Posts Tagged ‘city of anaheim’

Here is the home that you loaned $675,000 to City Manager John Russo at the exclusive, City-only rate of 1.35%  (or lower?) to keep him happy in Riverside.  We’re definitely going to be lining up for this rate at the Bank of Riverside, located at 3600 Main Street, and we suggest you do too.  But if you need check how your investment is maintaining itself, since you the taxpayers hold the property title, you can visit your asset at 7898 Whitegate Avenue, Riverside, California 92506.

But some sources are telling TMC also serves as a super secret City Hall II, since they see the vehicles of Assistant City Manager Marianna Marysheva and Assistant City Manager Alex Nguyen many mornings at the residence.  Coffee must be better than the new vendor at City Hall we figure.  Are they having meetings as some have said, possibly scheming for the next agenda move or simply enjoying Russo’s pool?  Here are some of the home features you the taxpayers hold title to.

                       

“I’LL HAVE A MUCH BIGGER HOUSE IN RIVERSIDE!” (SUBSIDIZED BY THOSE INLAND EMPIRE HICKS)

CITY OF RIVERSIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT REWARDED WITH DONATED DISNEY PASSES FROM THE HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH..DISNEYLAND?  Disneyland Resorts has donated 470 entrance passes to the Riverside Fire Department valued at $78,490.00, which of course, still needs Council approval before they can be accepted.   But residents are asking, “shouldn’t it go right back to the taxpayers?”  After all, we pay for the services of the Fire and the equipment used for their service.  While the City of Riverside is in a $603 Million pension deficit, shouldn’t they do their part in reimbursing the taxpayers.  Others, see the 470 passes in City hands open to abuse. But others are asking if the City of Riverside helped the City of Anaheim on a ‘mutual aid agreement?’  If the City of Anaheim didn’t pay for the cost, how much did it actually cost the taxpayer in regular time, over time and equipment cost?  About a year ago the City of Riverside Council approved a ‘cost recovery’ program.  For now, for example, in the Wood Streets Ward 1, if need a new parking permit because your curb outside your home is a zoned parking area, you must have a permit.  The permit use to be free to homeowners, now it cost them $30.00!

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR THIS LINK TO VIEW PDF VERSION

According to the City of Riverside Administrative Rule, “Employees shall not accept any gift, favor or other consideration, which might reasonably be construed as a conflict of interest and/or an attempt to influence their actions in their performance of their official duties.”  In the City of Los Angeles, City Officials are required to report any gift valued more than $50 on their Statement of Economic Interest.  I would imagine the same goes for City Officials in Riverside.

     

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

FROM THE DESK OF KEVIN DAWSON:  I just found this agenda item on the City of Riverside council agenda for next week. At first this sounds like a “isn’t that nice” story, but the more I’ve been thinking about it, the more I find it upsetting. The city has a rule that any gifts over $25,000, must be accepted by the council. OK, but that threshold is too low and vague ( we’ve herd stories over the years of city managers getting Christmas gifts of expensive liquor and such). But this agenda item is Disneyland giving 470 passes worth $78,000, so that each employee in the city fire department can receive two passes each. That’s a $340 gift to each employee. Why? It’s in appreciation for our city sending mutual aid to the City of Anaheim during the recent fires. The cost of that mutual aid, I think, is shouldered by the people of Riverside. We pay for those employees, their training and equipment. In fact we are taxing ourselves an extra 1% sales tax to purchase 14 new fire trucks. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for Disney to have made a donation toward the replacement cost of equipment used to fight the Anaheim fires? The city reports we have a staff of 211 full times firefighters. I don’t think we dispatched the entire department to Anaheim, so why is the whole department being gifted? I think firefighters are great, but they are well paid. They were well paid to go to Anaheim, and they used the resources of our city to do it, so just why should they be rewarded? Should Fire department management, who make exceptional income, be gifted? The optics of this looks really bad. If Disney is going to gift $340 to RFD non-responder’s, why not extend the gift to all city employees? For that matter, why not extend to all the tax payers who fund RFD?

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

 

PICMIKEVIVIANTWO

The issue du jour is if the voters should designate our appointed City Attorney, Gary Geuss, as the “City Prosecutor” with the primary responsibility of prosecuting state misdemeanors within the city limits?  (At the same time the City Attorney’s Office will also be moving to the City’s newly purchased $40 million Wells Fargo Building (aka, Mission Square to some) to rent from our public utilities department.  Need more space of course.)  In order to grant these additional duties, the City Charter would have to be changed, and hence, the public vote.

The conundrum is that of accountability. While the District Attorney’s Office is an elected position accountable to the taxpayers, the City Attorney is not an elected position, accountable only to the Council. Question is, “Is this a scenario ripe for abuse?” This is a department that was just found to be seeking outside legal services with no contracts and no approval from our Council, that ended up costing taxpayers millions.

Regardless, the city of Riverside is leading the charge in demanding these prosecutorial duties, and it appears they will not take ‘no’ for an answer from District Attorney, Mike Hestrin. In response, the City proposes to place the matter to the voters this June, with a measure tagged, “The Riverside Criminal Prosecution and Crime Reduction Measure.”  If voters approve the change, the city attorney will prosecute offenses such as assault, prostitution, commercial burglary, animal cruelty, graffiti, child abuse and domestic violence.  In light of the historical track record of our City Attorney’s Office the residents in Riverside find that there is still something missing from this story, and continue to question the actions taken to date.

Thirty Miles and Mayoral Candidate Vivian Moreno invited Councilman Mike Soubirous to bring the Citizens of Riverside his “VOTE YES” position.

Councilman Mike Soubirous Says Yes!

The Riverside City Council’s decision to place a proposed City Charter amendment on the ballot was simple. The council believed there was merit to the idea of allowing the Riverside City Attorney the power to prosecute Misdemeanor violations that occur within the City of Riverside. Putting the issue directly before the voters makes sense. Because ultimately they must decide if a Charter amendment is to be approved or denied.

We can debate the merits of the proposal all day long, but at the end of the day it comes down to this: Is it worth doing or not.? Are we better off having the City Attorney’s office handling Misdemeanors or keeping things the way they are – with the County District Attorney handling all crimes? If so, put it to the voters. Let them decide.

This debate should not be about personalities. It’s not about District Attorney Mike Hestrin or City Attorney Gary Geuss. It’s about Riverside. It’s about the people of Riverside. Should we enhance or build upon what the District Attorney’s office currently provides to us, or should we keep what we have?

Every day, councilmembers field concerns from residents and business owners complaining about everyday quality of life issues such as panhandling, street thugs, homeless, prostitution, graffiti, vandalism and more. We have pushed our police department to do more and more to combat these concerns. They counter back to us that many of these cases are not being prosecuted. They have provided written proof of these claims.

Our cops are getting discouraged. They work hard, write lengthy reports, only to have the case rejected, pled to a lesser charge or other disposition simply because there is just not enough Deputy District Attorneys to handle the huge caseloads. How discouraging is that?

It’s not District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s fault. He’s elected and tasked with running the District Attorney’s office, but there is a catch. The County CEO sets Mr. Hestrin’s budget and the County Board of Supervisors approves that budget. In the end, Mr. Hestrin must do all he can to stretch that allotted money. Typically, it starts with prosecuting the serious Felonies, then the lesser Felonies. After the Felonies, the prosecution of serious Misdemeanors and finally, the lesser Misdemeanors.

He does a great job with what limited resources he’s given.

The Deputy DA’s work hard and are often underpaid. They work long hours and have high caseloads.

Funds are limited. Riverside County is yet again reporting money problems, cuts are on the way including furloughs and layoffs. This will severely impact the DA’s office and their ability to adequately cover the county’s needs and the needs of the many cities within the county. Even if county revenues were to increase, there are many higher priority needs the county must work on. First is increasing jail space, along with the current plans to expand the County Medical Center and more.

The City of Riverside is not unhappy with the DA’s office. We understand what obstacles our District Attorney faces. We simply hope to have the power – as a Charter City – to enhance what the D.A.’s office does. We are looking at our quality of life needs now, 5 years out and 20 years from now.

The City Council is simply offering a proposal to the people as a direct response to resident’s demands that we do more to curb the negative issues and problems facing our city each day.

This proposal will cost money to implement. Is it worth the investment? It’s up to the voters to decide. More information will be provided at upcoming community meetings and on ballot statements.

If the people of Riverside believe the City Prosecutor Program is the answer to the problems they complain about, they will pass the Charter amendment. If they don’t believe this will help, then it won’t pass. It’s that simple.

This is nothing revolutionary – many cities in California prosecute their own city’s Misdemeanors. It just hasn’t been done in Riverside County yet. So far, most seem very satisfied with their City Prosecutor Programs. These programs have been in place for many decades. Cities like Los Angeles, Anaheim, Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Santa Monica and many others.

The city’s plan for a Neighborhood Prosecutor Program calls for having city attorney prosecutors working closely with our police officers and detectives. Finding solutions to problems and doing what it takes to best mitigate those problems. Not just prosecution and jail, but getting to the root of the problems.

This is something the District Attorney’s office can’t adequately provide due to limited funding imposed by the county. There are just too many cities competing for the same level of prosecution of their Misdemeanor cases as we would like to have in Riverside.

Having our own city prosecutors allows Riverside the ability to focus on those crimes and issues that affect us each day. These are problems that hurt Riverside’s ability to recruit and keep businesses here. These problems affect our property values and our everyday way of life.

Our resident’s have demanded we tackle these issues to the best of our ability. We have this tool available for us to use. It’s up to our residents to choose if they want to pay for this tool and use it to the maximum benefit of those living and investing in Riverside.

 

Mayoral Candidate 2016 Vivian Moreno Says NO :

Vote Vivian Moreno Mayor Riverside 2016……. Bringing the real issues and truth to the public

I found this quote from a local Oakland newspaper:…According to Russo’s “make city government more accountable, more transparent and more effective.” However, a closer inspection reveals that these are no more than hollow words to veil their failed promises, brokerage of white collar crime, advocating of racism, selective prosecution and white class privilege!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: NEEDS MO’ MONEY….  WILL THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BE BROKERS OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME UNDER THE GUISE OF THE HOMELESS AND PANHANDLING?  VOTE NO TO GROWING EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT AND THE CONTINUATION OF ABUSE IN THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

Most likely in June, the voters of Riverside will be decide by ballot measure whether to add a new government-run program to City Hall’s ever-expanding arsenal. It will be called something like the Neighborhood Law Corp (NLC) under the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. City Attorney, Gary Geuss, stated the Neighborhood Law Corp program will cost the taxpayers $2.5 million, while our District Attorney, Mike Hestrin, says more like $5 million.  Geuss geusstimates $750,000 to $1 million in fines and fees will go back into the city’s coffers per year. I believe it will bring in closer to 2 million, if not more. And where will this money come from? Residents and businesses, but of course.

If you go to any of the community meetings that address this new program, the message coming from City Hall is, “your altruistic government will have more CONTROL over the homeless, panhandling, and prostitution.”  Well … common sense will tell you that the homeless and panhandlers are not going to be paying a cool million in fines and fees. So where will it come from? You guessed it – from us!  The real CONTROL will be over whomever can pay the fines.

Another real concern we have with this program, is that we are growing our government at an unsustainable rate.  We will be adding 17 new employees, 12 of whom will be Lawyers, as part of the NLC Program.  We already have 13 Attorneys, this will take us to a grand total of 25 Attorneys hired by the city of Riverside.

Mr. City Attorney, Gary Geuss, came here from the City of L.A.  They have 4 million residents and 16 attorneys that handle their “Neighborhood Program”, or one attorney per 250,000 citizens.  Riverside wants 12 Attorneys, and that would be 1 attorney per 25,000 Citizens.  In L.A. up until 2014, they only had 4 Attorneys on this program, that’s one attorney for 1 million citizens.  In Oakland, California, where our very clever City Manager, John Russo, hatched this program in 2002, they have three Attorneys for about 400,300 Citizens.  That’s one Attorney for 133,000 Citizens. I just don’t get it. In fact, like all too often in the good ole’ River City, perhaps the real reason they want to hire more attorneys has just not been revealed to us.

City Councilman, Mike Soubirous, Mike Gardner, Chris MacArthur, and Jim Perry all voted YES to place the city prosecutor measure on the June 2016 ballot.  Paul Davis said he wanted this program eventually, but voted NO; John Burnard wanted to increase the Police Department, so he also voted NO; Andy Melendrez just said NO, but the vote passed and unless some last minute deal is reached with the D.A., this sucker’s going to the people (at a nice tidy cost of $80k just to put it on the ballot) to decide.

At the Council meeting it was brought up by Raincross Group man-about-town, Tom Evans, that the City wasn’t even following their own Charter and that the Council should form a Charter Review Committee and vet this issue with the public.  Once the committee finds consensus on the best way to go about implementing a city prosecutor’s office, they make a recommendation to the Council “to ask” the voters for final approval.  The Council decided to ignore that option (hey, I thought they valued public input? Lol.)

There have been a total of two hours that I’m aware of spent informing the public on this very important issue.  I have attended two community meetings and one City Council meeting when the issue of changing the Charter to take prosecutorial powers for misdemeanors away from the District Attorney’s office, and give them to the City Attorney’s office.  At the community meetings I attended, this was hailed as a Neighborhood Law Corp. program and will address livability issues as the homeless, pan handling and prostitution.  At the City Council meeting, the message changed a bit.  It seems the city of Riverside also wants to be the power brokers for white collar crime, code enforcement cases, bad landlords, liquor stores, seedy businesses, unruly bars and restaurants, and or anything else they can think of. Is this the start of more legal abuses in the city of Riverside City Attorney’s office? If history is any predictor of the future…ABSOLUTELY!

At the February City Council meeting where the vote took place, there was a diverse group in attendance: the local activists, the whistleblower employees, a representative from the District Attorney’s Office, the League of Women Voters, the Raincross Group, and a couple of Chamber of Commerce members.  With a group like that there is almost always disagreement, but with this vote everyone was opposed – it was almost unanimous.  That evening 95% of the public said NO!  The City Council voted to approve the ballot measure against all the concerns of the public.

I also feel it’s important to add that the District Attorney of Riverside County is an elected position, whereby this person is directly accountable to the public.  The City Attorney, whom City staff and elected want to usurp the D.A. is an appointed position, who is only accountable to the City Council.  Is the public set up for abuse?  Who will the public go to if there is a grievance?  How do you replace 4 of the 7 members of the Council if you don’t like the way our City Attorney uses his new prosecutorial powers?  You can’t, and that’s a big problem.  Our personal liberties are being threatened.

Now you have to ask yourself, is our honeymooning City Manager, John Russo, just running the city of Riverside on autopilot. He brings us the Sunshine Ordinance, the 2-year Budget, and our new favorite Assistant City Manager Alex Nguyen (absolutely fabulous honey), and now the Neighborhood Law Corp.  Let’s take a look at June 8th, 2011, article “Russo’s Next Big Challenge”:

“Russo also is seeking to make Alameda’s city government more user-friendly, a task he’ll delegate to Alex Nguyen, who will follow him over from Oakland. Nguyen headed Russo’s Neighborhood Law Corps, a groundbreaking program that allowed Oakland residents to access his office to solve quality-of-life issues, taking on slum lords, liquor stores, and other blight. Russo, however, was quick to say that people won’t always be happy with the solutions he proposes for Alameda. ‘Real decisions mean real disappointments,’ he warned”

Queue later photo of the drama behind this program in Oakland. The public is ANGRY over potential fraud in the Neighborhood Law Corp program:

russprotest
Who is really behind this new Neighborhood Law Corp. program?  City Attorney Geuss stated this program was A#1, top of the list, king of the hill, A nummmmmber ooooooooone, top priority of the Council.  In fact, Geuss stated he was instructed by our electeds to begin implementing this program immediately after he was hired.  We wonder why the public and press just found out about it if it was so important and being worked on for almost a year?

So, how did City Manager Russo’s and his trusty sidekick, Nguyen’s foray into prosecuting the public work out after being implemented in Oakland in 2002?  They spent way too much money and created a firestorm of D R A M A.  There was so much drama that it was a distraction to the City and to the Office of the City Attorney.  All we need is more controversy.  Was this program the real reason Mr. Russo left the city of Oakland? Maybe. This program may be nothing new to our City Manager or or City Attorney, but I believe the residents and business owners in the city of Riverside have had enough drama for a lifetime.

To hopefully shut the door on the whole idea of a city prosecutor’s office, I point out that City Attorney Geuss continually compares our city to the city of Anaheim, who has an appointed City Prosector.  So let’s take a look at these similarities:

Medium Income Anaheim: $62,000

Medium Income Riverside: $32,000

Anaheim PRIVATELY OWNED: Disneyland, the Honda Center, Anaheim Convention Center, Angels Stadium, the Anaheim Resort, numerous hotels, The Platinum Triangle, and really great fireworks every day.

Riverside GOVERNMENT OWNED: Fox Theater, Riverside Convention Center, and really great fireworks three times a year.

Population of Anaheim: 350,000     Out–of-town guests: THOUSANDS every day.

Riverside Population:  300,000        Out -of -town guests: THOUSANDS every year?

Annual Budget Anaheim 1.7 Billion

Annual Budget City of Riverside: 900 Million

Anaheim Prosecution Program 10 Attorneys Sometimes up to 15 Attorneys depending on the cases.  I was told of these figures today by the Anaheim prosecutors office.

City of Riverside Prosecution Program wants 12 Attorneys

Apples to apples – Anaheim vs. Riverside – and I say there is NO comparison.  Anaheim is unique from all other communities.  The comparisons coming from our City Attorney is political rhetoric, and that is why the public is so concerned with this program.  Common sense will tell you there is more to the story! (But they ain’t telling you what…you’ll find out later).  VOTE NO.

FOR MORE INFORMATTION COME TO THE “NO ON MEASURE-A” FACEBOOK SITE!

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

talleybw

According to the San Bernardino Sentinel, Colton City Attorney Christina Talley has been relieved of her position as of September 18,2014, or could we say “fired?”   Christina Talley works for the infamous Best, Best & Krieger, and incidentally has been hired by the City of Riverside through BB&K to be interim City Attorney, after former City Attorney Greg Priamos skipped town when he couldn’t handle the heat in the kitchen to Riverside County.  Of course, the County Boys embraced Priamos with open arms.  Accordingly, Ms. Talley appears to have been passed around to cities like a bad can of sardines beyond there expiration date.   Cities continued to employ her, regardless of the smell she left behind.  According to the article there is more to the story then meets the eye, not only was City of Colon Colton concerned with her ineptness with Brown Act regulations, whereby she allowed non-agendized items to be discussed by council.  But even more discerning, was what occurred at a June 3 Colton Council meeting , at which a decision was made to place City Manager Stephen Compton on administrated leave.  This was as a result of Compton’s inquiry with reference to questionable financial practices, including “off-the-book” projects in public works department which led him very close to uncovering details of how certain projects were funded, including several unauthorized projects which were being run out of the public works department.  This of course, brought scrutiny, according to the article, toward the actions of public works director Amer Jakher, who enjoyed a close relationship with a majority of the of the city council.  As the focus pointed to Jakher, some council members were pushing Compton to examine the city’s contract with  Best, Best & Krieger and Talley, and potentially put the contract for city legal services out to bid.

In July of 2014, a group of Colton residents filed a complaint with the city to investigate alleged irregularities in the city’s public works department alleging potential misappropriation of public funds, gift of public funds and misuse of public funds which benefitted two city council members.  The citizens provided documentation indicating that the “off the books” activity, i.e., work that had not been considered or approved by the city council, had indeed taken place in the public works division.  That request was moved forward by Police Chief Steve Ward, who was then acting in the capacity of city manager during Compton’s absence.  Chief of Police/City Manager Ward initiated an investigation and personally forwarded the request to Talley.  The investigation was handed over to another Best Best & Krieger attorney, Ronald Ball, who is “of counsel” with the firm.  Several weeks later it was discovered that Talley, however, neglected to provide Ball with the background documentation that had been provided to the city by the group of residents requesting the investigation.  Thus, the investigation failed to focus on the “off-the-books” activity in the public works department that was at the root of the concerns expressed by the citizens group, and the final report reflected an incorrect timeline of events which discredited its conclusion that two of the members of the council, Frank Gonzales and Susan Oliva, had not benefited from the misapplication of resources in the public works department.  Manipulation of the facts?  Read the whole story in the September 19th article in the San Bernardino Setinel.

Beginning in August 2014, according to the San Bernardino Sentinel, Talley became less and less visible in Colton.  She was replaced in some venues by Marco Martinez, a partner with Best Best & Krieger. In fact, Talley’s mishandling of the Colton account appears to have impacted her standing with Best Best & Krieger, which now appears to be in danger of losing Colton as a client altogether.  Talley, who formerly had an office in Best Best & Krieger’s Irvine office, where she was formerly listed as an “associate,” has been consistently unavailable at that location since August.  She is no longer listed as an “associate,” but is now deemed to be “of counsel,” an indication Best Best & Krieger is seeking to disassociate itself from her.

But it doesn’t stop there, in the “Anaheim Blog”, Christina Talley who was Anaheim’s City Attorney since 2009 was asked to resign in January of 2013, with what appears to be her ineptness, again,  with the Brown Act.  The “Voice of Orange County” also brought forward another issue with Talley with reference to her alleged ineptness with the Brown Act.

But in my eyes what we see is a powerful law firm who has been allowed to be part of the very fabric which ultimately represents the interest of the taxpayers.  It certainly appears that they are their to protect their taxpayer paycheck with bad legal advice.

164361.ME.0304.Bell-Prelim.IK

Edward Lee

As in the instance whereby the City of Bell sues former City Attorney Edward Lee, a BB&K attorney, for let’s see, “Faulty Legal Advice!”  So Riverside, you know have a little information of how the City of Riverside rolls in what is in it’s best interest…it may very well not be you.  What appears to be allegedly evident is that Best Best & Krieger has been manipulating California City politics through their “fly-by-night” team of legal attorneys, which seem to cause more financial liability to the taxpayer, then financial protection to the taxpayer.

Well I would expect that the City of Riverside’s spokes hole and former PE reporter, Phil Pritchard may attempt to spin the story by just saying she left Colton to work for the City of Riverside… Watch Two Timing Talley’s antics unfold at today’s City Council Meeting, and you the taxpayer decide!  Is she really inept, or really good at playing the field of City Politics?  Should we allow uncontracted legal work to continue with BB&K?  Should we allow BB&K Trash Attorneys to represent the taxpayers?  I think not.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: COUNCILMAN MELENDREZ: HUMANITARIAN RESOLUTION TRIGGERS ETHICS COMPLAINT.

melendrez1A

Councilman Andy Melendrez’s attempt to create the City of Riverside as a “Sanctuary City” appeared to be hidden according to many in the community and not brought forward at a Tuesday’s City Council Meeting.  As a result, a formal Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint was filed by Fontana Council candidate Tressy Capps, specifically against Melendrez’s assertion that their would be no “fiscal impact” in the adoption of this resolution, as stated in the City Council Memorandum.  The following is the filed complaint by Tressy Capps.

UPDATE: TRESS CAPPS IN THE NEWS: THE DAILY CALLER: WOMAN WHO REALLY HATES MEXICAN FLAG LOSE JOB OVER HATRED OF MEXICAN FLAG.  The title says she hates the Mexican Flag, but the report list no direct statement by her with the words “hate” etc.

complaintone

CLICK THIS LINK TOVIEW FULL ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED BY CAPPS

The following is the City Council Memorandum stating that there would be no “fiscal impact” with the adoption of this humanitarian resolution.  The meaning of a resolution is defined as a firm decision to do something, or not to do something.

memorandum

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM

What was more discerning was this item/resolution it was placed on the Consent Calender, as some have indicated, a way to pass and sneak a real issue from the community.  Rather than just passed, it was brought out from the consent calender for discussion.  This play on politics does not make Andy a proponent for what’s right and wrong, as indicated by many in his ward.  The resolution states the following: “WHEREIS: The City of Riverside hereby stands in support of sanctuary and humanitarian efforts or assistance in the processing and treatment of all immigrants, including those recently arriving in the United States..”    According to the Press Enterprise, Melendrez stated that “the resolution would not have actually required the city to do anything, nor would it have committed any city funds.”  Even our interim City Attorney Christina Talley chimed in when asked for an opinion by stating the following, “Based upon the face of the resolution, I didn’t see anything in that resolution that conflicted with federal or state law.”   But when you look at the resolution statement it appears rather vaguely written, possibly not to directly take issue with the real point, “illegal” immigration.  His point of stating “including those recently arriving in the United States,” would actually imply helping immigrants “illegally” in the country.  It also seems that the City of Riverside supports efforts of efforts and assistance in the processing of all immigrants.  According the statement, this would imply both “legal” and “illegal” immigrants.  If this is true, the City of Riverside would effectively stating in this resolution that it supports breaking the law by supporting efforts to process “illegal” immigrants.  This I would say is a direct conflict with Federal Law, and out of the scope of a local municipality, such as our City.  Further, the definition of a “child” is someone under the age of 18 year of age, in some in some instances it may very well be under 19 years of age. The full original resolution is as follows:

resolutionone

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE MELENDREZ HUMANITARIAN RESOLUTION

Capps states that this resolution directly violates specifically page 4, item #6 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected Officials.  She cited the item, “they will seek to insure that information provided by the city government to the public is accurate and clear.”  Where is City Attorney Greg Priamos when we need him?  Hell, he would just make matters worse.

CofEone        Cofetwo

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT (CLICK IMAGES ABOVE TO ENLARGE)

According to some in the community, this resolution advocatess breaking Federal law.. Not only is he advocating breaking Federal Law, he is stating it would be acceptable for the City of Riverside to assume acceptance of those who have entered the country illegally.  Some in the community feel this was done without consideration of those in his community who are legal, and need help, such as are veterans, homeless, residents struggling financially to make ends meet etc.  On the other hand, proponents state that we need to ensure that the security, protection and needs of illegal or undocumented children are addressed on a humanitarian level.  Which appears to be acceptable since immigration is a Federal issue.  Though the term “children” has yet to be defined in these resolutions. Many city’s have adopted similar resolutions, even some states, there is really no conflict as such which would interfere with Federal laws.  But what does this mean when a resolution such as this, is adopted at a local level?

UPDATE: COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ AT THE SEPTEMBER 23RD COUNCIL MEETING INSISTED THAT THE RESOLUTION FOR “SANCTUARY CITY” STATUS FOR RIVERSIDE BE BROUGHT BACK FOR COUNCIL VOTE ONCE AGAIN.  WILL THIS MEAN HIDDEN ADDITIONAL ASPECTS WHICH WILL BURDEN THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE?

CITY COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS INVESTIGATION IN LIMBO…ACCORDING TO THE RIVERSIDE PRESS ENTERPRISE!

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQoAgain, what happens if the whole investigation is dropped, who is responsible for the bill? You got it, we are!  Should an incompetent City Manager Scott Barber reimburse the taxpayer for his inexperience?  Then again attempting to sue the taxpayer as a direct result of his own personal conflicts?

UPDATE: CINDY ROTH AND THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER RECEIVES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, OVER A HALF A MILLION OVER THREE YEARS FOR “KEEP RIVERSIDE CLEAN AND BEAUTIFUL” PROGRAM, AS VOTED AT SEPTEMBER 23RD CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE ONLY NO VOTE BY COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS.  INCIDENTALLY, COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS FOUND THIS QUITE PECULIAR ENOUGH THAT HE REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE “CONSENT CALENDER’ FOR DISCUSSION.  The discussion led to questions regarding how Cindy Roth’s Greater Riverside Chamber is paid.  First, the taxpayer must pay for this “Volunteer Program” in their “Trash Bill.”  Five other cities in California wouldn’t think of doing this.  Riverside does.  Therefore, the issue of this item becomes an illegal charge or tax against the taxpayer!   Since the charge comes from the Public Works Department, it must be brought forth for “bid.”  Secondly, there must be a contractors contract, referencing item by item, how the taxpayer money is to be spent.  Non of this has ever been done!  With her attorney husband and now Senator, “Something seems to be Rotten in Denmark!”  Question have arose over the disbursements of taxpayer monies, which appear to have never been reported to Council in the past.  Taxpayers continue to argue that it is a “money laundering” scheme.  Incidently, Cindy Roth, CEO/President, her husband is now Senator for the State of California, Richard Roth…  In the past has done outside legal work for the City of Riverside, which has been allegedly been questionable with reference in how his work really benefited Riverside residents.

RothPic

Cindy Roth and the Greater Riverside Chamber was also against Measure A, which was not in the best interest of the taxpayers, and evidently is why her behind the scenes political activities at City Hall have been seen as some, as a political powerhouse, which includes former CEO and Publisher of the Riverside Press Enterprise , Ron Redfern.   Riverside, wouldn’t you think something is wrong in Denmark?  At the cost of  $574,754 over three years to the taxpayer in your Trash Bill?  Now folks, this is a volunteer program…  Technically according to City policy, since this money arrives from Public Works, this item must go out to bid, secondly, there must be a contractors contract initiated itemizing the cost of services provided.  This was not done.  Also, an expenditure report has never been given to the City to disclose a specific itemization of disbursements.  So, where does the money go?  With this in mind, questions arise to how the monies are actually spent.  First of all, is there a specified account for this money?  Or is this money just deposited in the Greater Riverside Chamber’s general fund?  To possibly be used for Councilmember and Mayor special trips, campaigns etc.

FRNTMEMO                                    KRCAB

CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM                      CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

UPDATE: IS THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES GUIDELINES NOTHING MORE THAN A “SHAKE DOWN” SCHEME PERPETRATED BY THE CALIFORNIA TRIAL LAWYERS THROUGH LEGISLATION?  NOW UNDER THE DECEPTIVE NAME OF CONSUMER ATTORNEY’S OF CALIFORNIA?  NEW STORY IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE..

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 THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN NOW, SINCE GREG SKIPPED TOWN TO THE COUNTY)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR TOXIC DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM