Author Archive

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AT WILL VS. VESTED EMPLOYEES AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW

Posted: June 3, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

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

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

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

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

FOR CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S, OPEN LINK IN CASE OF EMERGENCY: WHISTLEBLOWER’S DISCLOSURE GUIDE

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: WARD ONE CAMPAIGN: THE LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NOBODY’S HOME

Posted: June 3, 2011 in Uncategorized
3

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

RIVERSIDE CITY HALL: VEHICLE IGNORANCE PREVAILS: IRS RULES FOR PUBLIC USE

Posted: June 1, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
1

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATES EMINENT- CITY EMPLOYEE PAST UNDOCUMENTED CAR USE: LEGAL OR ILLEGAL?  STAY CONNECTED, ANONYMOUS SOURCES WITH DOCUMENTATION WELCOMED-TMC INVESTIGATES..

RIVERSIDE: SEXUAL FAVORITISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Posted: May 29, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
3


The Boss’s favorable treatment of lovers can be harassment for others.   According to 996 respondents to an on-line poll by Vaultreports,  59% said they have had a workplace romance at some point in their careers, 17% said they had never dated a co-worker but they would, 24% said they had no interest in an office romance.   It’s a common scenario for romance to spark between co-workers in the workplace.  Is it happening in River City, City Hall or is it just my imagination?

The new rules of engagement for an office affair is the “LOVE CONTRACT.”  The “Love Contract” was designed to limit liability in case of an office romance spinning out of control.  Does Riverside have one? A dating policy or an office romance policy . Gary Matheason and Jeff Tanambaum employment attorneys at Littler Mendelson in San Francisco are Co-Creators of the “Love Contract”.  Designed to help ward off sexual harassment claims filed by a jilted lover.  The risks to the taxpayer and employees are great.  Not having the policies in place is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, ignores the risk instead of managing them.  We will give Riverside the benefit of the doubt, so we emailed the City Clerk a request:

To: city_clerk@riversideca.gov

Subject: Love Contract

Date: May 30, 2011 9:45 AM

As per public records act: I am requesting all policy and procedure guidelines relating to “a romance policy”, “a dating policy”, or “a Love Contract”.

A Relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate can be troublesome. Favoritism arising out of a personal relationship is damaging to the whole department. Two major issues could arise Conflict of Interest between the two and not enough time being spent on doing work assigned.  Not to mention the target of office gossip in the blogosphere or elsewhere consuming the office dialog.  Wide spread favoritism, and nasty rumors can create a sexually hostile work environment. Employers face greater risk from a workplace romance.  California Supreme Court rules that office affairs may give rise to sexual favoritism claims.  {Miller v California Department of corrections} Employees in California may now sue their employers for sexual harassment if the sexual affair between a superior and a subordinate results in sexual favoritism.  It is a Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

“Sleeping her way to the top” was the basis of this lawsuit. Numerous women were romantically and sexually involved with their boss.  Women got ahead and were promoted if they performed sexual favors for their supervisor. Preferential treatment, raises, promotions, company perks were all part of the repeated incidence of sexual favoritism. The outcome was a hostile work environment where women got ahead and were promoted if they performed sexual favors for their superior.  Sexual Favoritism sends a message to female employees that they must demean themselves by becoming sexual playthings in order to get ahead at work. In this particular case it was proven that “Boss’s favorable treatment of lovers can be harassment to others.”

Now tell me again why Tom DeSantis left?

UPDATE: 06/01/2011: Still No Response To Our Request From The City Clerks Office.  Keep Connected, TMC investigates.

UPDATE: 06/06/2011: We received a response from Sherry Morton-Ellis, CMC Assistant City Clerk as follows: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 6253, the City of Riverside submits this response to your request received on May 30, 2011.  In your request, you seek: •  All policies and procedure guidelines relating to a “romance policy”, “dating policy”, or “love contract”. We have searched our records and found that are no records responsive to your request.

RIVERSIDE: DUCK TAPING A MOUTH HAS A PRICE: A CITY GONE ROGUE

Posted: May 26, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

In my opinion it’s always been the nature of government to propose the proposition if there is no trail to an incident or event,  it didn’t occur.  In a free society we expect accountability and transparency, not some semantical play on words leading us further from the truth.  What is really disturbing is the fruition of a culture which has become unrepresentative of the needs of the community and has  become increasingly detached from mainstream economic theory, that its interference with the free market takes precedence.  What is best for the community is simply to do the right thing.   If that was done at all, we would not have so many employees fired at will.  But in retrospect, couldn’t this in essence,  be construed as a reflection of leadership?  And leadership can inadvertently distort the truth as a mechanism of defense.  Whereby an initial account of truth once disseminated, is followed by a transfiguration there of,  eventually becoming a subterfuge leading the community with a distorted perception of the truth.  For these reasons people are angry, people are frustrated, economically stressed and foremost, people are now asking questions.  Having questions is one thing, asking them is another.  People are feeling intimidated and afraid of government, and for good reason for which it has been quietly expressed in the community.  What has happened to our government, our protector and fervent leader?  What has propagated an entitled culture to developed independently of  the needs of surrounding community?  We have seen this within cities such as Bell.  People shouldn’t  have to feel that they are wrong  or be  intimidated by asking questions of public servants, or to feel they may be retaliated against.  Remember, elected and appointed officials are there to work at the pleasure of the people.

“Fear is the foundation of most Governments…”       

– John Adams, 2nd President of the United States of America,  January 1776

City Attorney Greg Priamos states he is there to protect the mayor and the council.  Is this an aberration of duty?  Or a momentary lapse of clarity?  …such as when an inquiry is initiated, and the assertion of attorney-client privilege is spawned.   Attorney-client privilege?…. lets analytically conceptualize the relationship.  In our tangible world it simply means the relationship between attorney and client, whereby the client hires the attorney for a fee.  Elected and appointed officials work at the pleasure of the people, taxpayers, and the community etc.,  therefore are we not their employers?  In essence, is the City Attorney present to protect the people and serve at the pleasure there of?  Therefore, would we not be his client?   An employee is still considered to be an employee, and we the people are technically their employer.  Such as the case of Best, Best & Krieger representing the Chief of Police via the tax payer,  we the employer/the CEO, do we not have the right to know what he may have done wrong and how it damages us as the employer?   Furthermore, is it the taxpayer/employer which must then hire a third party entity such as BB&K to actually tell us, again the taxpayer/employer, not the truth?  Led of course, by former Riverside DA Grover Trask, now with BB&K.  The City Manager, serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and the Council,  and therefore the responsibility of his actions reflects upon the mayor and council, it would be considered a breach of trust and of their fiduciary duty to the community  if they did otherwise.  It should also be assumed that the city council and mayor if necessary, could conduct themselves as city manager.  This would imply, a mastery of the appointed position, and this should be a requirement to becoming mayor or a member of the city council.  Understanding the work of the City manager is not only necessary but pertinent to the understanding the intricacies of the general fund.  Therefore there would be no justification to an aberrational abuse as seen with City Manager Robert Rizzo of the city of Bell.

Those that have been there longest have attained institutional memory, of which could be detrimental to a leaders agenda.  Ridding the work force of this intangible phenomenon insures the likelihood of implementing ones agenda without question, regardless if it is right or wrong.   Of course, those with institutional memory know right from wrong.  Is it a benefit to leadership to control and to rid their immediate arena of institutional memory?  And when expelled from the work arena,  does it have a corresponding price?  Duck taping a mouth always has a price within a city gone rogue. (Note: This Original Link Dissapeared From The Press Enterprise Site).  Without integrity there ultimately would be no need to question the actions of representative leadership.  Say what you don’t mean and mean what you don’t say.  Thank-you Sean Gill and Raychele Sterling for doing the rightful work of the people and with the integrity, and thank-you for asking the questions which help us, the taxpaying community,  to protect us from the abuse of public funds.  You have not been forgotten….

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: $100,000.00 GIFT TO SENDAI: A VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CON$TITUTION?

Posted: May 23, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
2

On March 22, 2011 Riverside City Council unanimously transferred $100,000.00 from the public general fund to the Sendai Relief Fund.  The queston now became, can a public entity contribute a gift of public funds to another, even if it is for a good cause?  As a general rule,  you can only give away to others what you own, which includes cities.  But by definition funds owned by the city are public, and elected and appointed officials are stewards of those funds.  Therefore, according to Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution  undeniably prohibits gifts of public funds, therefore the City of Riverside gifting $100,000.00 of public funds to Sendai is not only illegal but a violation.  Individual contributions by elected and appointed officials and personal would have been the legal way of raising appropriate relief funds to gift to Sendai.   Rules and regulations have been developed for a reason, to prevent taxpayer fund abuse.  The State constitution is very clear, there must be direct or primary public purpose and benefit to the public at large when general funds are used to avoid being a gift.

UPDATE: 05/24/2011: NOTED AT CITY COUNCIL, $100,000.00 WITHDRAWN FROM GENERAL FUND AS A GIFT TO SENDAI.  HOW MANY MORE GIFTS OF CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GENERAL FUND HAVE OCCURRED FOR OTHER NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS? 

UPDATE: 05/29/2011: RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES DONATES $2000.00 TOWARDS A DINNER HONORING MAYOR RON LOVERIDGE AND WIFE.  A SILVER SPONSORSHIP INCLUDES A TABLE WITH A SEATING FOR FOUR AND AN AD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.   IF THE DONATION WAS WITH PUBLIC FUNDS AS INDICATED BY THE SPONSORSHIP LISTING, THIS WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTUION.   THIS WOULD ALSO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST SINCE RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES IS A PUBLIC ENTITY.  TMC INVESTIGATES, STAY CONNECTED.

RIVERSIDE: IT’S ALL ABOUT THE TALENT WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING

Posted: May 23, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
3

The CITY always seems to amaze me, I think Mike Gardner said it best responding to a question regarding high salaries of appointed officials at one of the campaign debates, “We have to pay for talent”.   Regency Tower was bought first with too much money from $126.5 million to $131.5 million.  Now the Orange Street Garage is in the news again, thats the one that looks like the Bellagio in Las Vegas and was built on Redevelopment money.   The sale of the Regency Tower to the County of Riverside included 400 parking stalls from the Orange Street garage.  Zellerbach now states we don’t need all of them anymore and we can sell the city back the rights in the form of a lease for 150 stalls, for a mere $90,000.00.  According to the City Council Memorandum for Tuesday May 24, 2011, the city will pay the county $25.00 a month per stall, that comes to a total of $3750.00 for 150 stalls per month, therefore $90,000.00 for a two year period. It seems quite nominal for a city employee to pay $25.00, where others are paying$35.00 and upwards to $65.00 in some cases and save the taxpayers $90K.   As I’m understanding it, County employees are paying for their parking, as opposed to City employees who don’t.  Regardless, the city states that this mere $90,000 will loosen up parking around the city for the public at large.   Well, anyway, this whole mess originally started before the Regency Towers were built, where city officials thought with new construction, the developer would be bringing in new business to the city and city tax revenues would be boosted.   So they reduced the parking requirement by one-fourth to the developer as an encentive, and agreed to sell him 400 parking stalls from the Orange Street garage for $4 million, that’s $10,000 per stall.   But in January 2007,  the city figured out that it actually cost you and me, the taxpayer,  $7 million for the 400 parking stalls.  That’s $17.500 for each stall, Ouchh!  But it gets better, by October 2008 that number became $8 million and $20,000 per stall.  So the $3 million faux pas become $4 million.  Now what?  Well it appears, that’s why government created Fuzzy Math, Creative Financing and the word “Subsidize”.

Leasing parking spots for government workers is just totally asinine!  If they are incapable of finding a place to park on their own – just like the rest of us manage to do  every day – then let them take public transportation to work. Government workers need to pay for their own parking, just like everybody else.  

 -Comment from PE by Dave’s Not Here

So at the time, Councilman Schiavone knew if the Regency Tower was sold to the County, their would be no intended benefit to the city.  No new business’s or no new workers would be coming to Riverside, and the subsidy would be waisted.  Schiavone said, “I don’t care if it is in writing or not”.  “Make us whole. Give us back the incentive that wasn’t meant to be used like this”.    By then is was just to late, nothing could be done, the city didn’t even think of placing this clause in writing. Now when the county of Riverside bought the Regency, this additional $4 million faux pas then became a convenient  subsidy for the county, the other $4 million was probably added by the developer to the total sale price of the Regency Towers.   Of, course Mike Gardner said this would not happen again, but that’s talent for you.   Parking has always been an issue in Downtown Riverside with merchants and their customers, as with Arts Bar and Grill, which their parking was displaced by city construction.  The city’s less compassionate attitude toward struggling merchants doesn’t help either.  Why doesn’t the city care for merchants?  They suffer the most, having their life saving tied up in their business’s and their future income.  Many around town have been damaged by city redevelopment construction, and many merchants have left with no support effort by the city.  For many of the merchants parking meters were an issue which fell upon deaf ears of city officials.  Now the  issue of parking meters comes up again, shall we now remove them, maybe it was a bad idea to begin with?  First, Smart Park by Dom Betro, then removed and replaced with Parking Meters by Mike Gardner, all at taxpayer expense.  And I understand the parking fund is still running at a deficit which I’m beginning to believe is the standard for city run business’s.  I realize talent can be a good thing.  Bell had their talent in City Manager Robert Rizzo with his benefit and salary package of $1,500,000.00 per year,  but we won’t go into the falsifying public records part.  Regardless, I’m not sure if the city knows what talent is, or what their persception of it is, but I’m still optimistic that my City of Riverside will one day become what it should be, but I believe it will be done without the great talent and expense we now have in city hall.

UPDATE: 05/24/2011: COUNCIL PASSES $90,000.00 FOR CITY EMPLOYEE PARKING, IN LIEU OF PASSING OF $50,000 FOR A CONSULTING FEE FOR A CITY WIDE MASTER BICYCLING PLAN.

RIVERSIDE RENAISSANCE: BROUGHT TO YOU BY CITY HALL VISIONARIES

Posted: May 22, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,
0

The Metamorphosis of Marcy Library…Enthralled in the Hands of Fuzzy Math, what is it’s value, $505,000.00? $339,000.00?  Now a great place to pick up a couple of hamburgers!

UPDATE: 06/22/2011:  The development committee is going to rehear the Marcy library issue June 23 at 3:00 pm on the 7th floor of Riverside City Hall.

UPDATE: 06/23/2011:  The Development Committee votes 2-1 to sell Marcy Branch Library to the Lucky Greek Restaurant with Councilman Mike Gardner disscenting.

UPDATE: 05/29/2012: Lucky Greek owner sues the City of Riverside for $750,000.00

HU$H……………………………………………money (Part 1)

Posted: May 18, 2011 in Uncategorized
5

Explosive two part exposé of Riverside City Hall Politics and Connie Leach. 

Oh what a tangled web we weave…….. Mayor Ron Loveridge , City Manager Brad Hudson,  Assistant City Manager Tom Desantis, Chief Financial Officer Paul Sundeen,   City Clerk Coleen Nichols, City Attorney Greg Priamos, Kristin Tilquest  Mayor’s Office,  Mario Lara Assistant to Tom Desantis , ConnieLeach Ex Wife and City Consultant, Russ Leach Ex Police Chief .  Now let’s connect the dots and Follow the money.  

Summation:  What are the uses of Equitable Sharing……Police Asset Forfeiture.

1. Shared funds shall be used for law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only.

2. To avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, any employee of any federal, state, or local governmental agency ( or members of his or her immediate family or those residing in his or her household ) who was involved in the investigation which led to the forfeiture of the property to be sold by the USMS contractor is prohibited from purchasing, either directly or indirectly, forfeited property.

3. All Contracts provided to Connie Leach were all signed without City Council approval.

In the packet provided to city council, tuesday, contained:

Business Licenses: Issued to Connie Howard and ex- police Chief Russ Leach of their business Impact Consulting

Newspaper Articles of Alleged Domestic  Violence in 2004

Divorce Document of filing July 25, 2006

Copies of Checks paid to Connie Leach from the General Fund, Parks and Recreation, Redevelopment, City Manager and Economic Development for 3 years and 10 months totaling approx :  $333,000.00

Not including Donations to Multi Cultural Festival for approx  $40,000, Tranfers of $35,000 and Invoices & Receipts between Connie Leach and her Vendors for approx $90,000 from Police Asset Forfeiture totaling approx   $208,000.00.

Connie Leach was paid in excess $531,000.00.

Alleged Domestic Violence, Divorce Filing of Connie Leach & Russ Leach, General Fund Payouts, Police Asset Forfeiture Conflict, Alleged Malfeasance, Misuse of Funds and Favoritism.

During the time Connie Leach was hired as a consultant, Mayor Ron Loveridge was Department Head for the Youth Council. City Manager, Brad Hudson “the boss”, was in charge of the entire budget and how it is spent.   Purchase Order #R57482 Youth Council for  $12,500 and PO #R57481 Multicultural Youth Festival  for $35,000 went right to his office via Section Code 1100 City Manager-Admin.   What is also really interesting about this $35,000 PO was that she was paid 8 months in advance for a festival that didn’t even happen. Tom Desantis Assistant City manager, signed contracts between the City of Riverside and Connie Leach on behalf of City Manager Brad Hudson.   Paul Sundeen CFO,: Signed all checks issued to Connie Leach.  Mario Lara Assistant to Tom Desantis: all processing activity for P.O.s. went through Mario Lara.  City Clerk,  Coleen Nichols, City Attorney, Greg Priamos, and Assistant to the Mayor, Kristin Tilquest , were all signers on the contracts between the City of Riverside and Connie Leach.

Connie Leach: Wife of Ex Police Chief Russ Leach and Co-Owner of Impact Consulting

Russ Leach: Co-Owner of Impact Consulting with Connie Leach.

Tuesday,  May 24, 2011 City Council 6:30pm.  We will tell the personal story of Connie Leach PART 2.

Through the  Public Records Act. We were provided with the Police Asset Forfeiture budget from 2003 to 2009 and the City Managers $50,000.00 Discretionary Spending Budget.  All the expenditures were provided without City Council approval.  Everything we found is available for public viewing by request through the City Clerks office of Colleen Nichols 951-826-5557.

Question To The Mayor and City Council: Can a City Managers Discretionary Fund with a Maximum Payout of $50,000.00 for each item.  Can it be possible to spit bill via $50,000 increments for projects which hypothetically may cost $250,000.00, in order to get by City Council approval?   Can the City Manager Fund be at all subject to abuse, do to that fact?

TMC Investigates, Stay Connected, Comments Welcomed Especially From City Hall!

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.  PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) 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 FOR GOOD REASON, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… 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 SPHALL SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

NO MARRIAGE MADE IN HEAVEN: THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE $ RIVERSIDE COUNTY BREAK VOWS BY NOT BUYING EACH OTHERS BONDS

Posted: May 17, 2011 in Uncategorized
0

In an unprecedented act of desperation the City of Riverside buys $65,000,000.00 in their own bonds, due to Riverside Counties refusal to buy as a result of the low rating.  According to many, it’s never been done before.  It appears the taxpayer will get screwed again.  Buying your own debt by buying your own investment bonds means the bonds are not investment quality.  You know the end of the road is near when no one is willing to see enough value in your bonds to purchase them.  Of course, the original City-County plan according to Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, said the proposal raises red flags.  Therefore being creative with your own debt appears to be the only answer, and I would imagine this would raise double red flags.   This would be like printing your own money so that you could take it out and replace it against your own debt.  This could never happen in the private sector, how can this possibly occur in government?  First, you would have to classify what city fund to remove money from.  Secondly, the taxpayer money taken for other proposed funding purposes is replaced with the issuance of a bond, or in other words, and IOU.  The money is taken, but there is still a void in the fund that needs to be paid back at the maturity of the bond.  City Charter states the City of Riverside cannot buy bonds under a AAA rating.  Well the Utilities and Water Bonds are AAA, but that’s because the City of Riverside own their own utilities and own water rights.  So how do they explain the downgrade to AA? But our Redevelopement Bonds, may be in the BBB rating or lower.  Riverside’s Chief Finance Officer Paul Sundeen said repaying the debt is not a concern as long as the city’s property values don’t take a large plunge.  But property values are diving, and will continue to decrease according to real estate statistics through 2012.   Emerald City’s Paul Sundeen went on to state, “What is the risk? It is zero,” he said.  The interest rate wouldn’t be as good as what the city negotiated with itself, he said. But, he added, “I typically don’t invest in our own bonds, (so) as an opportunity would present itself I would simply get out of it.”  Does City Hall continue to believe their own story that their is not a problem, and that creative financing is the answer, when others in the finance world do not?  What is the truth, or is this at all legal?  Hopefully are Renaissance Man, Mayor Loveridge can answer that question for the community of how it relates to the rebirth and future of our Fare City of Riverside, California.   TMC  investigates and  will be waiting, in the interim, keep tuned-in for Updates. Please give your comments!

Older Entries
Newer Entries