer expansion. Now, Public Works is requesting a higher rate increase than just CPI, as indicated in the second schematic. Why? The City needs a higher revenue stream for the new bond and its debt service.
The City of Riverside had over $228,000,000.00 paid out in advances and loans from the Sewer Fund. Each and every loan/advance should be supported with a loan agreement to make sure the taxpayer reaps the benefit of the interest from each loans. We’ve requested all the loan agreements and the City of Riverside either does not have them or for some reason, are unwilling to give them to us. Therefore you have to ask the question, if we had $228,000,000.00 loaned out and paid back, as CFO Brent Mason continues to tell us at City Council, we should have $228,000,000.00 sitting in the bank, and why would we need $100 million bond issuance. If they are saying it was spent on sewer related items, then show us!
Don’t forget folks, the City actually needs a total of $700,000,000.00 to complete the master sewer expansion project per Public Works Director Tom Boyd! This is only Phase One of the project, so more increases to come.
FROM THE DESK OF SCOTT SIMPSON: SCOTT RESPONDS TO THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE:
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Sewer service is a service to your property (parcel of land). California’s Courts have ruled that it is unlawful to include the costs of borrowed money in the service rates. The cost of borrowed money for capital improvement must only be recovered from property assessments or special taxes. Both of these are voter approved and would be included on your property tax bill.
This makes legal sense and comon sense. The Courts expressed that this is the only legal method in Calif to recover capital expense for system upgrade or expansion. Understanding that our City leaders have been dodging our vote on the legal methods of financing sewer expansion, That places the ability to cover these costs only in the service rate! What happened in the recent economic crisis— about 25% of residential and business properties went vacant for a long time. These properties were not paying a fair share of the cost of service to the property. Even though no one is home to flush, the capital cost of the sewer system has to be paid in annual loan payments. This fact of placing capital costs in the service rate set the Public Works Dept. up for a budget crisis! Their only option, continue down the same path and raise your rates to pay the cost of infrastructure that serve some one else’s property!
If the City had done it properly and gotten capital financing via a property assessment or special tax, that bill goes to the property owner annually and even the vacant properties will still get billed and we will see the money at the end of the foreclosure process. The sewer rates won’t have to climb above the 1-2% consumer price index annually. No need to raise the rates. The debt service is authorized and paid over the long term in the lawful and most stable method of financing– property assessments or special taxes.
The lawfull method above also includes government and tax-exempt property owners. They also pay their fair share. These groups consume about 40% of our utility services and don’t pay their fair share of the costs.
– Scott Simpson
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
TMC had it right in 2012, original post: We will continue this story tomorrow with a new posting, and we will also be carrying our original “Sewer Gate” signs at Tuesday’s City Council May 13, 2014 7:00pm..
CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC REQUEST THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TO “GIVE OBAMA BACK HIS BONDS”!
TMC’s support of State Controller John Chiang’s Auditing Team started the morning off with protest signs facing incoming city workers. Protest involves the alleged fraud and misuse of Obama’s Federal Build America Bonds by the City of Riverside. Whereby, bonds intended for one purpose or project, is diverted to other unrelated purposes. In the midst of taxpayer abuse as seen with California Cities such as Bell, Montebello and Hercules which have resulted in millions of dollars lost. Local community residents have raised the questions of the sanctity of the city’s finances as well as their expenditures. Concerns of increase power, water, sewer rates along with incidental service fees to get around proposition 218 to cover cost of mismanagement have been prevalent. Now with the City of Stockton, California on the brink of filing for bankruptcy, attention is high. TMC request the auditing team to dig further. “Seek and you will find”.. Join us in voicing your opinion in front of City Hall and at todays City Council Meetings, Afternoon session 3:00 pm and Evening session 6:30 pm. According to the PE the auditing team will be in the City of Riverside for a two month routine evaluation, of one project, the Columbia Grade Seperation. TMC questions the length of time necessary for one project to be evaluated.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREG ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
CITY CODE OF ETHICS NOT SO ETHICAL WHEN IT COMES TO CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND CITY HIRED ATTORNEY DOUG SMITH?
Board Member, Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D., Inland Regional Board of Trustees, who also served a member of the City’s Adjudicating Body whenever an alleged violation of the City’s Code of Ethics, responded in this letter to Councilman Mike Soubirous regarding his concerns with the behavior and involvement of City Attorney Greg Priamos and outside legal, hired by the city, local Riverside attorney Doug Smith.
Attorney Doug Smith City Attorney Greg Priamo
Of the misrepresentations made to the Council by Mr. Smith, this was the most egregious. There is simply no nice way of stating this – he lied.
The main concern in question was the dual roles of the City Attorney’s Office acting as an advocate to the City, as well as a neutral counsel to the HRB (Human Resource Board.) Also, City hired attorney Doug Smith materially misrepresenting himself to the Council on March 25, 2014. Are Priamos and Smith liars? Keith Nelson seems to think so, considering Smith’s actions most egregious. Did Priamos tell Smith to lie to City Council of the findings of the Ethics and Conduct Hearing’s adjudicating body? Currently, Priamos is writing a book on ethics. The letter is as follows:
FROM THE DESK OF KEITH J. NELSON
April 29, 2014
Honorable Mike Soubirous
City of Riverside
3900 Mail Street
Riverside, CA. 92506
RE: Code of Ethics – J. Hunter v. Human Resources Board members
Dear Mr. Soubirous,
It was a pleasure speaking with you recently at the Boards and Commissions Annual Dinner. Unfortunately, my message today concerns a most troublesome matter. Let me begin by stating emphatically that this letter is not private. Instead, it is intended for you to share with your colleagues on the City Council, and whomever else you deem it contents would benefit. I would, in fact, read this letter into public comment at the next City Council meeting, but it would I’m certain exceed the three minute limitation allowed for such.
I will go off topic for just a moment and formally introduce myself in an effort to create clarity as to my interest and involvement in this matter. I am a 25+ year resident of Riverside who has endeavored to remain active in our community. As you may recall when you were running for Council, I contacted you to discuss your views and commitments on certain issues I feel important to our city. I have three adult children, plus one I am still raising here. I have been involved at many different levels with the city and surrounding area, including but not limited to: the Commission on Disabilities (chairman), Inland Regional Center (Board of Trustees), Team USA Special Olympics (coach), Special Olympics of Southern California (Regional Advisory Council), Regional Center (Business Committee), Arlington Little League (coach, Board of Directors), AYSO Region 47 soccer (founder, coach, Board of Directors), Poly High School Special Needs Boosters clubs, Poly High ROTC Boosters club…and more. I hope that this listing demonstrates my commitment to our community. I have always wanted to be proud of the city I live in.
To the matter at hand: I have served on a few Code of Ethics and Conduct adjudicating bodies (“AB”) during my tenure as the Chairman of the city’s Commission on Disabilities. I have always taken this responsibility extremely serious. If you were to review the administrative records of these hearings, I believe you would find that I often ask the most questions on the AB and deliberate issues of concern at substantial length. As a commissioner and member of an adjudicating body, I find our job comes with a multiple of masters: to our fellow citizens by striving to improve the city in which we live; and to the Council itself, representing our local government towards achieving the highest level of integrity.
Out of all the ethics hearings I have been involved with, the case involving Jason Hunter really bothers me the most from many perspectives. First, the role of the City Attorney’s office, throughout the entirely of the process, was deeply concerning. At the ethics hearing, we were instructed by the City Attorney’s office that it could both represent the city (Human Resource Board members, “HRB”) through outside counsel (Mr. Doug Smith) and serve as neutral counsel to the adjudicating body. We were also informed that the HRB members themselves would not be made available to the AB. As I consider the goal of our Code of Ethics and Conduct, established by our City Charter, is to provide both an actual and a perception of transparency, this dual role and lack of access to key parties is difficult to come to terms with. As such, I am left with the notion that our powers as finders of fact have been curtailed somewhat needlessly.
I have followed up on this matter in particular, because as an adjudicating body a definitive part of our final decision was to bring specific areas of conflict and concern within disciplinary hearings being run by our city staff to the attention of the City Council. My vote, in fact, was predicated on my motion to present said report to the Council (see minutes of December 13, 2013). To date, for reasons mostly unknown to me, this action has not been taken despite assurances of such from the AB Chairman, Mr. Justin Scott-Coe. I will elaborate more as I walk you through the ethics hearing from my perspective. I strongly believe that failing to address these core issues renders the entire Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint process pointless, and wastes significant time on behalf of all parties involved.
Concerns:
•Limitation of Scope. As an adjudicating body our ability to request information was virtually non-existent. We could not require testimony, subpoena documents nor investigate issues outside of the strict scope outlined by the City Attorney. And yet, we were presented by the city with no justification for this being so. I find these constraints overly burdensome, particularly in light of HRB counsel (Mr. Smith) materially misrepresenting to the Council at the March 25, 2014, appeal hearing that Mr. Hunter had the opportunity to present all evidence. This statement was simply untrue. In fact, many of my reservations during the ethics hearings themselves centered around the somewhat arbitrary limitations put on Mr. Hunter concerning evidence he could present and his ability to provide testimony, either his or other witnesses.
• Training of the Human Resources Board. Of the misrepresentations made to the Council by Mr. Smith, this was the most egregious. There is simply no nice way of stating this – he lied. Astonishingly, Mr. Smith told the Council the exact opposite of what we concluded. The adjudicating body clearly and unequivocally stated that as a body we were to make a presentation to the Council regarding proper training of boards and commissions, specifically chairmen, and the need for more transparent hearing procedures written in a way such that the average citizen would feel confident in the process and how to present evidence.
Mr. Smith sat in attendance at both ethics hearings as we quite clearly and repeatedly made these points. There was also significant concern over the lack of engagement by non-chair members of the HRB at Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing, and plain disregard for adherence to basic parliamentary procedure as evidenced in the video of this proceeding.
• Actions of the City Attorney. After viewing the video of the disciplinary hearing in question, and even taking a month-long recess to absorb its meaning, we as an AB concluded, clearly and without reservation, that we were extremely uncomfortable with the actions and demeanor of the City Attorney, Mr. Greg Priamos. However, we were informed by the City Attorney’s office that this inappropriate behavior was out of the scope of our authority to review. Irrespective of such self-serving advice, our
concerns and observations must be brought to the attention of the City Council:
1. The City Attorney was seated in the middle of Council chambers (directly next to HRB Chairman, Mr. Norman Powell) at the disciplinary hearing, and not to the side as seated during regular Council meetings. This provides the visual that the City Attorney was indeed running the meeting. It should be noted that Mr. Priamos can be seen whispering advice to the Chair out of microphone reception throughout various points in the video.
2. The City Attorney responds out of order, not waiting to be recognized by the Chair and without being asked for comment time after time. It is noticeable that his pro-city/anti-Mr. Hunter recommendations to the Chair are followed unswervingly and without debate by the HRB. In one instance, Mr. Priamos even recommends a pause in the proceedings and leaves his seat before the Chair acknowledges his request.
3.In a disturbing revelation made after the conclusion of Mr. Hunter’s ethics complaint hearings, Mr. Scott-Coe admitted to the AB that he had met privately with City Attorney, Mr. Priamos, just prior to the meeting to discuss the hearing in general, and the limits on presentation of evidence and testimony. If the goal our Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint process is full transparency, those instructions should have been made to the entire AB in an open forum. In fact, Mr. Priamos’ involvement at all at that juncture, in light of his behavior at the disciplinary hearing is perplexing. Additionally, the rules of Ethics Hearings should be made public, and properly vetted as such.
4. At the first ethics hearing, held on November 15, 2013, the AB discovered that Mr. Hunter had provided the city with a detailed list of objections and motions concerning the ethics hearing protocols provided to him by the City Attorney’s office, prior to the AB convening. Without delving into these individually, I found it unsettling that the AB was not made aware of the existence of this list until the onset of the hearing, leaving us unprepared to tackle the issues and without justification from the City Attorney’s office regarding their merits.
5. As it is not clear who wrote the rules for Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing, it is unknown who made the decision for the HRB to deliberate in secret with the City Attorney at the conclusion of the presentation of the city’s case. Following, the actions of the HRB taken in this private setting were not announced later to the public. As such the AB could not determine how or why the HRB made its findings or determinations.
It was the general feeling of the AB that certain city staff, including the City Attorney’s office, might have been in violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct throughout the disciplinary process. However, once again, this was ruled outside the scope of our review by whatmight-be-considered a conflicted City Attorney’s office. Of grave concern were the delays by the city in providing Mr. Hunter with notices and rules, as well as access to particular evidence to provide an adequate defense.
We sincerely question the duality of roles played within the City Attorney’s office (as active advocate and neutral counsel to the HRB) during Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing. Although we were assured this is standard operating procedure, we find the practice debatable as to its fairness. Again, this matter was ruled outside of scope of our investigation.
In conclusion, the true and accurate findings of the AB were misrepresented to the City Council and the mandated presentation per our unanimously-carried motion was never presented. These factors were paramount to my final vote. I don’t believe anyone was comfortable with what they saw transpiring on the video of Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing. It was one of the rare times I was actually embarrassed by our city’s actions.
This is not how I envision a City committed to Arts and Innovation, as well as progressive visions of open and transparent governance, conducts itself. Our presentation absolutely should have been made prior the Council hearing the appeal of our decision carried forth by Mr. Hunter in order to have the Council fully educated.
Further, I am at a loss as to why the AB was not informed individually of the Council appeal hearing on this subject. If in attendance, I would have used the public comment period to rebuke the misleading statements made by the HRB attorney.
This letter is only a high level summary of this matter, provided in an effort to induce open dialog and independent investigation of the facts surrounding both Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary and ethics hearings, as well as the nature of these proceedings in general.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at your convenience. At this point, the highest motivation should be to provoke meaningful change as to how the city conducts its business in these regards.
Sincerely yours,
Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D.
Currently, there is an ethics complaint on appeal with Councilman Steve Adams, whereby Attorney Doug Smith is representing him, and City Attorney Greg Priamos is the legal advisor for the City. Should we expect the same favorable outcome in a decision by the Adjudicating Body, even though a licensed Attorney hired by the City has been called to the forefront as lying? There have been more than two Ethics Complaints filed against Councilman Steve Adams, all which have been unfounded. The current complaint, which is in on appeal, contains evidence not reviewed by the Adjudicating Body. Evidence which displays that Adams witnessed corruption in the City of Riverside on several occasions which can be construed as “undo influence.” Regardless, is this whole Ethics Complaint process a formality and a sham? Set up by those in positions of power to direct a favorable result? If that is true, do we have corruption? Should the taxpayer be reimbursed for Attorney Doug Smith’s fees and a complaint filed with the State Bar of California? Should City Attorney Greg Priamos be fired and a complaint filed with the State Bar of California?
UPDATE: CITY MANAGER: OKAY MR. BARBER, WHO IS RUNNING THE STORE? This Press Enterprise clipping was sent to TMC to show that in this instance, who is watching out for taxpayer monies? This clipping shows a Public Notice by the AQMD for a refund amount of $1,407.91 that the City of Riverside has failed to recover in care of the taxpayer.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
The question that residents are asking as the one who submitted it, who’s running the store? That should be City Manager Scott Barber. So I’m guessing the City really doesn’t need the money, I believe it could still be put to good use for library books, park programs etc. You may get use to seeing figures with a lot of zeros, but all monies are important, no matter the amount.
UPDATE: BROCKTON STREET RESTRIPING: ACCORDING THE RIVESIDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED MAY 19, 2014 TO AUGUST 2014. The City will be transforming the four lane main arterial commuter route to one lane in both direction for vehicles, and the other two for bikes… I guess Mayor Bailey and Councilman Mike Gardner think we a Seattle, Washington. Wood Street residents are not happy as this one resident John Zavesky commented.
Well it looks like Brockton is going to be reduced to a single lane of traffic in each direction so those hundreds of bike riders will have their own lane. This is one house that will not be voting for the current mayor come next election. Between this and the City Council renaming 1/2 a mile of Central Ave. “Riverside Plaza Ave.” these elected officials have clearly proven they aren’t interested in dealing with real social issues such as addressing a responsible solution to the ever growing numbers of homeless folks. That would be working on something socially responsible, a job that is obviously beyond the current crop of elected talking heads.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Traffice and commuter frustration is at a peak, with the 91 freeway contruction at 14th and Central, the Cridge Bridge not yet done, the new underpass construction at Riverside Avenue and now a reconstruction of Brockton Avenue to a bike lane? What are the knuckleheads at City Hall thinking.
There’s more folks, there is study currently on regarding the conversion of Magnolia Avenue to a Commuter Train/Trolley route, one of Mayor Bailey’s ideas.
We must remember that culture can’t be constructed, designed or constructed such some idealist at City Hall envision it. Culture is born, it is nurtured by the characteristics of the people of that community to become a city which reflects a theme, not by design, but by the working spirit of that community.
Even during the City’s campaign on Measure A they knew it didn’t work. Money continued to be pumped into the program that just could not get off the ground. The City’s response was that it was taken down because it was never designed for mobile use. Originally, the city wi-fi was designed for internet access, such as lap tops and home computers. According to residents it never worked. But wi-fi is a no brainer, it’s not rocket science, you connect to your location, done. The No on Measure A campaign tried to warn the community of these informational nuances, but still lost. Again, much waste at a cost to the taxpayer, at the salvaging of egos.
Our concerns with the above documents were when Federal Asset Forfeiture monies were utilized for community programs such as the Multi Cultural Youth Program, a Mayor Loveridge originated Community Program, that appeared to have support through Federal Police Asset Funds. Illegal? To the tune of $35,000.00. This at the time, Chief Russell Leach was in charge, and this amount of $35,000.00 was donated or transferred to his wife, Connie Leach’s runned Multi Cultural Youth Organization… We asked the DA himself Paul Zellerbach to look into this but all he told us was “Is this Illegal? or just bad Business?” This while his subordinates flipped through a DA file which contained TMC articles. Then the people who brought forward the issue and the document were now in the questioning box. Why was that, I ask? Is it because the City of Riverside held the trump card for the DA? If this in fact was the case, what did Ms. Aquino know? Why didn’t she speak out years ago? Was she protecting the office of RPD? Was she protecting people within RPD? We can only suspect her actions to be in the category of quite remarkable..
Investigation Clears Riverside Police Leadership of All Major Allegations
Chief Sergio Diaz and Assistant Chief Chris Vicino Waive Privacy Rights, Agree to Disclosure
CHIEF DIAZ ASST. CHIEF VINCINO
RIVERSIDE, Calif. – City Manager Scott Barber announced today that an independent investigation has refuted all major allegations that Police Chief Sergio Diaz and Assistant Chief Chris Vicino improperly used Police Department funds, as alleged by a former administrator. Barber made the announcement after both Diaz and Vicino relinquished their rights to confidentiality in connection with the investigation. Both men said they made the decision because they wanted the public to know the results of the investigation, even though one allegation against Vicino was sustained. Otherwise, the results could not have been made public under the law. “I appreciate Chief Diaz and Assistant Chief Vicino taking the step they did in order to ensure that the public can know that its police administrators are running the department in an ethical and proper manner,” Barber said. “I am gratified that the public can have a full accounting of the allegations and the ensuing investigation.” Of eight allegations raised by former Police Administrator Karen Aquino, seven were found to be unfounded. In the only sustained allegation, Aquino alleged that Vicino used a city copier for personal reasons and implied that he asked another employee for the employee’s access code in order to make additional color copies for personal use. During the investigation, Vicino acknowledged making about 300 copies during a three-year period in connection with a college course he taught. He said he sent a letter to an Assistant City Manager expressing regret for the oversight and pledging it would not happen again and enclosed payment for $30.50. The part of the allegation involving Vicino allegedly asking for an employee’s access code so he could make color copies for his personal use was found to be unfounded. Vicino told investigators he did ask another employee for the access code to the color copier, but only because he had forgotten his access code and needed to make color copies for a presentation that Diaz was going to do on a new strategic plan for the department. “I have always had faith that an impartial investigation would reveal that this department is run according to the highest ethical standards,” Vicino said. “I regret using the copier for a personal use, but I’m willing to take my medicine out in the open if that is what it takes for the larger issues to be resolved in the minds of the public.” Other allegations explored in the investigation included:
That the department misappropriated city funds by directing employees to participate in Riverside Police Foundation activities while on duty. The foundation, which supports youth programs, is part of the Department’s mission to prevent crime, therefore use of city resources was appropriate, the investigation found.
That Vicino engaged in disrespectful and intimidating behavior toward Ms. Aquino. Vicino did not intentionally engage in such behavior and his response was a direct reaction to statements made by Aquino toward another employee during a meeting, the investigation found.
That the Department improperly used asset forfeiture funds to purchase vehicles. The investigation found no evidence that either Diaz or Vicino used such funds improperly.
That the Department failed to follow the requirements of a $5.1 million federal grant to hire 15 new police officers. The investigation found no evidence to support that.
That police administrators failed to notify Aquino that a city vehicle and gas card were used by a retired police employee to help the department participate in the “Baker to Vegas” charity run. There is no evidence to suggest the car or gas card were used inappropriately and department administrators had no obligation to notify Aquino of the pending use.
That Aquino was directed to pay for golf tournaments out of the department’s general fund and that thousands of dollars were spent so that Vicino and others could play golf. Aquino was describing charity golf tournaments that department personnel participated in to assist local organizations in raising funds for children’s programs. Investigators described this allegation as “a significant stretch from the truth.”
That Diaz signed a contract for a Parole and Corrections Team without proper review of the City Attorney’s Office. The investigation found that this allegation “lacked any validity whatsoever” and that the memorandum of understanding was signed by all appropriate parties.
SENT IN BY SHARON MATEJA, IS THE AMERICAN EAGLE VULTURE JUST THE RIGHT THING TO CLEAR THE WOOD STREETS OF THE COYOTE PROBLEM?
My Mom called me around 7pm and told me that she was sitting on her back patio and looked down to where her dog was playing on the grass and there stood a coyote. She quickly called her little dog and thankfully Sadie her dog came running up to the patio. The coyote just stood there. My Mom was a safe distance from it being that her patio overlooks the medical center and the RCC ball field. She lives on Rice Rd. The problem is that this is the second time my folks have had a run in with the coyotes and both times have been in broad daylight. My parents have a fence all the way around their property and my Dad walked the perimeter the first time they sited the coyote and there was one area where it looked like the coyote dug under the fence. He patched it up and thought they were safe. They have a little Boston terrier and now they are afraid to let her out. I am afraid for my folks because there is the garage and a room under their house that they use on a daily basis. Can anyone offer any advise on what they can do? We are really afraid now that the coyote has been back twice. – Julie Sparkman, Wood Streets
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
Now a second complaint alleging violation of City Charter 407 came in, this time it’s against Councilman Paul Davis. Less than a week ago, a complaint came against Councilman Mike Soubirous. It seems that the powers that be continue in their attempt to get back to a 7-0 team player vote. We are assuming that the $16,000.00 Team Motivator/Psychologist isn’t working. It’s clear by the information provided, that Davis was targeted at least on two facts, the work performance of the City Manager Scott Barber and what Davis said in testimony in the Raychele Sterling Case, which may not have made the City Attorney Greg Priamos look so good.
COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS
When you view the overall pictorial of both Councilman, you cannot rule out a conspiratorial aspect by some of the usual suspects. Just weeks ago Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason presented to City Council and spoke on how we will have a budget shortfall. They continue to frivously spend tax payer monies in an effort to support their enormous egos and defend there inadvertent liabilities. We must also ask the question, who are the players and what could they have to lose.
Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza. He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact. Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager? The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council. Certainly violated the Charter Amendment. What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them? A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.
Though the Supreme Court stated that “a special edition created and sent to would-be voters, specifically because of the upcoming election,” is improper campaign activity. I guess Priamos does what is necessary for the greater good of those who feed off city revenues.
In both the Davis and Soubirous case, the PE reports that all emails have been requested in which referenced Barbers “employment status.” This is telling; what happened between these two council people and the City Manager? Another question, could it have been the connection between families which include Councilman Mac Arthur, Mayor Bailey and Albert Webb, of Webb Engineering? Webb contracts were brought in the Raychele Sterling Case.
We certainly would now have to consider if these city employees filed they’re complaints on the they’re own volition, or did they have encouragement, or were they promised promotion? Plausible denial by some of the usual suspects may give us more thought to a theoretical conspiracy in this matter.
Is it because Woody and Paul sing the same tune and dance the same steps? DA Mr. “Z” obviously is enjoying himself! Maybe we have something here folks, the dance styling”s of Woody & Paul…
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
According to the PE, the whole thing seemed to begin with a series of emails sent out by Councilman Soubirous regarding his constituents concerns regarding vagrants and panhandlers. The response from RPD was that “our hands are tied” or ‘there’s nothing we can do.” Evidently, Soubirous states he didn’t send an email to Diaz, but the email was forwarded to Diaz by another councilman. We are thinking here at TMC, could it have been Adams? If so, would that have been a Brown Act violation? Incidently, another unamed councilman has been accused of violating the Brown Act, and submitted to the DA, we all know where that will go. Regardless, that never seemed to stop Adams before. In response, Diaz wrote back to Councilman Soubirous that no good can come from labeling dedicated public servants as “lazy.” The next statement by Diaz seems to be on the political threatening side, Diaz states that, “it would be politically unwise to declare war on you cops.” Already we get the feeling that trouble is a brewing. Anonymous sources are stating Diaz had made a similar threat regarding another current candidate running for office regarding the end of their political career if they continued on the road they are on. TMC has found that it is John Brandiff, and has evidently filed a complaint against Diaz. What kind of history does Diaz have in Los Angeles? Information still coming through the pipeline. So why is a Chief of Police out threatening elects and candidates? Why is he acting as some sort of rouge underworld boss shaking down and hard balling constituents asking questions and threatening those who have aspirations of running for office? Difficult as it seems, Riverside has serious problems in RPD, and no one is minding the store when minding the store are the residents of Riverside.
Chief Sergio Diaz
Why does the Chief act as he does? We are not sure but many in the community have witness his outburst. It appears that Chief has a history of not being kind to taking suggestions and criticism well. In one instance, he called certain commenters in the community who were questioning police tactics regarding the Officer Bonaminio murder, that they were “sitting at home eating cheetos in their underwear.” In otherwords, the community should stay out of areas they know nothing about. If this is the case I can see conflict occurring if Council people are asking questions regarding Police affairs.
Section 407 refers specifically to the interference of individuals, such as the Mayor and Council, in city administrative services. The section is as follows:
Neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any of it’s members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his/her powers and duties, or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the department heads in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or their removal theirfrom. Except for purpose of inquiry, the Mayor, the City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager and neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any member there of shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. (Effective 12/27/1995)
According to the PE, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey and Councilman Steve Adams (also Mayor Pro Tem), told Soubirous that four complaints were filed for violation of section 407. Both Bailey and Adams refrained to disclose who complainants were. The last time similar situation occurred was when Fire Inspector Roni Forst filed a complaint against Councilman Paul Davis for harassment and discrimination. Though not reported in the PE, I would deduce that before the complaints were filed, a proper intake interview was done without interference from outside sources, by the Human Resources Department. From that point I would suspect that the interviewers would determine if there was enough evidence of a violation of section 407 of the City Charter for a proper complaint to be issued and filed. When a complaint was filed against Davis, Steve Espinoza and Human Resource Director Rhonda Strout, A.K.A. Luxury Girl, did the intake interview.
The City Council then hired a Los Angeles based firm, Gumport Maslan, specifically Attorney Leonard Gumport would be handling the investigation. Gumport had been previously hired by the County of San Bernardino to investigate allegations of conflict of interest, bribery and corruption. It doesn’t state if Soubirous was present when the Council decided to go forward with this investigation. Regardless, Councilman Steve Adams, who was also Mayor Pro Tem, signed this contract with the law firm which interestingly has a cap of exactly $49,000.00. Why $49,000.00? Would it be that the City Manager’s maximum discretionary spending is capped at $50,000.00, at anything over $50,000.00 must be properly brought publicly to City Council? Incidently, it was not uncommon to see Councilman Steve Adams having drinks and food together at local dining and waterholes with people from City Management.
Another time an issue came up with the interference with employee relations, was when Councilman Steve Adams was accused of interfering with the promotions process of RPD back in 2007, which by all appearances is a direct violation of Charter Section 407. As a consequence, instead of a complaint filed, Lt. Darryl Hurt and Lt. Tim Bacon went straight for the jugular, filing a law suit against the City of Riverside which settled out of court to the taxpayer tune of $750,000.00, probably to prevent all the salacious details of a trial case. When you look at the claims made by Hurt and Bacon against Adams, Adams gives the appearance of a “Godfather” like figure. According to statements made by Hurt and Bacon, both whom were candidates for promotion to captain at the time, that they met individually at restaurant outside the city limits as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The issue at hand that allegedly Adams was concerned about was if the candidates actually campaigned against him. When that issue was resolved, Adams then met with then City Manager Brad Hudson and spoke of the meeting. Soon thereafter an official announcement ensued regarding the candidates. Direct violation of Charter Section 407?
Another incidence, involved former Lt. Meredyth Meredith, whereby former Chief of Police Russel Leach was preparing to promote Meredith to captain, when he received a call from former Assistant City Manager Tom De Santis to put a stop to this. According to a deposition, Leach stated, “And I found out that Steve Adams marched into a meeting…Hudson and De Santis and told them emphatically she shouldn’t be promoted”. Leach stated in a PE story, that he was unhappy in his final two years on the job because “I didn’t like political involvement . I hadn’t had it before.” Leach also said that Hudson and DeSantis allowed council members – specifically City Councilman Steve Adams – to influence police promotions.
In another telling tale, there was story of John Carpenter, whereby Leach, Esquivel and De La Rosa had chosen him to be promoted to captain. The went to City Hall to have a face-to-face with Hudson and DeSantis to present what the testing process revealed and who we selected. And he said, “Let me think about it.” So I let him think about it, he hadn’t heard from him for a while, so Leach called Hudson. Hudson told Leach that Carpenter and Adams had bad history together. Adams was adamant that he didn’t want Carpenter to promote into Captain. Section 407 violation?
In a Press Enterprise article back in August of 2012, former Chief of Police, Russell Leach stated in a court deposition that a complaint Riverside Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey made in 2008 may have unwittingly help block Lt. Val Graham’s promotion. In a phone call Leach received from former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis, he recalled how “Val had embarrassed Bailey at this community meeting, said a couple of inappropriate things and that Bailey was furious,” and expressed his anger at city management. The following time Leach was preparing to make promotions, DeSantis asked him who was being considered? Before Leach had a chance to answer, DeSantis stated, “Don’t tell me it’s Val Graham?” Leach stated that because of the resistance he sensed in this conversation he didn’t put Graham’s name forward. Was Graham held back because the then Councilman Bailey felt slighted? Could this be perceived as a violation of the City Charter Section 407?
The players involved seem to be Councilman Steve Adams, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and City Manager Scott Barber. Incidently, Diaz and Barber were remnents of former City Manager Brad Hudson. Hudson’s background was that he had a record for credit card fraud when he was seventeen. Not that this is important, due to the fact that he was a teen. But the question is, did Hudson carry his bad behavior to his adulthood? During his reign he initially purchased a revolver from RPD Sgt. Cliff Mason, who was also President of the Riverside Police Officers Union, and fraudulently used the City Hall address of 3900 Main Street as his home address to apply for a concealed weapons permit. You would think that this officer would know the law in gun sales, well of course he does. Well, we believe he did, and did otherwise, breaking the law. Incidentally, neither the Riverside Police Department nor the City of Riverside are licensed to sell and transfer firearms, therefore the sale of firearms to private citizens or employees of the city is illegal. In the City of Riverside no one seems to be accountable. Again we see a culture of two sets of rules. Can we call it corruption? Can we call it illegal or just bad business, in the words of District Attorney Paul Zellerbach? Whatever it is, it happened.
Opinions of residents in the City contend that Soubirous was not whom City insiders wanted to be part of the council “get along club.” Valerie Hill would have been a better match, but residents have stated that they are tired of what the City has done with taxpayer monies and wanted someone to ask the tough questions and defend them, without the probability of being targeted. Soubirous was whom the community elected. But it certainly seems to have upset the apple cart of the usual suspects within the city status quo who are not accustomed to true leadership. In this reporters opinion, the matter is petty, elementary, a waste of taxpayer monies and seemingly a non issue brought together by a bunch of frat boys. What is most interesting and quite remarkable is the two peas in the pod appear to be Councilman Steve Adams and Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey. Again you have to wonder if there was interference within the realm of the complaint, it’s hard enough to teach old dogs new tricks.
COMMENTS FROM THE PRESS ENTERPRISE:
My councilman did tell me he would look into an issue of concern involving the sale of an RPD helicopter., the city’s only fire fighting helicopter (photographed here at the Pomona Fairgrounds auction site)being sold off for $200,000 on Feb..22 of this year. Are CC members even allowed to ask those kind of questions or will be they be investigated? Given that Adams was not investigated for alleged 407 w/ RPD in 2006 and 2008 what are parameters to investigate? It’s our money folks. -Mary Shelton
Seems like Councilman Soubirous’ digging into city corruption has garnered the attention of the Municipal Mob. He will now learn firsthand how this city conducts “independent” investigations. Just like Councilman Davis had to be taught: just nod your head Mike and they’ll leave you alone. It’s time to wash the filth out of City Hall. We can start with whomever’s behind this plot. Of course, we’ll never find out because as Soubirous is realizing: their is ZERO transparency behind the process. –Fay Vic
Most of you know that Mike Soubirous is a man of the highest integrity and ethics. Thus we know that this is just another witch hunt prompted by the City Manager Scott Barber, Chief Sergio Diaz, and perhaps even Mayor Rusty Bailey. Politics as usual at Riverside City Hall. Especially when someone such as Mike chooses to be a leader rather a city hall hack like most who sit on the city council are. Valerie Hill lost the election guys, just accept it. This is much to do about nothing. Nevertheless, we must support Mike now as much as possible. PS. We need a homegrown police chief instead of a double-dipping transfer from the notorious LAPD. -Donald Herman Collins Gallegos
All I can say is that Mike is holding to his promise of transparency and honesty with his constituents. Knowing him and his family personally, I understand his right heart and integrity in wanting to serve his community, taking his job seriously in asking questions that are of importance and for the greater good of those he serves. Stay strong, Mike. -JoeDeGerolamo
Something is screwy here. The Chief’s response do not seem connected to the e-mail cited. Also, does the right to face an accuser disappear for elected officials? What are the rules for Council members who wish to contact city employees? [Why do news articles seldom cover the information I want to know?] – Richard P. Morrall
Chief Diaz needs to learn that the Council sets policy. Soubirous is well within his authority to question current policy and work with other council members to change it. This will end up being much ado about nothing, except that the City will be out $49k. – sadf qwrett
Diaz feelings hurt because he was running cover for the vagrants (many of them are homeless sex offenders) and someone calls him on it. Someone should be investigating the tactics “The Chief” approved of before Soubirous spoke up on behalf of his constituents. Shame the rest of the lemmings are sitting on the sidelines, watching the City Manager-lead witch hunt. Mike, hang in there. Keep your head high. The folks that elected you are smart enough to see what’s going on. – Dick_Gosinya
Chief sounds insecure, well they all do. Barber and Diaz are dysfunctional leftovers from the Brad Hudson legacy. A cliquish culture of narcissistic lack luster leadership. All this because it seems one councilman, Soubirious, who is truly an independent voice. Didn’t Bailey run his campaign on being an independent voice? – Bret Hudson
This is a city manager-led witch-hunt on behalf of the police chief with his panties in a wad because a ward councilman, on behalf of his constituents, pushed to tackle a thorny problem in the city. Diaz, Bailey, Barber et al are a bunch of spineless hacks who view their jobs as nothing more than gladhanding politics-as-usual. – remmy700p
As we have seen before, the nail that stands up, gets smacked down. Did the full council really discuss and vote to hire an investigator? The $49 K seems to be the maximum the city manager can spend on his own authority. – Kevin Dawson
JUST IN: CITY OF RIVERSIDE HIRES A PSYCHOLOGIST TO HELP ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET ALONG. SORRY, THIS IS NO JOKE, THE CITY SPENT $16,000.00 TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THE HEAD SHRINK. IS THIS AN OXYMORON TO THE TENTH DEGREE FOLKS? Is it because some in the Council don’t want to be part of the “get along to go along” club, so they therefore must be crazy? So now we can fix that problem with an taxpayer motivator/psychologist, and somehow convince the council to get back to voting 7-0 on all issues. Anonymous sources, of which we cannot corroborate, are stating that there was a big blow out between Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey and Councilman and Congressman Candidate Steve Adams which lasted in the neigborhood of 30 minutes. The psychologist intervened and they are now friend again…
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
On November 19, 2013, Vivian Moreno was at home reviewing the City Council video when Item #21 caught her curiosity. The question arose. Was Councilman Steve Adams telling the Riverside citizens in an open forum that one or all of his council members are corrupt? Yes he did!
His Video Statement: “We’ve seen it happen in Moreno Valley, we’ve seen it happen in San Bernardino, I’ve seen similar issues here. They can lobby us, they can talk to us, there is absolutely nothing we can do legally. In my ten years, have I seen council members try to influence things? ABSOLUTELY! I think it is inappropriate.”
Steve Adams, you talk about the perception of collusion and how we need to be more transparent. At the Governmental Affairs Meeting in October 2013 he stated, “I can’t count how many times this has happened here (Riverside).” We now need to take a look at how the action of lobbying effect are politics, in my estimation lobbying entails influence and money, as City Attorney Greg Priamos would say without coming out to say anything, this could give the “perception.” In my eyes, this certainly can give the perception of bribery. Bribery and lobbying seem to comingle, just like a bad monthly finance statement. But is bribery what is really occurring? Incidently Dvonne Pitruzzello had asked Congressman Ken Calvert if their office would look into the allegations of Sewer Bond Fraud, but was responded with deaf ears. As we know Congressman Ken Calvert has had his issue in the past, but you as constituents continue to vote for him. Who’s fault is it for faulty representation? Look in the mirror folks.
COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAM’S ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL? EVEN AT COUNCILMAN’S MIKE SOUBIROU’S WARD 3 INAUGURATION AT CITY COUNCIL?
Councilman Steve Adams spoke of corruption in the City of Riverside at a November 2013 City Council Meeting. Some of the key pieces are as follows:
“We’ve seen it happen in Moreno Valley, we’ve seen it happen in San Bernardino, I’ve seen similar issues here. They can lobby us, they can talk to us, there is absolutely nothing we can do legally.”
“In my ten years, have I seen council members try to influence things? ABSOLUTELY! I think it is inappropriate.”
In another completely different scenerio, Councilman Steve Adams at an October 2013 Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting stated the following:
“In my ten years…I’ve seen…I can’t count how many…I won’t even attempt to. The number of times that a council member injected themselves in this process…tried to influence the process. I think this is innaproppriate.”
“I think this staff is a good staff to eliminate that, because they may be personal friends, people that they’ve done business with. Whatever the situation is, this eliminates the possibility of, or impropriety of happening.”
“Because I’ve seen it to many times. You can’t say it doesn’t happen…it does. And if it is eliminated from being possible, the repercussions, your eliminating the process of events…incentive enough not to violate this process.”
“Because the pressure of the public already is that everything we do is corrupt, no matter what it is. So I think it just gives us that buffer,of, that there is no chance of impropriety..because have there been…they would’ve been removed. So nobody is getting special treatment.”
“But I can say that I have on one or more occasion seen some of my colleagues inject themselves into this process to try to influence the process. I think it is inappropriate.”
The ethics complaint again Councilman Steve Adams is as follows. It indicates that he, as a sworn elected official, had a duty to the taxpayer to reveal any wrong doing that would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer.
“If something is wrong, it needs to be fixed, and I don’t care which party or which people are to blame.” “I will always take the stand for what is right.”
“When you stand up to the status quo, you’re always going to be attacked. And folks, I was born to ready to take on those attacks.”
Adams makes two important points, one, he will all stand for what is right, and two, he will stand up to the status quo. We believe at TMC, that leaders, those representative of the people, should not allow others or themselves to circumvent the law, no matter what it is, a parking ticket, DUI, political corruption etc…
AGAIN, RIVERSIDIAN’S ARE ASKING THE QUESTION, OF CONGRESSMAN CANDIDATE STEVE ADAMS….WHY DIDN’T HE STAND UP FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS KAREN WRIGHT AND ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER?
UPDATE: ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER WON’T BE CHARGED DO TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE!
According to the “Citizen’s Arrest” document signed by Mayor Rusty Bailey, a line was place over the following statement: “that at the time of the arrest I informed the said defendent of his/her arrest, and my authority to make it.” This whole thing stinks to high Bailey heaven… Again this is proof that RPD is unresponsive to Letitia Pepper, and DA Zellerbach does not find this a situation to express a legal opinion. Many citizens are asking the question, is Zellerbach owned by the City of Riverside?
Attorney Letitia Pepper’s citizen arrest form was of course refused by the attending Riverside Police Officer based on his assertion that there was no real evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor William ‘Rusty’ Bailey. Evidently by Sgt. Patrick McCarthy stated Leticia had no evidence to sustain an arrest against Mayor Bailey.
Sgt. Patrick McCarthy, Riverside Police Department
But in true accord with the first citizen arrest against Letitia Pepper, the RPD officer failed to realize that there was evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor. But RPD officers arrested Ms. Pepper as we all know it, with “insufficient evidence” as stated by the D.A.’s office. So, is this really about right and wrong, or just not liking what someone says in Mayor Bailey’s classroom? Or simply of an attempt to show who’s the boss by a mediocre endeavor by the new Mayor to display power?
City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey Sorry, Mayor William Rusty Bailey
Why did the attending officer refuse? Was it because of the presence in the city of Riverside that Mayor Bailey’s father hold? Mayor Bailey’s father is non other than Judge Bailey. Judge William R. Bailey II is connected to a close associate, friend and founding father of the infamous Riverside Best, Best & Krieger law firm, Judge John Gabbert. Does anybody see the light on this one? Are we actually coming to answers of why the City of Riverside is the way that it is politically?
First, there was a Citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey himself, accusing Pepper of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape was evidence to the reveal that Ms. Pepper did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403. We often said, as many have said who live in this great city we call Riverside, we have a culture and practice of status quo. To many, it’s simply known as corruption. Many in the community are afraid to state this publicly. Why is it? Is it not public servants work in the employment and service of the taxpaying constituents?
I had the citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey accusing me of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape that showed I did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403, Ms. Pepper stated.
The question many Riversidian’s are having these days, is what would happen if Mayor Rusty Bailey attempted to tell either of these two folks to stop clapping?
A WORD TO THE WISE AND FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: UNLESS CHARGES ARE ACTUALLY FILED, NO NEED TO SHOW UP IN COURT!
According to the reporter, the DA’s Office said it had been decided in December not to charge me, but it also decided not to bother to TELL me that. That was inconsiderate enough, but what the DA’s Office did to Karen Wright was terrible. It sent her a letter saying it was not going to charge her, but that she was probably guilty! Since when does the prosecutor get to take the place of a jury of 12 people? -Commenters on the PE, Letitia Pepper
The DA has 1 year to file charges on a misdemeanor citation. If he doesn’t file charges, the case doesn’t get put on calendar, so there’s no reason to go to court. THAT’S why I never appeared in court:: there was no court case. Karen Wright actually showed up in court on the day on her citation, and nothing happened because no charges had been filed; so she’d been worried and inconvenienced and appeared in court for no reason; I wasn’t going to show up unless charges were actually filed. – Commenter on the PE, Letitia Pepper
With the Karen Wright case being dropped by the DA, now again insufficient evidence on part of Mayor Bailey’s citizen arrest and Letitia Pepper’s case dropped. It would stand to reason to question anything those in an elected position would do. Riverside residents continue to live in city which has two sets of rules. But on a brighter note, it appears Ms. Pepper may have recourse against Mayor Bailey on possible grounds of a false arrest. Hope she will keep the fire burning on this one. – Commenter on the PE, Bret Hudson
Mayor Bailey can rule the city as a Dictator but citizens have Constitutional rights. The DA is in the pocket of the crooks in office and did as he was told. Both women should file Federal charges. Just think a citizens spoke out when a US President was speaking and he said she had rights. But Bailey wants puppets and yes sir people. The tape spoke to the truth and the Mayor lied and the DA knows it. –Commenter on the PE, Jackalyn Rawlings
Rusty is trying hide what is happening in this city by trying to control citizens free speech. You cannot pick and choose who may speak and who may clap. Wait till everyone’s sewer bill doubles. Let’s see him keep the citizens quiet. – Commenter on the PE, Dvonne M. Pitruzzello
The Mayor was out of line in having the police remove Pepper for clapping. He looked petty and overbearing. The council chambers are not his classroom. It is not his dad’s courtroom. And it is not a military setting. He was not elected to rule over us. – Commenter on the PE, Opaque
A retired DA told me WHY the DA’s Office sends people those letters saying the DA is not going to charge you even though you’re guilty. It’s because arrests go on your permanent record with the Department of Justice (or INjustice), and, if the DA sends you that kind of letter, they STAY on your record. So, you are denied the right to a jury trial, and have to hire an attorney to go to court and put on a case to have a judge make a finding of factual innocence to get the arrest expunged. – Commenter on the PE, Attorney Letiticia Pepper
The Mayor was out of line in having the police remove Pepper for clapping. He looked petty and overbearing. The council chambers are not his classroom. It is not his dad’s courtroom. And it is not a military setting. He was not elected to rule over us.
THE CONNIE LEACH TAXPAYER PAID EXPENSES…YOU ASKED FOR! The following are just a smidgen of some of the receipts turned in by Connie Leach for reimbursement, starting with a camera purchased in care of the taxapayer.
Connie Leach, the wife of Chief of Police Russ Leach and hired by the City of Riverside as an independent contractor to oversee the Multicultural Youth Organization, which was a youth program initiated by former Mayor Loveridge. She was hired by contract to run this project, she also had an extravigant expense account that was paid for by the taxpayer. Most organizations have donations pay for expenses. Here are some of the receipts we found.
When the Grand Jury was doing it’s investigation into the Connie Leach case, both Mary Figueroa and Dvonne Pitruzzello had been interviewed. Pitruzzello told the Grand Jury that the person you want to talk to is Vivian Moreno, this was beacause she did the majority of the investigative research and was fully knowledgeable of the events that occured. Moreno was next in line to be interviewed and the Grand Jury had just submitted a multitude of document request from the City of Riverside. The investigation was suddenly squashed a couple of weeks later by a letter sent to Figueroa stating the investigation was unfounded. Though to this day, their has not been a formal investigation of the findings and a conclusion submitted online. Why hasn’t this occurred? Was there a cover up or a failure of the current DA to take on what could possibly be an embarrassing event in his own back yard? The following is the original complaint submitted to the Riverside Grand Jury back in March 2011.
The rumor mill states that then Mayor Ron Loveridge may have had something to do with this in conjuction with DA Paul Zellerbach, in order to stop the proceedings. We now ask the question, if this is true, wouldn’t that be jury tampering?
STREET SWEEPING..SHOULD IT BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG?
Incidently, Measure A was also indicated to pay for street sweeping in the form of keeping are streets clean as in this ad in favor of Measure A paid by the taxpayer. A bit of a conflict I would say.
In the City of Riverside the resident continue to double and triple pay for services they should receive through their property taxes. This is only one example, but we not only see it in street sweeping, but in tree maintenance, parking, utility rates etc.
According to Dan Berstein, Press Enterprise, many of the no parking signs do not mention “street sweepint.” TMC contributors have also noticed that certain areas of the city including commerical areas, no citations are given to illegally parked vehicles during street sweeping day. Another double standard of punishment to the tax payer. It appears that tickets are focused on property owners. Maybe for alterion motives, if a ticket is not paid will place it on a lien against your property, or simply make it difficult to pay your next car registration.
CITY WI-FI TO BE ELIMINATED, BUT WASN’T MEASURE A TO PREVENT THAT?
PENSION BACKDRAFT: IS FIRE CHIEF STEVE EARLEY FEELING THE HEAT OF FIRE AT HIS FEET?
Back in October 2002, Steve Earley submitted this paper to FEMA regarding the defeciencies within the Riverside Fire Department. Primarily focusing on the preparing personnel for management positions. Earley became Fire Chief in 2009; the contradiction is that currently he decided to retire as Riverside’s Fire Chief at 55 years of age, and take on a new position with the City of Riverside as Fire Administrator. In doing so, no valid successor as Fire Chief could be found. Three possibilities will be rotated, and in doing so, will also be each elgible for a 5% raise, and it was left as that. Was this another scheme by the City Manager Scott Barber to spike the pensions of these three Fire Chief candidates? Why would a Fire Chief with intellectual knowledge, not act or have a plan for his replacement? Why must the taxpayer be responsible for Chief Earley’s irresponsbilities? He stated the deficiencies in the Riverside Fire Department, and as acting Fire Chief never acted or implemented guidelines or criteria to reach these goals?
What did Earley do to protect the taxpayers against the misinformation of losing 12 Firefighters if Measure A did not pass? Support it? As in this taxpayer paid mailer shows below, and taxpayers thought they had a choice when it comes to voting…Not in Riverside:
Some say he worked hard for his money and the city, he deserves it. I know a lot of people who work hard for their money, but will never get the compensation such as is seen in the government public sector. It used to be that the big homes were owned by entrepreneurs and business people, now they are owned by government employees.
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Yesterday, the governor declared a statewide water emergency. It will allow the city to raise water rates without a hearing per Prop. 218. However, we are water dependent. This means we do not purchase imported (expensive) water. Remember, we sell water to Colton, Rialto, Fontana, High Grove, Home Gardens, Corona, Rubidoux and the WMWD. We own court adjudicated water rights to annually harvest more water than the city uses. Approximately 20% of our water is sold outside the city. Most if not all of our water rights are a type that requires the city to pump and use it or loose it forever. Our rights to the water can be taken away by anyone should we stop harvesting all of the water.
So where does water conservation fit in? The Governors Emergency? Once again we will be urged to conserve and leave the water in the ground?! Not hardly, this is why we sell water outside the city–we have to in order to maintain the legal protections for our water rights. So we will told to use less water, pay more for less water, and the city will sell your water to others and continue to approve new developments (future water customers) in spite of state law specifying that during a declaration of emergency “no new connections to the city water system can be approved.” Riverside the city of Honesty, Clarity, Transparency and Measure A.
You may remember, TMC wrote about this in a past posting, whereby former Utilities Manager Dave Wright asked council for their blessing. If people are to be confronted with a new charge, which is really a tax, the city should justify the direct benefit to the property owners. It appeared the city could not.
On the other hand, regarding Electricity, if the people of Riverside would see the invoices on the wholesale purchases of electric credits for the City, they would be surprised. The purchase rates are hardly nothing, the gouging of the citizens is. The city even has electric credits that have not even been used. We should also ask the city about their off book accounts in the Power Department. Another L.A. DWP fiasco?
Here’s a response to the water hikes From the Desk of Scott Simpson:
There is according to some sources, over a million acre feet of water in the Bunker Hill Basin (San Berdo). This is the source of our water (we use about 80K acre/ft. and sell to other water agencies about 25K acre/ft. We pump and use all we can for fear of loosing it in a legal challenge to our right to harves water. Use it or lose it is how our water law works. So we a lot of excess water pumping every year to protect the legal right to harvest all that we own. It is so much more than we use each year that we sell it far under wholesale market value. We take a loss on these sales in order to secure long term selling contracts for disposal of our annual excess harvest.
Conservation in Riverside means we sell more of our water outside the city in $ losing contracts! It means nothing to us as far as protecting our annual supply. We are annually ordered by a Court appointed water master to pump all of our water and more, or lose the future rights to pump it forever. So our City Water Conservation ordinance is a fraud. State policy to conserve water is VOLUNTARY, because some areas in the state are under Court order to pump and use according to prior adjudication of a regions wate rights. It is history and law that goes back to the beginning of California in 1849.
The purple pipe is another project for future development/population increase. State Law specifies that new infrastructure to serve new development (or our downtown redevelopment of high occupancy buildings) is required to recover the infrastructure cost via property assessments to the parcels that receive the benefit.
State Water policy conflicts with our constitution and law if you apply it in an area like Riverside as our city is doing. Instead, our city wants to put the cost on our water bill under the guise of following state water conservation policy. This increases the cash flow of water sales and Measure A sweeps more money into the general fund every month. Increases in utility rates, fees and charges will always send more cash to the general fund. This is why we, the current residential utility customers of Riverside are subsidizing the infrastructure investment to prepare the city for future growth. We are being scamed.
-Scott Simpson, (former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Control Substances, specializing in ground water contamination.)
TO RENEW OR NOT TO RENEW A WATER CONSERVATION SURCHARGE? CITY OF RIVERSIDE RESIDENTS QUESTION THIS NEW TAX.
The following came in the mail of City of Riverside residents the first week of February 2014, that Riverside Public Utilities is proposing to renew the 1.5% Water Conservation Surcharge. Well it’s being called a Surcharge, but that is code word of Tax, and all Taxes by law must be brought to a Vote of the residents.
According to the mailing insert, the surcharge will expire May 31, 2014. Therefore, there will be a hearing March 21, 2014 at 8:30 am at the Public Utilities Boardroom, located at 3901 Orange Street, Riverside. At this time, the board will consider all public protest and objections. Usually what we find is that hardly any of the public ever show up, or can show up for that matter due to the time element, most people work and cannot participate in this democratic process. The board may just find that no showed and push through the renewal of this surcharge. But again, this surcharge should be challenged, because what it is in essence, is a TAX.
We have since found that the Tokyo based 7-Eleven’s have been trying to force out many older store owners on bogus grounds in order to get the stores for free and then to re-sell them as part of 7-Eleven’s new expansion plans. In another words, it appears that the Tokyo based 7-Elevens are attempting to attain profitable stores by any means possible only to flip them at exorbitant profits! The Patel’s 7-Eleven Store is on Jurupa and Magnolia in Riverside.
RIVERSIDE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL ZELLERBACH BANNED FROM SPEAKING AT LOCAL MIDDLE SCHOOL? DAM IT ALL ANY HOO..
What the #$%*!, Opps, I did it again… Ah *!#&%..
According to the Press Enterprise, DA Paul Zellerbach in an election year, won’t be invited back to talk to school children at Gage Middle School, as a result of his use of a profane word, “dam.” But it seemed uplifting to know, that the PE states he hasn’t been “blacklisted”, which sounds more devasting than just being banned from one school. But it also seems that the PE didn’t get it all correct when it came to the profane termology use at the school. According to KESQ News out in Palm Springs, he also used “ass” and “bullshit” as well. According to commenter Bill Wallace on the PE, Zellerbach was only trying to “keep it real.” Others have told TMC that the middle school should not have been offended, since these kids usually hear or use far worse profane terms on the school yard…
What does Vivian Moreno’s best friend, Riverside School Board Member Tom Hunt have to say about all this?
Anyway, TMC came up with some possible alternatives swear terms that good ol DA may consider to use in place of the offensive ones and help prevent him from becoming black listed, and best of all, still keep it real!
Here you Go: Fudge!, Fiddle Sticks!, Jiminy Crickets!, Schucks!, Dagnabbit!, Gee Whiz!, Fish Sticks!, Holy Cow!, Sufferin Succotash!, Geez Loise!, Golly Gee!, Drat!, Oh My Goodness!, Leapin Lizzards!, Sam Hill!, Bummer!, Balderdash!, Crabcakes!, Doggone!, Heck!, Goodness!, Good Grief!, Gadzooks!, My Word!, Gobbledygook!, Hogwash!, Holy Frijoles!, Hockey Puck!, Kawabunga!, Mother of Pearl!, etc. etc. So much for “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Maybe Middle Schools should consider a sign for the adults, not sure if this would apply to the children…that’s left to be seen. But many are asking the question if this was politically motivated. Was this actually about the middle school kids or the teacher’s unions?
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT POLICE OFFICER’S IN RIVERSIDE GIVING TICKETS TO BICYLCIST FOR UNSAFE DRIVING? This was a TMC submission which shows an occurence between a Venice Beach bicyclist and an L.A. Police Officer on patrol with his motorcycle on a beach bike lane (is that even legal). This was not meant to give the City of Riverside any ideas.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
This sent in to TMC. Which City of Riverside official had a little to much happy, happy at Sire’s, AKA the second city hall, on New Years 2014? Can anyone guess? We will disclose in the next posting.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
According to Vivian Moreno, her account and comment on this situation are as follows:
Does the misuse of assett forfeiture funds turn cops into robbers? Equitable Shared Funds (Asset Forfeiture Funds) shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes. Here are some of the “ALMOST NOTHING” things that were spent. Baker to Vegas Run-tennis shoes,gear & hotel stay. Police Chief Leach paid $35K to his wife Connie. Birthday cake and candles. Police Chief Leach & Gonzales spent almost $500 a night each at the Ritz Carlton, Vicino goes golfing. Police Chief Leach took Grover Trask to lunch with these funds, then the City of Riverside hired Grover to defend Leach. I bet Grover didn’t know leach was using Asset Forfeiture Funds to pay for his lunch. Or the $15,000 on Fitness Equipment, $2,084.40 on Small Kitchen Appliances or the $35,000 to former Police Chief Russ Leach’s wife Connie Leach’s Multi Cultural Youth Festival? Assistant Finance Director for the City of Riverside tried to explain it to Dvonne Pitruzzello, but again the DOJ has precise criteria for the use of asset forfeiture funds. One thing is certain, you cannot transfer Federal Police Asset Forfeiture monies to the General Fund.
Asset Forfeiture Guide:Seeks to assist state and local law enforcement agencies participating in the program by clarifying the directives they must follow to obtain and use equitably shared funds. The goal is to make the process as clear as possible so that local communities and the nation can thrive from reduced crime and from quality law enforcement. Were suppose to use bad guy’s monies against bad guy’s. Who’s the bad guys in Riverside?
Equitably Shared Funds shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only. What does Tennis Shoes, Lunches, Connie Leach and Golf have to do with Law enforcement? I trust Aquino’s account of the situation than the City’s. She understands the program even better than the Press Enterprise.
Then you have to ask the question, “Did the Chief Diaz cancel the current December “Chief’s advisory Board Meeting” because they could no longer use Police Asset Forfeiture funds to pay for the dinner provided to the Board Members?” What fund will they use now and will there be a January meeting with no food? I just have one thing to say to the CHIEF… POT LUCK!
City Manager Scott Barber Ooops, Sorry, City Manager Scott Barber
The law firm will charge the taxpayer a measley $300.00 plus incidentals. After $150,000.00, the law firm miraculously concluded the allegations were baseless! What a miracle. Belinda Graham was also assistant city manager under Hudson. We as taxpayers must begin to ask the City why it has costed us so much liability, not this one case, but other, especially the ones you don’t hear about. The new investigation is all about Police Asset Forfeiture expenditures. The way these funds are spent are in question. The criteria for spending is set by the Department of Justice. According to the Press Enterprise, the PE themselves did their own investigation and found in a review of asset forfeiture spending by RPD, they concluded they turned up almost nothing that appeared questionable. Really now PE? Running shoes, Las Vegas to Baker Run, Connie Leach salary not questionable? What the PE doesn’t understand is that items which appear as nothing can consequentionally be a basis for losing the whole assett forfeiture program in Riverside.
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T! IS THIS WHAT THE TAXPAYER SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE NEW INVESTIGATION?
This partner specializes in magic, thought-reading, and divination (Tarot, oracle cards, palmistry, astrology, and numerology). How much will this investigation cost the taxpayer this time, I guess my question to the City of Riverside is, does this get paid through the taxpayer or the other side. But it may be as it is in Belinda’s world, Cihigoyenetche Grossberg Clouse may be just the thing to take this investigation that one step beyond.
ROUND THREE APPEAL FOR FORMER AND FIRED CITY EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER
In a letter, appellant Jason Hunter, former City of Riverside employee, questioned the decision of the Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body made on his behalf. TMC recently wrote about this in this December 2013 article. Jason Hunter was the City of Riverside’s Principal Resource Analyst, in other words his was head of Wholesale Energy Marketing and Trading. Hunter’s recent letter is as follows:
Appeal by Jason E. Hunter of Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body Decision of Code of Ethics and Conduct Complaint against the Human Resources Board
In accordance with the City of Riverside Resolution No. 22461-Code of Ethics and Conduct -the following shall serve as a formal appeal of the Adjudicating Body’s decision regarding the above-referenced ethics complaint, filed September 9,2013, and heard on November 15, 2013, and December13, 2013. It is appellant’s contention that the findings and conclusion of the Adjudicating Body weremade in clear error and abuse of discretion.
As to the first cause, Creating Trust of Local Government:
The Adjudicating Body (“AB”) ignored the fact that the members of the Human Resources Board (“HRB”), serving as a quasi-judicial panel, had a serious obligation to appellant to understand the basic tenets of local, State, and U.S. law regarding due process and disciplinary proceeding procedures. The AB found that the HRB was unprepared for this hearing, and delegated its responsibilities to an all-too-ready-to-take-charge City Attorney, but instead placed this blame on city staff. While appellant agrees there is significant fault on behalf of staff, he believes the HRB also had a fiduciary duty to him to make sure he was afforded a fair hearing by an impartial tribune. It is clear from the videotape of the disciplinary hearing that the appellant believed there were clear violations of his rights taking place, and yet these are never even minutely addressed by the HRB.
The Adjudicating Body did not consider the fact that all post-hearing attempts to cure the defects presented to the HRB after the May 13, 2013, hearing, including his Motion for Reconsideration of June3, 2013; letter to HRB Chairman Powell of May 16, 2013; and additional pleadings at subsequent HRB open hearings were simply ignored. The AB also chose to ignore Section 804 of the City Charter stating that Boards must meet monthly, so that the public has an adequate opportunity to voice its concerns regarding city operations.
As to the second cause, Making Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions:
The Adjudicating Body admits the City Attorney took over the meeting at times. The Adjudicating Body recognizes the HRB was not prepared for the disciplinary hearing. Given these two admissions, how can the HRB have made fair, unbiased decisions?
As to the third cause, Treating Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner:
The AB admits the HRB and city were remiss in providing transparent and easily comprehended protocols, rules, and outline in a timely fashion to the appellant. The AB seemed to ignore that the advocating Deputy City Attorney seemed well prepared for his disciplinary hearing in terms of time limits the appellant was ignorant to. Hence, the City Attorney’s office seemed to receive preferential treatment in preparation for the disciplinary hearing.
The AB admits procedural defects most likely happened during the course of the disciplinary hearing, but does believe the HRB had a responsible to at least slow down the proceedings to investigate the appellant’s claims of such. Appellant finds this logic flawed.
As to the fourth cause, Ensuring that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside:
The Deputy City Attorney misled the AB at the December hearing by stating the HRB does not have the power to compel testimony nor evidence. This statement is a half-truth, nor was this assertion what appellant stated for the record at his disciplinary hearing. City Charter section 804 grants the HRB the option of requesting such power from the City Council, as would have been appropriate in an adversarial proceeding of substantial concern such as appellant’s demotion and termination under circumstances of alleged retaliation and harassment.
As far as protecting the best interests ofthe City of Riverside, the appellant leaves to the City Council to decide whether allowing a contested disciplinary hearing to spiral into Superior Court and the District Attorney’s office was good judgment.
As to the fifth cause, Ensuring that All Officials are Prepared for the Exercise of Their Duties:
The AB acknowledges the HRB was unprepared for the disciplinary hearing, and delegated decision making to the City Attorney’s office in light of their willful ignorance. However, the AB seems to find city staff at blame. Appellant argues once again that the HRB was cognizant of the significance of this disciplinary hearing and chose to willfully come unprepared to conduct this quasi-judicial session.
Appellant in fact believes the rules, protocols, and outline for his disciplinary hearing were not even written by the HRB, which should have been their responsibility to deliberate publicly. Hence, the HRB allowed themselves to be beholden to a biased City Attorney’s office in how it was to conduct his disciplinary hearing.
Relief Sought:
In light of the misrepresentations and omissions made by the city staff, as well as the Adjudicating Body’s refusal to discuss or vote upon appellant’s timely objections made prior to the November 15, 2013, hearing, and intransigence in accepting additional evidence at the December 13, 2013, some of which was requesting by the Adjudicating Body itself on November 15, 2013, the Adjudicating Body was unable to make an educated decision based upon complete information, including newly discovered evidence.
Appellant now respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the decision of the Adjudicating Body, and find that Human Resources Board members Norman Powell, Arthur Butler, Holly Evans, Jamie Wrage, Sonya Dew, and Patricia Eibs did violate the Code of Ethics and Conduct in failing to:
1. Create Trust of Local Government
2. Make Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions
3. Treat Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner
4. Ensure that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside
5. Ensure that All Officials are Prepared for the Exercise of their Duties.
Also, the appellant wishes the City Council to deliberate as to whether ignoring the complainants pre-hearing objections and motions, as well as requested evidence and new evidence, was an exercise in sound judgment on behalf of the Adjudicating Body. Additionally, the Appellant calls for the City Council to set for public review the protocols, rules, and outline established by the City Attorney’s Office for conducting Code of Ethics and Conduct hearings as per the spirit of Resolution No. 22461.
SHOULD THIS BE THE NEW RULE ON THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S EMPLOYEE BULLETIN BOARD?
“WHISTLE BLOWER’S WILL BE FIRED” .. “DO NOT REPORT FRAUD, MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS or any ILLEGAL ACTIVITY by MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, or YOU WILL BE FIRED!”
Your next City of Riverside employee position posting should read:
WANTED: ANYONE WILLING TO LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL FROM THE CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE. ALL OTHERS NEED NOT APPLY…
The whole scheme or artiface behind this commission appears to ensure the monopolization of the market place by AMR, and those ambulance services who can pay CAAS’s high fees for accredition. This would leave out smaller ambulance services by design. Thanks, but no thanks Chief Earley, the PE may call this “arrogant”, we call it plain “despicable.”
But it doesn’t end there folks we did several stories on this regarding the close ties between AMR executives and the City Council and Mayor. Back in October 2011, 6-1, City Council votes to deny Mission Ambulance a franchise, except for Councilman Paul Davis. That means American Medical Response, or AMR, will remain the sole medical transportation provider in Riverside. Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey suggested that a council subcommittee review the ambulance policy, but it’s not yet clear if that will happen. It will never happen, because actions speak louder than words.. Mayor Bailey who was Councilman at the time voted on this denial, and we can see why. At the time Councilman Rusty Bailey was seen with having ice cream at a local Dairy Queen with non other than Peter Hubbard of American Medical Response (AMR).
On a side note and on good authority, we found out that now Mayor William “ Rusty” Bailey bought the cone of ice cream for Peter Hubbard. Could this be a bribe? You decide.. the point folks in this bit of levity but on good authority, is that we intend to expose the relationships of old family connections which have created a culture of corruption in the City of Riverside. We are just sorry our source could not attain the ice cream flavor…
City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey Sorry, Mayor William Rusty Bailey
What else can we tell you of the incestuous relationship with the City of Riverside and even Riverside County. Well, TMC has found that back in February 13, 2012 the State Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) states that City of Riverside and County of Riverside overstepped it’s authority in limiting ambulance services. TMC therefore ask the question if the $1.4 Million that AMR provides the City of Riverside each year for paramedic training and equipment contribute to how the City votes on issues that impact AMR? TMC thinks so, we also think it can be construed as a “bribe.” Oopps, I said it, and I’ll say it again, a “bribe.” Others have mentioned that the $1.4 million allows AMR to buy two more minutes from an agreed response time. This allows AMR to be late by 2 minutes, therefore how does this help the injured? We say it is just like having a bad burrito, it just doesn’t sit well in the stomach’s of the Riverside community residents. This of course shouldn’t be the case.
Bruce Barton, director of the county’s Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Tom McEntee, AMR’s general manager, said Thursday there was no intent to mislead anyone at the Oct. 17 workshop. Information about the rate increase was widely available online, Barton said. Let’s not forget the accreditation company CAAS, Sarah McEntee, the executive director of CAAS is the wife of AMR’s general manager, Tom McEntee. Incestuous?
According to public speaker Rebecca Ludwig, could “Golden Boy”, Riverside County Supervisor, John Taviglione have a part with AMR?
So what is next for General Earley, oopps, retired at work again Fire Chief Steve Earley? You decide… You are always right, citizens of Riverside, make your opinions be known at City Council and not be afraid of retribution by the City as some residents have indicated. One we are none, more than one we are many….
Will the real Steve Earley please come forward..
As one local Riverside critics stated, “Would that mean its OK to embezzle as long as you don’t go over the budget?”
Of course, you know, there is more to come… stayed tuned for another episode of “As Riverside Turns Your Stomach”.
With this, questions still linger regarding the process that went down. Why is the Fire Union making decisions regarding the taxpayer? Why is it that the City, through City Manager Scott Barber, must look elsewhere, outside the City for a new Chief? Don’t we have capable people who can move up the rank, such as Deputy Chief Mike Esparza. Incidently, Mike Esparza was chose to be the interim Fire Chief until a new one is found. I just say we keep the new Fire Chief Mike Esparza.
Esparza will take charge until March 2014; the next in roatation are Division Chief Bill Schellhous from April through June; and Division Chief LaWayne Hearn from July through September. Again if we are touted as having the best of the best due to are training, why must we look outside for another candidate? Time and time again we see the same scenario, we’ve seen it with Police Chief Sergio Diaz, another double dipper. But remember this was also the legacy of the prior City Manager who skipped town when he seen the writing on the wall.. Brad Hudson. Hudson was responsible for the hiring of Police Chief Sergio Diaz as well as Fire Chief Steve Earley, from the County of Riverside whereby Hudson previously worked, not to mention our current City Manager Scott Barber, former Public Works Director Siobhan Foster, who was said by insiders didn’t know what a “pot hole” was, and current Human Resource Director, Rhonda Strout, known in some circles and “Luxury Girl”, who had her own set of problems with the cost of liability to the tax payer with current employees.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight…A Riverside detective named Chris Lanzillo gets fired…then is called back so that he can be retired early on a medical disability…which qualifies him to recieve his pay in large part tax free for the rest of his life. BUT…he’s not so disabled that he can’t work as a private investigator for a law firm that represents cops and cop unions…and shall we say…suuplement his retirement pay……Is that absurd or what! He’s a bad cop who’s now a crook…and we got to pay his freight for the rest of his life! – John Bosch, Commenter on the Orange County Register
UPDATE: FULLERTON POLICE NOT GUILTY IN MURDER OF KELLY THOMASSobs fill courtroom..Many are asking the question, why aren’t police cleaning house of the bad apples? If not, is the beginning of a police state mentality? Where by the judge and the jury accepted the actions of the police. Will it be acceptable that the police act as the judge, jury and executioner, and the court system only a formality? Should we as residents and citizens be concerned and afraid?
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
IG
Javier Moreno
TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption 