Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC CONTINUES TO REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL BOOKS! I GUESS WE DON’T NEED ONE NOW THAT WE HAVE VIVIAN…

Posted: October 17, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Assistant City Manager Deanna Lorson came under the TMC radar when found that a lease contract was signed for new restaurant called Elephant Thai to go into a redevelopment area, after Governor Brown signed a stay on all redevelopment activity, especially entering into new contracts.  But I guess the city knows best? They may need the help of Best, Best & Krieger to defend this one, since this is part of the abuse the governor has been speaking about.  Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno brought this to Council and Ms. Lorson’s attention last Council Meeting.  She advised her that she needs to be checking with her City Attorney Greg Priamos about that one.  All TMC can say is Slick…  How many instances of oversight does it take to make a fraud? 

More City negotiations with Redevelopment properties and interested parties post Governor Brown enacted stay on all Redevelopment activity. (Items #3) with Best, Best & Krieger For the Best, Best & Krieger Offices, (Items #4) with the Mission Inn Hotel & Spa for the BioKorium Building , (Item #5) the City of Riverside for 3737 Main Street with their own Redevelopment Agency,  & (Item #6) negotiations with Johnny Rockets and Redevelopment. 

Possible litigation by Claimants: Riverside Community College and Riverside County Office of Education vs. are infamous Redevelopment Agency.  What did they do this time? Call Best, Best & Krieger to the rescue or can our fearless city attorney battle this one out single handedly?   Well it appears the Riverside City Redevelopment Agency has defaulted on redevelopment money which should have transferred to these educational institutions, all educational institutions statewide are suing cities based on this premise.  Good reasoning to abolish RDA?  (item #7).   

Prepared by Rhonda Strout, Human Resource Department, an amendment that employees will pay 100% of their employee contribution to CALpers. (Item #27). Upcoming story regarding Rhonda Strout and the Human Resources Department.  Are we bringing back the love contract article?

(Item #31) a change order for $111,121.36 requested by Elite Bobcat Services. 

(Item #34) Legislative Reports with the City of Riverside’s lobbying group, League of California Cities.

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW…

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OPEN LETTER TO COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART.

Posted: October 16, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
2

COMINGLING CAN BE USED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, TO BE USED OTHERWISE WOULD BE CONCEALMENT.

THIS WAS AN OPEN LETTER SENT TO COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART, FROM SELF APPOINTED CITIZEN AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO, AFTER THIS WEEKS FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING:

Dearest  Council Woman Nancy Hart,

What a pleasure it was to attend your finance committee meeting. As I was walking out I heard you walking behind me saying something like : I am spending 100s of hours on this and I should be doing something else, And I should leave this up to the experts. ( am I correct you were speaking or referring to me) If you would like a sit down session to discuss this matter I will be happy to meet with you.  Now I need to respond.

Response: The fiscal responsibility of our city is very important to me , my family, my friends, my neighbors, the elderly and the disabled. I have a right to ask, to question, to view, every document that I have questions about.  This is called the public records Act. It was put in place just for this purpose.

Some people fish, knit, sew, I review public documents. What I choose to do with my time is my business not yours.

If the City of Riverside sets the pattern for review of Financial statements monthly and the previous year 2010 they are all accounted for and NO commingling of funds. What is a citizen to do when  in 2011 they are all over the place with statements and general -enterprise fund documents  MISSING. If they were all in their right place I wouldn’t have to bother anybody. If there is only one person, (as stated by Paul Sundeen, referring to me), in the entire city of Riverside looking at financial statements whats the big deal. All I’m saying if you have the process in place it should easily be accessible.   It was interesting to me that you yourself did not know where the financial statements were located on your website.

Your comment about “leaving it up to the experts” . Your experts  have a restaurant in City Hall that was over 3 mil and it doesn’t bring in a dollar to the city.  You have a new  library in Orange Crest  that has a closed café. You have a Fox Theatre that has a million plus  deficit each year in operating costs. You have 149 transferred   properties, “Questionable”. Your experts Commingle funds. Your experts signed an illegal contract with a restaurant (Elephant Thai) post Redevelopment stay. Above all your experts have put us in 1.7 billion dollar debt that we cannot pay and I believe you know it. So why should we listen to your experts!

As a politician you should be happy for us that we do take an interest in city politics and we want a better understanding of how our local government works.  Going thru the documents of the City of Riverside and telling the story is like reading a novel, but I know all the characters.  No worry, I do this on my free time.

By the way we  will be attending the MORR Conference next week, Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, in San Francisco. We will be speaking on Commingling of Redevelopment funds, transferred properties,  inter fund and inter agency transfers, and signing contracts while a Redevelopment stay is in place .  My goal is to be an expert in Municipal Finance so where ever I choose to live I can have an impact.

Thank-you, Vivian Moreno,  Self Appointed Citizen Auditor

Nancy,

This is easy reading.  While you leave commingling up to your  experts, I have concerns. I know California Code Section 66006 has to do with impact fees, but you get the idea, I’m still learning.

CAL. GOV. CODE § 66006 : California Code – Section 66006

(a)If a local agency requires the payment of a fee specified in subdivision (c) in connection with the approval of a development project, the local agency receiving the fee shall deposit it with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Any interest income earned by moneys in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected.

(b)(1)For each separate account or fund established pursuant to subdivision (a), the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscalyear, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:

(A)A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.

(B)The amount of the fee.

(C)The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.

(D)The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.

(E)An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.

(F)An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.

(G)A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.

(H)The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.

(2)The local agency shall review the information made available to the public pursuant to paragraph (1) at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public, as required by this subdivision. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service.

(c)For purposes of this section, “fee” means any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fee for public improvements within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 66000, and that is imposed by the local agency as a condition of approving the development project.

(d)Any person may request an audit of any local agency fee or charge that is subject to Section 66023, including fees or charges of school districts, in accordance with that section.

(e)The Legislature finds and declares that untimely or improper allocation of development fees hinders economic growth and is, therefore, a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature that this section shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities.

(f)At the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance.

COUNCIL WOMAN NANCY HART DID RESPOND, IT WAS A PERSONAL EMAIL,  HOPEFULLY SHE WILL POST IT!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH 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 THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY 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!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC WANT’S THE DIRT!

Posted: October 11, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2

CLICK ON THE PIC FOR THE HD EFFECT!

TMC staff thanks all who have supported us and quietly supported us.  In trying times we look for leadership and find none. There are new fees, fines and taxes.   We find gross fiscal mismanagement of funds.  We find government enacting new restrictions of what we can and cannot do on our own properties.  Restrictions and higher fees for violations on vehicles. All we ask, is that the government balance their check book, we have to.  TMC wants the City of Riverside dirt, if you have it, we want it, for example, mismanagement of funds, affairs, illegal property transfers etc.  Email us anonymously at thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com with your dirt.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH 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 THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY 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!

UPDATE: THE DIRT IS ROLLING IN, AND IT’S ALMOST TIME TO PICK-UP THE TRASH!  THANKS RIVERSIDE!

TALKING ABOUT TRASH, DAN BERSTEIN OF PE IS REPORTING FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON FILES A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLEGING A TRASH TRUCK BACKED UP INTO HIS 2011 DODGE.  CLAIM AGAINST TAXPAYER NEGLIGENCE: $1,075.00, BUT ACTUAL COST $1,434.00.  BUT IF YOU EVER LOOKED AT HIS DISCRETIONARY FUND AND THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND, NON OF THE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE EITHER.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC CONTINUES TO REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL BOOKS! COOKING THE BOOKS OR BURNING THE BOOKS?

Posted: October 11, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

Again is this another display of our culture favoritism and selective treatment within the gates of emerald city? (Item #9).  The ambulance debacle, government again interfering with the free market system to the point of allowing a monopoly?  City councilman Paul Davis was right to ask the question if it’s the cities policy to allow one ambulance company, American Medical Response, in the city.  Does this violate antitrust laws?  What’s quite interesting is that the city issues franchise agreement to control who runs non-emergency ambulance services.  Any ambulance company is allowed to apply, but the clincher is AMR is the only company to be issued one.  The city firefighters union opposes Mission Ambulance’s bid to serve Riverside.  Why would a firefighters union get involved in the business of rendering an opinion?  Questions are continually raised in regards to union influence in the city, and to the extent of special interest request.  But you have your answer as to why no other franchise agreements were ever issued over the last 50 years.  But again, the city can save money by placing more services up for bid.  (Item #9) Again, is the city and the firefighters union involved in a monopoly? And are the firefighters unions really looking toward the health and safety of the public?  In City Council session,  The Public Safety Commission will be recommending that the Council deny Mission ambulance from attaining a franchise agreement.  Get this, the Public Safety Commision is made up of the City Council, Chris Mac Arthur, Nancy Hart and Andy Melendez.  Further, Fire Chief Steve Early will actually be conducting the assessment of Mission ambulance’s application, and rendering an opinion to the Public Safety Commision.  Yes, I’m not making this up, it’s incestuous.  Can you guess what is going to be their decision?  In addition, the City pays AMR for certain training services to the Firefighters etc., in addition, AMR has had their own set of problems.  But it appears that according to the references in favor of Mission Ambulance, that the city would turn a blind eye to the health and safety of Riversidian’s in favor of alleged special interest.

UPDATE: COUNCIL VOTES TO DENY MISSION AMBULANCE A FRANCHISE, EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS.  AMR HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN’S OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING DAVIS.  MISSION AMBULANCE CONTRIBUTED TO DAVIS ONLY.  BACK IN 2009, CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST AMR’S PETER HUBBARD, WHO WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION.  MISSION AMBULANCE WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT MISINFORMATION HAS BEEN FED.  MISINFORMATION SUCH AS CHIEF STEVE EARLY STATEMENT THAT MISSION AMBULANCE MAY NOT RESPOND, IF THEY WERE CALLED, BECAUSE OF A COST FACTOR.  COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS ALSO STATED MISSION AMBULANCE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT PAY.  AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE IS CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES WITH THE CITY, AND YOU ARE ONLY CALLED IF CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES.  MISSION AMBULANCE WOULD LIKE TO SERVE THE RETAIL END, AND CONTRACTS INDIVIDUALLY WITH PROVIDERS, AND SHOULD AND COULD HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTRACT FOR 911 SERVICES AT THE STANDARD CONTRACTS RATES IF ALLOWED.  MISINFORMATION ON THE DAIS?  CHIEF EARLEY RECOMMENDED THE APPLICATION BE DENIED, BUT WAS AT A LOSS OF WORDS TO RATIONALLY EXPLAIN IT.  WHEN ASKED BY PAUL DAVIS AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE DENIAL, CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS WAS THEIR TO RESCUE AND SPIN, AND REMINDING EVERYONE OF THE ISSUE AT HAND.  THIS WAS REMARKABLY DONE MORE THAN ONCE AS TO CEASE COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS’S QUESTIONING.  IN RELATION TO THIS PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR, A CLOSE OUTSIDE FRIENDSHIP IS ALLEGED BETWEEN CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND PETER HUBBARD WHO HAVE BEEN SEEN AT FAMILY GATHERINGS, NOW RAISING QUESTIONS AGAIN OF CONFLICT INTEREST.  FURTHER, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WAS ALLEGED SEEN HAVING DRINKS WITH PETER HUBBARD AT RIVERSIDE’S SALTED PIG RESTAURANT ON 10/11/2011.  WOULD THIS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON HIS DECISION MAKING ON THIS ITEM AS A COUNCILMAN?   HOW ABOUT THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCILMAN AND MAYOR PRO-TEMP CHRIS MAC ARTHUR, EVEN THE MAYOR HIMSELF, RON LOVERIDGE?  AND LET’S NOT FORGET THE INFAMOUS BAD BOY’S THEMSELVES, BRAD HUDSON AND TOM DESANTIS.  WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONAIRE’S CLUB?  WOULD MISSION AMBULANCE HAVE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE CITY UNDER THESE GROWING CIRCUMSTANCES?  DOES THIS NOW MEAN ONE FOR THE FIRE CHIEF, AND ONE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE UNION BROTHERHOOD? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CITY’S INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIPS EFFECTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE THE COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE, WITH POSSIBLE GRAND VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST LAWS?

Talking about firefighters their still negotiating their salaries and fringe benefits in closed sessions again under (Item #5), with you guessed it , the firefighters union etc.  Hopefully they’ll be negotiating low, because the city can’t afford to pay them more.  After all, the city will be at a standstill by next year 2012 when bonds come due. Maybe we should do as Norco did, dissolve their City Fire Department and bid out. In their case they went with Cal Fire/ Riverside County Fire Department,  or another alternative for saving money is go back to the Volunteer Fire Department. Another idea would be to dissolve RPD, and bring in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in order to save money.  Excessive pensions is placing a large dent in the Cities budget. It’s no secret that 70% to 80% of a cities budget goes to payroll. (Item #5, Closed sessions of course).  This is a good reason that the City Charter needs to be modified, and whereby items as this should be in open session to be scrutinized by the public, and these closed door sessions leave an open door to abuse, at taxpayer expense.  And that my friends is how the city rolls..

Parking Citations Amnesty. Parking always a problem in Riverside and excessive violation fees at $41.00 a pop is another.   Won’t work, people have no money, honest! (Item #16)  The idea proposed by Public Works Director Siobhan Foster is that the end result of the amnesty program, the city will bring in $33,925.00 in revenue.  The actual total revenue expected from the amnesty program is $125,025.00.  But this figure will be offset by the initial expense of the taxpayer have in the amount of $91,000.00 to implement the plan.  THE BOTTOM LINE, IT ORDER TO BRING IN 27% BACK IN REVENUE, IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYER BY THE OFFSET COST, 73%.  I WOULD ALSO ASSUME THAT THE PERCENTAGE IS HIGHER DUE TO THE COST AND ATTEMPT TO RECOVER PRIOR COST TO THIS PROPOSAL, THEREFORE THE REVENUE BROUGHT IN FROM THE AMNESTY PROGRAM WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN 27% AS INDICATED.  NOW WE KNOW WHY SIOBHAN FOSTER IS MOVING PLACES, AND PASADENA PICKED HER UP LIKE A BAG OF CLEAN SOCKS!

One more week to go on naming city hall!  But after the item #9 debacle, we all know how that is going to turn out as well…  Bad news for Rin Tin Tin…

UPDATE:10/18/2011: A VERY SENSITIVE AMR CANCELS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MURRIETA OVER A COUNCILMAN’S STATEMENT.  MURRIETA URGES COMPETITIVE BIDDING ON AMBULANCE CONTRACTS.    DID THEY ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING $1.4 MILLION IN “BLOOD MONEY” TO LOWER RESPONSE TIMES AS ALLEGEDLY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TOOK?

UPDATE:10/29/2011: WHILE COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS BELIEVE OUTSIDE AMBULANCE COMPANIES WOULD NOT PICK THOSE WHO CANNOT PAY WITHIN THE CTY, IT APPEARS THE COUNTY HANDS OUT A STIPEND, AN ENCENTIVE ETC. TO COVER THAT COST. 

UPDATE:12/08/2011: ACCORDING TO THE STATE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES COUNTY MEDICAL SERVICE PLANS, RIVERSIDE OFFICIALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP QUALIFIED AMBULANCE COMPANIES FROM FROM PICKING UP PATIENTS IN THE CITY.  THE QUESTION MANY CITY RESIDENTS ARE ASKING, IS THE CITY VIOLATING ANTITRUST LAWS?

UPDATE:02/13/2012: THE STATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (EMSA) STATES THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OVERSTEPPED IT’S AUTHORITY IN LIMITING AMBULANCE SERVICES.  COULD THE $1.4 MILLION AMR PROVIDES RIVERSIDE EACH YEAR FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT CONTRIBUTE TO HOW THE CITY VOTES ON ISSUES THAT IMPACT AMR?  OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE $1.4 MILLION ALLOWS AMR TWO MORE MINUTES TO THEIR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESPONSE TIME.  JUST LIKE HAVING A BAD BURRITO, IT JUST DOES’T SIT WELL IN THE STOMACH’S OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS.  BRUCE BARTON, DIRECTOR OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCY, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY WAS IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF AMR AS OF 2004.  COULD THIS CONTRIBUTE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OUTCOME?

UPDATE: 05/11/2012: COMMMENTER ON THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REGARDING THE AMBULANCE MONOPOLY IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE..

No,  what’s going on, you’ve got three mayoral candidates who already know from debates and feedback this is a major campaign issue and they don’t want to have to make any decisions about it before the June election. Gardner must think that most of us just got off the turnip truck yesterday based on his comments. But you know what? People in this city are capable of independent thought without being patronized. This whole ordinance was written back in the late 1980s to protect Goodhew Ambulance which was tied in heavily through the people connected to the city council and mayor at the time. It’s a shame that nothing’s changed since even though the city’s grown both in size through annexations and through its population.  The ambulance companies should call the Office of the Inspector General and ask him or her to initiate an investigation of the Federal Anti-Kickback statute. At best, there’s potential for a huge conflict of interest including financially in this case, but looking at the lettering of the statute, it might be more than that.   Exceptions or “safe reservoirs” for this law pertain to trying to avoid monopolies in high-need areas not create one. I’m sure if the inspector general has to start an inquiry into what’s going on, the City Council will be in a rush to reschedule its workshop.   – Mary Shelton, University of California, Riverside

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW… THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CAMPAIGNING FOR MAYOR, BUT NOT A PENNY TO SPARE?

Posted: October 9, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
0

Have you thought what you are going to say to your constituents, and ready for the debates?  It’s your turn to respond, or will you need a time out?  It will be tough run in 2012, with bonds payments due, tax increments decreasing, the city will not have a penny to spare.  It’s coming soon to a voting booth near you.  TMC welcomes the democratic process and the vote of the people to bring fresh new leadership to the City.  Candidates entering the fiery race are battle harden veterans of Riverside politics.  Councilmen, Mike Gardner, Andy Melendrez and William “Rusty” Bailey.  In addition, Former Councilman Ed Adkinson will entering, as well as a few surprise late comers.  Criticism has been propagated toward Councilman Mike Gardner and Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey of whom recently ran for Council postions in April 2011, but then decided the Mayor’s position was one to be attained.  One blog has venomously trashed Councilman Bailey for interfering with the voting process, to the extent of calling his actions treasonous and unpatriotic. I wasn’t sure what country I lived in for a moment, I was assured it was still the USA.  We all have had family members who have fought in foreign wars,  all to maintain the freedoms that we have today.   It is not my belief that anyone can upset the vote, this simply is part of the democratic process.  To claim that it will, would imply fixing the vote.  We cannot be as other countries and allow are system of government to go to hell in a hand basket!  The more people that take an interest in government, studies it, learns and understands the process, the better government will be, which means, the better leadership we will have.  This campaign is not going to be an easy one, people are down trodden, and it will take a lot more than the usual political rhetoric to win their vote.  TMC wishes all the candidates the best of luck.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH 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 THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: WAS THAT BRAD? OR WAS IT JUST MY IMAGINATION?

Posted: October 9, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
2

CLICK ON THE PIC FOR THE HD EFFECT!

Just recently Riverside has had a rash of Brad Hudson sightings around town. Did he actually leave, or is he visiting or is he commuting?  The question appears if he has left his local residences in Riverside and the desert, to move to Sacramento.   Or is he doing an Arnold Schwarzenegger and commuting by plane?  The question now becomes did he really leave his residence in the City of Riverside or did he not?  If he didn’t, why was is in a hurry to leave his high paying position with the City of Riverside, to receive a lesser paying one 450 miles north?  Was it his discretionary spending allowance of $50K a pop that ended with him spending approxiamtely $29 million several years?  When brought to the council attention it  dropped to $1 million.  Did the council know he was spending $29 million a year?  Was it the deals he made? Are there skeletons and bodies of information buried in the halls, walls and basement of the city yet to be discovered?  He left the City of Riverside, that’s for sure, but didn’t quite leave town yet? That leaves a serious question mark!  At this point, it still needs further investigating, otherwise will have to place it with the file of Elvis sightings.  We can only guess that he is adjusting and assimilating well to his surroundings in good ol’ Sac Town….

KEEP CONNECTED WITH 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 THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

SEND YOUR BRAD HUDSON SIGHTINGS TO THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM    COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

TMC HERO’S OF THE MONTH: OCTOBER 2011: WE SALUTE PULITZER PRIZE WRITER’S RUBEN VIVES & JEFF GOTTLIEB!

Posted: October 9, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

The reporting team  and Pulitzer Prize Winners for Public Service, led by Ruben Vives and Jeff Gottlieb, was hailed for “Breach of Faith,” which exposed the deep seated  municipal corruption in the city of Bell, California, and displayed the  excessive compensation packages received by city officials.  In the Los Angeles suburb of 36,000, city manager Robert Rizzo had received annual compensation of $1.5 million in salary and benefits, the reports showed, with similar pay packages going to the police chief and other city administrators.  The Times reporters uncovered the malfeasance while investigating a separate story in the neighboring city of Maywood.  Vives and Gottlieb described the story behind the coverage in an August event at USC Annenberg. (Watch the video here).  In the official award citation, the panel of judges called the team’s work “the finest tradition of shoe-leather investigative reporting,” and hailed the group for their service to the public.  Eight former and current city officials have been arrested in the aftermath of the scandal, and the state controller’s office has ordered municipalities around California to post the salaries of officials on the Internet.  On a side note Jeff Gottleib was a reporter for the Riverside Press Enterprise for about thirty years. We can sure use him now.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: IT MAY BE RATS FOR THE MAYOR, BUT IT’S A DOG’S DAY IN RIVERSIDE WHEN NAMING CITY HALL!

Posted: October 5, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

CLICK ON THE PICK FOR THE HD EXPERIENCE!

The story gets better all the time.  It appears as if there was a private committee headed by the ring leader, Jack Clark, a partner in litigation for BB&K, a firm which receives millions in taxpayer money for their legal advice to the city and not to forget the recently signed assumption of their lease with the city.  This self appointed private committee included recognizable names with long titles, as Ex-City of Riverside Manager Brad Hudson, Private Developer Mark Rubin, Yeager Construction Companies Jack Yeager, Senior VP of The Entrepreneurial Corporate Group which owns the Mission Inn Ted Weggeland , City of Riverside Chief of Staff Kristin Tillquist, Riverside County Fair Housing Executive Director Rose Mayes, President/CEO Riverside Chamber of Commerce Cindy Roth, Roth Carney Law Firm Partner Jane Carney, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger Luebs, Director of Center for Philanthropy La Sierra University Dr. Jim Erickson, Retired Superintendent Alford Unified School District Dr. Damon Castillo, RUSD School Board Kathy Allavie.  The majority of these people in one way or another have benefited from City Hall and/or have had their palms financially greased by the taxpayer.   If you look at the names they all have some connection with the mayor in terms of contracts, associations, employment by the city etc.  Councilman Paul Davis didn’t know this committee existed till just recently, and asked for an extension to hear out his constituents of which he has received 15 email concerns.  Nancy Hart also had reservations as to the appropriateness of city hall being named by the current mayor.  Usually this is an honor attributed to someone who passed on.  But more egregious, the community was not invited to be part of this process.  Again a culture of arrogance and narcissism.  Councilmen Mike Gardner and Andy Melendrez had no reservations in voting for the naming of City Hall after the mayor.  Steve Adams couldn’t contain himself, he had no problem voting for him right that instant and just push the proclamation through.  Though, he consider Councilman Paul Davis and Councilwomen Nancy Hart’s reservations on the vote and the need for 2 weeks as “confusion”.  But again felt this decision as deserving of nothing more that than a unanimous vote by the whole council when they returned back in two weeks, and this he believed the mayor wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.   Councilman Andy Melendrez Asked Councilman Paul Davis and Councilwoman Nancy Hart what exactly they would be looking at in the next two weeks from their constituents.  This struck me  as an oxymoron and quite obvious, City Hall is owned by the community of Riverside, not by the few councilpeople and a private committee. Have we all forgotten this simple premise?  Let’s not forget that BB&K receives millions of dollars from Riverside taxpayers for legal advice to the city and city attorney’s office.  Conflict of interest?  A gift back to the mayor for his BB&K support?   A private committee was formed without imput from the community at large on the issue of City Hall being named, “The Ron Loveridge Riverside City Hall.”   Or should we call it the “Best Best & Krieger Riverside City Hall”?  Since we do so much business with them, I’m surprise Council hasn’t voted to give them a floor at City Hall.   But it all appears the initiation of the naming was more than likely instigated by Councilmen Chris Mac Carthur and William “Rusty” Bailey, both of whose families have been in existence in Riverside for generations and have been part of the fabric of Riverside politics.  Speakers on this issue were vehemently concerned.  Some speakers suggested other names should be considered, names which embody Riverside, such as Eliza Tibbets, John Wesley North or even Frank Miller.  Others stated that Ron is getting paid to do the work of the people.  As our forefathers of this country stated, no one should be elevated to level of king for doing the work of the people.  Now, if Ron did the work of the people and didn’t get paid for doing it for his 30 plus years, I would have no problem voting for Ron today either. This would reflect a sacrifice and a deep passion for the community he served, and it should be that way getting paid. But people in the community also work 30 or 40 years in a job without anyone naming a building after them, and there job is just as important as the mayor’s.  Names are for extraordinary circumstances.  My opinion is that Rin Tin Tin personifies a historical facet of the City of Riverside.  The dog was loyal, honorable, ardent, trustworthy, trust worthy and true.  Something that simply does not personify Mayor Ron Loveridge as someone who was honorable, the ugly truth of the matter he wasn’t.  The establishment kept his behavior under wraps.   It appears this has all gone to the dogs, but the entity I believe embodies Riverside and the name I would use on the walls of city hall would be an icon Riverside keeps close to their heart, therefore, “The Rin Tin Tin Riverside City Hall”.

UPDATE: 10/17/2011: COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS CHANGING HIS TUNE? “IT’S NOT THE TIME TO CONSIDER CHANGE”.  IN REFERENCE TO THE CITY HALL BEING NAMED AFTER MAYOR RON LOVERIDGE.  ADAMS NOW BELIEVES THE NAMING OF CITY HALL NEEDS TO GO TO THE PEOPLE, AND A PRIVATE INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CALL.  PLAYING POLITICS DURING ELECTION TIME?

UPDATE:10/23/2011: PRESS ENTERPRISE REPORTS CITY HALL NAME CHANGE ON HOLD!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…  AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC CONTINUES TO REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL BOOKS!

Posted: October 4, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1

Councilmen Chris Mac Carthur and William R. Bailey III, recommending Riverside City Hall be named “The Ronald O. Loveridge Riverside City Hall”?  Many are asking, “What’s in it for those two”?  “The Ronald O. Loveridge Riverside City Hall”, a lot of words to go on one wall, or should it be named our “Riverside City Hall of Debt”?  Less words, better description.  Debt, the true unfortunate legacy which will remain for many unprecedented years on the backs of local Riversidian’s.  (Item #8).

In closed session at 3:00pm, (Item #5).  This is all about fringe benefits, salaries and the unions. This is a good reason that the City Charter needs to be modified, and whereby items as this should be in open session to be scrutinized by the public.  It’s no secret that 70% to 80% of a cities budget goes to payroll, and these closed door sessions leave an open door to abuse, at taxpayer expense.

(Item #30).  An agreement was made with Riverside City College District and the City of Riverside for the purchase of #100 parking stalls within The Fox Entertainment Plaza.  The one problem with this, The Fox Entertainment Plaza is a redevelopment project.  According to the state order on the suspension of redevelopment, cities are forbidden to enter into any new redevelopment contracts, otherwise, we have a violation.

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW…

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ROLE PLAY?

Posted: October 3, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
2

The City of Riverside Charter requires that it’s charter be reviewed every eight years in order to evaluate and make to changes to the current charter.   The Charter was originally enacted and filed with the Secretary of State January 5, 2007.   Several Community meeting are held which allows community to apply imput and recommendations.  If they actually will, it is up to the Charter Review Committee to bring it to the Council, whereby they will decide.  Charter Review Committee are made up of 15 members. As the Charter currently exist, the language and constructs remain vague.  Is it effective? Or just mass of motionless moves which has no effectiveness at all.  Afterall, the city council make the final decisions.  City Council choose the specific participants of the committee, even it appears to cross the lines of favoritism.  Would you choose a merchant whom leases a city own building, would that be conflict  of interest, would you choose an independent contractor whom is contracted with the city for services, would you choose a member of the local paper to be part of a committee, would you choose a member of a prestigious local law firm evidently being paid for services by the city with no contract?  Could we call these activities conflict of interest.  I found it quite remarkable that the City would, from a multitude of applicants, choose Michelle Ouellette, a member of the Best Best & Krieger where millions of taxpayer dollars are spent for outside legal advise to the city.  Conflict of Interest, I would have to say yes.  The Charter Committee use to be made up of real people, real residents of the community.  What happened City of Riverside?  Your Citizen’s would like to know…

The following are issues with the charter which have been brought up by the community as changes necessary in order that the language will not be so vague, and to bring clarity and preciseness to the City Charter.

  1. Contracts an Leases: Guidelines on to how the City of Riverside should enforce signed agreements.
  2. Decrease in the City Manager’s discretionary spending from $50K to $25K, where it was before Brad Hudson came on board. In one year 28 million was spent, in another year 29 million was spent, this without the oversight of the city council.  Once the citizen request was made for an accounting of the discretionary fund, it suddeenly went down to 1 million.
  3. Citizens shall have the right to remove an item form the consent calendar at City Council meetings.
  4. Section 405, Mayor Pro Temp, guidelines to to this position as it stands, appears to be abused.
  5. Part time to Full time positions of the council. The Council needs to be full time in order to be effective.  The thought behind this is that there would be more time to attend the chicken house.
    This specifically to reduce the power of the City Manager, because full responsibility for actions are ultimately that of the Council.
  6. Nepotism, Section 709.  Again, self explanatory, and yes, part of the culture of City Hall. Clarification on personal relationships between employee’s, and to revisit the personal relationships of representatives and those who receive contracts.  For example, why is Councilman Steve Adam’s brother employeed in Public Works?
  7. Contradiction of State Statutes.  The city charter directly contradicts the state for general government services by tax.
  8. Citizen Audit Committee- an oversight committee which prepares a separate, independent and non-biased review of City expenditures.
  9. Enforcing violations of the charter.  Over the years Council, Mayor and others have allegedley violated the charter with no repercussions.  The need for defining language to enforce violations.  Has the defining language been purposely overlooked?
  10. The Finance Department to be a separate and independent department from the City Manager Department.  There is no reason that the two should be intermingled.
  11. Check Warrants, the city check book, common practice to bring the books of current expenditures to city council meeting for viewing by the public.  Further, what is the criteria for approving an expenditure?
  12. Hiring outside council, such as BB&K, should not be common practice.  The City Attorney’s office should be able to handle the load, if not, the city attorney and the department should be reviewed.
  13. Code of Ethics Complaints.  The issue of how complain dealt with.  The criticism is that complaints are circumvented by the City Attorney’s office, and in doing so, never reach the council for review. Therefore the denial of due process come into play.
  14. Best, Best & Krieger contracts.  It appears that all contracts are oral contracts and no hard contracts with this particular firm exist.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to this firm with no pertinent or rational explaination to the taxpayer.
  15. Environmental Protection clause-that the city continues its efforts toward being a Green City.
  16. Design and Review Committee.  The need to bring them back to the forefront, so that Downtown Main Street Riverside stops looking like Main Street Moreno Valley.
  17. Budget and Review Committee- a committee to review expenditures.
  18. Measure C Committee- a committee of oversight and to prevent abuse.
  19. Company Restrictions- such as unions and contractor limitations in order to prevent the inference of preferential treatment as in contracts etc.
  20. Closed Door City Council Sessions- defining language as to what constitutes a discussion item to be in a closed door session without public imput.

In an atmosphere of government distrust, the question that many in the community of Riverside our asking, will there imput make any difference? Is the whole process a formality by government to give the community an illusionary appearance of community imput an transperancy? Or is it just simply a role play? Do we agree to disagree that no new changes are necessary will be made?  Is the committee a real reflection of the community, or for the selective few?

CITY CHARTER REVIEW MEETINGS: JANET GOESKE COMMUNITY CENTER, 5:30PM, TODAY OCTOBER 3, 2011.

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, YEP, WE SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…

UPDATE: OCTOBER 3, 2011 CHARTER REVIEW MEETING, APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE 15 MEMBER BECOME A NO SHOW? INCLUDING CONGRESSMAN CANDIDATE JOSE MEDINA, DAVID ST. PIERRE, DIANE MEDINA, PETER BENAVIDEZ ETC.  THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS A REVIEW COMMITTEE NOT A REFORM COMMITTEE AS STATED BY THOMAS P. EVANS CHAIR.  THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE COMMITTEE ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR CHANGE, OR IS ONLY A PERFORMANCE OF ACTION, WITH NO REAL ACTION?  INCESTUOUS? TELL US WHAT YOU THINK LEAVE US YOUR COMMENTS!

Older Entries
Newer Entries