This was an article we posted back in May of 2012 when we requested all contracts for outside legal help by the City Attorney’s office. There were no documents responsive! This was recently brought to the forefront with a new article by Dan Bernstein from the Press Enterprise, “Riverside: The (Hidden) Cost of Business.” Bernstein refers to all the non contractual outside legal services which are not documented, a hidden cost as he calls it, but not hidden to taxpayer monies. One of the most striking documents we at TMC found a couple of years ago was one which Best, Best & Krieger had their own charge card, to charge the City of Riverside as they needed to for legal work rendered. Charges to the tune in excess of six figures?
The writers of the below public records request were trying to determine by what authority did the City Attorney’s Office claim their right to hire outside legal without City Council approval. The following first two documents are the letter of request to the City Attorney’s Office asking them to answer the question of no contracts. The last letter is a response by City Attorney Greg Priamos stating there are no documents responsive.
With this in mind, an new issue arose, this was of the City Manager, Scott Barber. The PE reported that the city has hired, with two contracts of $49K each, a law firm to conduct an investigation of two councilman, Davis and Soubirous. The $49K is significant because it is just below the $50K cap that the city manager can spend without seeking council approval. We don’t contest that the City Manager has the right to spend this money without council approval, but we don’t believe that Section 701 of the City Charter gives the City Manager the authority to hire outside legal without City Council approval.
Section 703 of the City Charter says: “The city clerk shall have the power and be required to: (c) maintain separate books, in which a record shall be made of all written contracts and official bonds.” We believe the intent of this charter requirement is for there to be a publicly accessible record of how public funds are being spent. The practice of hiring outside legal services circumvents the intent of this section.
Section 1401 of the city charter states: “the violations of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment of a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.” We can therefore ask the question, “Is it per incident?” If it is, it certainly can add up for some individuals. When we are talking about millions of dollars, as indicated in the Press Enterprise, we have to ask the question, “Does it become a felony?” How then can one account for such mismanagement of taxpayer monies without a legal rationale for the beneficial purposes of those monies? What is the real truth here that appears to have been circumvented by City Attorney and City Managers by a document called a City Charter? A document which appears not to be abided by when it should.
We say this because of the circumstances. We bring the incident which involved our current City Manager Scott Barber. Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza. He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact. Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager? The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council. Certainly violated the Charter Amendment. What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them? A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.
The question is, “Why should the taxpayer put up with what appears to be “rogue” activity? What should be done about it? Why isn’t anything being done about it now?” It is appearing that by default we are experiencing the “two sets of rules syndrome.” So why does the house always win, when the taxpayer should be in charge?
It has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside. What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.
According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated. When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent. According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record. Therefore, non is required. Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on? This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading. And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies. You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture. Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos. But there was nothing to hide after allowing $159 million in illegal RDA loans to be approved by City Council, then rejected by the Finance Office for the State of California. What would then be the result of his performance evaluation, which was being discussed in closed sessions Tuesday April 4, 2012, at City Council? I’m sure, just as it went well for our former City Manager, this will go well..
Above is a letter sent to Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos. The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.
On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, ‘how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”? What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with. Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer. We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act. As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract? I would say not. When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”? Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer? If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.” One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside? What is it between the two? As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card? It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?
And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more. So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers? It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost. So who’s minding the store? Inquiring taxpayers would like to know. But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register. Why? Quite possibly in their incestuous relationship that has grown over the years.
Such as the cozy arrangement between certain ex city of riverside employees or just BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees. Conflict of interest? The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside, who previously worked with the city, on their boards and committees are numerous. Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership). BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California. In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach. What a surprise, it’s signed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K. Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”. Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off… Wish we could, but it gets better.
Then there is developer Mark Rubin’s connected liaison with the City of Riverside and the City’s alter ego, the Redevelopment Agency. There is no doubt the brazen display of a conflict of interest displayed and perpetrated by the City of Riverside in approving the Citrus Tower’s lease deal between Best, Best & Krieger, Developer Mark Rubin and the City of Riverside. “Three peas in a pod?” Is it at all possible that the BB&K deal was orchestrated and designed to provide a lease revenue stream for the bonds held on the Citrus Tower project? Was BB&K involved in bond advice for the city? Councilman Paul Davis first told colleagues he’d heard concerns about “the general perception of the gift of public funds and creating a monopoly” to benefit a private developer, but he ended by saying it was a moot point because the city already has signed a lease. How long will the City of Riverside continue to terrorize the taxpayer with shear incompetence and their breach of fiduciary duty to protect the coffers of hard earned taxpayer monies by the City Attorney’s Office? Good questions for City Attorney Greg Priamos, who coicidently has attended two of my alma maters, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California. A sad day for both university’s Gregory. The question in the community are the ruthless expenditures within the City Attorney’s Office. How much taxpayer money has been litigated out, or settled out as if it was your own, without any rational cognitive reasoning? Or was it just for sport? Or is the threat of litigation just a city tool used against the opposition for what is known in the business as “client control”? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. TMC believes the later is mostly true at our expense. Therefore why would the city litigate to the tune of 9 million, then lose, and then have to award out 250K in one documented case? Of course, that wouldn’t happened because after all as taxpayers we should all believe what the city does is rational and in our best interest. Well the truth of the fact is, that it did, and nothing was in our best interest. Though he serves at the pleasure of the council, should the City Attorney answer rightfully to the employer, which would be “we the people”? This I say because the council and mayor has failed to supervise the activities of the city attorney. The failure is such that we must ask the question of what makes one believe the city attorney needs to incorporate police lights with all the bells and whistles in their pimped out city vehicle? Where did one lose the sight of whose money it really is? TMC can’t answer that, but I’m sure there is a rational answer from our city attorney, as in the case with the ‘no contracts allowed with our best customer.’ It may not be right but it is an answer. Ultimately, the council and mayor is responsible for the activities, failures and actions of the city attorney. In an article in Cactus Thorns, the 29 Palms City Council questions the spending to their City Attorney, and when they looked at public records, that was even a total shock. In this continuing painful saga, one can hire BB&K to run a city attorney’s office. Carte Blanche in Riverside. For a price, instant city attorney, as in this article in The Orange County Register? In the City of Yorba Linda, for example, BB&K attorney Sonia Carvalho represented the city in the capacity of the City Attorney for over a decade. Conflict of interest?
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
Councilman Paul Davis made the call to State Controller John Chiang’s office in order to initiate an audit this past Wednesday morning. At City Council this past Tuesday, questions just seemed to abound in the audience, and when the answers to questions just seemed not to be right, it just generated more questions. The more questions that were asked specifically two Council member Davis and Soubirous, just seem to cause blow back by City personnel. But why? In July 2009 the rate for a single family dwelling was $14.94. By July 2014, the rate was to be $28.55 + CPI (Consumer Price Index). That evidently was not enough to cover increasing debt by a utility the public owns, and should actually get a divident in my eyes. But who was running the store? Because since it was not enough, Public Works had to pose an increase beyond $28.55 + CPI. Councilman Mac Arthur motioned to pass the increase to $30.98 this July 2014, a $2.43 jump. Many in the audience at City Council called out for a “recall.” From 2009 to 2018 the sewer rate will jumped $16.04…quite remarkable! Why did this happen? Answers didn’t seem to fit logically into the template of rationality and the audience knew it..
The answers that were given was that CSD’s (Community Service Districst), such as the Jurupa Valley, Edgemont, Rubidoux and Highgrove were not paying their fair share. The Sewer equipment needed to be upgraded because some of it went back as far as 1940. Also, the recession, population growth rates, Federal requirement and as Councilman Adams suggested a “miscalculation.” Of course, the one we know, is debt service from all the bonds taken out against the sewer. Bonds that should have been used for the very sewer upgrade they are asking for.
The most significant points Council members Soubirous and Davis inquired about, how did the City of Riverside reach this pinnacle point of desperation? In other words, how did it all happen? Residents pay a sewer fee in order to maintain, repair and replace sewer related items. If the fees were adequate over the years, maybe more than adequate, that the City borrowed/loaned/advanced monies to other City projects etc. etc., in the midst, did they inadvertently leave are sewer system to the back burner? Therefore, are these rate hikes really necessary? It seems to me, that someone was negligent at overseeing the property of the public.
While Councilman Gardner attempted to say that maybe we won’t need an audit, because we have CSD (Community Service Districts) revenue, reclamation water sales, rate hikes and more bond sales… Councilman Mac Arthur said nothing was done for many years, but motions for rate hike increase, does Mayor Bailey motion to second? Rate hikes are necessary in order for bond sales to occur. Both Gardner and Mac Arthur did not address Davis’s comment of bringing John Chiangs office for an audit of the sewer accounts.
The Membrane Bioreactor is it really necessary? The reclaimed water as a result is looked at as a commodity and a revenue source! Therefore, shouldn’t the residents receive a divident or a lower sewer rate as a result of this? Isn’t a Membrane Bioreactor indicative of being part of a City’s Purple Pipe Program? This is another question which we hope the State Controllers Office will have an answer for. What are we paying for? Did the City of Riverside sneak in the purple pipe project into the sewer master plan to get around Proposition 218 formalities? If this is the case will the City of Riverside be set up for another Proposition 218 violation? I’m certainly beginning to feel as many in the community feel, that there “corruption” within the City of Riverside.
Remember, we are a City which owns are own public utilities, we own are water rights, we own the sewer. So why should we pay for the purple pipe apparatus, whereby reclaimed will be sold at a profit and the taxpayer won’t directly benefit?
Secondly, what appeared to be quite discerning, was when Davis questioned what appeared to be discrepancies in posting of accounting entries. Whereby the post entry date was done first then the input date was done later, whereby it should be vise versa. Further, there were several months between the entries which didn’t appear to comply with normal standard accounting. According to Davis there was a significant number of backdated entries, not just one or two. CFO Bret Mason explained it was a practice of closing the books for the fiscal year. Fired former Construction Contracts Administer, Sean Gill brought this issue questioning how the city does contracts. TMC did a story on this whereby checks were made fromFederal CDBG funds before expiration of those funds, then placed in a desk until they were needed. Below is a document which appears to be post dated.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
“The city fired me when I tried to make people aware of their corruption. Its been going on for years. Brad Hudson, Siobhan Foster and Tom Boyd all deserve to be fired for their corruption along with half of the city council. People think Bell is corrupt, I hope they keep digging into the City of Riverside.” Sean Gill, commented in the Press Enterprise back in May of 2011.
At a finance committee meeting on Wednesday May 14, 2014, Councilman Paul Davis asked the question at to why the staff seems to always go nuts every time we ask a question? This is probably very telling. Staff is not use to being ask relevant questions in TMC’s eyes and may construe this behavior indicative with interfering with city staffs work or creating a hostile work environment.. Thus, we now see two councilman who ask tough questions and are now being investigated. Who are the suspects at the crux of this investigation? Councilman Soubirous asked at this meeting that a Workshop Committee be formed, for the record, to look into a forensic audit by the State Controllers office. Again, the appearance of this idea made everyone nervous. If everything is on the up and up, why should anyone be nervous?
Residents in their district and all over the City of Riverside are calling the Councilman Heroes! This is a big deal, National News Agencies are being contacted, and are keeping a close eye on the City of Riverside. The majority or the residents will back up the forces of good which will challenge the forces that exist in the City of Riverside. Many residents simply feel intimidated to challenge the forces of the City of Riverside, as many feel they will be targeted by Code Enforcement indirectly for frivolous charges, which will cost individual residents financially to much to fight. That’s how the City wins. More to come on this.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
COUNCILMAN MIKE SOUBIROUS, WARD 3 COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS, WARD 4
Tonight’s explosive Council meeting regarding the rate increases to residents, ended with questions regarding bonds, loans, advances and debt service to the taxpayer. The new rate hikes were passed by Council, to replace the old. According to Councilman Davis, this rate hike will be a 302% increase since the year 2008. Councilman Davis also made a motion to bring California State Controller John Chiang do to a forensic audit of the sewer. Councilman Soubirous asked for same, but to include water and electric. If we are to increase the rates we need to bring trust back to the community by having a independent entity evaluate the taxpayer’s books over the years. Davis questioned CFO Brent Mason regarding posting dates and why some entries were backdated. The rest of Council and Mayor Bailey were visually disturbed and shaken by this call. TMC was right, the ones who went for the rate increase were, Councilman Mike Gardner, Chris Mac Arthur, Steve Adams and Jim Perry. When Councilman Jim Perry asked for a seperation of the issues, between the rate increases and forensic audit, the audience asked for a recall! The audience was shocked at Perry’s position not to support the issue of a forensic audit, but he called for a workshop on it. Councilman Soubirous and Davis can call the State Controller directly requesting an audit without the approval of council or a workshop! Councilman Andy Melendrez was absent from council, was he glad he was? What does this mean for the City of Riverside? The end of corruption? What is the Council afraid of finding? A Swiss Bank Account? It is evident that Davis and Soubirous find the atmosphere in the City of Riverside necessary to ask the State Controller to come in and bring closure for the taxpayer. What is the nervousness of those council people who are against this. Colusion? Why wouldn’t they see this as a win, win situation for the taxpayer? Especially newcomer, Councilman Jim Perry? Why would he attempt to divert attention to a prominent and relative issue somewhere else? Did they get to him? Coucilman Chris Mac Arthur asked the question to the City Attorney if it was proper to request the services of John Chiang’s office. It was obvious that City Attorney Greg Priamos did not want an audit, when he told council that they should take CFO Mason’s word that the books are in order, but left to their discretion if an outside auditing should be requested. This in lieu of a letter by an Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body Member, Keith Nelson, Ph.D, calling a local City of Riverside hired attorney Doug Smith a liar, and questioning the unscrupulous behavior of City Attorney Greg Priamos! Why would anybody rely on the word of our City Attorney Greg Priamos, he has a track record of misinforming council.
STATE CONTROLLER, JOHN CHIANG
FROM THE DESK OF SCOTT SIMPSON: SCOTT RESPONDS TO RIVERSIDE’S SEWER RATE HIKES:
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Some times what the city does not tell you is most important to the decision to raise the sewer rates.
1. Hudson changed the financing stategy for sewer capital improvements away from voter approval of municipal bonds or property assessments or special taxes. These would show up on your property tax billing. We are still paying off capital improvement bonds from pre-Hudson era on our property tax bill. Bonds in general are a 30 year repayment obligation. Hudson took away your right to vote No on ever increasing debt which is what is driving these outrageous sewer rate increases.
2. Remember last night, staff kept saying the sixteen year period of no rate increases was pre-Hudson and bonds were financed differently. The truth is the operation and maintenance of the waste water facillity doesn’t out pace the cost of living. Especiallysince we experienced a recession that left 25% of our homes and businesses empty and thus not Flushing. This is the real reason they kept saying they have less waste water to treat along with less customer revenue.
3. California courts have ruled that rates fees and charges for sewer sevices supplied to the land are only for the purpose of recovering the annual cost of operation and maintenance. The rates are to be set annually utilizing the accounting records of the prior fiscal year. The courts said, this is the true Variable cost of the sewer service.
4. California courts also say that Fixed costs and Capital improvement cost and infrastructure replacement costs are not to be included in the sewer rates, fees and charges. They (fixed costs) must be a separate charge on the bill. They have also emphasized that capital costs are only lawfully recovered by voter approved municipal bonds, voter approved property assessments and/or voter approved special taxes. All of which will be collected on your property tax bill. The court specifically prohibited the inclusion of debt service in rates, fees and charges.
5. The courts also said that all customers pay the same rate for the same service to their property. This includes tax-exempt educational customers and all governmental agencies recieving the service.
6. The courts have also ruled that You as the indiviual property owner/renter recieving sewer services provided by a municipality can only be charged rates, fees and charges that do not exceed the actual (variable) cost of providing the service to your property. This means the city must individually determine the (variable) cost of the service you impose upon them.
7. Finally, our courts have ruled that when a municipality enters into a new instrument of debt of any kind, this act automatically creates a new demand for new tax revenue which must be approved by the voters before the debt is entered into.
– Scott Simpson
WAS FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON TO BLAME FOR THE SEWER WOES?
It is appearing that much of the problems that the City of Riverside is experiencing may be due to former City Manager Brad Hudson. When Brad was City Manager for the City of Riverside TMC asked for a forensic audit of the taxpayer utility books, but he just would hide behind the computer, as our City Attorney Greg Priamos currently does.
All this activity was in lieu of both Councilman Davis and Councilman Soubirous being investigated for complaints, of which we are not really sure of. We don’t know who the accusers are and why the complaints were filed. We know that Councilman and Congressional Candidate Steve Adams signed both contracts with the same law first to initiate the investigation. Incidently, these contracts were signed at the the City Manager’s cap of $49,000.00, anything over $50,000.00 must go to council for approval. Are we looking at the origins of a conspiracy?
We do know that there has been friction with these two council members with the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, City Manager Scott Barber, City Attorney Greg Priamos and possibly some of the Council members, when pertinent questions were asked and not answered to the desires of the council.
Former City Manager Brad Hudson hired City Manager Scott Barber and Chief of Police Sergio Diaz. Councilman Steve Adams and Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey were supporters of Hudson.
HERE’S ONE FOR RIVERSIDE POLICE CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ, WHO WE FIND THREATENING LOCAL ELECTS AND POLITICAL CANDIDATES! There are many instances of outburst and threats by this individual who formerly worked for the Los Angeles Police Department. Questions abound on his qualification, not only by TMC but by the residents of the City of Riverside which have not been addressed by those at City Hall.
TMC did a story back in June 2011 regarding Costa Mesa Police Chief Steven Stavely with his impressions of City Council.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
CITY CODE OF ETHICS NOT SO ETHICAL WHEN IT COMES TO CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND CITY HIRED ATTORNEY DOUG SMITH?
Board Member, Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D., Inland Regional Board of Trustees, who also served a member of the City’s Adjudicating Body whenever an alleged violation of the City’s Code of Ethics, responded in this letter to Councilman Mike Soubirous regarding his concerns with the behavior and involvement of City Attorney Greg Priamos and outside legal, hired by the city, local Riverside attorney Doug Smith.
Attorney Doug Smith City Attorney Greg Priamo
Of the misrepresentations made to the Council by Mr. Smith, this was the most egregious. There is simply no nice way of stating this – he lied.
The main concern in question was the dual roles of the City Attorney’s Office acting as an advocate to the City, as well as a neutral counsel to the HRB (Human Resource Board.) Also, City hired attorney Doug Smith materially misrepresenting himself to the Council on March 25, 2014. Are Priamos and Smith liars? Keith Nelson seems to think so, considering Smith’s actions most egregious. Did Priamos tell Smith to lie to City Council of the findings of the Ethics and Conduct Hearing’s adjudicating body? Currently, Priamos is writing a book on ethics. The letter is as follows:
FROM THE DESK OF KEITH J. NELSON
April 29, 2014
Honorable Mike Soubirous
City of Riverside
3900 Mail Street
Riverside, CA. 92506
RE: Code of Ethics – J. Hunter v. Human Resources Board members
Dear Mr. Soubirous,
It was a pleasure speaking with you recently at the Boards and Commissions Annual Dinner. Unfortunately, my message today concerns a most troublesome matter. Let me begin by stating emphatically that this letter is not private. Instead, it is intended for you to share with your colleagues on the City Council, and whomever else you deem it contents would benefit. I would, in fact, read this letter into public comment at the next City Council meeting, but it would I’m certain exceed the three minute limitation allowed for such.
I will go off topic for just a moment and formally introduce myself in an effort to create clarity as to my interest and involvement in this matter. I am a 25+ year resident of Riverside who has endeavored to remain active in our community. As you may recall when you were running for Council, I contacted you to discuss your views and commitments on certain issues I feel important to our city. I have three adult children, plus one I am still raising here. I have been involved at many different levels with the city and surrounding area, including but not limited to: the Commission on Disabilities (chairman), Inland Regional Center (Board of Trustees), Team USA Special Olympics (coach), Special Olympics of Southern California (Regional Advisory Council), Regional Center (Business Committee), Arlington Little League (coach, Board of Directors), AYSO Region 47 soccer (founder, coach, Board of Directors), Poly High School Special Needs Boosters clubs, Poly High ROTC Boosters club…and more. I hope that this listing demonstrates my commitment to our community. I have always wanted to be proud of the city I live in.
To the matter at hand: I have served on a few Code of Ethics and Conduct adjudicating bodies (“AB”) during my tenure as the Chairman of the city’s Commission on Disabilities. I have always taken this responsibility extremely serious. If you were to review the administrative records of these hearings, I believe you would find that I often ask the most questions on the AB and deliberate issues of concern at substantial length. As a commissioner and member of an adjudicating body, I find our job comes with a multiple of masters: to our fellow citizens by striving to improve the city in which we live; and to the Council itself, representing our local government towards achieving the highest level of integrity.
Out of all the ethics hearings I have been involved with, the case involving Jason Hunter really bothers me the most from many perspectives. First, the role of the City Attorney’s office, throughout the entirely of the process, was deeply concerning. At the ethics hearing, we were instructed by the City Attorney’s office that it could both represent the city (Human Resource Board members, “HRB”) through outside counsel (Mr. Doug Smith) and serve as neutral counsel to the adjudicating body. We were also informed that the HRB members themselves would not be made available to the AB. As I consider the goal of our Code of Ethics and Conduct, established by our City Charter, is to provide both an actual and a perception of transparency, this dual role and lack of access to key parties is difficult to come to terms with. As such, I am left with the notion that our powers as finders of fact have been curtailed somewhat needlessly.
I have followed up on this matter in particular, because as an adjudicating body a definitive part of our final decision was to bring specific areas of conflict and concern within disciplinary hearings being run by our city staff to the attention of the City Council. My vote, in fact, was predicated on my motion to present said report to the Council (see minutes of December 13, 2013). To date, for reasons mostly unknown to me, this action has not been taken despite assurances of such from the AB Chairman, Mr. Justin Scott-Coe. I will elaborate more as I walk you through the ethics hearing from my perspective. I strongly believe that failing to address these core issues renders the entire Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint process pointless, and wastes significant time on behalf of all parties involved.
Concerns:
•Limitation of Scope. As an adjudicating body our ability to request information was virtually non-existent. We could not require testimony, subpoena documents nor investigate issues outside of the strict scope outlined by the City Attorney. And yet, we were presented by the city with no justification for this being so. I find these constraints overly burdensome, particularly in light of HRB counsel (Mr. Smith) materially misrepresenting to the Council at the March 25, 2014, appeal hearing that Mr. Hunter had the opportunity to present all evidence. This statement was simply untrue. In fact, many of my reservations during the ethics hearings themselves centered around the somewhat arbitrary limitations put on Mr. Hunter concerning evidence he could present and his ability to provide testimony, either his or other witnesses.
• Training of the Human Resources Board. Of the misrepresentations made to the Council by Mr. Smith, this was the most egregious. There is simply no nice way of stating this – he lied. Astonishingly, Mr. Smith told the Council the exact opposite of what we concluded. The adjudicating body clearly and unequivocally stated that as a body we were to make a presentation to the Council regarding proper training of boards and commissions, specifically chairmen, and the need for more transparent hearing procedures written in a way such that the average citizen would feel confident in the process and how to present evidence.
Mr. Smith sat in attendance at both ethics hearings as we quite clearly and repeatedly made these points. There was also significant concern over the lack of engagement by non-chair members of the HRB at Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing, and plain disregard for adherence to basic parliamentary procedure as evidenced in the video of this proceeding.
• Actions of the City Attorney. After viewing the video of the disciplinary hearing in question, and even taking a month-long recess to absorb its meaning, we as an AB concluded, clearly and without reservation, that we were extremely uncomfortable with the actions and demeanor of the City Attorney, Mr. Greg Priamos. However, we were informed by the City Attorney’s office that this inappropriate behavior was out of the scope of our authority to review. Irrespective of such self-serving advice, our
concerns and observations must be brought to the attention of the City Council:
1. The City Attorney was seated in the middle of Council chambers (directly next to HRB Chairman, Mr. Norman Powell) at the disciplinary hearing, and not to the side as seated during regular Council meetings. This provides the visual that the City Attorney was indeed running the meeting. It should be noted that Mr. Priamos can be seen whispering advice to the Chair out of microphone reception throughout various points in the video.
2. The City Attorney responds out of order, not waiting to be recognized by the Chair and without being asked for comment time after time. It is noticeable that his pro-city/anti-Mr. Hunter recommendations to the Chair are followed unswervingly and without debate by the HRB. In one instance, Mr. Priamos even recommends a pause in the proceedings and leaves his seat before the Chair acknowledges his request.
3.In a disturbing revelation made after the conclusion of Mr. Hunter’s ethics complaint hearings, Mr. Scott-Coe admitted to the AB that he had met privately with City Attorney, Mr. Priamos, just prior to the meeting to discuss the hearing in general, and the limits on presentation of evidence and testimony. If the goal our Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint process is full transparency, those instructions should have been made to the entire AB in an open forum. In fact, Mr. Priamos’ involvement at all at that juncture, in light of his behavior at the disciplinary hearing is perplexing. Additionally, the rules of Ethics Hearings should be made public, and properly vetted as such.
4. At the first ethics hearing, held on November 15, 2013, the AB discovered that Mr. Hunter had provided the city with a detailed list of objections and motions concerning the ethics hearing protocols provided to him by the City Attorney’s office, prior to the AB convening. Without delving into these individually, I found it unsettling that the AB was not made aware of the existence of this list until the onset of the hearing, leaving us unprepared to tackle the issues and without justification from the City Attorney’s office regarding their merits.
5. As it is not clear who wrote the rules for Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing, it is unknown who made the decision for the HRB to deliberate in secret with the City Attorney at the conclusion of the presentation of the city’s case. Following, the actions of the HRB taken in this private setting were not announced later to the public. As such the AB could not determine how or why the HRB made its findings or determinations.
It was the general feeling of the AB that certain city staff, including the City Attorney’s office, might have been in violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct throughout the disciplinary process. However, once again, this was ruled outside the scope of our review by whatmight-be-considered a conflicted City Attorney’s office. Of grave concern were the delays by the city in providing Mr. Hunter with notices and rules, as well as access to particular evidence to provide an adequate defense.
We sincerely question the duality of roles played within the City Attorney’s office (as active advocate and neutral counsel to the HRB) during Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing. Although we were assured this is standard operating procedure, we find the practice debatable as to its fairness. Again, this matter was ruled outside of scope of our investigation.
In conclusion, the true and accurate findings of the AB were misrepresented to the City Council and the mandated presentation per our unanimously-carried motion was never presented. These factors were paramount to my final vote. I don’t believe anyone was comfortable with what they saw transpiring on the video of Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing. It was one of the rare times I was actually embarrassed by our city’s actions.
This is not how I envision a City committed to Arts and Innovation, as well as progressive visions of open and transparent governance, conducts itself. Our presentation absolutely should have been made prior the Council hearing the appeal of our decision carried forth by Mr. Hunter in order to have the Council fully educated.
Further, I am at a loss as to why the AB was not informed individually of the Council appeal hearing on this subject. If in attendance, I would have used the public comment period to rebuke the misleading statements made by the HRB attorney.
This letter is only a high level summary of this matter, provided in an effort to induce open dialog and independent investigation of the facts surrounding both Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary and ethics hearings, as well as the nature of these proceedings in general.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at your convenience. At this point, the highest motivation should be to provoke meaningful change as to how the city conducts its business in these regards.
Sincerely yours,
Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D.
Currently, there is an ethics complaint on appeal with Councilman Steve Adams, whereby Attorney Doug Smith is representing him, and City Attorney Greg Priamos is the legal advisor for the City. Should we expect the same favorable outcome in a decision by the Adjudicating Body, even though a licensed Attorney hired by the City has been called to the forefront as lying? There have been more than two Ethics Complaints filed against Councilman Steve Adams, all which have been unfounded. The current complaint, which is in on appeal, contains evidence not reviewed by the Adjudicating Body. Evidence which displays that Adams witnessed corruption in the City of Riverside on several occasions which can be construed as “undo influence.” Regardless, is this whole Ethics Complaint process a formality and a sham? Set up by those in positions of power to direct a favorable result? If that is true, do we have corruption? Should the taxpayer be reimbursed for Attorney Doug Smith’s fees and a complaint filed with the State Bar of California? Should City Attorney Greg Priamos be fired and a complaint filed with the State Bar of California?
UPDATE: CITY MANAGER: OKAY MR. BARBER, WHO IS RUNNING THE STORE? This Press Enterprise clipping was sent to TMC to show that in this instance, who is watching out for taxpayer monies? This clipping shows a Public Notice by the AQMD for a refund amount of $1,407.91 that the City of Riverside has failed to recover in care of the taxpayer.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
The question that residents are asking as the one who submitted it, who’s running the store? That should be City Manager Scott Barber. So I’m guessing the City really doesn’t need the money, I believe it could still be put to good use for library books, park programs etc. You may get use to seeing figures with a lot of zeros, but all monies are important, no matter the amount.
UPDATE: BROCKTON STREET RESTRIPING: ACCORDING THE RIVESIDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED MAY 19, 2014 TO AUGUST 2014. The City will be transforming the four lane main arterial commuter route to one lane in both direction for vehicles, and the other two for bikes… I guess Mayor Bailey and Councilman Mike Gardner think we a Seattle, Washington. Wood Street residents are not happy as this one resident John Zavesky commented.
Well it looks like Brockton is going to be reduced to a single lane of traffic in each direction so those hundreds of bike riders will have their own lane. This is one house that will not be voting for the current mayor come next election. Between this and the City Council renaming 1/2 a mile of Central Ave. “Riverside Plaza Ave.” these elected officials have clearly proven they aren’t interested in dealing with real social issues such as addressing a responsible solution to the ever growing numbers of homeless folks. That would be working on something socially responsible, a job that is obviously beyond the current crop of elected talking heads.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Traffice and commuter frustration is at a peak, with the 91 freeway contruction at 14th and Central, the Cridge Bridge not yet done, the new underpass construction at Riverside Avenue and now a reconstruction of Brockton Avenue to a bike lane? What are the knuckleheads at City Hall thinking.
There’s more folks, there is study currently on regarding the conversion of Magnolia Avenue to a Commuter Train/Trolley route, one of Mayor Bailey’s ideas.
We must remember that culture can’t be constructed, designed or constructed such some idealist at City Hall envision it. Culture is born, it is nurtured by the characteristics of the people of that community to become a city which reflects a theme, not by design, but by the working spirit of that community.
Even during the City’s campaign on Measure A they knew it didn’t work. Money continued to be pumped into the program that just could not get off the ground. The City’s response was that it was taken down because it was never designed for mobile use. Originally, the city wi-fi was designed for internet access, such as lap tops and home computers. According to residents it never worked. But wi-fi is a no brainer, it’s not rocket science, you connect to your location, done. The No on Measure A campaign tried to warn the community of these informational nuances, but still lost. Again, much waste at a cost to the taxpayer, at the salvaging of egos.
Our concerns with the above documents were when Federal Asset Forfeiture monies were utilized for community programs such as the Multi Cultural Youth Program, a Mayor Loveridge originated Community Program, that appeared to have support through Federal Police Asset Funds. Illegal? To the tune of $35,000.00. This at the time, Chief Russell Leach was in charge, and this amount of $35,000.00 was donated or transferred to his wife, Connie Leach’s runned Multi Cultural Youth Organization… We asked the DA himself Paul Zellerbach to look into this but all he told us was “Is this Illegal? or just bad Business?” This while his subordinates flipped through a DA file which contained TMC articles. Then the people who brought forward the issue and the document were now in the questioning box. Why was that, I ask? Is it because the City of Riverside held the trump card for the DA? If this in fact was the case, what did Ms. Aquino know? Why didn’t she speak out years ago? Was she protecting the office of RPD? Was she protecting people within RPD? We can only suspect her actions to be in the category of quite remarkable..
Investigation Clears Riverside Police Leadership of All Major Allegations
Chief Sergio Diaz and Assistant Chief Chris Vicino Waive Privacy Rights, Agree to Disclosure
CHIEF DIAZ ASST. CHIEF VINCINO
RIVERSIDE, Calif. – City Manager Scott Barber announced today that an independent investigation has refuted all major allegations that Police Chief Sergio Diaz and Assistant Chief Chris Vicino improperly used Police Department funds, as alleged by a former administrator. Barber made the announcement after both Diaz and Vicino relinquished their rights to confidentiality in connection with the investigation. Both men said they made the decision because they wanted the public to know the results of the investigation, even though one allegation against Vicino was sustained. Otherwise, the results could not have been made public under the law. “I appreciate Chief Diaz and Assistant Chief Vicino taking the step they did in order to ensure that the public can know that its police administrators are running the department in an ethical and proper manner,” Barber said. “I am gratified that the public can have a full accounting of the allegations and the ensuing investigation.” Of eight allegations raised by former Police Administrator Karen Aquino, seven were found to be unfounded. In the only sustained allegation, Aquino alleged that Vicino used a city copier for personal reasons and implied that he asked another employee for the employee’s access code in order to make additional color copies for personal use. During the investigation, Vicino acknowledged making about 300 copies during a three-year period in connection with a college course he taught. He said he sent a letter to an Assistant City Manager expressing regret for the oversight and pledging it would not happen again and enclosed payment for $30.50. The part of the allegation involving Vicino allegedly asking for an employee’s access code so he could make color copies for his personal use was found to be unfounded. Vicino told investigators he did ask another employee for the access code to the color copier, but only because he had forgotten his access code and needed to make color copies for a presentation that Diaz was going to do on a new strategic plan for the department. “I have always had faith that an impartial investigation would reveal that this department is run according to the highest ethical standards,” Vicino said. “I regret using the copier for a personal use, but I’m willing to take my medicine out in the open if that is what it takes for the larger issues to be resolved in the minds of the public.” Other allegations explored in the investigation included:
That the department misappropriated city funds by directing employees to participate in Riverside Police Foundation activities while on duty. The foundation, which supports youth programs, is part of the Department’s mission to prevent crime, therefore use of city resources was appropriate, the investigation found.
That Vicino engaged in disrespectful and intimidating behavior toward Ms. Aquino. Vicino did not intentionally engage in such behavior and his response was a direct reaction to statements made by Aquino toward another employee during a meeting, the investigation found.
That the Department improperly used asset forfeiture funds to purchase vehicles. The investigation found no evidence that either Diaz or Vicino used such funds improperly.
That the Department failed to follow the requirements of a $5.1 million federal grant to hire 15 new police officers. The investigation found no evidence to support that.
That police administrators failed to notify Aquino that a city vehicle and gas card were used by a retired police employee to help the department participate in the “Baker to Vegas” charity run. There is no evidence to suggest the car or gas card were used inappropriately and department administrators had no obligation to notify Aquino of the pending use.
That Aquino was directed to pay for golf tournaments out of the department’s general fund and that thousands of dollars were spent so that Vicino and others could play golf. Aquino was describing charity golf tournaments that department personnel participated in to assist local organizations in raising funds for children’s programs. Investigators described this allegation as “a significant stretch from the truth.”
That Diaz signed a contract for a Parole and Corrections Team without proper review of the City Attorney’s Office. The investigation found that this allegation “lacked any validity whatsoever” and that the memorandum of understanding was signed by all appropriate parties.
SENT IN BY SHARON MATEJA, IS THE AMERICAN EAGLE VULTURE JUST THE RIGHT THING TO CLEAR THE WOOD STREETS OF THE COYOTE PROBLEM?
My Mom called me around 7pm and told me that she was sitting on her back patio and looked down to where her dog was playing on the grass and there stood a coyote. She quickly called her little dog and thankfully Sadie her dog came running up to the patio. The coyote just stood there. My Mom was a safe distance from it being that her patio overlooks the medical center and the RCC ball field. She lives on Rice Rd. The problem is that this is the second time my folks have had a run in with the coyotes and both times have been in broad daylight. My parents have a fence all the way around their property and my Dad walked the perimeter the first time they sited the coyote and there was one area where it looked like the coyote dug under the fence. He patched it up and thought they were safe. They have a little Boston terrier and now they are afraid to let her out. I am afraid for my folks because there is the garage and a room under their house that they use on a daily basis. Can anyone offer any advise on what they can do? We are really afraid now that the coyote has been back twice. – Julie Sparkman, Wood Streets
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
Now a second complaint alleging violation of City Charter 407 came in, this time it’s against Councilman Paul Davis. Less than a week ago, a complaint came against Councilman Mike Soubirous. It seems that the powers that be continue in their attempt to get back to a 7-0 team player vote. We are assuming that the $16,000.00 Team Motivator/Psychologist isn’t working. It’s clear by the information provided, that Davis was targeted at least on two facts, the work performance of the City Manager Scott Barber and what Davis said in testimony in the Raychele Sterling Case, which may not have made the City Attorney Greg Priamos look so good.
COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS
When you view the overall pictorial of both Councilman, you cannot rule out a conspiratorial aspect by some of the usual suspects. Just weeks ago Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason presented to City Council and spoke on how we will have a budget shortfall. They continue to frivously spend tax payer monies in an effort to support their enormous egos and defend there inadvertent liabilities. We must also ask the question, who are the players and what could they have to lose.
Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza. He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact. Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager? The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council. Certainly violated the Charter Amendment. What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them? A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.
Though the Supreme Court stated that “a special edition created and sent to would-be voters, specifically because of the upcoming election,” is improper campaign activity. I guess Priamos does what is necessary for the greater good of those who feed off city revenues.
In both the Davis and Soubirous case, the PE reports that all emails have been requested in which referenced Barbers “employment status.” This is telling; what happened between these two council people and the City Manager? Another question, could it have been the connection between families which include Councilman Mac Arthur, Mayor Bailey and Albert Webb, of Webb Engineering? Webb contracts were brought in the Raychele Sterling Case.
We certainly would now have to consider if these city employees filed they’re complaints on the they’re own volition, or did they have encouragement, or were they promised promotion? Plausible denial by some of the usual suspects may give us more thought to a theoretical conspiracy in this matter.
Is it because Woody and Paul sing the same tune and dance the same steps? DA Mr. “Z” obviously is enjoying himself! Maybe we have something here folks, the dance styling”s of Woody & Paul…
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
According to the PE, the whole thing seemed to begin with a series of emails sent out by Councilman Soubirous regarding his constituents concerns regarding vagrants and panhandlers. The response from RPD was that “our hands are tied” or ‘there’s nothing we can do.” Evidently, Soubirous states he didn’t send an email to Diaz, but the email was forwarded to Diaz by another councilman. We are thinking here at TMC, could it have been Adams? If so, would that have been a Brown Act violation? Incidently, another unamed councilman has been accused of violating the Brown Act, and submitted to the DA, we all know where that will go. Regardless, that never seemed to stop Adams before. In response, Diaz wrote back to Councilman Soubirous that no good can come from labeling dedicated public servants as “lazy.” The next statement by Diaz seems to be on the political threatening side, Diaz states that, “it would be politically unwise to declare war on you cops.” Already we get the feeling that trouble is a brewing. Anonymous sources are stating Diaz had made a similar threat regarding another current candidate running for office regarding the end of their political career if they continued on the road they are on. TMC has found that it is John Brandiff, and has evidently filed a complaint against Diaz. What kind of history does Diaz have in Los Angeles? Information still coming through the pipeline. So why is a Chief of Police out threatening elects and candidates? Why is he acting as some sort of rouge underworld boss shaking down and hard balling constituents asking questions and threatening those who have aspirations of running for office? Difficult as it seems, Riverside has serious problems in RPD, and no one is minding the store when minding the store are the residents of Riverside.
Chief Sergio Diaz
Why does the Chief act as he does? We are not sure but many in the community have witness his outburst. It appears that Chief has a history of not being kind to taking suggestions and criticism well. In one instance, he called certain commenters in the community who were questioning police tactics regarding the Officer Bonaminio murder, that they were “sitting at home eating cheetos in their underwear.” In otherwords, the community should stay out of areas they know nothing about. If this is the case I can see conflict occurring if Council people are asking questions regarding Police affairs.
Section 407 refers specifically to the interference of individuals, such as the Mayor and Council, in city administrative services. The section is as follows:
Neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any of it’s members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his/her powers and duties, or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the department heads in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or their removal theirfrom. Except for purpose of inquiry, the Mayor, the City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager and neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any member there of shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. (Effective 12/27/1995)
According to the PE, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey and Councilman Steve Adams (also Mayor Pro Tem), told Soubirous that four complaints were filed for violation of section 407. Both Bailey and Adams refrained to disclose who complainants were. The last time similar situation occurred was when Fire Inspector Roni Forst filed a complaint against Councilman Paul Davis for harassment and discrimination. Though not reported in the PE, I would deduce that before the complaints were filed, a proper intake interview was done without interference from outside sources, by the Human Resources Department. From that point I would suspect that the interviewers would determine if there was enough evidence of a violation of section 407 of the City Charter for a proper complaint to be issued and filed. When a complaint was filed against Davis, Steve Espinoza and Human Resource Director Rhonda Strout, A.K.A. Luxury Girl, did the intake interview.
The City Council then hired a Los Angeles based firm, Gumport Maslan, specifically Attorney Leonard Gumport would be handling the investigation. Gumport had been previously hired by the County of San Bernardino to investigate allegations of conflict of interest, bribery and corruption. It doesn’t state if Soubirous was present when the Council decided to go forward with this investigation. Regardless, Councilman Steve Adams, who was also Mayor Pro Tem, signed this contract with the law firm which interestingly has a cap of exactly $49,000.00. Why $49,000.00? Would it be that the City Manager’s maximum discretionary spending is capped at $50,000.00, at anything over $50,000.00 must be properly brought publicly to City Council? Incidently, it was not uncommon to see Councilman Steve Adams having drinks and food together at local dining and waterholes with people from City Management.
Another time an issue came up with the interference with employee relations, was when Councilman Steve Adams was accused of interfering with the promotions process of RPD back in 2007, which by all appearances is a direct violation of Charter Section 407. As a consequence, instead of a complaint filed, Lt. Darryl Hurt and Lt. Tim Bacon went straight for the jugular, filing a law suit against the City of Riverside which settled out of court to the taxpayer tune of $750,000.00, probably to prevent all the salacious details of a trial case. When you look at the claims made by Hurt and Bacon against Adams, Adams gives the appearance of a “Godfather” like figure. According to statements made by Hurt and Bacon, both whom were candidates for promotion to captain at the time, that they met individually at restaurant outside the city limits as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The issue at hand that allegedly Adams was concerned about was if the candidates actually campaigned against him. When that issue was resolved, Adams then met with then City Manager Brad Hudson and spoke of the meeting. Soon thereafter an official announcement ensued regarding the candidates. Direct violation of Charter Section 407?
Another incidence, involved former Lt. Meredyth Meredith, whereby former Chief of Police Russel Leach was preparing to promote Meredith to captain, when he received a call from former Assistant City Manager Tom De Santis to put a stop to this. According to a deposition, Leach stated, “And I found out that Steve Adams marched into a meeting…Hudson and De Santis and told them emphatically she shouldn’t be promoted”. Leach stated in a PE story, that he was unhappy in his final two years on the job because “I didn’t like political involvement . I hadn’t had it before.” Leach also said that Hudson and DeSantis allowed council members – specifically City Councilman Steve Adams – to influence police promotions.
In another telling tale, there was story of John Carpenter, whereby Leach, Esquivel and De La Rosa had chosen him to be promoted to captain. The went to City Hall to have a face-to-face with Hudson and DeSantis to present what the testing process revealed and who we selected. And he said, “Let me think about it.” So I let him think about it, he hadn’t heard from him for a while, so Leach called Hudson. Hudson told Leach that Carpenter and Adams had bad history together. Adams was adamant that he didn’t want Carpenter to promote into Captain. Section 407 violation?
In a Press Enterprise article back in August of 2012, former Chief of Police, Russell Leach stated in a court deposition that a complaint Riverside Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey made in 2008 may have unwittingly help block Lt. Val Graham’s promotion. In a phone call Leach received from former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis, he recalled how “Val had embarrassed Bailey at this community meeting, said a couple of inappropriate things and that Bailey was furious,” and expressed his anger at city management. The following time Leach was preparing to make promotions, DeSantis asked him who was being considered? Before Leach had a chance to answer, DeSantis stated, “Don’t tell me it’s Val Graham?” Leach stated that because of the resistance he sensed in this conversation he didn’t put Graham’s name forward. Was Graham held back because the then Councilman Bailey felt slighted? Could this be perceived as a violation of the City Charter Section 407?
The players involved seem to be Councilman Steve Adams, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and City Manager Scott Barber. Incidently, Diaz and Barber were remnents of former City Manager Brad Hudson. Hudson’s background was that he had a record for credit card fraud when he was seventeen. Not that this is important, due to the fact that he was a teen. But the question is, did Hudson carry his bad behavior to his adulthood? During his reign he initially purchased a revolver from RPD Sgt. Cliff Mason, who was also President of the Riverside Police Officers Union, and fraudulently used the City Hall address of 3900 Main Street as his home address to apply for a concealed weapons permit. You would think that this officer would know the law in gun sales, well of course he does. Well, we believe he did, and did otherwise, breaking the law. Incidentally, neither the Riverside Police Department nor the City of Riverside are licensed to sell and transfer firearms, therefore the sale of firearms to private citizens or employees of the city is illegal. In the City of Riverside no one seems to be accountable. Again we see a culture of two sets of rules. Can we call it corruption? Can we call it illegal or just bad business, in the words of District Attorney Paul Zellerbach? Whatever it is, it happened.
Opinions of residents in the City contend that Soubirous was not whom City insiders wanted to be part of the council “get along club.” Valerie Hill would have been a better match, but residents have stated that they are tired of what the City has done with taxpayer monies and wanted someone to ask the tough questions and defend them, without the probability of being targeted. Soubirous was whom the community elected. But it certainly seems to have upset the apple cart of the usual suspects within the city status quo who are not accustomed to true leadership. In this reporters opinion, the matter is petty, elementary, a waste of taxpayer monies and seemingly a non issue brought together by a bunch of frat boys. What is most interesting and quite remarkable is the two peas in the pod appear to be Councilman Steve Adams and Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey. Again you have to wonder if there was interference within the realm of the complaint, it’s hard enough to teach old dogs new tricks.
COMMENTS FROM THE PRESS ENTERPRISE:
My councilman did tell me he would look into an issue of concern involving the sale of an RPD helicopter., the city’s only fire fighting helicopter (photographed here at the Pomona Fairgrounds auction site)being sold off for $200,000 on Feb..22 of this year. Are CC members even allowed to ask those kind of questions or will be they be investigated? Given that Adams was not investigated for alleged 407 w/ RPD in 2006 and 2008 what are parameters to investigate? It’s our money folks. -Mary Shelton
Seems like Councilman Soubirous’ digging into city corruption has garnered the attention of the Municipal Mob. He will now learn firsthand how this city conducts “independent” investigations. Just like Councilman Davis had to be taught: just nod your head Mike and they’ll leave you alone. It’s time to wash the filth out of City Hall. We can start with whomever’s behind this plot. Of course, we’ll never find out because as Soubirous is realizing: their is ZERO transparency behind the process. –Fay Vic
Most of you know that Mike Soubirous is a man of the highest integrity and ethics. Thus we know that this is just another witch hunt prompted by the City Manager Scott Barber, Chief Sergio Diaz, and perhaps even Mayor Rusty Bailey. Politics as usual at Riverside City Hall. Especially when someone such as Mike chooses to be a leader rather a city hall hack like most who sit on the city council are. Valerie Hill lost the election guys, just accept it. This is much to do about nothing. Nevertheless, we must support Mike now as much as possible. PS. We need a homegrown police chief instead of a double-dipping transfer from the notorious LAPD. -Donald Herman Collins Gallegos
All I can say is that Mike is holding to his promise of transparency and honesty with his constituents. Knowing him and his family personally, I understand his right heart and integrity in wanting to serve his community, taking his job seriously in asking questions that are of importance and for the greater good of those he serves. Stay strong, Mike. -JoeDeGerolamo
Something is screwy here. The Chief’s response do not seem connected to the e-mail cited. Also, does the right to face an accuser disappear for elected officials? What are the rules for Council members who wish to contact city employees? [Why do news articles seldom cover the information I want to know?] – Richard P. Morrall
Chief Diaz needs to learn that the Council sets policy. Soubirous is well within his authority to question current policy and work with other council members to change it. This will end up being much ado about nothing, except that the City will be out $49k. – sadf qwrett
Diaz feelings hurt because he was running cover for the vagrants (many of them are homeless sex offenders) and someone calls him on it. Someone should be investigating the tactics “The Chief” approved of before Soubirous spoke up on behalf of his constituents. Shame the rest of the lemmings are sitting on the sidelines, watching the City Manager-lead witch hunt. Mike, hang in there. Keep your head high. The folks that elected you are smart enough to see what’s going on. – Dick_Gosinya
Chief sounds insecure, well they all do. Barber and Diaz are dysfunctional leftovers from the Brad Hudson legacy. A cliquish culture of narcissistic lack luster leadership. All this because it seems one councilman, Soubirious, who is truly an independent voice. Didn’t Bailey run his campaign on being an independent voice? – Bret Hudson
This is a city manager-led witch-hunt on behalf of the police chief with his panties in a wad because a ward councilman, on behalf of his constituents, pushed to tackle a thorny problem in the city. Diaz, Bailey, Barber et al are a bunch of spineless hacks who view their jobs as nothing more than gladhanding politics-as-usual. – remmy700p
As we have seen before, the nail that stands up, gets smacked down. Did the full council really discuss and vote to hire an investigator? The $49 K seems to be the maximum the city manager can spend on his own authority. – Kevin Dawson
JUST IN: CITY OF RIVERSIDE HIRES A PSYCHOLOGIST TO HELP ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET ALONG. SORRY, THIS IS NO JOKE, THE CITY SPENT $16,000.00 TAXPAYER MONEY FOR THE HEAD SHRINK. IS THIS AN OXYMORON TO THE TENTH DEGREE FOLKS? Is it because some in the Council don’t want to be part of the “get along to go along” club, so they therefore must be crazy? So now we can fix that problem with an taxpayer motivator/psychologist, and somehow convince the council to get back to voting 7-0 on all issues. Anonymous sources, of which we cannot corroborate, are stating that there was a big blow out between Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey and Councilman and Congressman Candidate Steve Adams which lasted in the neigborhood of 30 minutes. The psychologist intervened and they are now friend again…
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
On November 19, 2013, Vivian Moreno was at home reviewing the City Council video when Item #21 caught her curiosity. The question arose. Was Councilman Steve Adams telling the Riverside citizens in an open forum that one or all of his council members are corrupt? Yes he did!
His Video Statement: “We’ve seen it happen in Moreno Valley, we’ve seen it happen in San Bernardino, I’ve seen similar issues here. They can lobby us, they can talk to us, there is absolutely nothing we can do legally. In my ten years, have I seen council members try to influence things? ABSOLUTELY! I think it is inappropriate.”
Steve Adams, you talk about the perception of collusion and how we need to be more transparent. At the Governmental Affairs Meeting in October 2013 he stated, “I can’t count how many times this has happened here (Riverside).” We now need to take a look at how the action of lobbying effect are politics, in my estimation lobbying entails influence and money, as City Attorney Greg Priamos would say without coming out to say anything, this could give the “perception.” In my eyes, this certainly can give the perception of bribery. Bribery and lobbying seem to comingle, just like a bad monthly finance statement. But is bribery what is really occurring? Incidently Dvonne Pitruzzello had asked Congressman Ken Calvert if their office would look into the allegations of Sewer Bond Fraud, but was responded with deaf ears. As we know Congressman Ken Calvert has had his issue in the past, but you as constituents continue to vote for him. Who’s fault is it for faulty representation? Look in the mirror folks.
COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAM’S ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL? EVEN AT COUNCILMAN’S MIKE SOUBIROU’S WARD 3 INAUGURATION AT CITY COUNCIL?
Councilman Steve Adams spoke of corruption in the City of Riverside at a November 2013 City Council Meeting. Some of the key pieces are as follows:
“We’ve seen it happen in Moreno Valley, we’ve seen it happen in San Bernardino, I’ve seen similar issues here. They can lobby us, they can talk to us, there is absolutely nothing we can do legally.”
“In my ten years, have I seen council members try to influence things? ABSOLUTELY! I think it is inappropriate.”
In another completely different scenerio, Councilman Steve Adams at an October 2013 Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting stated the following:
“In my ten years…I’ve seen…I can’t count how many…I won’t even attempt to. The number of times that a council member injected themselves in this process…tried to influence the process. I think this is innaproppriate.”
“I think this staff is a good staff to eliminate that, because they may be personal friends, people that they’ve done business with. Whatever the situation is, this eliminates the possibility of, or impropriety of happening.”
“Because I’ve seen it to many times. You can’t say it doesn’t happen…it does. And if it is eliminated from being possible, the repercussions, your eliminating the process of events…incentive enough not to violate this process.”
“Because the pressure of the public already is that everything we do is corrupt, no matter what it is. So I think it just gives us that buffer,of, that there is no chance of impropriety..because have there been…they would’ve been removed. So nobody is getting special treatment.”
“But I can say that I have on one or more occasion seen some of my colleagues inject themselves into this process to try to influence the process. I think it is inappropriate.”
The ethics complaint again Councilman Steve Adams is as follows. It indicates that he, as a sworn elected official, had a duty to the taxpayer to reveal any wrong doing that would not be in the best interest of the taxpayer.
“If something is wrong, it needs to be fixed, and I don’t care which party or which people are to blame.” “I will always take the stand for what is right.”
“When you stand up to the status quo, you’re always going to be attacked. And folks, I was born to ready to take on those attacks.”
Adams makes two important points, one, he will all stand for what is right, and two, he will stand up to the status quo. We believe at TMC, that leaders, those representative of the people, should not allow others or themselves to circumvent the law, no matter what it is, a parking ticket, DUI, political corruption etc…
AGAIN, RIVERSIDIAN’S ARE ASKING THE QUESTION, OF CONGRESSMAN CANDIDATE STEVE ADAMS….WHY DIDN’T HE STAND UP FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS KAREN WRIGHT AND ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER?
UPDATE: ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER WON’T BE CHARGED DO TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE!
According to the “Citizen’s Arrest” document signed by Mayor Rusty Bailey, a line was place over the following statement: “that at the time of the arrest I informed the said defendent of his/her arrest, and my authority to make it.” This whole thing stinks to high Bailey heaven… Again this is proof that RPD is unresponsive to Letitia Pepper, and DA Zellerbach does not find this a situation to express a legal opinion. Many citizens are asking the question, is Zellerbach owned by the City of Riverside?
Attorney Letitia Pepper’s citizen arrest form was of course refused by the attending Riverside Police Officer based on his assertion that there was no real evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor William ‘Rusty’ Bailey. Evidently by Sgt. Patrick McCarthy stated Leticia had no evidence to sustain an arrest against Mayor Bailey.
Sgt. Patrick McCarthy, Riverside Police Department
But in true accord with the first citizen arrest against Letitia Pepper, the RPD officer failed to realize that there was evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor. But RPD officers arrested Ms. Pepper as we all know it, with “insufficient evidence” as stated by the D.A.’s office. So, is this really about right and wrong, or just not liking what someone says in Mayor Bailey’s classroom? Or simply of an attempt to show who’s the boss by a mediocre endeavor by the new Mayor to display power?
City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey Sorry, Mayor William Rusty Bailey
Why did the attending officer refuse? Was it because of the presence in the city of Riverside that Mayor Bailey’s father hold? Mayor Bailey’s father is non other than Judge Bailey. Judge William R. Bailey II is connected to a close associate, friend and founding father of the infamous Riverside Best, Best & Krieger law firm, Judge John Gabbert. Does anybody see the light on this one? Are we actually coming to answers of why the City of Riverside is the way that it is politically?
First, there was a Citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey himself, accusing Pepper of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape was evidence to the reveal that Ms. Pepper did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403. We often said, as many have said who live in this great city we call Riverside, we have a culture and practice of status quo. To many, it’s simply known as corruption. Many in the community are afraid to state this publicly. Why is it? Is it not public servants work in the employment and service of the taxpaying constituents?
I had the citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey accusing me of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape that showed I did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403, Ms. Pepper stated.
The question many Riversidian’s are having these days, is what would happen if Mayor Rusty Bailey attempted to tell either of these two folks to stop clapping?
A WORD TO THE WISE AND FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: UNLESS CHARGES ARE ACTUALLY FILED, NO NEED TO SHOW UP IN COURT!
According to the reporter, the DA’s Office said it had been decided in December not to charge me, but it also decided not to bother to TELL me that. That was inconsiderate enough, but what the DA’s Office did to Karen Wright was terrible. It sent her a letter saying it was not going to charge her, but that she was probably guilty! Since when does the prosecutor get to take the place of a jury of 12 people? -Commenters on the PE, Letitia Pepper
The DA has 1 year to file charges on a misdemeanor citation. If he doesn’t file charges, the case doesn’t get put on calendar, so there’s no reason to go to court. THAT’S why I never appeared in court:: there was no court case. Karen Wright actually showed up in court on the day on her citation, and nothing happened because no charges had been filed; so she’d been worried and inconvenienced and appeared in court for no reason; I wasn’t going to show up unless charges were actually filed. – Commenter on the PE, Letitia Pepper
With the Karen Wright case being dropped by the DA, now again insufficient evidence on part of Mayor Bailey’s citizen arrest and Letitia Pepper’s case dropped. It would stand to reason to question anything those in an elected position would do. Riverside residents continue to live in city which has two sets of rules. But on a brighter note, it appears Ms. Pepper may have recourse against Mayor Bailey on possible grounds of a false arrest. Hope she will keep the fire burning on this one. – Commenter on the PE, Bret Hudson
Mayor Bailey can rule the city as a Dictator but citizens have Constitutional rights. The DA is in the pocket of the crooks in office and did as he was told. Both women should file Federal charges. Just think a citizens spoke out when a US President was speaking and he said she had rights. But Bailey wants puppets and yes sir people. The tape spoke to the truth and the Mayor lied and the DA knows it. –Commenter on the PE, Jackalyn Rawlings
Rusty is trying hide what is happening in this city by trying to control citizens free speech. You cannot pick and choose who may speak and who may clap. Wait till everyone’s sewer bill doubles. Let’s see him keep the citizens quiet. – Commenter on the PE, Dvonne M. Pitruzzello
The Mayor was out of line in having the police remove Pepper for clapping. He looked petty and overbearing. The council chambers are not his classroom. It is not his dad’s courtroom. And it is not a military setting. He was not elected to rule over us. – Commenter on the PE, Opaque
A retired DA told me WHY the DA’s Office sends people those letters saying the DA is not going to charge you even though you’re guilty. It’s because arrests go on your permanent record with the Department of Justice (or INjustice), and, if the DA sends you that kind of letter, they STAY on your record. So, you are denied the right to a jury trial, and have to hire an attorney to go to court and put on a case to have a judge make a finding of factual innocence to get the arrest expunged. – Commenter on the PE, Attorney Letiticia Pepper
The Mayor was out of line in having the police remove Pepper for clapping. He looked petty and overbearing. The council chambers are not his classroom. It is not his dad’s courtroom. And it is not a military setting. He was not elected to rule over us.
THE CONNIE LEACH TAXPAYER PAID EXPENSES…YOU ASKED FOR! The following are just a smidgen of some of the receipts turned in by Connie Leach for reimbursement, starting with a camera purchased in care of the taxapayer.
Connie Leach, the wife of Chief of Police Russ Leach and hired by the City of Riverside as an independent contractor to oversee the Multicultural Youth Organization, which was a youth program initiated by former Mayor Loveridge. She was hired by contract to run this project, she also had an extravigant expense account that was paid for by the taxpayer. Most organizations have donations pay for expenses. Here are some of the receipts we found.
When the Grand Jury was doing it’s investigation into the Connie Leach case, both Mary Figueroa and Dvonne Pitruzzello had been interviewed. Pitruzzello told the Grand Jury that the person you want to talk to is Vivian Moreno, this was beacause she did the majority of the investigative research and was fully knowledgeable of the events that occured. Moreno was next in line to be interviewed and the Grand Jury had just submitted a multitude of document request from the City of Riverside. The investigation was suddenly squashed a couple of weeks later by a letter sent to Figueroa stating the investigation was unfounded. Though to this day, their has not been a formal investigation of the findings and a conclusion submitted online. Why hasn’t this occurred? Was there a cover up or a failure of the current DA to take on what could possibly be an embarrassing event in his own back yard? The following is the original complaint submitted to the Riverside Grand Jury back in March 2011.
The rumor mill states that then Mayor Ron Loveridge may have had something to do with this in conjuction with DA Paul Zellerbach, in order to stop the proceedings. We now ask the question, if this is true, wouldn’t that be jury tampering?
STREET SWEEPING..SHOULD IT BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG?
Incidently, Measure A was also indicated to pay for street sweeping in the form of keeping are streets clean as in this ad in favor of Measure A paid by the taxpayer. A bit of a conflict I would say.
In the City of Riverside the resident continue to double and triple pay for services they should receive through their property taxes. This is only one example, but we not only see it in street sweeping, but in tree maintenance, parking, utility rates etc.
According to Dan Berstein, Press Enterprise, many of the no parking signs do not mention “street sweepint.” TMC contributors have also noticed that certain areas of the city including commerical areas, no citations are given to illegally parked vehicles during street sweeping day. Another double standard of punishment to the tax payer. It appears that tickets are focused on property owners. Maybe for alterion motives, if a ticket is not paid will place it on a lien against your property, or simply make it difficult to pay your next car registration.
CITY WI-FI TO BE ELIMINATED, BUT WASN’T MEASURE A TO PREVENT THAT?
PENSION BACKDRAFT: IS FIRE CHIEF STEVE EARLEY FEELING THE HEAT OF FIRE AT HIS FEET?
Back in October 2002, Steve Earley submitted this paper to FEMA regarding the defeciencies within the Riverside Fire Department. Primarily focusing on the preparing personnel for management positions. Earley became Fire Chief in 2009; the contradiction is that currently he decided to retire as Riverside’s Fire Chief at 55 years of age, and take on a new position with the City of Riverside as Fire Administrator. In doing so, no valid successor as Fire Chief could be found. Three possibilities will be rotated, and in doing so, will also be each elgible for a 5% raise, and it was left as that. Was this another scheme by the City Manager Scott Barber to spike the pensions of these three Fire Chief candidates? Why would a Fire Chief with intellectual knowledge, not act or have a plan for his replacement? Why must the taxpayer be responsible for Chief Earley’s irresponsbilities? He stated the deficiencies in the Riverside Fire Department, and as acting Fire Chief never acted or implemented guidelines or criteria to reach these goals?
What did Earley do to protect the taxpayers against the misinformation of losing 12 Firefighters if Measure A did not pass? Support it? As in this taxpayer paid mailer shows below, and taxpayers thought they had a choice when it comes to voting…Not in Riverside:
Some say he worked hard for his money and the city, he deserves it. I know a lot of people who work hard for their money, but will never get the compensation such as is seen in the government public sector. It used to be that the big homes were owned by entrepreneurs and business people, now they are owned by government employees.
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Yesterday, the governor declared a statewide water emergency. It will allow the city to raise water rates without a hearing per Prop. 218. However, we are water dependent. This means we do not purchase imported (expensive) water. Remember, we sell water to Colton, Rialto, Fontana, High Grove, Home Gardens, Corona, Rubidoux and the WMWD. We own court adjudicated water rights to annually harvest more water than the city uses. Approximately 20% of our water is sold outside the city. Most if not all of our water rights are a type that requires the city to pump and use it or loose it forever. Our rights to the water can be taken away by anyone should we stop harvesting all of the water.
So where does water conservation fit in? The Governors Emergency? Once again we will be urged to conserve and leave the water in the ground?! Not hardly, this is why we sell water outside the city–we have to in order to maintain the legal protections for our water rights. So we will told to use less water, pay more for less water, and the city will sell your water to others and continue to approve new developments (future water customers) in spite of state law specifying that during a declaration of emergency “no new connections to the city water system can be approved.” Riverside the city of Honesty, Clarity, Transparency and Measure A.
You may remember, TMC wrote about this in a past posting, whereby former Utilities Manager Dave Wright asked council for their blessing. If people are to be confronted with a new charge, which is really a tax, the city should justify the direct benefit to the property owners. It appeared the city could not.
On the other hand, regarding Electricity, if the people of Riverside would see the invoices on the wholesale purchases of electric credits for the City, they would be surprised. The purchase rates are hardly nothing, the gouging of the citizens is. The city even has electric credits that have not even been used. We should also ask the city about their off book accounts in the Power Department. Another L.A. DWP fiasco?
Here’s a response to the water hikes From the Desk of Scott Simpson:
There is according to some sources, over a million acre feet of water in the Bunker Hill Basin (San Berdo). This is the source of our water (we use about 80K acre/ft. and sell to other water agencies about 25K acre/ft. We pump and use all we can for fear of loosing it in a legal challenge to our right to harves water. Use it or lose it is how our water law works. So we a lot of excess water pumping every year to protect the legal right to harvest all that we own. It is so much more than we use each year that we sell it far under wholesale market value. We take a loss on these sales in order to secure long term selling contracts for disposal of our annual excess harvest.
Conservation in Riverside means we sell more of our water outside the city in $ losing contracts! It means nothing to us as far as protecting our annual supply. We are annually ordered by a Court appointed water master to pump all of our water and more, or lose the future rights to pump it forever. So our City Water Conservation ordinance is a fraud. State policy to conserve water is VOLUNTARY, because some areas in the state are under Court order to pump and use according to prior adjudication of a regions wate rights. It is history and law that goes back to the beginning of California in 1849.
The purple pipe is another project for future development/population increase. State Law specifies that new infrastructure to serve new development (or our downtown redevelopment of high occupancy buildings) is required to recover the infrastructure cost via property assessments to the parcels that receive the benefit.
State Water policy conflicts with our constitution and law if you apply it in an area like Riverside as our city is doing. Instead, our city wants to put the cost on our water bill under the guise of following state water conservation policy. This increases the cash flow of water sales and Measure A sweeps more money into the general fund every month. Increases in utility rates, fees and charges will always send more cash to the general fund. This is why we, the current residential utility customers of Riverside are subsidizing the infrastructure investment to prepare the city for future growth. We are being scamed.
-Scott Simpson, (former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Control Substances, specializing in ground water contamination.)
TO RENEW OR NOT TO RENEW A WATER CONSERVATION SURCHARGE? CITY OF RIVERSIDE RESIDENTS QUESTION THIS NEW TAX.
The following came in the mail of City of Riverside residents the first week of February 2014, that Riverside Public Utilities is proposing to renew the 1.5% Water Conservation Surcharge. Well it’s being called a Surcharge, but that is code word of Tax, and all Taxes by law must be brought to a Vote of the residents.
According to the mailing insert, the surcharge will expire May 31, 2014. Therefore, there will be a hearing March 21, 2014 at 8:30 am at the Public Utilities Boardroom, located at 3901 Orange Street, Riverside. At this time, the board will consider all public protest and objections. Usually what we find is that hardly any of the public ever show up, or can show up for that matter due to the time element, most people work and cannot participate in this democratic process. The board may just find that no showed and push through the renewal of this surcharge. But again, this surcharge should be challenged, because what it is in essence, is a TAX.
We have since found that the Tokyo based 7-Eleven’s have been trying to force out many older store owners on bogus grounds in order to get the stores for free and then to re-sell them as part of 7-Eleven’s new expansion plans. In another words, it appears that the Tokyo based 7-Elevens are attempting to attain profitable stores by any means possible only to flip them at exorbitant profits! The Patel’s 7-Eleven Store is on Jurupa and Magnolia in Riverside.
RIVERSIDE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL ZELLERBACH BANNED FROM SPEAKING AT LOCAL MIDDLE SCHOOL? DAM IT ALL ANY HOO..
What the #$%*!, Opps, I did it again… Ah *!#&%..
According to the Press Enterprise, DA Paul Zellerbach in an election year, won’t be invited back to talk to school children at Gage Middle School, as a result of his use of a profane word, “dam.” But it seemed uplifting to know, that the PE states he hasn’t been “blacklisted”, which sounds more devasting than just being banned from one school. But it also seems that the PE didn’t get it all correct when it came to the profane termology use at the school. According to KESQ News out in Palm Springs, he also used “ass” and “bullshit” as well. According to commenter Bill Wallace on the PE, Zellerbach was only trying to “keep it real.” Others have told TMC that the middle school should not have been offended, since these kids usually hear or use far worse profane terms on the school yard…
What does Vivian Moreno’s best friend, Riverside School Board Member Tom Hunt have to say about all this?
Anyway, TMC came up with some possible alternatives swear terms that good ol DA may consider to use in place of the offensive ones and help prevent him from becoming black listed, and best of all, still keep it real!
Here you Go: Fudge!, Fiddle Sticks!, Jiminy Crickets!, Schucks!, Dagnabbit!, Gee Whiz!, Fish Sticks!, Holy Cow!, Sufferin Succotash!, Geez Loise!, Golly Gee!, Drat!, Oh My Goodness!, Leapin Lizzards!, Sam Hill!, Bummer!, Balderdash!, Crabcakes!, Doggone!, Heck!, Goodness!, Good Grief!, Gadzooks!, My Word!, Gobbledygook!, Hogwash!, Holy Frijoles!, Hockey Puck!, Kawabunga!, Mother of Pearl!, etc. etc. So much for “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Maybe Middle Schools should consider a sign for the adults, not sure if this would apply to the children…that’s left to be seen. But many are asking the question if this was politically motivated. Was this actually about the middle school kids or the teacher’s unions?
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT POLICE OFFICER’S IN RIVERSIDE GIVING TICKETS TO BICYLCIST FOR UNSAFE DRIVING? This was a TMC submission which shows an occurence between a Venice Beach bicyclist and an L.A. Police Officer on patrol with his motorcycle on a beach bike lane (is that even legal). This was not meant to give the City of Riverside any ideas.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
According to Vivian Moreno, her account and comment on this situation are as follows:
Does the misuse of assett forfeiture funds turn cops into robbers? Equitable Shared Funds (Asset Forfeiture Funds) shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes. Here are some of the “ALMOST NOTHING” things that were spent. Baker to Vegas Run-tennis shoes,gear & hotel stay. Police Chief Leach paid $35K to his wife Connie. Birthday cake and candles. Police Chief Leach & Gonzales spent almost $500 a night each at the Ritz Carlton, Vicino goes golfing. Police Chief Leach took Grover Trask to lunch with these funds, then the City of Riverside hired Grover to defend Leach. I bet Grover didn’t know leach was using Asset Forfeiture Funds to pay for his lunch. Or the $15,000 on Fitness Equipment, $2,084.40 on Small Kitchen Appliances or the $35,000 to former Police Chief Russ Leach’s wife Connie Leach’s Multi Cultural Youth Festival? Assistant Finance Director for the City of Riverside tried to explain it to Dvonne Pitruzzello, but again the DOJ has precise criteria for the use of asset forfeiture funds. One thing is certain, you cannot transfer Federal Police Asset Forfeiture monies to the General Fund.
Asset Forfeiture Guide:Seeks to assist state and local law enforcement agencies participating in the program by clarifying the directives they must follow to obtain and use equitably shared funds. The goal is to make the process as clear as possible so that local communities and the nation can thrive from reduced crime and from quality law enforcement. Were suppose to use bad guy’s monies against bad guy’s. Who’s the bad guys in Riverside?
Equitably Shared Funds shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only. What does Tennis Shoes, Lunches, Connie Leach and Golf have to do with Law enforcement? I trust Aquino’s account of the situation than the City’s. She understands the program even better than the Press Enterprise.
Then you have to ask the question, “Did the Chief Diaz cancel the current December “Chief’s advisory Board Meeting” because they could no longer use Police Asset Forfeiture funds to pay for the dinner provided to the Board Members?” What fund will they use now and will there be a January meeting with no food? I just have one thing to say to the CHIEF… POT LUCK!
City Manager Scott Barber Ooops, Sorry, City Manager Scott Barber
The law firm will charge the taxpayer a measley $300.00 plus incidentals. After $150,000.00, the law firm miraculously concluded the allegations were baseless! What a miracle. Belinda Graham was also assistant city manager under Hudson. We as taxpayers must begin to ask the City why it has costed us so much liability, not this one case, but other, especially the ones you don’t hear about. The new investigation is all about Police Asset Forfeiture expenditures. The way these funds are spent are in question. The criteria for spending is set by the Department of Justice. According to the Press Enterprise, the PE themselves did their own investigation and found in a review of asset forfeiture spending by RPD, they concluded they turned up almost nothing that appeared questionable. Really now PE? Running shoes, Las Vegas to Baker Run, Connie Leach salary not questionable? What the PE doesn’t understand is that items which appear as nothing can consequentionally be a basis for losing the whole assett forfeiture program in Riverside.
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T! IS THIS WHAT THE TAXPAYER SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE NEW INVESTIGATION?
This partner specializes in magic, thought-reading, and divination (Tarot, oracle cards, palmistry, astrology, and numerology). How much will this investigation cost the taxpayer this time, I guess my question to the City of Riverside is, does this get paid through the taxpayer or the other side. But it may be as it is in Belinda’s world, Cihigoyenetche Grossberg Clouse may be just the thing to take this investigation that one step beyond.
ROUND THREE APPEAL FOR FORMER AND FIRED CITY EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER
In a letter, appellant Jason Hunter, former City of Riverside employee, questioned the decision of the Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body made on his behalf. TMC recently wrote about this in this December 2013 article. Jason Hunter was the City of Riverside’s Principal Resource Analyst, in other words his was head of Wholesale Energy Marketing and Trading. Hunter’s recent letter is as follows:
Appeal by Jason E. Hunter of Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body Decision of Code of Ethics and Conduct Complaint against the Human Resources Board
In accordance with the City of Riverside Resolution No. 22461-Code of Ethics and Conduct -the following shall serve as a formal appeal of the Adjudicating Body’s decision regarding the above-referenced ethics complaint, filed September 9,2013, and heard on November 15, 2013, and December13, 2013. It is appellant’s contention that the findings and conclusion of the Adjudicating Body weremade in clear error and abuse of discretion.
As to the first cause, Creating Trust of Local Government:
The Adjudicating Body (“AB”) ignored the fact that the members of the Human Resources Board (“HRB”), serving as a quasi-judicial panel, had a serious obligation to appellant to understand the basic tenets of local, State, and U.S. law regarding due process and disciplinary proceeding procedures. The AB found that the HRB was unprepared for this hearing, and delegated its responsibilities to an all-too-ready-to-take-charge City Attorney, but instead placed this blame on city staff. While appellant agrees there is significant fault on behalf of staff, he believes the HRB also had a fiduciary duty to him to make sure he was afforded a fair hearing by an impartial tribune. It is clear from the videotape of the disciplinary hearing that the appellant believed there were clear violations of his rights taking place, and yet these are never even minutely addressed by the HRB.
The Adjudicating Body did not consider the fact that all post-hearing attempts to cure the defects presented to the HRB after the May 13, 2013, hearing, including his Motion for Reconsideration of June3, 2013; letter to HRB Chairman Powell of May 16, 2013; and additional pleadings at subsequent HRB open hearings were simply ignored. The AB also chose to ignore Section 804 of the City Charter stating that Boards must meet monthly, so that the public has an adequate opportunity to voice its concerns regarding city operations.
As to the second cause, Making Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions:
The Adjudicating Body admits the City Attorney took over the meeting at times. The Adjudicating Body recognizes the HRB was not prepared for the disciplinary hearing. Given these two admissions, how can the HRB have made fair, unbiased decisions?
As to the third cause, Treating Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner:
The AB admits the HRB and city were remiss in providing transparent and easily comprehended protocols, rules, and outline in a timely fashion to the appellant. The AB seemed to ignore that the advocating Deputy City Attorney seemed well prepared for his disciplinary hearing in terms of time limits the appellant was ignorant to. Hence, the City Attorney’s office seemed to receive preferential treatment in preparation for the disciplinary hearing.
The AB admits procedural defects most likely happened during the course of the disciplinary hearing, but does believe the HRB had a responsible to at least slow down the proceedings to investigate the appellant’s claims of such. Appellant finds this logic flawed.
As to the fourth cause, Ensuring that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside:
The Deputy City Attorney misled the AB at the December hearing by stating the HRB does not have the power to compel testimony nor evidence. This statement is a half-truth, nor was this assertion what appellant stated for the record at his disciplinary hearing. City Charter section 804 grants the HRB the option of requesting such power from the City Council, as would have been appropriate in an adversarial proceeding of substantial concern such as appellant’s demotion and termination under circumstances of alleged retaliation and harassment.
As far as protecting the best interests ofthe City of Riverside, the appellant leaves to the City Council to decide whether allowing a contested disciplinary hearing to spiral into Superior Court and the District Attorney’s office was good judgment.
As to the fifth cause, Ensuring that All Officials are Prepared for the Exercise of Their Duties:
The AB acknowledges the HRB was unprepared for the disciplinary hearing, and delegated decision making to the City Attorney’s office in light of their willful ignorance. However, the AB seems to find city staff at blame. Appellant argues once again that the HRB was cognizant of the significance of this disciplinary hearing and chose to willfully come unprepared to conduct this quasi-judicial session.
Appellant in fact believes the rules, protocols, and outline for his disciplinary hearing were not even written by the HRB, which should have been their responsibility to deliberate publicly. Hence, the HRB allowed themselves to be beholden to a biased City Attorney’s office in how it was to conduct his disciplinary hearing.
Relief Sought:
In light of the misrepresentations and omissions made by the city staff, as well as the Adjudicating Body’s refusal to discuss or vote upon appellant’s timely objections made prior to the November 15, 2013, hearing, and intransigence in accepting additional evidence at the December 13, 2013, some of which was requesting by the Adjudicating Body itself on November 15, 2013, the Adjudicating Body was unable to make an educated decision based upon complete information, including newly discovered evidence.
Appellant now respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the decision of the Adjudicating Body, and find that Human Resources Board members Norman Powell, Arthur Butler, Holly Evans, Jamie Wrage, Sonya Dew, and Patricia Eibs did violate the Code of Ethics and Conduct in failing to:
1. Create Trust of Local Government
2. Make Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions
3. Treat Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner
4. Ensure that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside
5. Ensure that All Officials are Prepared for the Exercise of their Duties.
Also, the appellant wishes the City Council to deliberate as to whether ignoring the complainants pre-hearing objections and motions, as well as requested evidence and new evidence, was an exercise in sound judgment on behalf of the Adjudicating Body. Additionally, the Appellant calls for the City Council to set for public review the protocols, rules, and outline established by the City Attorney’s Office for conducting Code of Ethics and Conduct hearings as per the spirit of Resolution No. 22461.
SHOULD THIS BE THE NEW RULE ON THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S EMPLOYEE BULLETIN BOARD?
“WHISTLE BLOWER’S WILL BE FIRED” .. “DO NOT REPORT FRAUD, MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS or any ILLEGAL ACTIVITY by MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, or YOU WILL BE FIRED!”
Your next City of Riverside employee position posting should read:
WANTED: ANYONE WILLING TO LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL FROM THE CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE. ALL OTHERS NEED NOT APPLY…
The whole scheme or artiface behind this commission appears to ensure the monopolization of the market place by AMR, and those ambulance services who can pay CAAS’s high fees for accredition. This would leave out smaller ambulance services by design. Thanks, but no thanks Chief Earley, the PE may call this “arrogant”, we call it plain “despicable.”
But it doesn’t end there folks we did several stories on this regarding the close ties between AMR executives and the City Council and Mayor. Back in October 2011, 6-1, City Council votes to deny Mission Ambulance a franchise, except for Councilman Paul Davis. That means American Medical Response, or AMR, will remain the sole medical transportation provider in Riverside. Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey suggested that a council subcommittee review the ambulance policy, but it’s not yet clear if that will happen. It will never happen, because actions speak louder than words.. Mayor Bailey who was Councilman at the time voted on this denial, and we can see why. At the time Councilman Rusty Bailey was seen with having ice cream at a local Dairy Queen with non other than Peter Hubbard of American Medical Response (AMR).
On a side note and on good authority, we found out that now Mayor William “ Rusty” Bailey bought the cone of ice cream for Peter Hubbard. Could this be a bribe? You decide.. the point folks in this bit of levity but on good authority, is that we intend to expose the relationships of old family connections which have created a culture of corruption in the City of Riverside. We are just sorry our source could not attain the ice cream flavor…
City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey Sorry, Mayor William Rusty Bailey
What else can we tell you of the incestuous relationship with the City of Riverside and even Riverside County. Well, TMC has found that back in February 13, 2012 the State Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) states that City of Riverside and County of Riverside overstepped it’s authority in limiting ambulance services. TMC therefore ask the question if the $1.4 Million that AMR provides the City of Riverside each year for paramedic training and equipment contribute to how the City votes on issues that impact AMR? TMC thinks so, we also think it can be construed as a “bribe.” Oopps, I said it, and I’ll say it again, a “bribe.” Others have mentioned that the $1.4 million allows AMR to buy two more minutes from an agreed response time. This allows AMR to be late by 2 minutes, therefore how does this help the injured? We say it is just like having a bad burrito, it just doesn’t sit well in the stomach’s of the Riverside community residents. This of course shouldn’t be the case.
Bruce Barton, director of the county’s Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Tom McEntee, AMR’s general manager, said Thursday there was no intent to mislead anyone at the Oct. 17 workshop. Information about the rate increase was widely available online, Barton said. Let’s not forget the accreditation company CAAS, Sarah McEntee, the executive director of CAAS is the wife of AMR’s general manager, Tom McEntee. Incestuous?
According to public speaker Rebecca Ludwig, could “Golden Boy”, Riverside County Supervisor, John Taviglione have a part with AMR?
So what is next for General Earley, oopps, retired at work again Fire Chief Steve Earley? You decide… You are always right, citizens of Riverside, make your opinions be known at City Council and not be afraid of retribution by the City as some residents have indicated. One we are none, more than one we are many….
Will the real Steve Earley please come forward..
As one local Riverside critics stated, “Would that mean its OK to embezzle as long as you don’t go over the budget?”
Of course, you know, there is more to come… stayed tuned for another episode of “As Riverside Turns Your Stomach”.
With this, questions still linger regarding the process that went down. Why is the Fire Union making decisions regarding the taxpayer? Why is it that the City, through City Manager Scott Barber, must look elsewhere, outside the City for a new Chief? Don’t we have capable people who can move up the rank, such as Deputy Chief Mike Esparza. Incidently, Mike Esparza was chose to be the interim Fire Chief until a new one is found. I just say we keep the new Fire Chief Mike Esparza.
Esparza will take charge until March 2014; the next in roatation are Division Chief Bill Schellhous from April through June; and Division Chief LaWayne Hearn from July through September. Again if we are touted as having the best of the best due to are training, why must we look outside for another candidate? Time and time again we see the same scenario, we’ve seen it with Police Chief Sergio Diaz, another double dipper. But remember this was also the legacy of the prior City Manager who skipped town when he seen the writing on the wall.. Brad Hudson. Hudson was responsible for the hiring of Police Chief Sergio Diaz as well as Fire Chief Steve Earley, from the County of Riverside whereby Hudson previously worked, not to mention our current City Manager Scott Barber, former Public Works Director Siobhan Foster, who was said by insiders didn’t know what a “pot hole” was, and current Human Resource Director, Rhonda Strout, known in some circles and “Luxury Girl”, who had her own set of problems with the cost of liability to the tax payer with current employees.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight…A Riverside detective named Chris Lanzillo gets fired…then is called back so that he can be retired early on a medical disability…which qualifies him to recieve his pay in large part tax free for the rest of his life. BUT…he’s not so disabled that he can’t work as a private investigator for a law firm that represents cops and cop unions…and shall we say…suuplement his retirement pay……Is that absurd or what! He’s a bad cop who’s now a crook…and we got to pay his freight for the rest of his life! – John Bosch, Commenter on the Orange County Register
UPDATE: FULLERTON POLICE NOT GUILTY IN MURDER OF KELLY THOMASSobs fill courtroom..Many are asking the question, why aren’t police cleaning house of the bad apples? If not, is the beginning of a police state mentality? Where by the judge and the jury accepted the actions of the police. Will it be acceptable that the police act as the judge, jury and executioner, and the court system only a formality? Should we as residents and citizens be concerned and afraid?
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
IS THE ETHICS PROCESS NOTHING MORE THAN JUST A KANGAROO COURT RUN BY THE CAPTAIN KANGAROO HIMSELF, GREG PRIAMOS?
Has our Ethics Complaint process been thoughtfully designed by City insiders to orchestrate a favorable result each and every time a complaint is brought forward to the adjudicating body by a member of the public? We’ve noticed the members of that body always seems to somehow be a little too closely associated with City business. We therefore ask the following question, “did this resolution deny former employee of Public Utilities, Jason Hunter, due process and deny his civil liberties regarding his right to a fair hearing?”
Mr. Hunter was recruited to run our utility’s wholesale marketing and trading function. Apparently, he wasn’t too impressed by what he saw there, because he became a whisteblower within years of his start date. A non-native to Riverside, poor Mr. Hunter just didn’t know exactly how we treat, “those kinds,” when he began his complaints. Of course, if he did, he most likely would not have come to the River City in the first place! When the City terminated his services, in lieu of a lawsuit, it appears Mr. Hunter filed an ethics complaint to quickly and inexpensively get to the bottom of what he perceived to be an illegal and unethical appeals hearing process within the City, which he had just been dragged through, he filed an ethics complaint against our Human Resources Board…only to find out that process was as crooked as the appeals process!
His concerns included the City hiring outside council, whereby he had none, City Attorney Gregory Priamos’s continued interference in the process, etc., etc., ad naseum, ad infinitum.
When we look at the following resolution passed by City Council passed October 2012, the above resolution appears to contradict the core values. One of the core values is “creating trust in government.” By consolidating all individuals into one hearing represented by one or several attorneys, places doubt on this concept. The conflict of interest of Justin Scott Coe, chairman of the Ethics Panel, also chairman of the board of Public Utilities, of the department of which Hunter’s services were terminated. It doesn’t stop there, the first hearing did not end in a definitive decision, but was deferred to a later date or continuance, so the panel could study the complaint with a better perspective. We will get to that a bit later. Priamos was did not appear at any of the ethics hearing, and according to Hunter should have recused himself at the Human Resources hearing as a result their prior interaction with his resulted in none compliance to his document and informational request.
Hunter names the following as part of the ethics complaint: Norman Powell, Chairman of the Human Resources Board; Arthur Butler, Holly Evans, Jamie Wrage, Sonya Dew and Tricia Eibs, all members of the Human Resources Board.
I object to the city paying for outside counsel for the Human Resources Board members at their ethics hearing if this indeed is happening. I remain unrepresented and question the fairness of such arrangement.
Per City Charter Section 702 (b), the City Attorney is to, “represent and appear for the City in any or all actions or proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party, and represent and appear for any City officer or employee, or former City officer or employee, in any or all actions and proceedings in which any such officer or employee is concerned or is a party for any act arising out of such officer’s or employee’s employment or by reason of such officer’s or employee’s official capacity.”
I object to the City Attorney’s Office advising the Ethic Hearing Committee, as it cannot fulfill its obligation under the Charter and remain as independent counsel to this committee. This is an obvious conflict of interest, much like the City Attorney himself advising the Human Resources Board at my grievance hearing of May 13, 2013, while his subordinate, Mr. Neal Ozaki, advocated against me. In fact, as a former city employee, I question why I was not given the option of being represented at the City’s expense at the May hearing, as it appears members of the Human Resources Board will be at this Friday’s scheduled hearing.
I object to the City Attorney’s Office writing the protocols all-together. Per Section 804 of the City Charter: “Each board or commission may prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with the Charter and copies of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk where they shall be available for public inspection.” Resolution No. 22590 violates the Charter by allowing a conflicted City Attorney to unilaterally adopt the protocols for this hearing and is therefore illegitimate.
I object to any past, present, or future ex-parte communication between Smith Law Offices, city-appointed counsel (I assume) for the Human Resources Board, and either Ethics Committee members themselves or their counsel regarding any matters regarding this complaint. If this communication has already occurred, I demand to know the nature of such, and based upon such information, may request dismissal of the HRB’s counsel or Ethics Committee members to ensure a fair hearing. Per the California Public Records Act, I request all contracts and invoices of Smith Law Offices with the city related to this hearing.
I object to city of Riverside board and commission chairmen serving as members of the adjudicating body. These appointed officials owe a duty to the city of Riverside, and hence have a considerable conflict in remaining independent. Further, they themselves fall under the jurisdiction of the Code of Ethics and Conduct and are therefore not unbiased in determining the intent of the voters in interpreting the code. Moreover, members of the adjudicating body themselves may be subject to ethics complaints at a future date, with members of the current Human Resources Board finding themselves serving as their adjudicating panel. The conflict here is obvious.
For the same rationale as above, I object to the Riverside City Council serving as the appellate body.
I object to Justin Scott-Coe serving as the chairman of the Ethics Committee. Mr. Scott-Coe is the current chairman of the Board of Public Utilities. I was illegally terminated without cause from Riverside Public Utilities in part for whistleblowing activities against its executives, and the conflict here should be obvious.
I object to being given only 15 minutes to state my case. This matter should be dealt with seriously and no time limits should be in place, as long as relevant materials are being discussed and the meeting is progressing efficiently. I question the fairness of this protocol, and its compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Resolution No. 22318) itself.
I object to opposing counsel being given unlimited time to state its case, given the restrictions on my time. I question the fairness of this protocol.
I object to not being allowed to compel witnesses and evidence, as allowed under Section 804 of the City Charter.
I object to not being allowed to question city employees and members of the Human Resources Board as to their involvement in the proceedings of May 13, 2013. I question the absence of this protocol, and whether this absence violates compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Resolution No. 22318) itself.
I object to not receiving answers to the various questions I have asked to elected officials and public employees over the course of the last several months in regards to this complaint and my grievance hearing of May 13, 2013.
In an email to the City Council he hopes that they would consider the alternative..
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE AND VIEW EMAIL
The City Charter for the City of Riverside is as follows where he specifically refers to Section 804:
In the second part of the hearing or the continuance, after 2 hours of discussion the panel found no code of ethics violation connected with the hearing process of the Human Resource Board, but the panel would recommend to City Council that their be more training of the Human Resource Board. Also noted was the interference of City Attorney Gregory Priamos in the process. What was also disturbing was that Ethics Panel Chairman Justin Scott Coe admitted meeting with City Attorney Gregory Priamos prior to the hearing, and that he recieved a set of protocol from Priamos that the others on the Ethics Panel did not receive. Again we have a conundrum with the perseption of conflict of interest and swaying the decision process by the City Attorney himself.
City Attorney Gregory Priamos Public Utilities Board Chair Justin Scott-Coe
Ortiz was quite outspoken on the issue, but it doesn’t end their. A complaint was issued by Jason Hunter regarding an RPD episode at his home, evidently initiated by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. In regards to this episode, Hunter issued a complaint against the Riverside Police Department via the Riverside Community Police Review Committee. Will Hunter recieve a fair hearing of which was against Riverside’s finest? His story is as follows:
RPD GIVE FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER A VISIT
What TMC learned, was that after Hunter was released from his postion, a pack of three RPD officers were sent to his house. We were later told anonymously that one of the RPD officers was known as “Crazy Vince.” We learned they were sent by non other thatn City Attorney Gregory Priamos, this in order to question him regarding a complaint made against him of alleged threats. He was told by an RPD officer that he was not allowed to appear at City Council or on the City Hall grounds. The officer told him they would place handouts around to inform other RPD officers. “You can’t do that,” Hunter stated. The officer responded, if you do they’re may a young edgey police officer and you may get shot. Now what we had in the past, was Karen Wright arrested for going over the 3 minute mark, Letitia Pepper arrested for clapping, and now the threat to shoot to kill a former employee by RPD enforcers given the order per the City Attorney Gregory Priamos. When RPD attempted and reached Hunter’s ex-wife to ask her information regarding his state of mind, she asked how did you get my information? They didn’t respond. She also now has a complaint with CPRC for illegally attaining private information, as well as Jason Hunter for the threats to kill him if he shows up at City Hall. It doesn’t get better than this folks! Others also have come out anonymously, and have also had experiences with RPD acting out of the line of duty as “enforcers.” We certainly may not hear anything from DA Zellerbach, expecially in an election year..or Chief Sergio Diaz, because I imagine they will say it just doesn’t exist. So far the Riverside Community Police Riview Committee has not responded to Hunter’s complaint. But how will this pan out with City supporter Ortiz, a BB&K Attorney and Commission Member of the Riverside Community Police Review Committee? In which their mission statement states that the Community Police Riview Commission was created in order to promote public confidence in the professionalism and accountability of the the sworn staff of the Riverside Police Department. Sworn should mean something to a police officer, to uphold the law and not the so called blue line of protection. Most use the term to refer to the unwavering commitment the police have for each other, to the point of willingness to blur the truth in favor of their “blue” brethren. Meaning: The police do not cross “the thin blue line” when it comes to defending each others’ actions.
Let’s hope TMC doesn’t get a visit from the so called enforcers… Thanks, we have the FBI.
More to come on this breaking story…
PAST ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN CHRIS MAC ARTHUR:
Going through past ethics complaints we bring the isssue of the complaint against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur and his legislative aide Chuck Condor. While the adjudicating body found no wrong doing, OSHA cited with the complainents regarding the action in question. Councilman Adams may have other words to describe his attack on complanents, “Did you see it? did you see it?”
Incidently, there is also an incident of stalking, anonymously sent to us, regarding Lanzillo when he was with RPD. This he did as a uniformed officer.
The City continues to be in the business of government entertainment, even though the Fox Theatres continues to operate in the black at over $1 million a year.
GOING BACK IN TIME IN RPD, THE KEERS COMPLAINT: “LOOK HER MOUTH IS OPEN, SHE MUST BE TRYING TO GET PROMOTED.”
In 1989, when Keers yawned in the bay, Detective Ron Adams (Councilman Steve Adam’s brother, prior police officer), commented, “Look her mouth is open, she must be trying to get promoted.” Nice Ron..and good luck on your brother who believes he is Congressman material for the next election. Watch out folk who you vote for!
This complaint filed by female RPD officer Keers back in the 90’s against the police department. Yes, it does have Councilman Steve Adams brother Ron Adams included in this complaint. Even now, what will the City of Riverside do to curtail undo liability against the taxpayer via their employees, such as RPD?
HOW DOES IT LOOK WHEN RIVERSIDE CITY ATTORNEY, GREG PRIAMOS, IS HELPING BEST, BEST & KRIEGER MAKE TONS OF MONEY FROM RIVERSIDE CITY TAXPAYERS BY VIOLATING STATE BAR RULES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
According to an email sent to TMC by Attorney Letitia Pepper the following was stated:
As I think most of you know, local activists have been trying for years to get copies of any contracts for legal services between the City of Riverside and the law firm of Best, Best & Krieger. This is because the City Charter provides that the City Council is supposed to approve — after review of course — contracts for outside legal for legal services.
Their Public Record Act requests have been met with a claim that no such contracts exist! Yet the City continues to pay BB&K the big bucks — but without any contracts?
State Bar Rules require that attorneys provide all clients with a written contract for any legal services. There are only two possible exceptions to this requirement that might apply to explain why no contracts exist between BB&K and the City:
(1) if the services provided were provided on an emergency basis (in which case a contract in writing must be provided once the emergency has been dealt with), or
(2) if the client has waived its right to a written contract.
I have urged these activists to submit a written Public Records Act request to the City for any records related to the existence of such a waiver of the right to a written contract. I don’t know if they’ve done so yet. But this is an important issue that must be addressed alongside the absence of any written contracts.
Would such a waiver of the City of Riverside’s right to a written contract for legal services be legally valid? No, it would not.
The right to a written contract for outside legal services, which can then be reviewed and approved only by the complete City Council, is a right which exists for the public’s interest, not the interest of the City Attorney, or the interest of the City Council members. A right created in the public interest can never be waived.
This issue is of particular importance right now. The City Attorney has been retaining the expensive services of Best, Best & Krieger to file amici briefs in appeals in which the City of Riverside has absolutely no interests! The amicus brief I was shown by Jason Thompson, Esq. already filed By BB&K on behalf of the City of Riverside, even states, in its introduction, thatRiverside has no interest in such case.
After the City Council’s plea (and mailings) that people vote for Measure A, or else face the reduction or closure of libraries and other public services, why and how is the City paying for such legal fees? Do the members of the City Council even know what’s going on, or how much money we’re bleeding in fees in cases in which the City and its residents are not involved?
And is the City Council prepared to allow the City Attorney to continue to funnel taxpayers’ dollars into even more lawsuits related to Best, Best & Krieger’s lucrative war against medical marijuana, when the City’s own residents have not been demanding an attack on medical marijuana?
Who is running this City? Its residents, or the City Attorney?
Below is a link to the page at the BB&K website, showing how BB&K will be able to continue to raid the public trough for millions of dollars, with help from City Attorney Greg Priamos, unless the City Council demands that, as required by the City Charter, any further outside legal services be first put into a written proposal, with a written legal services contract, submitted to them as an agenda item, and then put to a vote of the complete city council.
I request that Jason Thompson provide the City Council, the press, and the public with copies of these amicus briefs showing that the citizens of Riverside are paying for legal services that provide them with absolutely no benefits.
Our governments, at all levels, have been hijacked by special, financial interests. What’s happened in Riverside with this outside-legal-service-payments-without-a-written-contract scheme is a great local example. It’s also a great opportunity for our currently elected officials to prove that they are going to begin to represent their constituents, not big businesses, and not big law firms.
Sincerely, Letitia E. Pepper
Here’s the link to BB&K’s website that shows that, if the City Council doesn’t regain control over outside legal services, we’ll be bleeding wasted money for years to come.http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40%20&an=27170&format=xml#!”
According to a Press Enterprise story on December 24, 2013, Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham again signed on the Rancho Cucamonga law firm Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse to again investigate another alleged wrongdoing case for the City. This time they were hired to investigate RPD’s asset forfeiture expenditures. If you remember back in May 2011 we did a story regarding forming Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling’s allegation of that former City Manager Brad Hudson was allegedley steering contracts to his friends. This Sterling learned from emails via employs in that department. Ms. Sterling reported these allegations of favoritism and was then fired by City Attorney Greg Priamos. City officials then said the allegations of contract steering were baseless, the City Attorney never responded and City Manger Hudson hired the above firm to investigate himself and put to put to rest these allegations against him. The law firm will charge the taxpayer a measley $300.00 plus incidentals. After $150,000.00, the law firm miraculously concluded the allegations were baseless! What a miracle. Belinda Graham was also assistant city manager under Hudson. We as taxpayers must begin to ask the City why it has costed us so much liability, not this one case, but other, especially the ones you don’t hear about.
The story gets stranger, because TMC found out later that one of the partners of the law firm, Scott Grossberg, also a motivational speaker who specializes in magic, and is the author of three critically acclaimed and bestselling books, available on Amazon, “The Vitruvian Square: A Handbook of Divination Discoveries,” “The Masks of Tarot,” and “Bauta: Betraying the Face of Illusion,” in addition to his oracle/divination cards, “The Deck of Shadows.” This partner specializes in magic, thought-reading, and divination (Tarot, oracle cards, palmistry, astrology, and numerology). How much will this investigation cost the taxpayer this time, I guess my question to the City of Riverside is, does this get paid through the taxpayer or the other side. But it may be as it is in Belinda’s world, Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse may be just the thing to take this investigation that one step beyond.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
How do we not cry about the abuse of taxpayer monies… Even our forefathers would find this unacceptable..
In regards to the $35,000 to former Police Chief Russ Leach’s wife Connie Leach’s Multi Cultural Youth Festival, in an email Assistant Finance Director for the City of Riverside tried to explain it to Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding the expenditure of the $35,000.00 from Police Assett Forfeiture to the General Fund, but again we must reiterate, the DOJ has precise criteria for the use of asset forfeiture funds.
CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DONATIONS TO THE MULTI CULTURAL YOUTH ORGANIZATION FROM FORMER CHIEF RUSS LEACH TO HIS WIFE, CONNIE LEACH.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE GRAND JURY IS AS FOLLOWS. IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED, PEOPLE INTERVIEWED, AND THE GRAND JURY SUBMITTED REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, The Coup d’état, Vivian Moreno was the person focused for the indept informational interview. The investigation was stopped suddenly, that interview never happened. A letter to Mary Figueroa, Board of Trustees, stated that the investigation was unfounded.
The Police Asset Forfeiture Fund (Equitable Sharing) is a restricted fund and has very clear guidelines on its intended purpose. Losing this fund couild be devastating to the Riverside Police Department. I question Ms. Aquino’s motives. Are you protecting the taxpayer? or is this personal?
In June of 2010 Dvonne P., Mary S. and Irma F. went to visit Ms. Aquino to question the use or misuse of the Police Asset Forfeiture (PAF) Fund. Her comment at the time was there is not any abuse in this department. Ms. Aquino directed them to look at Public Utilities.
On or about July 2010 we received the PAF Fund detailed accounting and audits from 2006 to 2009; 2010 was not available at the time, we now have 2010. The misuse of the PAF Fund has been ongoing in the City of Riverside since I’ve began studying Equitable Sharing. I took my concerns to the City Council, the District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, the Grand Jury and Councilman Paul Davis. All of which disregarded our complaint.
CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE EXPENDITURES
Here are some of the questionable items we found that were paid from the fund:
1. Running gear for officers to compete in the Baker to Vegas run (tennis shoes)
2. Payments to Connie Leach, the then Police Chief’s wife
3. Payments to the Multi-Cultural Youth Festival- Connie Leach’s youth program.
4. Al Johnson Florist
5. A birthday cake
6. Canyon Crest Cleaners- Russell Leach had his uniform cleaned, couldn’t he pay his own $8.00?
7. Hotel visits to the Ritz Carlton, $400 a night for Leach and Gonzales.
8. Office furniture which totaled $100, 000.00
9. Dell Computers for the Magnolia Police Station, $200,000.00
10. Lunch, lunch and more lunch for Leach and his friendemies.
Ms. Aquino knew over 3 years ago RPD management was misusing PAF Funds. The incident with John De La Rosa, the Baker to Vegas Run, happened November 2009. Why didn’t she alert the media then? Why now?
When Russ Leach wanted to pay his wife, go out to lunch, get his uniform cleaned, buy a birthday cake and stay at the Ritz Carlton, this was acceptable. When Vicino wants to go out to lunch and golfing it’s not acceptable. When your job is safe and secure it’s acceptable to turn your head at the misuse of Police Assett Forfeiture Fund and say or do nothing. When you’re placed on adminstrative leave it’s not acceptable to misuse these funds. You cannot have it both ways Ms. Aquino. Were you a willing partcipant or a victim?
I’m going to speculate what will be coming next from Ms. Aquino. There will probably be a tort claim filed, including all the malfeasance in RPD. It will surely contain all the bells and whistles which we’ve been saying for years. There probably will be a multi-million dollar law suit against the taxpayers of the City of Riverside. I will say this again, are you protecting the taxpayer or is this personal.
Telling the story of how this all began is an important one in order to understand why I have made the very important decision to run for the position of Mayor, Dvonne Pitruzzello, for the City of Riverside. Approximately two years ago I attended a city council meeting and a friend told me about the city manager and his $50,000.00 discretionary spending. It seems that the City of Riverside’s then city manager Bradley J. Hudson had an open checkbook to spend our money with no council approval. For those of you who know me, you also know that this would be something that I would find unacceptable. So I requested that the city council put a mechanism in place to not only track his spending but to have it reported and approved by the city council. A quarterly reporting would suffice. Alas, my curiosity got to me. I wondered just how much Mr. Hudson had spent and even more, what had Mr. Hudson spent our money on. Now the journey begins.
After sifting thorough thousands of pages of documents I kept finding reoccurring expenses. Connie Leach, Ironwood Construction, Provider Food Service, etc., etc., Thus began my relationship with the California Public Records Act. You see all documents, except attorney client privilege documents are public records and must be given to those who request these documents, for a fee or course. I’ll save the details of the power of the public records request act for another posting. My first public records request act was for several items that kept revealing themselves in Brad Hudson’s discretionary spending. Over 200 million dollars in less than five years. WOW! And our city council current and former gave Mr. Hudson a blank check to spend our money. So how did this all happen, was Hudson qualified? or was he as rumored, just a shoe in by the Tavaglione family?
But onward, I was not able to conquer all of this information single handedly, no, I had help, a few close friends that had been victims of the cities oppressive policies. Many meals around the table and later it was decided that the Connie Leach expenditures were extremely suspicious. Also take note that the amount of spending that had occurred was so disturbing I could not walk away. Approximately 200 million dollars in less than 5 years, what kind of city council would allow this? Now that’s a lot of tax money. We wanted to find out exactly why this, “Blank check of trust” was given to a man who had a criminal record, but was hired by the city council and mayor regardless.
Our quest had deepened and we began to get our feet wet investigating the expenditures of Connie Leach. Our lead investigator on the case Vivian Moreno worked tirelessly for months to help us understand why the then police chief’s wife Connie Leach had been paid in excess of $600,00.00, as a consultant to the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council. You see, when I, Dvonne Pitruzzello, was employed with the city and worked under Mayor Loveridge I did the same job for free. As a part-time employee I assumed the duties associated with the Youth Advisory Council. During my departure Connie Leach had approached the Mayor and stated that she would like to volunteer with children. I thought, what a great opportunity for the youth council to have a high profile person giving credibility to their council. It was to my dismay to find out less than a year after I left, Connie Leach began to receive payment(s) for her volunteer work. Doubly dismayed because we already had in place a Youth Action Office where these duties should have been assumed by the director, not Mrs. Leach, to pay someone else to do the job was again, unacceptable.
On to what we found. Contracts for over $300,000.00 and the remaining $300,000.00 were for various items paid for on behalf of the Youth Multicultural Festival, for which Mrs. Leach was a consultant also. Connie Leach did have a business license on file with the City of Riverside, Impact Consulting, both she and her then husband Chief of Police Russell Leach signed the business tax license. The question was, if Mrs. Leach collected donations from the community then why were these funds deposited into the general fund and not in a separate fund for specific expenditures for the Youth Multicultural Festival? By the way Mrs. Leach’s contracts were paid from the Parks and Recreation budget, the Economic Development budget, Development Department, etc. Depositing these funds properly would have been as simple as depositing them into the International Relations Council’s, non-profit account, Youth Multi-Cultural Festival, a perfect place for these donations. Of course everything would have been on the up and up if this had occurred……Nevertheless, it did not happen. When Mrs. Leach got paid for every taco she ever ate, and every cola she ever drank from Jack-in-the-Box, our suspicions grew ever greater. We asked for every check and/or wire transfer that was distributed to Connie Leach from the City of Riverside, and here is what we found.
Connie Leach had been paid $35,000.00 from police asset forfeiture funds, these are extremely restricted federal funds and can only be used for the sole purpose of gang or drug intervention programs. These funds under the supervision of her then police chief husband had been distributed to Connie Leach for her consulting fee as the advisor for the Youth Multicultural Festival. A grand jury report had been filed, but funny it seems that the person most likely to be interviewed, Ms. Moreno who did all of the investigation was never interviewed. Approximately two weeks after the grand jury served a subpoena on the City of Riverside for five years of police asset forfeiture records the complaint was dismissed, no reason given. Wow, how did the grand jury read all of of those documents in such a short time frame?
Let’s move on. Connie Leach was reimbursed for party hats from the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, we know how much students love these hats. She also had several parties at her house to reward the students for their hard work with all kinds of fancy cheeses and appetizers, students can’t resist the delicious Danish havarti cheese, these were receipts from Ralph’s grocery store. $300,00.00 dollars later, even though she only collected $100,00.00 in donations, our former CFO/Treasurer Paul Sundeen stated in a finance committee meeting that Connie Leach had done a great job and deserved every penny that we paid her. Shortly thereafter, his bound contract to the City of Riverside was found to be illegal, and he then faded away into the darkness of the Riverside sunset.
CONTRACT 1: AGREEMENT DATE AUGUST 30, 2004: FOR PRO CONSULT SERVICES RIVERSIDE YOUTH COUNCIL: AUGUST 30, 2004 TO APRIL 1, 2005 HOURLY RATE $50/HR NOT TO EXCEED 20K
CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1: AGREEMENT DATE JULY 22, 2005 (AMENDMENT OF JULY 1,2004 TO APRIL 1, 2005/ WITH EXTENTION TO JUNE 30,2005 CONTRACT ) AMEND TO JULY 1, 2005 TO DECEMBER 31, 2005: INCREASE BY 5K TO TOTAL 25K (PAY $25/HR)
CONTRACT 2: AGREEMENT DATE JANUARY 9, 2006: FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES APRIL 23, 2006 MULTI CULTURAL YOUTH FESTIVAL JANUARY 9, 2006 TO MAY 1, 2006 (NOT TO EXCEED 15K)
CONTRACT AMENDMENT 2: AGREEMENT DATE FEBRUARY 8, 2006 (AMENDMENT OF JULY 1,2004 TO APRIL 1, 2005/ WITH EXTENTION TO DECEMBER 30,2005 CONTRACT ) AMEND FROM DECEMBER 31, 2005 TO JUNE30, 2006 INCREASE BY 25K TO A TOTAL OF 50K
CONTRACT 3: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2006: FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AS YOUTH COUNCIL ADVISOR JUNE 30, 2006 TO JUNE 30, 2007 NOT TO EXCEED 50K (PAYMENT MADE BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICE)
CONTRACT 4: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2006: CONSULTANT FOR APRIL 29, 2007 MULTICULTURAL YOUTH FESTIVAL : NOT TO EXCEED 35K (PAYMENTS MADE BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICE)
CONTRACT 5: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2007: FOR PRO CONSULT SERVICES FOR APRIL 27, 2008 MULTI CULTURAL YOUTH FESTIVAL: NOT TO EXCEED 42.5K (PAYMENTS MADE BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICE)
CONTRACT 6: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2007: FOR PRO CONSULT SERVICES FOR YOUTH COUNCIL PROJECT: JULY 1, 2007 TO JUNE 30, 2008 HOURLY RATE $75/HR NOT TO EXCEED 50K
CONTRACT 7: AGREEMENT DATE MAY 5, 2008: FOR CONSULTANT SERVICE FOR RIVERSIDE YOUTH COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 2008 TO MAY 16, 2008 HOURLY RATE $75/HR NOT TO EXCEEDD $9,750
In 2008, a PE news release on 05/07 stated she was resigning 05/16. Connie Leach receives a contract for $9,750.00 on 05/08, in lieu that knowingly, the event would be canceled. Regardless if the Council or Mayor knew, they are responsible legally and managerably, regardless of the actions of the City Attorney Gregory Priamos and Former City Manager Brad Hudson. Well, regarding the DA, we get it he is a very busy man.. The Riverside Grand Jury…found no basis, during an incomplete investigation, while awaiting public records on asset forfeiture documents. The City, the judges, the grand jury and the DA’s office simply found nothing responsive to the documents. Zellerbach simply told us, “Is it illegal, or just bad business?” Well we were hoping you know Mr. Zellerbach…afterall you are the Big Kahuna.. This leaves many questions of why was a blog site targeted as opposed to the questions, documents and facts brought forward to your office. Questions of your association with the Grand Jury, City of Riverside officials, Judges etc. Why Mr. Zellerbach was it important to your office that a file on Thirty Miles of Corruption was created? Were you worried that your decision on the Karen Wright arrest could possibly change how the Riverside Police Officer’s Association would view you?
The bottom line is, in an article in the San Diego North County Times, San Diego Police said there was sufficient evidence to charge then City of Riverside Chief of Police Russ Leach with battery and they then fowarded the this case to the San Diego City Attorney’s Office for further investigation.
After all is said an done we find that Connie Leach now resides in the Carribean. What secrets does Carribean Connie know regarding RPD, Police Asset Forfeiture and her prior employment with the City of Riverside and the activities of her Ex-Husband Chief Russell Leach? How much did prior Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge know about all this? Possibly plenty?
When brought to the attention of the Grand Jury, the item in question was squashed. When brought to Big Kahuna himself, Paul Zellerbach, his assistant was more focused on who was behind the infamous blog site, Thirty Miles of Corruption. They themselve had a file of copies of each and every article written. When asked with the evidence brought forward to Paul, he only stated, “Is this bad business? Needless to say, our Grand Jury complaint was dismissed with out completely interviewing all the complainants under the watchful eye of Paul Zellerbach.
Karen Aquino, Police Administrative Service Manager for RPD
…Aquino has always been a strong advocate for following the established rules and procedures for asset forfeitures, knowing that they have very specific purposes and that she would be the first person blamed if any findings were made in an audit… – Attorney Danuta W. Tuszynska
These were Federal Funds and should have also been sent to the DOJ.. Okay Danuta, what now? How does this protect the taxpayer when your client may have possibly known all along the rules and law of Federal Asset Forfeiture? Again is this Personal or in the Best Interest of the Taxpayer? Or in the Best Interest of an Opportunity? Again, contact TMC with your dirt at THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
TOUGH CALL FOR ONE LOCAL BUSINESS ON WARD 3 COUNCIL POSITION….
Realizing it is difficult decision to take a position on a Ward 3 Candidate, what’s a business to do when both candidates may have asked for support, we find this local business may have the answer…
WHO SEEMS TO BE AGGRAVATED WITH EACH OTHER AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE EACH GONE…COMING SOON! KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC.
Is Parks Director Ralph Nuñez really retiring at 54 years of age? STAY TOONED TO TMC.
What is going on with the new Riverside Community College Culinary School on University and Market Street?
JUST FOR LAUGHS!
How important is golf in RPD culture?
Mr. D. could you wrap it up, I’ll be late for tee time..
Yippee…made it!
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
IG
Javier Moreno
TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption 