councilman chris mac arthur | TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption

Posts Tagged ‘councilman chris mac arthur’

EXCLUSIVE: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: GEUSS & RUSSO CONTRACTS NULL & VOID! COLLUSION TO DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC?

Posted: March 6, 2018 in Uncategorized
Tags: city attorney gary geuss, city clerk colleen nicol, city manager john russo, city of riverside, councilman andy melendrez, councilman chris mac arthur, human resources stephanie holloman, jason hunter

NOT-SO-FAST ON THOSE SHINY NEW CONTRACTS!

Local resident Jason Hunter exposes the truth about the newly-signed gold-plated contracts of both City Manager John Russo and City Attorney Gary Geuss. Turns out the current contracts were not accompanied by an amendment to a resolution called the Master Fringe Benefits and Salary Plan, signed by the Mayor as required by City’s Municipal Code (local law). That particular resolution grants authority to the Council to pay certain salaries and benefits to certain positions. And the jury at TMC believes the omittance of this document to be intentional given other recent employee deals. But what the heck do we know!?

When both Russo and Geuss were initially employed, this particular resolution was included within the agenda packet that contained their contracts. Three years later it magically disappears. Hunter states the two ramifications of what’s been perpetrated: 1) the contracts terms negotiated outside the authority of the resolution are invalid (and the monies need to be returned immediately to the City’s treasury) and 2) upon re-introduction of the resolution, the Mayor has the right to veto the terms, as he does all resolutions under Section 413 of the City Charter.

Who would have known? We could extrapolate that City Attorney Gary Geuss, City Manager John Russo and even Human Resources Director Stephanie Holloman would have known. Incidentally, Holloman and Geuss we hear know each other from their employment with the City/Port of Los Angeles. Perhaps even Councilman Chris MacArthur could have known given how he eagerly tried to override Mayor Bailey’s veto by signing Russo’s contract as Mayor Pro-Tem. Maybe even Councilman Jim Perry, who signed Geuss’ deal, was in on the scheme.

Who also should have 100% with-out-doubt-known is City Clerk Colleen J. Nicol. Her 30% raise over the past 2-1/2 years must have affected her emotional decision-making not to alert Mayor Bailey. She is either afraid of Russo and Geuss, or she’s simply a master at playing the game (and consequently cruising into retirement at your expense). In our experience, Colleen doesn’t miss a piece of paper at City Hall…what we’d call a pro’s pro…so what’s up? Whatever the reason, you can be sure TMC will find out!

JOHN RUSSO FULL MEMO/RESOLUTION GARY GEUSS FULL MEMO/RESOLUTION

CITY CHARTER FRINGE BENEFITS SALARY REGULATIONS

Let’s not forget this quote from City Manager John Russo, “…as a child of immigrants with a scholarship Yale degree, and a top ten law school that I have to beg you to do and preserve what we all busted our tails to do to make this city move.” “But I assure you, I might be here in two years, and whether you extend my contract or not I’m not going to have any trouble getting a job. But if we vote no tonight, I cannot make any assurances to you about keeping this team together, that’s the reality that’s your choice!” More famous words for us Riverside Hillbilly’s is, “You can’t afford to have this team break up!” So what did Russo really mean? “I’m am so brilliant I’m going to screw Mayor Bailey and the taxpayer out of millions of dollars and they are so stupid they won’t even notice, and my cronies and I can live our much-deserved lavish lifestyles free of interference from the unwashed masses. Let them eat cake!” Our bet is the only cake we’ll be eating, John, will be at your going away party.

RIVERSIDE’S CONTRACT-GATE: ONE QUESTION REMAINS

UPDATE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO MAYOR BAILEY’S OFFICE: At the March 7, 2018, Riverside City Council meeting, Councilman Andy Melendrez requests an investigation into Mayor Bailey’s Office to determine if confidential materials related to the Mayor’s right to veto a contract of a City officer were released without Council authorization to the public. Rumor has it this request involves the Mayor’s Office releasing the Colantuono Legal Opinion (and hence violating the City’s Attorney/Client privilege) prior to it becoming a public document a few weeks ago. What? He’s requesting the formation of Special Counsel for this inquiry? Does he think the City of Riverside river water is full of the same rats found in the swamps of Washington D.C.? Shouldn’t have Andy requested Special Counsel to investigate the contract fraud Mr. Hunter speaks of instead?

As an aside we love how Andy is so nice and polite in this video right before he inserts the dagger of righteousness into the Mayor’s Office. All of sudden, after all these years, Andy wants “transparency,” into the dirty deeds done dirt cheap within the confines of City Hall. How marvelous! Andy should have just called TMC: we’ve already done the investigation for free! But alas, that’s for another day dear readers…

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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: “VETO” CORLEONE! RUSSO CONTRACT EXECUTED! THEN REVIVED FROM THE DEAD?

Posted: February 9, 2018 in Uncategorized
Tags: city councilman andy melendrez, city councilman jim perry, city councilman mike gardner, city councilman mike sobirous, city manager john russo, city of riverside, councilman chris mac arthur, councilman chuck condor, councilman steve adams, mayor william rusty bailey, veto

PART I, OF WHAT’S SURE TO BE AT LEAST A TRILOGY

BREAKING NEWS: Mayor William Rusty Bailey issues his veto message. The mayor stated this in a circulated email just mere minutes ago:

Good Afternoon, Last week at the City Council meeting, under the authority invested in the Mayoral position by Section 413 of the City Charter (https://riversideca.gov/municode/city-charter.asp), I vetoed the City Council’s decision to renegotiate and extend the City Manager’s contract. As required by the Charter, attached is the veto message that we released to the City Council this afternoon. Each of you plays a valuable role serving our community, I would encourage you to engage in this process in the coming weeks.

With Respect, Rusty

William R. “Rusty” Bailey, III Mayor

BAD TIMING, BAD BUSINESS, BAD POLICY, BAD MESSAGE – RUSTY’S VETO EXPLANATION

CLICK ON ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE, OR THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL PDF VERSION

Just when you think you’ve seen all, you forget you’re in Riverside: the epicenter of creative government finance for the betterment of special interests. At Tuesday’s February 6th council meeting, Mayor Bailey did something that has not been done for nearly 25 years: he dusted off his copy of the City Charter and used his veto power, finally showing he has a pair of balls.

Initially, when discussion opened to City Manager John Russo’s proposed contract, it appeared that the majority of Council was outraged. Condor, Adams, Soubirous and Gardner expressed their displeasure with the contract. When the final decision came about the vote was Condor and Perry “Nay”; MacArthur, Soubirous and Melendrez “Yea,” with Adams and Gardner flipping at the end with “Yeas” as well, to make the final tally vote 5-2 in favor of a brand spanking new 7-year contract for City Manager John Russo. TMC nominates both flippers for Academy Awards in the special category of “Pretending to Give a Damn”.

During the debate one could tell this outcome would not go over well with Mayor Bailey. The rumor is that behind the scenes the Mayor’s office and the City Manager’s office are feuding. Apparently, the Mayor’s Office cannot function as his predecessor, ex-Mayor Loveridge’s had things running (you know, with him having access to all City staff for his pet projects). It appears that the new City Manager put a stop to that, as was his right under the City Charter, and the paths were set for collision – Hatfield and McCoy-style. TMC takes no political position on this donnybrook, for the time being, we are just enjoying the the little boys stomping their feet. We present a montage of highlights:

ROYAL RUMBLE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Interestingly enough at the February 1st Budget Engagement Commission Meeting, ~~Natasha Fatale~~, Marianna Marysheva – (~~Martinez~~, what happened?), responded to what she was informed was a divide between the two offices with…“I haven’t seen it!” According to the video she receives weekly calls from headhunters (recruiters) asking her to go elsewhere for more money. Lucky for us, she rebuffs those solicitations because she sees the value of the City of Riverside and our best-in-class leadership. [snicker, snicker]

While your Council became worried about losing Russo, and began kissing his behind, Mayor Bailey finally asked the question, “Have you made a statement that you will leave if you don’t get this contract?” Well then the real John Russo comes out swinging! His ego is let loose for all to see. TMC reminds readers that Russo chose to enter into the public sector because he didn’t want to take any risk, as in the private sector. Now it seems he’s having a mid-life crisis as he comes to the latter stages of his career, and realizes he’s nothing more then a city manager hack in Riverside, California…unlike entrepreneurs and real businessmen like Elon Musk, who doesn’t have to beg for money, who doesn’t have to beg for his salary, while he’s shooting rockets to Mars doing exactly what he wants to do.

“When truth is blurred by lies and misinformation, perception becomes reality and all is lost.” … This person is creating his own perception by creating an illusion of reality. It does not matter that this person isn’t god’s gift to Riverside, it only matters that to him that you perceive him as one.

What is the reality of Russo’s contract to the taxpayers? Over his lifetime after retirement will it cost us over $50 million in pension cost and benefits? This has yet to be addressed by Council.

Back to the council meeting/spitball fight: Bailey gave a scathing response to the Council’s approval of Russo’s contract, and used his super secret, mayoral, wonder-twin power to veto the action vote of the Council! City Attorney Gary Guess was asked if the veto was legal? His response was a somewhat trepid (and mostly unconvincing) one, leading to Rusty’s “talk to the hand” response.

According to Section 413 of the Riverside City Charter:

At any time before the adjournment of a meeting, the Mayor may, by public declaration spread upon the minutes of the meeting, veto any formal action taken by vote of the City Council including any ordinance or resolution, except an emergency ordinance, the annual budget or an ordinance proposed by initiative petition. Thereupon, pending the vote to override the veto as herein provided, such ordinance, resolution or action shall be deemed neither approved nor adopted. The Mayor shall, no more than twenty days following the veto, provide to Council members, in writing, reasons for the Mayor’s veto.

Well, this kind of contradicted what City Attorney Gary Guess had earlier stated to Council and the Mayor, and certainly creates a controversy vis-a-vis the opinion he requested from outside counsel Michael Colantuono (a Proposition 218 attorney from Los Angeles that by the way, the Moreno’s beat on a case in Riverside, which protected ratepayers…not that we’re bragging…much).

In what must’ve been a land/speed record for Riverside contracts, the following morning City Clerk Colleen Nicol and Mayor Pro Tempore Chris MacArthur signed the contract. And within two days, we have the Mayor’s veto justification…without Council approval.

And so the saga continues….lies and drama, and yes, there is a divide Natasha. Not only is this a divide; its a fracture that will not repair itself. A fracture over the whole organization, and over EGO AND ARROGANCE AND ENTITLEMENT. And our Mayor has chosen his hill to defend or die trying. And so there will be only one winner. The Ice Queen selling a bill of goods to the budget committee that she is so sought after she can go anywhere, and old grandpa Russo being so smart that if he leaves, the sky will fall. And then you have the council tripping over each other, seeking favor from our City Manager in doling out the last remaining nectar from the almost-dry Measure Z honeypot.

We never thought we’d utter these words, but this may be better than the Brad Hudson/Belinda Graham era. But better in what way dear readers? Only time and a really good legal opinion will tell us who’s right on the Charter. But one thing for sure is that the Mayor’s office and the City Manager and their Council supporters will continue to fight this out in private and public now…and it will get uglier.

But is there still a game within this game? Our take is that one or two of the Council will flip their vote in favor of Bailey, out of loyalty and to insure future political fare in the City of Riverside. Ya knows? For the good of the old Riverside families.

TMC welcomes you responses and comments on this issue. Please reply in the comment section. We especially welcome those from the City of Oakland and the City of Alameda.

Will Don Bailey finally get’s Capo Russo to show respect for the River City Godfather and La Famiglia by kissing the ring? Who will be next on Corleone’s contract? For now finito!

BLAST FROM THE PAST: CITY MANAGER JOHN RUSSO:

DECEMBER 19, 2007: SAN FRANCISCO GATE: OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY GIVES HIMSELF A $28,000 RAISE

BLAST FROM THE PAST: FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON:

OCTOBER 2, 2010: PRESS ENTERPRISE: RIVERSIDE MANAGER’S PAY RAISES EYEBROWS

“Riverside officials said they’re getting their money’s worth. Councilman Andy Melendrez pointed to citywide improvements under the Renaissance program and the city’s healthy fiscal condition, things Hudson also cited as achievements.” Five years later Russo comes to town and discovers a $10 million budget deficit and $600 million in unfunded pension liabilities, and has to deal with $2 billion in City debt. Fast forward three more years 2018 and it’s the same old song and dance by our more-or-less-the-same Council just replace “Renaissance” with “the Cheech and new Library”. Nowhere does it mention the rate hikes, fees hikes, new taxes, and new debt that supported this non-stop reckless spending.

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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AFTER THE SMOKE SETTLED, THE PEOPLE PREVAILED… and the

Posted: December 12, 2014 in Uncategorized
Tags: city council mike soubirous, city councilman jim perry, city councilman mike gardner, city councilman steve adams, councilman chris mac arthur

MAYOR WAS CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN..

….(Click this Link, Be are guest and watch a full episode of HOGANS HEROES on YouTube)

Did it start with one man down? The tension was high that December 9th day, and the Council meeting hadn’t begun, when the AMR ambulance was called upon around 5:30 pm due to undisclosed symptoms distress experienced by Councilman Steve Adams.

Riverside Councilman Steve Adams, seen here running for Congress.

The ailments were serious enough that he was carried out by the Emergency Medical Team (EMT) to be taken to the hospital. When the meeting finally started the first thing the Mayor did was motion toward Councilman Gardner and said… “I know without Councilman Adams present… Councilman Gardner, are you going to look for a continuance?” Gardner asked council to defer action on the current issue until the following week, since he felt it was of considerable importance that it would be best to have a full council. Questions arose by the residents concerning if Gardner and Bailey planned or conspired on the issue of the deferral, since the dialog was so suspicious. Evidently, Councilman Chris Mac Arthur made the second motion, in what appeared to be very quietly. No one knew that Mac Arthur even made the motion. It appeared that he may have acknowledged he was making the second motion, by twiddling his fingers, as his hand laid close to his head. Did Mac Arthur think he was at a Christie’s Auction? The move to defer the issue only incited suspicion from the residents, which led to jeers and criticism from the crowd. What was Mac Arthur afraid of? He couldn’t even voice a second into the microphone, he had to utilize finger dialog instead?

Was the above finger dialog by Councilman Chris Mac Arthur toward the City Clerk what really happened? This is what TMC’s Center for Investigative Reporting came up with ( which consist of myself and now one other guy).

Later in the meeting the issue of who actually made the second came up by a constituent, because this part that I’m reporting on wasn’t actually seen by the audience.Defering the issue for the following week because Councilman Adams wasn’t there sparked criticism by Melendrez. Councilman Melendrez brought up how Council voted on the Soccer Stadium issue that was important to him, when he wasn’t in town. Councilman Paul Davis chimed in to say the same, regarding issues of importance to him, of which were voted on without his presence. Regardless, the motion on the floor was to defer item #19 to the following week and allow public comment to go forward on the issue. The vote was taken which ended in a tie. Council members Gardner, Mac Arthur and Perry voted to defer the issue, while Council members Soubirous, Davis and Melendrez voted against it. Mayor quickly without pause, voted to break the tie in voting for the continuance.

It then became evident to the people that the real players at hand on this issue to control agenda items were of course, at the top of the list, Mayor Bailey, Council members Gardner, Mac Arthur and Perry. There was no doubt about that. What was quite remarkable was that no one from the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce was there, (as they usually are), to support the action. So which Council Member made the second motion? Well the City Clerk initially stated it was Councilman Perry. Perry looked at Councilman Mac Arthur, and Mac Arthur looked at Perry, and Perry back again at Mac Arthur. Mac Arthur obviously was reluctant to admit he made the second motion, he maintained the quiet treatment, though he had plenty of time and opportunity to verbally acknowledge. He didn’t admit it until the City Clerk back tracked her notes and stated that Mac Arthur made the second motion. Do we have a failure to communicate folks? Yes, he eventually verbally admitted it publicly. The whole ordeal actually seem to be quite painful for Mac Arthur. After public comment, Soubirious, Melendrez and Davis made comments against the deferral, which ended with the Council reconsidering the issue by a vote of 6-0. What was quite remarkable was Councilman Perry made the initial motion to reconsider. We are not sure if the jeers to recall Perry, Mac Arthur and Gardner had anything to do with this. The issues at hand were 1. Public Comment Cards and 2. Should the City Manager have complete control and discretion as to which items or issues can be placed on the agenda. Mayor Bailey attempted to defend the new language, which allows the City Manager to have complete discretion as to what issues or items are placed on the agenda. He stated the the staff worked very hard to assemble data that displayed, that this process is not unusual and many cities have implemented the new order as a contemporary way of doing the work of the people. People of course jeered, made comments and insults. The fact of the matter was that the assembly of statistics were skewed to portray a false bottom to the real truth. What was not considered, is how many cities were charter cities, some had wards and some didn’t. The Jeers and insults were so disruptive from the crowd at one point, that Mayor Bailey, threatened to adjourn the meeting. Even more jeers and insults after the Mayors threat. Taking a leadership role, Soubirous tackled the pros and cons of each issue at hand, with the support of the rest of the council. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE! Stated Vivian Moreno at the Council Meeting. By the end of the night, which was about 11:00 pm, Council did the right thing and resolved the issue at hand for the betterment of the people, by the people, for the people. The part in between showed the people the true colors of the Council, who had the real leadership and who didn’t. What is evident is that the Mayor needs to stay out of the business of the people, because the power is held by Council members, to legislate, set policy and represent their constituents. The real power is in the people, and they need to be there at council to support their council member, and in turn the Council member needs to be there to support the people who elected them. What people don’t know, is that earlier in the Council session Four of our best Fire Executives, decided to retire. One was Deputy Chief Esparza, who actually should have been Chief because of his experience level, but Disgraced City Manager Scott Barber hired an outsider, retired Chief Moore . Even Chief Moore, thanked Esparza for helping him through the ropes, which I find disgusting, because it shows that Esparza should have been Chief. Moore knows nothing about our City, and now we are losing four individuals with experience levels beyond 100 years. Something is wrong with this picture folks.. Some people at Council stated to TMC that City Manager Scott Barber hugged Esparza with tears in his eyes. What is really going on within the City of Riverside folks? Questions continue to abound as well as suspicions. What should be noted is that because of these inconsistencies, which the PE has failed to report, is that people continue to doubt the process, and therefore feel that the only way to get their points across is by insulting, jeering and criticizing the representatives on council who are failing their constituents TMC will continue to try to the best of our knowledge bring forth the truth as we know it. SHARON MATEJA GIVEN HONORARY HOGAN SABOTEUR AWARD: For expressing her views against item #19 with support links to TMC, then taking a 180 degree apologetic turn, to saboteur the messenger and calling them distasteful and offensive. Her tune changed as a result of an alleged single phone call by Mayor Bailey, who allegedly felt his association with this nazi tone was distasteful and offensive.

Watch out for this one Hogan!

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

FORMER RPD OFFICER AND RPOA PRESIDENT CHRIS LANZILLO ARRESTED: Riverside’s own Chris Lanzillo and his partner in crime Alan Impola were arrested and each face one count of conspiracy to commit a crime of unlawful use of an electronic tracking device, false imprisonment by deceit, and conspiracy to commit a crime of falsely reporting a crime.

Former RPOA President & former RPD Detective Chris Lanzillo

At the time Lanzillo was president, Brian Smith was Vice President, and Aurelio Melendrez (Councilman Andy Melendrez’s son) was Secretary. According to Chief Sergio Diaz, Lanzillo was fired for doing some “pretty bad things.” Those bad things were never elaborated upon. We are still attempting to find what these really “bad things” are. But he did come back to sue the taxpayers with the law firm he later worked for, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill. His job was reinstated with RPD and shortly thereafter retired on a medical disability. Shortly thereafter, started his own investigation company in Orange County and did some investigatory work for this law firm. We asked the question is Lanzillo committed insurance fraud as a result of his miracle recovery? The law firm was later the brunt of a DA investigation, which ultimately led to their dissolution.

When Chris Lanzillo was President of the RPOA, Brian Smith was Vice President and Aurelio Melendrez was Secretary, was the cop play book in effect back then? The Police Union have in the past employed a law firm, Lackie,Dammeier & McGill, and a member of that law firm- former RPD Officer and RPOA Union President Chris Lanzillo who, according to numerous reports chronicled in the Orange County Register, tailed Cost Mesa Councilman Jim Righeimer falsely claiming he was drunk. He had a receipt for consuming his diet cokes at a meeting at a local bar in his possession. We now must look at the person behind the incident, former RPOA President and former RPD Detective Chris Lanzillo, and if he still is in contact with current RPOA President Brian Smith?

THE FOLLOWING COME FROM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBERS NON-PO PAYMENTS UNDER $50,000.00, AND WE WERE STILL PAYING THIS SCUMBAG CHRIS LANZILLO FOR JOBS WITHIN THE CITY IN 2011 IN THE AMOUNTS OF $3,000.00!

CLICK THE ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE

PRESS ENTERPRISE VERSION OF THIS STORY DESCRIBES IT AS: “TWO INLAND MEN ACCUSED OF HARASSING COUNCILMAN.” DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? IS THIS WHAT THE RIVERSIDE POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATION’S, BRIAN SMITH DID TO RAILROAD RIVERSIDE COUNCILMAN MIKE SOUBIROUS?

BEST, BEST & KRIEGER’S JACK CLARKE CONTINUES AS THE POSTER CHILD FOR RIVERSIDE UTILITIES IN THE “I OWN IT” CAMPAIGN. IS THIS A CAMPAIGN SCHEME TO INCREASE RATES AND WHY ARE PAYING ENORMOUS AMOUNTS FOR BILL BOARDS? WHY IS PUBLIC UTILITIES SPENDING THIS ASTRONOMICALLY AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR ADVERTISING, WHEN WE DON’T NEED TO ADVERTISE, SINCE “WE OWN IT?” SHOULDN’T THE RESIDENTS BE RECEIVING DIVIDENTS? JACK B. CLARK, JR. OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER IS IN ADVERTISEMENTS ALL OVER TOWN, ISN’T THIS JUST A FREE PLUG FOR BEST BEST & KRIEGER AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, COULDN’T THIS BE PERCEIVED AS A GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS?

REALLY A FULL PAGE AD? WHAT DOES THAT COST THE TAXPAYER…$10,000.00? DIDN’T JACK B. CLARKE OF BB&K ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE CITY HALL BUILDING NAMED AFTER THAT CROOK MAYOR RON LOVERIDGE? YES HE DID..

RIVERSIDE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FAIR HOUSING, ROSE MAYES STATES, “I GOT A PIECE OF THE PIE!” BUT MS. MAYES, WAS IT REALLY A TALKING POINT AND A SCAM TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE YOU REALLY “OWN IT!” WHERE’S MY PIECE OF THE PIE? WHERE’S MY MONETARY ~~DIVIDENT~~ DIVIDEND?

WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO..(CLICK THIS LINK)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” AND ~~MEZZSPELLED~~, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ~~ONE~~ ~~TWO~~ ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW ~~EXCLUSIVLY~~ EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE ~~PROSSIBLY~~ POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY: HATFIELDS & McCOYS?

Posted: February 2, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: CDBG funds, chief russ leach, chief sergio diaz, Chuck Conder, city of jurupa valley, city of riverside, councilman chris mac arthur, councilman steve adams, counciman paul davis, DUI, hatfields & mccoys, karen wright, lt. larry gonzalez, mayor rusty bailey, mayor vern lauritzen, osha, potholes, proposition 26, reliability charge, transmission lines

AS A SIDE NOTE, I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT CUSSING AND SPITTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND A HEAP OF BOOK LEARNING NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 AT 1:00PM Since the council always agree on everything, I know they’ll agree with this one. Will council keep Councilmember Steve Adam’s mouth in check long enough as to not make a reckless statement which may be interpreted as fighting words by the other side.

UPDATE: 02.05.2013: POWER LINE PROJECT APPROVED 5:0 BY CITY COUNCIL. What next? The City of Jurupa Valley filing suit against the City of Riverside? An additional law suit against the City of Riverside for an alleged illegal tax, of which was charged to residents in what is known as the “reliability charge”. The reliability charge is $10.00 dollar monthly utility charge seen on residents bills, which was never voted on by the residents therefore possible legal ramifications in regards to violations in reference to Proposition’s 218 and 26. Lastly, a possible IRS audit as a result of alleged misuse of Federal Bonds? How much can the City of Rivereside’s legal fund take? Mayor Bailey thinks we are in good standing after told by CFO Brent Mason we have $400 million in reserves, but let’s not tell him there are rules and restriction to the use of these reserves which are actually investment funds.

“We don’t want to fight, but we will.” – Mayor Vern Lauritzen, City of Jurupa Valley

My mom always said to me, “Don’t let anybody step in your face.”

The City of Riverside’s darling in lobbying, Cindy Roth, and her lobbying group, the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, was out in force with this mailer sent to members.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

At this point, the City of Riverside is still in need of a legitimate Chamber of Commerce that truly represents real business.

THE RELIABILITY CHARGE: A UTILITY ANOMALY?

Each month since 2008 the citizens of Riverside have been paying a $10.00 charge on their utilities bill that was originally intended for the construction and expansion of transmission lines. These lines would give the City of Riverside a back-up system in case a disaster occurred as we were told. But is this really a tax? This in turn would be a violation of Proposition 26.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW PROP 26 DOCUMENT

The City of Jurupa states that the City of Riverside’s route encompasses prime land which in turn would destroy the value. The City of Jurupa Valley states that there are alternative routes available. The City of Riverside’s position is that the route is the only route available. TMC understands that the City of Riverside has spent a cost of over $20K for an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), which may be the reason for snubbing the City of Jurupa Valley. Bailey went to the City of Jurupa Valley for a meeting, but nothing appeared to come from it. The position of Riverside in reference to the transmission line route was maintained.

Again, most people thought the City of Riverside were neighbors with the City of Jurupa Valley, and that we were friends being neighboring cities, but is this going to turn out to be another Hatfield’s & McCoys?

According to the Press Enterprise, on Monday, Jan. 14, Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce President Dan Rodriguez met with Riverside Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey to discuss how the Interstate 15 route would impact commercial, industrial and residential development that would bring jobs, tax revenue and valuable services to Jurupa Valley. Chamber director Ron Anderson and Jurupa Valley council members Laura Roughton and Frank Johnston also attended the meeting. In a memo to Bailey, Rodriguez warned that “this project would eliminate approximately 806 homes in the city of Jurupa Valley, which will affect the local school district and eliminate future customers for businesses …” TMC was also told that the transmission route would cut through land considered prime realestate. Jurupa Valley Councilman Frank Johnston described the meeting as “disappointing, but not surprising.” This is reference to the collaboration with Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey.

Did our fare leader, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey leave a bad taste in the minds of the leadership of Jurupa Valley? Or could we assume that the tone and atmosphere was such that it reflected ‘fighting words’? With that in mind, are the two cities to embrace in another expensive legal battle? One that the City of Riverside may lose at another enormous cost to the taxpayer? That my friends is left to be seen…

As told by a former councilman, the way they understood it at the time the ‘reliability charge’ was to pay for transmission lines. The reliability charge was to pay for three specific things…but continued to state that it was not to pay for all of those three specific things, but it was to pay for a component of those specific things. Well are you confused already citizens of Riverside, well just ask our neighbors and any of the Councilpeople next door at the City of Jurupa Valley.

If the the City of Riverside’s reliability charge was originally for transmission lines as it was passed by City of Riverside Councilmembers, we should at this time have $150 million in the pot to pay for them cash! But, again we have a but! Even if we had the $150 million available to pay for these transmission lines cash, would it be a violation of Proposition 26, since it appears that the there is no true benefit to the citizens of Riverside? Again, the City Council at the time understood that the reliability charge was for new transmission lines, but currently Dave Wright states it was intended to be used for other purposes. Such as …

One was the debt on the riverside energy resource center, which is four 50 megawatt units near the waste water treatment plant that provide peaking generation, the debt on those 4 units is approximately $200 million.

Also, at that point in time when the reliability charge was put in place we had some low cost coal power contracts that expired and we weren’t legally able to replace them with power that cost as low as that coal, so we had doubling or tripling in the cost of replacement that power.

In addition the riverside transmission reliability project which was our cost of about $150 million, the entire project including all of Edison cost, our portion of that project was $150 million, also will have some debt associated with it. So the amount of the reliability charge revenue each year 20 to 25 million.

The debt on work and dprt on work is about $30 to $35 million and you add to that the cost of replacement energy that may be renewable or other sorts of energy. Another 10 to 15 million.

The annual cost are $50 million, and this is off the top of my head..so I have to go back and get….(we assume the figures).

The reliability charge will cover about half that. So that all was included when we looked at our rate projections, cause we project our cost 10 years. We project the rate increases 10 years. We look at what we can do and the rate freeze.

So folks it appears that the reliability charge that you pay each month is being used by the City of Riverside to pay for debt.

And yes, there will be cost of living type of increases that occur at the end of the rate freeze. There always going to be cost of living type living increases that are required in water, groceries, gasoline and anything else that you purchase. Mr. Wright went on to say that our rates our competitive, our rates are lower than the surrounding service providers, and they are projected to continue to be.

Was the original intention of the reliability charge presentation when brought to council chambers to decieve and misdirect the then council people on the dais? Is this charge to the Riverside residents not really a charge, but a tax? and a direct violation of Proposition 26? Should this issue originally been on the ballot for a vote by the Citizens of Riverside? If it wasn’t, should the Citizen’s of Riverside be entitled to a refund? This of course was not answered by Utilities Director Dave Wright, when the question was raised in public comment. Other questions being asked by Riverside residents are tiered pricing on water and electrical legal? Another good question for a Prop 218 Attorney to answer.

As one of the major property owners affected by the power lines I find Mr. Wright’s comments totally uninformed. Anyone who has dealt with an Edison easement knows they are prohibitively restrictive. SCE grants a license that is revocable and can be altered at any time SCE deems to their benefit. I wonder how many auto dealerships Mr. Wright has discussed my location with, to date he has never even bother to discuss this with me. To be sure this is a totally self serving and condenscending move by the City of Riverside it is obvious they could care less about Jurupa Valley and its residents. – Alan Sharp, Commenter on the PE

Deputy Superintendent of Schools Mike Fine goes over the 16 second mark at public comment and no arrest made. What does Mr. Fine have that Karen Wright doesn’t? Is is it something possibly called ‘access’.

New word of the week and how it was used, coming soon from the following ethics appeal hearing. No folks, it wasn’t “constipation” as someone indicated they thought Davis said. The word, “consternation”, amazement or dismay that hinders or throws into confusion. TMC thanks Councilman Paul Davis for the “big word” of the week.

ETHICS APPEAL: THE CHRIS MAC ARTHUR SLIGHT OF HAND, WAS IT QUITE DIFFERENT FROM HIS LEGISLATIVE AIDE’S SLIGHT OF HAND? WHAT KIND OF THING DID PITRUZZELLO HAVE FOR ADAMS WHEN SHE CALLED HIM “SWEETHEART”? WAS THIS A ELABORATELY STAGED DOG AND PONEY SHOW? NO ONE’S TALKING BUT QUITE A SHOW! THIS BEGINING ABOUT THE 8:00 MINUTE MARK ON THE VIDEO.

At the January 15, 2013 Ethics appeal against Chris Mac Arthur, the City Council founded their was no violation of the ethics code. The questions that arose was who is really in charge of Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder? This now leads us to believe that the Ethic Panel was mislead and misinformed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber. In another bit of disturbing information, TMC has been told that legislative aide Chuck Conder and City Manager Scott Barber are good friends. We were told “they go way back.” So does Chris Mac Arthur maintain stability with Conder because he has the ‘in’ with Barber? Did this in any way implicate the ethics complaint against Mac Arthur? Or even Bailey? What about the relationship between Councilman Steve Adams and the City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber, who have been seen at various water holes having a libation or two, or so forth.. Regardless, why would City Manager Scott Barber see it fit to put the citizen’s and city employees of Riverside at risk? Regardless, it was all about the “bitch” word that was king at this showdown. What else can we say boys will be boys..

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE ETHICS PANEL HEARING OF DECEMBER 13, 2012

But the way City Manager Scott Barber and City Attorney Greg Priamos handled the direction of the December 13, 2012 Ethics Hearing was to misaguide the panel, and therefore their decision. On page 23 of the transcript, Barber states that “these complaints have been investigated and that he had taken whatever action was appropriate.” The part that got me was the “whatever action”, meaning there wasn’t really anything conclusive regarding Barber’ investigation. Then Barber refers to the California State Constitution with reference to privacy rights for public employees, stating that “those rights preclude me from discussing any confidential personnel matters.” One of the incidents referred to a “knife”. The action should have superseded this right and become a police matter, and that never happened. But as indicated Councilman Chris Mac Arthur brought these complaints to the City Manager for review and investigation. But Mr. Mac Arthur, as the employee contract indicates, has the power to teminate via his direction to the City Manager. Therefore, it is appearing that we do have another “dog and poney show” of the original hearing where the activities were orchestrated and designed to produce a favorable end result.

But we all new what would happen this January day, the 22^nd and year 2013 when council again possibly misguided by the the City Attorney and City Manager, voted against the alleged accusations against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur.

At extreme difficulty to find out who is really in charge of legislative aid Chuck Conder, via questioning by Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Andy Melendrez, the following was founded. The City Manager has ultimate ‘hiring’ and ‘firing’ authority, however, City Councilmember’s are in fact in charge of their legislative aide. This appeared to be an uncomfortable and tense situation for Barber, do to his body language and visual blood flushing to his head. Was he having difficulty telling the truth? Now, it appears to TMC that the adjudicating body, who was the Ethics Complaint Panel, was not fully clear about this due to the manipulation of information directly from City Attorney Primos and City Manager Barber, and allegedly was coached before hand as allegedly in the Rusty Bailey ethics complaint. If in fact these alleged incidents occurred, would this change the ultimate purpose of the ethics panels duties?

Chuck didn’t do anything but this is a political move to turn voters against Chris MacArthur. Look most of us know and have seen how it works. Chuck is just to nice and I can contest to pushing someone’s buttoms. The move is on to put a selected group in office and everyone will be used. Mark was used for votes as Bailey didn’t have a shot at getting elected. Mark’s Military service hit the hearts of voters and other tricks by Bailey were used. Mark is a close friend of Art and that put him out. All the fuss about this is just the beginning of what the future holds. We saw Riverside get National coverage as a citizen was handcuffed and removed because she spoke over 3 mins and the new Mayor had his City Attorney order the police to remove the citizen. We have seen many complaints of disrespect and even using kids for p…olitical gain by our new Mayor. Lessons not learned yet by voters is nothing good comes with corrupted elected officials. Lawsuits will continue and the blame will be place on others to protect the guilty. Loyality goes only so far as the bribes and criminal acts take front stage. Bell citizens set back until they stood up to their corrupt elected officials who are now on trial. Riverside has to eiither step up or wait for a Bell results. Citizens of Riverside now have been put on notice they can not speak to truth or ask serious questions. One lady learned that and has a criminal record and it doesn’t matter that the City Attorney broke the laws of a citizens Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights. Many remember the years when Mobesters rule and then convicted elected officals ruled but 2013 history repeats itself. Democracy is lost to this great city and we have to work together to get it back. – Jackie Rawlings, Commenter on the Press Enterprise

But it appeared to be an all out war against the contender Dvonne Pitruzzello by Counciman Steve Adams. Why’ll Adams asked Pitruzzello if she actually witnessed. At one point, Ms. Pitruzzello even addressed Adams as ‘sweetheart.’ But Adams contued to insist if Pitruzzello was witness to this knife wielding episode by Conder. Her attempt to state that she was witness to Conder using his finger in a vulgar way was squashed.

At the end of this ordeal, Councilman Adams walked by Pitruzzello from the dais while intentionally directing a dastardly smirk toward her. What was Adams trying to inadvertently tell Ms. Pitruzzello?

Was it to say something insidious about the confrontation, prompting a valid evaluation and questioning of the whole council ordeal? Dvonne Pitruzzello made it known that the ethics appeal process regarding Councilman Chris Mac Arthur was a “dog and pony show.” The heated exchange went something as this.

Adams: I have only one question for the appellant. Do you have any first hand knowledge of the incident?

Dvonne: Which one?

Adams: The one with which you are filing the complaint, and now the appeal?

Pritruzzello: I filed the complaint on three incidents.

Adams: Did you see the incident of which there was an accusation of something with the knife that was unfounded. Do you have first hand knowledge..

Pitruzzello: No, but I was flipped off at a city council meeting.

Adams: No, do you have first hand knowledge, let’s stick with one question at a time.

Pitruzzello: But that’s not what we are debating.

Adams: Yes it is..

Pitruzzello: No it’s not. We are debating if it should be appealed or not.

Adams: I’m trying to find out if you have first hand knowledge.

Pitruzzello: We are debating if it should be appealed or not.

Adams continued to badger Pitruzzello to answer a question unrelated to the actual appeal process. Down the road Councilman Adams stated:

Adams: If an event never happened, everything after that no longer exist. It doesn’t count. So my question is, do you have first hand knowledge were you there were you present, do you understand what you saw was to be true as to what was the accusation against Mr. Conder.

Pitruzzello: Sweetheart you are not listening.

Adams: No I’m listening..the answer is yes you saw or no you didn’t?

Did Councilman Adams really understand the appeal process at hand? It appeared he didn’t according to City Attorney and Pitruzzello, but maintained he did. But he continued to ‘bully’ his unrelated questioning toward Pitruzzello, when the legal issue was the ‘appeal process.’ It appeared when creviced into a corner whereby he could not rationally respond to the issue at hand, he abruptly motioned to dismiss the appeal. As Mayor Bailey mentioned in purpetouity at his State of the City speech, “the Riverside Way”? Again, Adams is one who has been seen at local watering holes with Priamos and Barber. Barber, of course, good friends and buddies with Conder. Can we consider some incestious favoritism and to the extent of cronyism in this situation? We have yet to revisit Bailey’s ethics complaint that was brought by Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno.

Incidently, Mayor Bailey’s legislative aide Mark Earley, who was incidently ‘let go’, and Councilman’s Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder did not appear at the Council hearing. Regardless, an OSHA investigation of the knife wielding incident is still ongoing.

What TMC believes to be true was that the adjudicating body was deceived and manipulated in their decision by City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Mananger Scott Barber. Intentionally? The question is what is the true purpose of the ethics panel when they are not allowed to actually have direct witnesses?

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor went on to say the following about the complaint at public comment:

Chuck Conder called Raychele Sterling and myself Stupid Bitches. He flipped Dvonne off when you were sitting here. For you Chris Mac Arthure to condone this behavior from your personal employee of yours is a reflection of who you are. WEAK, IGNORANT, or Just plain STUPID. The Lying, the cheating and the stealing that goes on here at City hall on a regular basis is criminal.

Every single one of you know that all these situation occured. Every single one of you knows Scott Barber Riverside City Manager, lied to OSHA. over this situation. He should be fired for putting the Staff, Public and Council in harms way.

A question. Why would your City Manager Scott Barber feel the need to lie to OSHA? If there is any work place violence that happens at City Hall you the council sitting here are to blame because you know of the situation. Maybe its because CHUCKIE and BARBER go way back and Scott Barber will support his buddies no matter what they do.

This is merely an excercise in Paper Trailing so when some one comes here AGAIN and we have a political occurance of Gun Violence We know whom will be to blame All of you.

You guys know what you do, and you all know what goes on at City Hall We know what your doing. And now Chuckie wants to be a councilman! Scott Barber you deserve him!

All of you here today are representive of Chuck Condor. This is what happened: Chuck Conder pulled a knife on Colonel Mark Early and you Fired Mark Early. Chuck Conder called Raychele Sterling and myself Stupid Bitches and we notified Chris Mac Arthur imediately. Chuck Conder flipped Dvonne Pitruzello off right here in Council Chambers and you did nothing.

So now you can do what Council things you do. And you try to let this just die but it’s not.. and this is just another example of who you all are. WEAK, IGNORANT and Just Plain STUPID.

“Dog and pony show” is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND THE ADJUDICATING BODY MISINFORMED? SO NOW WHAT? WILL THE COUNCIL NOW HAVE THE GUMPTION TO TAKE ACTION?

Rumor is that the some of the panel was made by the very same people that heard the Bailey ethics complaint, this was because some of the original panel members refused, because they did not want to be a part of this decision making pane hearing a complaint against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur. Barber continues to lie and supterfuge the councilmembers on the dais. Councilmember Davis continually had to repeat the question as to whom is really responsible for their legislative assistant. The question as to who is directly responsible for the behavior of their legislative assistants is the councilmember. The councilmember also has the termination authority via their direction to the City Manager.

At the beginning of the hearing Mayor Bailey made it be known that no new evidence would be considered, and if it was could not be considered. Councilmember Adams asked the question twice thereafter during the proceeding if any new evidence came in. He was corrected by Priamos twice as there wasn’t.

What appears to be true and apparent was that Mr. Barber and Mr. Priamos led the adjudicating body to believe that Mr. Barber was directly responsible for the behavior of the legislative assistant. Further, Mr. Mac Arthur is directly responsible for the behavior of his legislative assistant and he has the ability to fire or terminate his legislative assistant at anytime, under his direction to the City Manager. This, all per City of Riverside’s employment contract.

NEW FORMAT FOR THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT: BETTER? OR LESS TRANSPARENT?

Has the new monthly report format been changed to give the illusion of financial stability for the City of Riverside? In the new report we have sections which appear not to be ‘actual’ but a ‘forecast’, such as the general fund budget forecast, general fund revenue forecast and general fund expenditure forecast.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Old version as indicated above, one could simply see what’s in the general fund for that particular month, as opposed to the new formatted version. New formatted monthly investment report removes the “Pooled Cash and Investment By Fund” section and replaced with “Forcast” reports. Such as General Fund Budget Forcast Report, General Fund Revenue Forecast Report and General Fund Expediture Forcast Report. The third pic shows Mayor’s Bailey office was overbudgeted by over $100,000.00, was this to pay for the new teleprompter that he used at the State of the City address? Well anyway, the new format was signed off by Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason.

~~Brent Mason, CFO~~ Sorry… Brent Mason, CFO

CDBG MONIES USED FOR INCUBATOR COMPANIES, ONE OF WHICH WENT DEBUNK.. Giving Federal CDBG monies to incubator companies, is that legal? Even though many at public comment asked that it be removed from the consent calender for more discussion, City Council unanimously voted on it. Even Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Andy Melendrez who appeared most concerned about and questioned the funds use voted on it. This was item #16 on the Consent Calender for January 22, 2013. CDBG funding requires citizen participation, nowhere found on the document. So, what our CDBG funds and what should they actually be allocated for? Well, let’s start with the following.

Community Development Block Grant Program – CDBG: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Beginning in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest continuously run programs at HUD. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1209 general units of local government and States.

About the Program: The CDBG program works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. CDBG is an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities. The CDBG program has made a difference in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the Nation.

Citizen Participation: A grantee must develop and follow a detailed plan that provides for and encourages citizen participation. This integral process emphasizes participation by persons of low or moderate income, particularly residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, slum or blighted areas, and areas in which the grantee proposes to use CDBG funds. The plan must provide citizens with the following: reasonable and timely access to local meetings; an opportunity to review proposed activities and program performance; provide for timely written answers to written complaints and grievances; and identify how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate.

CLICK TO VIEW CDBG DOCUMENT

So what happened to IE Connect? How did it morph to IE Initiative? More to come..

WATER LAWSUIT FILED LAST YEAR COMES TO HEAD WITH A CITY OF RIVERSIDE RESPONSE. This was the original law suit filed by Riverside Residents Dr. Javier and Vivian Moreno against the City of Riverside.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

The following is the City of Riverside’s filed response to their suit.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW RESPONSE

UPDATE: 02.05.2013: EVEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GETS PROP 218, WHY DOESN’T THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE? According to an article in the PE by Cassie Macduff, Proposition 218 prohibits siphoning money from restricted funds like the water fund for general-fund expenses.

WILL COUCNILMAN PAUL DAVIS BE TREADING UNCERTAIN WATERS IF LEGISLATIVE AIDE CHUCK CONDER ENTERS THE PICTURE IN THIS JUNE’S ELECTION?

WITH INCREASING AMOUNT OF POTHOLES BECOMING PREVALENT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, WILL IT BE NECESSARY FOR CITIZENS TO DO IT THEMSELVES? Well, this is what San Diego Hillcrest resident Primo Vanicelli decided to do back in 2010 as reported by the SanDiego.Com

LET’S NOT MENTION THE CITY TREES THAT TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID INTO AND ARE NOT MAINTAINED. LAST YEAR RESIDENTS SAW THIS IN WARD 1 AS A RESULT OF UNMAINTAINED CITY TREES. OF COURSE THE CITY IS QUICK TO TERRORIZE THE CITIZENS BY CITATIONS AGAINST WOOD STREET RESIDENTS. WELL COUNCILMAN GARDNER ISN’T THIS YOUR BLOCK? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UNCUT TREES AND EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF FALLEN PALM FRAWNS, THAT INCIDENTLY, MOST RESIDENTS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. STREET SWEEPER’S DON’T, RESIDENTS DO, AND THE DON’T APPRECIATE THE TICKETS THAT CODE GIVES TO THESE RESIDENTS WHEN THEY FORGET TO MOVE THEIR VEHICLES. WHAT’S MORE EMBARASSING IS WHEN THEY HAVE FRIENDS, RELATIVES, LANDSCAPING OR REPAIR PEOPLE OVER WHICH RECIEVE CITY TICKETS. WHAT NOW COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER? IS IT WORTH THE EXTRA $40 BUCKS TO LOSE THE SUPPORT OF A CONSTITUENT?

A LETTER TO THE TRUTH PUBLICATION ONLINE: ” GOD FORBID IF THIS 7 YEAR OLD GIRL HAD BEEN MAYOR BAILEY’S DAUGHTER…” A letter to the editor of the Truth Publication Online regarding his opinion on two sets of rules and the devaluation of life by the City of Riverside sent by Donald Gallegos. His opinion letter is as follows:

“Recent actions taken by Riverside authorities confirm my suspicion that there are two set of rules by which Riverside residents should be expected to live by, or face the repercussions by local authorities via the Riverside Police Department, the District Attorney’s office, and City Hall Officials. “The de-valuation of a Riverside citizens life and of their pets. “An RPD officer can go into your backyard while you are not home and shoot your dog dead under the premise that the officer was in the act of performing their duties and was allegedly in fear for their own life after the officer had put themselves in that position. “Can not Riverside residents keep a guard dog in their gated yard to protect their home without the risk of coming home and being told that their beloved pet has been shot to death by the RPD ?

“The fact that Riverside police chief Sergio Diaz says that there is nothing wrong with the RPD current policies and procedures regarding the tragic death of a Casa Blanca resident is irresponsible, and further endangers the lives of both Riverside police officers and residents. Imagine Jerry Carroll saying this comment after four white officers had shot 19 year old black teenager Tyisha Miller in
1999.

“I do not blame the officer in the Casa Blanca incident, I blame the policy and procedure of allowing officers to drive while using a computer. Many police agencies do not allow this for obvious reasons.

“The recent tragedy of a Riverside traffic employee running down and killing both an adult and a child while they were innocently waiting at a bus stop. “The Riverside police department allowed this man to go home after questioning him. The man was obviously distracted, daydreaming, or asleep, and speed was a factor when you consider the damages. “I have since found out that the 7 year old child was black, and that the driver was a Riverside employee. “Did the Press Enterprise print a photo of these two victims ? If not.. why not ?

“I would bet my life on this… God forbid if this 7 year old girl had been Mayor Bailey’s daughter, the man would not have been free to walk away after running them down regardless of the reasoning behind it. Someone would have hell to pay for this I can tell you that much. The man would have been arrested and charged with a minimum manslaughter charge if not more.

“Two different rules to live by and the de-valuation of the life of a Riverside resident when it involves Riverside authorities and their employees.

“Donald H. C. Gallegos.”

Letter Courtesy of The Truth Publication Online, Editor Salvador Santana.

UPDATE:02.03.2013: FOR WHATEVER REASON IT APPEARS THAT THE ORIGINAL LETTER HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TRUTH PUBLICATION ONLINE SITE.

Photos Courtesy of the Press Enterprise

A ON THE STREET PERSPECTIVE OF THE POSSIBLE CRASH ROUTE (CLICK ON ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE.)

Joe D. Williams, a Parking Control Representative for the City of Riverside was named as the driver in the fatal bus stop crash. As of December 28, 2012, the date of the incident no reported indication of a drug test or alcohol sobriety test being taken. Incidently, Williams was also not arrested, RPD Officer Bryan Galbreath said intent and negligence did not appear to be factors in the fatal accident, though police have yet to indicate why Williams vehicle left or veered off the road. Information continues to be sketchy and vague from police and the city. If anyone has ever received a ticket close to City Hall, you may have been a William’s victim, it’s alleged that he has been noticed by some Riversidian’s to be hiding behind the bushes awaiting a ticketing opportunity. A witness, Patty Roach, told The Press-Enterprise in an email that the driver had been sitting at a red light on Magnolia at Tyler Street just before the crash and did not proceed on the green light until other motorists honked their horns at him. What appears to be a brand new KIA sedan veered across two lanes. A double standard of how members of our city are treated, as opposed to the common taxpayer and residents? Currently, some have said he was allegedly texting. Chief Sergio Diaz, again supports the activity of his officers driving while on a lap top, while the rest of us may have to deal with being ticketed or arrested if in a fatal accident, what some are saying is a “double standard of hypocrisy.” Victims in these cases have been Black and Hispanic.

UPDATE: 02.03.2013: ACCORDING TO THE PRESS ENTERPRISE PARKING CONTROL REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILLIAMS WOULD BLACK OUT AT WORK! If Mr. Williams has had a history of black outs with reference to a seizure condition, why would he be driving? Why wouldn’t those close to him family, friends, employees and employer allow him to drive a vehicle, knowing his condition of periodically experiencing black outs? When on the job does he, as an employee, drive a city vehicle or a operates a segway? He has been prescribed seizure medication, and many times these medications will indicate not to drive or operate heavy machinery. Does he take his medication daily as indicated? Did his physcian counsel him that he shouldn’t drive? Did he knowingly not tell DMV of his condition? Would the two victims be alive today if someone had done the right thing? The below reports documentation to two incidents which occurred why in the employment of the City of Riverside.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

TMC GOES GLOBAL: MONTH OF JANUARY 2013 THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES HAVE VISITED: Canada, India, United Kingdom, Australia, Vietnam, Phillipines, Poland, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonisia, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Thailand, Ghana, France, Egypt, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Ukraine, Jordan, Maldives, Israel, Turkey, Oman, Singapore, Greece, Hong Kong, Benin, Peru, Taiwan, Mexico, Kuwait, St. Lucia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Switzerland, Venezuela, Russian Federation, Uganda, Croatia, Austria, Ireland, Belarus, Malaysia, Romania, Czech Republic and Japan.

RIVERSIDE’S OWN FIVE BEFORE MIDNIGHT BLOGGER MARY SHELTON BREAKS HER SHOULDER IN A FALL ON A CITY CURVE. Her surgery on Tuesday the 29th exposed what was seen as a shoulder bone which was badly crushed to the point of no repair. Her shoulder bone was rebuilt with the use of a prosthetic titanium insertion which will replace the bone lost as seen in the x-ray.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Mary thanks all of those who emailed her with good wishes and of their concerns for a speedy recovery which includes Councilmembers Steve Adams, Paul Davis, Mike Gardner; Director of Public Works Tom Boyd and City Manager Scott Barber. Shelton is to be awarded the 2013 Bill Howe Award for Police Accountability by the Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability on Monday 11th at the Community Settlement Association, 4366 Bermuda Avenue, Riverside, CA , 92507, 6:30pm-8:00pm. RPD Lt. Valmont Graham will also be awarded the 2013 Bill Howe Award for Police Accountability. Free and Open the Public.

FORMER POLICE CHIEF RUSS LEACH WEEKEND EXTRAVAGANZA.. IT’S HERE FOLKS! THE THIRD ANNUAL CHIEF RUSS LEACH SUPERBOWL MEMORIAL WEEKEND CELEBRATION!

AGAIN, FOR YOUR SAFETY, IF IN RIVERSIDE PLEASE WATCH OUT FOR CITY OFFICIALS IN WEAVING CARS! WE ARE TOLD THERE MAY STILL BE TWO SETS OF STANDARDS! BUT OF COURSE THAT IS A QUESTION FOR THE EXPERT ON SURFING ON A LAPTAP WHILE DRIVING,

COMPUTER WHIZ CHIEF ~~NACHO CHEESE~~ SERGIO DIAZ, WHO MAINTAINS IT CAN STILL BE DONE, IF YOU’RE A POLICE OFFICER.

UPDATE: 02.05.2013: THE THIRD ANNUAL RUSS LEACH SUPERBOWL MEMORIAL WEEKEND EXTRAVAGANZA CLAIMS ANOTHER. RPD LT. LARRY GONZALEZ ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF DUI AFTER RUNNING INTO A MAILBOX AND A RETAINING WALL IN AN UNMARKED CITY VEHICLE AROUND 2:00 AM IN THE MORNING. All were at at retirement party for the retiring Lt. Chris Manning. It was also indicated that the Police Chief Sergio Diaz was attendance among a who’s who of others. Mayor Rusty Bailey who left the pow pow at around 9:00pm, stated that “He (Lt. Larry Gonzalez) was sober when he left”, according the PE. That folks was from the mouth of independent voice himself. But others at the party indicate a different story regarding Gonzalez’s alleged sobriety, and why didn’t others there step up to the plate to give the Lt. a ride home? Lt. Gonazales was not sober from those in attendance unlike the Mayor Bailey’s statement to the press. Not a good start for Mayor’s Bailey first months in office whereby his statements have more contradiction than truth. What about the other’s who made it home that very night without incident of hitting a block wall or even a pedestrian? What will the outcome be? Will Lt. Gonzalez DUI have a favorable outcome in the court system, or is this truly a visual formality? Will Lt. Gonzalez be made to be an example, regardless of the other officers before him who didn’t make the press?

In a new article in the PE, it states that in recent decades, police as well as the general public have come under increasing scrutiny. Once upon a time, cops often got a pass when they were caught drinking and driving. A recent Riverside police chief learned that those days are over. Other activities of policy abuse was the use of cold plates for city vehicles issued to Councilmembers. The DMV is clear that these types of vehicles are to be used in criminal investigations and supervisin parolees, though at one time, four councilmembers were issued these vehicles including our Mayor Bailey.

IS THE CITY THAT BROKE, WHY IS THE CITY TICKETING VEHICLES IN THIS PRIVATE MALL? PIC SUBMITTED TO TMC OF A CITY EMPLOYEE TICKETING THE BLACK VEHICLE NEXT TO IT IN THE RALPH’S SHOPPING CENTER ON MAGNOLIA AND JURUPA.

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN..

THE BACKSTRAND BUILDING, MARCH 27, 1940, ON SIXTH AND MAIN

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. RATED ~~ONE~~ ~~TWO~~ 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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AS OF SUNDAY 03.25.2013 DAY 153 STILL NO CHARGES! KAREN WRIGHT NOT GIVEN THE RIOT ACT AT COURT APPEARANCE? DA’S CASE DOA? OR POLITICAL HOT POTATO? SHOULD CITY COUNCIL DROP THE CHARGES?

Posted: January 25, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: attorney client privilege, chief sergio diaz, Chuck Conder, city attorney greg priamos, city councilman paul davis, councilman chris mac arthur, john hall da spokesperson, karen wright, mayor william rusty bailey, paul zellerback, penal code 403, public speaking, riverside county da's office

In an incident that made national news, Public Speaker Karen Wright appeared at her December 27^th court date regarding her charge of disrupting a public meeting. Later found through a public request act of the police report, City Attorney Gregory Priamos had given instruction to RPD Officer Sahagun to stop Wright from going past the three minute allotted time by sixteen seconds.

Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos Riverside DA Paul Zellerbach

The situation became increasingly incomprehensible when Priamos would not comment do to “attorney-client privilege.” Attorney client privilege? That’s what we said… In lieu things continued to take a strange turn when the filing by the Paul Zellerbach’s District Attorney’s office was never issued. Karen was told by the court to call the DA’s office to find out if the DA intends to file or not. Attorney Letitia Pepper attempted to request the issue be addressed in court so she could ask for a dismissal. The court would not allow this. The waiting game continues, since the DA did not have the courtesy to follow through, the justice system leaves Ms. Wright in the dark at this point, and she herself must make the effort to contact and find out their intentions. How many DA departments be connected to and placed on hold to ask the question, “Mr. DA, do you plan to file charges against me?” Could this inaction by the DA’s office be construed as a continued form of harassment toward Ms. Wright? Or to continue the confusion so a warrant for her arrest is issued? That’s so Riverside. Most Riversidian’s agree, the Council and Mayor should have dropped the charges rather than enduring more city embarrassment, but currently the DA appears to be dancing around the issue.. So what is DA Paul Zellerbach’s relationship with the City of Riverside? Possibley BB&K? The Riveriside Grand Jury? Local Superior Court Judges? The Attorney General Office of the State of California? and of course local cronies?

One of the first items for new Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey would have been to drop charges. Currently, Chief Sergio Diaz has yet to publicly apologize to Ms. Wright for his behavior and unrestrained verbality toward her earlier this year at a City Council Meeting. No complaints were issued against Chief Diaz by Wright. Chief Diaz was not arrested at this incident for his disturbance at Council Chambers.

So the citation issued by the police lists a court date. You check the docket the day before and can’t find your name, you call the DA and they say they are still consulting. You are then in a position where you still have to go to court because you don’t want to have the DA file at the last minute, you not show and the judge issue a bench warrant. You also don’t want to appear in court without an attorney, so you have that exspence. I’m sorry but it looks like they are unfairly jerking Ms. Wright around. This case should have been dismissed. Shame on the city of Riverside and shame on the DA. – Kevin Dawson, Commenter on the PE

Just wait until the trial and CA Greg Priamos takes the stand under oath and has to testify who ordered him to order the officer to “stop” her. I don’t think his “apology” will quite cut it here. – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the PE

UPDATE: 01/04/2013: Acording to the Press Enterprise, John Hall, Spokesman for the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, state they didn’t have enough time to investigate.

John Hall, ~~Spokeshole~~ Spokesperson for the Riverside City DA’s Office

Okay John! this can expressly be construed as the DA does not have a case. Hall went on to say, “There’s nothing that we have to do by law to notify anyone that nothing’s going to be done on that particular day.” Okay John, I get it, you have the power but you had over 8 weeks to figure this out! What goes? By the way do you take dance lessons, because it appears you are dancing around the issue as well as the Big Kahuna, Zellerbach. He further stated according to the Press Enterprise, that in the past six years, only one other case has come in under penal code section § 403 — disturbing a public meeting — and the district attorney ended up filing different charges against the suspect. Penal Code § 403 states every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor. So they couldn’t charge someone with the original arrest charge of penal code § 403 and had to concoct subsequent charge or unlterior trumped up charge? So why would the DA have to do this? Would it be because of the embarrassment of the whole charge to begin with? As of January 4, 2013, Wright’s case remains “under review” and remains unlisted on the courts databases. “Under review?” Is this code word for “no case?” It’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office show on a court date, it’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office collaborate with the defendent, otherwise can this be construed by the DA’s office of a pronounce expression of arrogance? Information for the DA’s Office only.. we have included a printable icon for ease of printability in order for the DA’s office to file TMC articles..

THE TWEET OF THE CONDER

So far this year, it’s okay to utilize public emails for campaign purposes by violating CA Code 8314 (a), it’s okay to give the finger to someone at City Council. Talking about fingers, according to Press Enterprise’s Alicia Robinson’s tweets, it appears that Councilman’ s Chris Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder issued a petition in lieu of a filing fee for the upcoming June 2013 election for Ward 4.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Let’s see, by golly isn’t that Councilman Paul Davis’s current Ward? Wasn’t that the same Chuck Conder who was canvassing the Ward 4 neighborhoods for petition signatures against changing wards due to redistricting? Incidently, Chuck resides in Ward 4 and did not want that changed. The final accepted version of the district map coincidently cut the area in question directly in half. His residence remaining in Ward 4, while the other half went to Ward 2.

Isn’t Councilman’s Paul Davis up for reelection in June 2013? Will the real Chuck Conder please step up!

Nope! Still Not Right! Ahhh Yes, this is the one!

JUST FOR LAUGHS!

and who was really the Wizard of Emerald City?

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN…

View of the Santa Ana Bridge dedication ceremony, 1932, Riverside, California

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: THE DEATH OF REDEVELOPMENT : THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE IN THE BLOODY AFTERMATH..

Posted: April 24, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, california redevelopment association, cit, city council, city of riverside, councilman chris mac arthur, councilman steve adams, former city manager brad hudson, government finance officers association, mayor ron loveridge, nancy hart, redevelopment, riverside city hall, steve adams

While the City scrambles, TMC’s truth squad, oops, that’s the City’s tag line, has been blogging, reporting and speaking at Council Meetings as to why the Council should not have passed certain loans. In addition, how passing these loans will come back to hurt the tax paying constituents. The states silver bullet of termination appeared to be the only answer. Now 10% of those Enforceable Obligations submitted to the State Finance Department were rejected for not following state guidelines. Enforceable Obligations are legal contracts which declare that one person or agency owes another. The question being asked is were these filing discrepancies inadvertainly overlooked by our protector of citizens, City Attorney Gregory Priamos? And even their hired hand, Best, Best & Krieger? Could these discrepancies possibly be considered faulty legal advice? The City of Riverside shot back at the State Finance Department with the following letter. According to the latest Press Enterprise the City Manager Scott Barber is defending some of the debt.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

In the response letter sent back to the State Finance Department by City Manager Scott Barber, he then agreed with the State on the following two items which could not be considered Enforceable Obligations. But shouldn’t the City’s legal council, Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos, have been able to clear this question of what is enforceable and what is not?

Page 1, Line Item 38: Grant agreement between City and Housing Authority $60,000,000.00 Page 2, Line Item 13: LM LS Targets of Opportunity-La Sierra/ Arlanza $1,085,749.17

A total of $61,085,749.17 which is due to hit our General Fund.

What is really disturbing in the letter is that Mr. Barber states there are three items of concern that can give way to a rate payer lawsuit. This in response if the State is unable to accept the debt, it will go to Riverside residents in the form of higher utility rates. But in doing so, these would in essence be a violation of proposition 218. These are Page 1, Line Item 29 ($4,329,897.60), Page 1, Line Item 30 ($328,039.22) and Page1, Line Item 32 ($4,793,600.00). Which amounts to $9,451,536.85.

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno, emailed the following letter to Vicki Hightower of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office indicating our frustration with the use of local resources. The letter was also read to the Council and Mayor at the April 25, 2012 public comment section in council chambers.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW DOCUMENT

The rejections came from California State Department of Finance to the tune of nearly $159 million in projects and debts from Riverside’s former redevelopment agency, potentially leaving the city’s general fund responsible for the amount lost. Did City management commit fraud when submitting inaccurate information to the State of California for responsibility of payment? What role if any did the law firm Best, Best and Krieger have in this? Or is the responsible party ultimately the decision makers, the deciders, the Council and the Mayor?

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT.

Above is the letter sent to Vanessa Kirks, Fiscal Manager for the City of Riverside dated April 13, 2012 from Mark Hill, Program Budget Manager for the California State Finance Department detailing the states rejections. What was also found, was that the California Department of Finance sent 55 cities this letter out of over 400 cities with one or more items rejected.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE CORRESPONDING DRAFT ROPS SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. POINTS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE THE REJECTIONS DETAILED BY THE STATES LETTER.

What people need to know about the relationship between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Riverside, is that Redevelopment Agency is a state agency. The agency board is made up of your own city council, mayor and employees of the city’s development department. The City and Redevelopment are one in the same, they just change hats. Ultimately, they are responsible for all actions and decisions.

The state then mandated that local oversight boards or succesor agencies be created to organize and dissolve the assets, debts and other obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Loveridge stated, “The irony of this is that the state set up these local oversight boards but (the Department of Finance) is setting the rules of the game”. True mayor, but did some of your oversight board actually know some of these loans were wrong? While others may have not? Or were you steered inaccurate legal advice? Also Mayor, when you met with the initial oversight board didn’t you set some rules of the game? It appears that Mayor Ron Loveridge and County Supervisor John Tavaglione appointed each other for Chair and Vice Chair of the Board. Conflict of interest? Or just two peas in the pod? Not to mention, it appears that John Tavaglione is covering all bets by endorsing three mayoral candidates, which are running against each other. Former Councilman Ed Adkison, Councilman Mike Gardner and Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey. But would these endorsements have have anything to do with John Tavaglione running for Congress? Or further, even Richard Roth, Esq., oops General Richard Roth, Esq., who does quite a bit of legal work for the city, such as the current Sgt. Valmont Graham case regarding racial discrimmination issues and a proposed settlement offer in todays city council agenda. Even though they are both endorsed by Mayor Ron Loveridge, is this a conflict of interest? Or just bad, bad business? Even Nick Tavaglione endorses General Richard Roth. Possibly some relation to John Tavaglione? “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” This is pretty bad legal situation for our city and someone needs to be disbarred, but the city which continues to exist in a clouded stupor and may not have the gumption to know the difference. For example, there are City loans made to the redevelopment agency, if not repaid, could be a future hit to the $214 million general fund. The problem is our general fund will not be able to sustain the additional debt load, we our are currently in a deficit as it is. Will this mean layoffs? Program cuts? Department cuts etc. etc.? More utility hikes?

If you were to read the California Department of Finance Question & Answer, which appears our city management did not, it states what is acceptable and what is not. The state even has Question & Answer on Enforceable Obligatons as follows:

CLICK THIS LINK TO VEW FULL VERSION.

The Oversight Board or Succesor Agency, with John Tavaglione and Mayor Ron Loveridge on the sidelines appeared to approve all the obligations for the former RDA and thought they could pull the rug over on the State Finance Department. The City and the Oversight Board sent the state a list of obligations they said were allowed and should be paid under the 2011 law that dissolved redevelopment agencies. The Oversight Board in itself was filled with conflicts of interest, and they obviously acted accordingly and expectably. The state then enforced its own pre-released guidelines, and rejected particular line items accordingly. State officials disagreed with a number of items on the list, including construction contracts for the new downtown fire station, Municipal Auditorium and Doty-Trust Park, as well as a disputed amount of loans from the city to the redevelopment agency and nearly $18 million from bonds issued in 2007 that the state says should not be spent. The City of Riverside took offense, and threatened litigation, well Gregory did, possibly by default.

In response to the State Finance Department rejection letter, City Manager Scott Barber will now send the state a response letter early this week, while Mayor Ron Loveridge will follow up with a trip in person to Sacramento. This will turn into a grand event by having his lobbying group, the League of Cities, behind him?

City Attorney Gregory Priamos stated, “We’re confident that by continuing to engage in a serious dialogue with the Department of Finance that we’re going to solve these issues without the need for litigation.”

But to even think that the city attorney would threaten the state with costly taxpayer litigation without considering the guidelines the state implemented, would be considered political suicide. Especially in a time when the city has less of a revenue stream, but not the city attorney’s office it seems. But of course, this is an office which operates without transperancy and without the duty to divulge expenses to the public, of which the public are entitled to. Many constituents in the City of Riverside are telling TMC that they are questioning Greg Priamos’s abilities and practices, which do not appear to be truly protective of our local constituents interest.

According to the letter sent to the City of Riverside by the State of California Finance Department the state says no to approximately 10% of the submissions, while the City of Riverside of course, as we are now aware, threatens litigation. What the State is saying is that Enforceable Obligations (EO), of which the State cites HSC section 34171 (d) , declares in part that Enforceable Obligations do not include any 1. Agreements, 2. Contracts or 3. Arrangements with City (that created the Redevelopment Agency), and especially the Redevelopment Agency itself. So it appears that the City and the Redevelopment Agency entered into multiple loan agreements. The law appears to be very clear, I’m not sure what part Gregory, our City Attorney and Best, Best & Krieger didn’t quite get? I know that they are both sharp cookies and it would appear to me that they wouldn’t allow the city to submit erroneous paperwork purposely. But what do I know, I’m only a common citizen..

But let’s go a little further down. The State considers the following not EO’s. You cannot make inter agency loans and that’s what the TMC truth team has been trying to tell the Mayor and the City Council. Did the city’s lobbying group The League of California Cities say this was legal.? Did the Greater Riverside Chamber say it was legal? Did our City Attorney Gregory Priamos say it was legal. Did Best Best & Krieger, the City’s hired law firm, say it was legal?

There were loans between RDA and the City totaling $41.3 million. There was a cooperative and an agreement between RDA and the City totaling $61.2 million. There was a loan between RDA and the City Housing Authority totaling $1 million. So far $103.4 million total

Then there was an unused revolving line of credit for $19.9 million. Again it remained unused, but the City still tried to push this through for payment regardless. The State said no, it’s not EO’s. New total is $123.3 million.

There are contracts with the city with other entities, not RDA, that the City tried to pass to the state as a Redevelopment issue for $19.9 million. It said no, these are not EO’s. New total, $143.2 million.

There was various expenditures with no expenditure contracts, similar to how the City handles business with BB&K, with no contracts. The state said no, this amounted to $15.4 million. New total, $158.6 million.

So for now, the City of Riverside claims victim status, blaming the state for themselves over extending the city’s finances. We all know that the City is in denial, they will never admit fault, and will not take a bit of responsibility for their past voting record as they should. Continuing to blame the State Finance Department for themselves incurring our $2 billion in Redevelopment debt, and of course, the constituents of this city will ultimately be responsible for the debt. We must also not forget those who were in charge at the time of these occurrences, such as Former Chief Financial Officer/ Assistant City Manager/ Treasurer Paul Sundeen.

The truth of the matter is that the city can only ‘cry wolf’ a limited amount of times, before the residents of this community realize what they have done. But in all fareness we must allow the city’s newly formed “truth squad” to respond to this conundrum, and we will wait to hear from them.

Interum Public Works Director, Tom Boyd is now named Public Works Director.

It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .

UPDATE: 06/01/2012: STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SEND LETTER OF APPROVAL TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLOWING COVERAGE OF $26 MILLION OF THE ORIGINAL $156 MILLION ORIGINALLY REJECTED. CURRENTLY, APPROXIMATELY $133 MILLION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND REMAINS A DEBT OF THE CITY.

WHAT WOULD JOE ISUZU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THIS?

UPDATE:04/23/2012: CITY HALL SCUFFLE? Info has been brought to TMC that Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s aid Chuck Condor was allegedly involved in a scuffle with another individual at City Hall. Condor has been called on the carpet of City Hall for making derogatory remarks such as calling woman commenters “bitches” and “idiots.” This was done in plain sight of others at city meetings. Is Condor out of control? Or is this an accepted part of City Hall culture? TMC has been told Chuck Condor is now on administrative leave, ‘paid leave’? That we do not know. Is Chuck Condor going to lawyer up?

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. RATED ~~ONE~~ TWO 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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TRUTH, FREE SPEECH AND THE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT GANG..

Posted: March 25, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: anti-establishment gang, city of riverside, councilman chris mac arthur, councilman mike gardner, councilman steve adams, councilman william "rusty" bailey, free speech

An attack of Freedom of Speech? Speakers of discourse are now the anti-establishment gang? Or is it truly a problem with the female gender speaking out according to a local blog editor and his publication? Or has one been placed on the naughty list of the minister of propaganda? Or even labeled as enemy of the people? What does the term anti-establishment mean? We can say, that it is marked by opposition or hostility to conventional social, political, or economic values or principles… well, ok.. But what happens when one changes the principles of a primary government establishment? The primary governing establishment would be what was originally designed by our forefathers. This in essence is ruled by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When these principles become so convoluted to the extent of being oppressive to the extent of examples such as excess taxes, an anti-establishment view would be in order and acceptable. In America, it is part of our checks and balance system. It is a system developed to maintain focus and prevent diversion from our Constitutional principles. Therefore, a system of government, which would be governed by the people for the people. And those in government whom are representatives of the people, who do not follow these principles, can be removed at a whim.

Our forefathers were also sensitive to any government leader reaching the point of royalty. George Washington refused to be called by any type of glamorous titles. He insisted that he only be addressed by the simple title of “Mr. President”, In respect to our forefathers views with respect to authority, the disrespect toward the people by governing representatives was considered more egregious. It is therefore the duty of each American to keep watch on our representatives. We were warned by our forefathers that if we leave this job whole heartedly to their authority the freedoms that we hold can and will become non-existent. The City of Riverside not long ago allowed 5 minutes for public speaking, it is now 3 minutes. Countries such as Cuba which never had a democratic form of government continue to suffer. One could therefore be jailed or even killed for simply thinking or speaking under Cuba’s current and past dictator’s such as Castro and Batista.

But when the connection is there, of the discourse and conspiracy of politicians and a publication we must therefore look at the individuals. Councilman Mike Gardner, Councilman Steve Adams and Councilman Chris Mac Arthur who financially support this site at one time or another, is a site which has a track record of innuendos and derogatory comments towards woman. One Councilman’s Aid, such as that of Chris Mac Arthur, have called woman ‘idiots’, ‘ bitches’ and even taken photographs for record purposes. Is this thought prevalent and reflective of some at city hall or even some on the dais? Who’s in charge? Them or ‘we the people’? Or have we become Cuba? To carefully pick and choose what we can say and how we can say it? Or will the only acceptable form of ‘free speech’ become a series of platitudes and praises for our leadership? Therefore relieving ourselves of any local and government retribution? Or do we continue to further misinterpret the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights for the benefit of a preferential few? As all American’s currently and secretly feel, we won’t stand for it, our bible is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and it should be respected, and not be denigrated..

There are many times when, even though there is freedom of the press and freedom of speech, it is hard to get a hearing for certain noble causes. I often think that we, all of us, should think very much more carefully than we do about what we mean by freedom of speech, by freedom of the press, by freedom of assembly. I sometimes am much worried by the tendency that exists among certain groups in our country today to consider that these are rights are only for people who think as they do, that they are not rights for the people who disagree with them. I believe that you must apply to all groups the same rights, to all forms of thought, to all forms of expression, the same liberties. Otherwise, you practically deny the fact that you trust the people to choose for themselves, in a majority, what is wise and what is right. And when you do that, you deny the possibility of having a democracy. –Eleanor Roosevelt

Some on the dais have even abused the privilege to represent their constituents by their attitudes of entitlements of insurmountable expenses to the taxpayer. Others have even violated their oath and fiduciary duty to the proper over site of financials, to the extent of negligence. Others have had preferential treatment within our city government, when it came to criminal, vehicle and code violations.

But now we have a publication which questions what is said as not proper and disrespectful. And one must follow the rules. It is this same publication editor who had interrupted and violated the same rules of public speaking, had to be admonished by the mayor back in a City Council Meeting November 6, 2012.

Since many who speak at city council are woman. Does this publication of truth believe that our constitution and the freedoms under the Bill of rights apply to all Americans?.. the premise is, whenever our current form of government diverts from our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that favors the elements of scrutiny and suspicion. What is so divisive of that? It is part of our history of checks and balances. Public records don not lie, they are the documents of our elected representatives office activities. It is also the duty of all Americans to understand them and question them.

We welcome all forms of free speech in terms of publications. Even publications which claims to print what no one else will. Even when they depict woman as bloodied backstabbers and sensual silhouettes. Even when commenters depict woman as ornaments to appeal to the eyes of men, where they should be placed back in the kitchen where they belong, and don’t they know men are in charge? A suttle inference that woman should stay out of the political arena? And even the right for someone as a Councilman to say ‘Good Job’ to this publication and support the publications train of thought, but the truth of the matter is that it only reflects upon the individual and their representative focus…

Public speaking was meant to be warm and cold, divisive and confrontational, loud and quiet, acceptable and unacceptable, to praise and be critical. The premise is, that all points of view contribute to a new formation of thought. Newly sculpted thought in our leadership can create change in our government, and therefore benefit the citizens they represent.. Both sides of the spectrum of thought must be allowed no matter how divisive it appears, it is a necessary adjunct to the attainment and perseverance of freedom of speech…

Many in the Jehovah Witness Community were disturbed by this submission, a blog financially supported by Councilman Steve Adams, Mayoral Candidate and current Councilman Mike Gardner and Councilman Chris Mac Arthur:

UPDATE: 03/25/2012: FIRST IT’S CANCELED, NOW WE HAVE A SPECIAL FINANCE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY 26, 2012 FOR 1 PM AT CITY HALL. THE AGENDA ITEMS: FOR THE CREATION OF A CITIZENS AUDIT COMMITTEE AND TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO INCREASE STORM DRAIN RATES FROM $2.83 TO $10.00. IF YOU ASK ME THAT’S A HUGE INCREASE IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND ~~MEZZSPELLED~~, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND ~~PROSSIBLY~~ POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

	Gail Hays on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: MORE CASH F…
	Mihaela Hristodor on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: MEASURE C W…
	No More Corrupt Repr… on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: MEASURE C W…
	Norma on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: MEASURE C W…
	CITY OF RIVERSIDE: M… on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF T…
	Javier Moreno on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: FIRE DEPUTY…
	Raychele Sterling on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: FIRE DEPUTY…
	CITY OF RIVERSIDE: F… on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF T…
	CITY OF RIVERSIDE: W… on CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS: FORMER R…
	CITY OF RIVERSIDE: W… on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CITY MANAGE…

TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption

Thanks For Visiting!

TMC Free Subscription

TMC Search

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Twitter

Blogroll

TMC CLOUD ROLL

SCAN TMC QR CODE (VIEW MOBILE)

TMC

WHO’S VISITING?

Posts Tagged ‘councilman chris mac arthur’

EXCLUSIVE: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: GEUSS & RUSSO CONTRACTS NULL & VOID! COLLUSION TO DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: “VETO” CORLEONE! RUSSO CONTRACT EXECUTED! THEN REVIVED FROM THE DEAD?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AFTER THE SMOKE SETTLED, THE PEOPLE PREVAILED… and the

CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY: HATFIELDS & McCOYS?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AS OF SUNDAY 03.25.2013 DAY 153 STILL NO CHARGES! KAREN WRIGHT NOT GIVEN THE RIOT ACT AT COURT APPEARANCE? DA’S CASE DOA? OR POLITICAL HOT POTATO? SHOULD CITY COUNCIL DROP THE CHARGES?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: THE DEATH OF REDEVELOPMENT : THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE IN THE BLOODY AFTERMATH..

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TRUTH, FREE SPEECH AND THE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT GANG..

TMC SITEMETER

VOTER LOOKUP

Thanks For Visiting!

TMC Free Subscription

TMC Search

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Blogroll

TMC CLOUD ROLL

SCAN TMC QR CODE (VIEW MOBILE)

WHO’S VISITING?

Posts Tagged ‘councilman chris mac arthur’

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this: