Posts Tagged ‘former city manager brad hudson’

HESTRINONE

Newly christened District Attorney Mike Hestrin, A.K.A. Superman, Clark Kent (also the underground A.K.A. name of “Hestrone”, because he is the man), layed out his plan for change with reference to rebuilding the DA’s office, as he was quoted as saying, “Brick by painful brick.”  We see a new turn of events whereby Hestrin will take the bull by the horns and remold the DA’s office in what many have said is in needed change.  Change in the sense that makes sense.  He states that now only will he be tough on crime, but he plans to concentrate on crime prevention.  Now what does that mean?

Hestrin is in charge of approximately 250 lawyers and 100 investigators.  He has an new expectation for his staff to volunteer their time in order to be more closely connected to the community.  Therefore he expects his lawyers and investigators to volunteer their time and expertise to community programs.  Not as a punishment, but as I see it, extending their responsibilities as DA’s etc. to actually resolving and mitigating the crime problem once and individual is released from prison.  By this, Hestrin’s intention is to prevent recidivism.  This would be done by keeping individuals from going back to their communities and associating with criminal elements.  If they associate with positive and constructive individual, he believes this would help individuals not going back to a life of crime.  The way I see it is that if you want to truly lower crime rates you have to have a 360 degree plan.  Hestrin is making such an attempt.

Programs such as YAT, Youth Accountability Team, helps young offenders, who are at risk youths, to be steered away from crime.  Another program is the Woman’s Wonder Writers program.  Then again, there is the Real Men Read community program.

He is not only asking his staff to volunteer their time to community programs, but to make the attempt to start new community programs.  So he is asking not only to prosecute, but go a step forward to connect to the community.  One of the questions he would ask in the promotion process would be “what have you done for the community to decrease crime.”  This is takes the DA’s office to a different level and bring it full circle, a 360 degree plan.  DA’s and investigators will not only be responsible for fighting crime, but finding solutions to decrease crime, and most importantly, crime due to recidivism.

WILL FORMER BB&K INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY CHRISTINA TALLEY AFTER BEING FIRED FROM THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER UNSUSPECTING CITY AT INTOLERABLE WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR MEDIOCRE LEGAL ADVICE??

gotmycheck copy

GOT MY CHECK…

Incidentally, Talley was the City Attorney for the City of Pasadena during the years of 1994-1996, cities do recycle their employees!  She came here to Riverside, while we sent former Public Works Director Siobhan Foster and former Assistant City Manager Michael Beck to Pasadena.

Christina-Talley_9150

Oops, looks as that didn’t sit to well..  Regarding the Jason Hunter Ethics Complaint, Talley told Councilman Paul Davis that the City Attorney’s Office had no authority to hire outside council for the Ethics hearing, this was weeks after she allowed outside hired counsel Doug Smith to represent Justin Scott-Coe, at taxpayer expense.  What goes?  What we found was that Hunter made the legal argument against the hiring of outside legal services, then Talley evidently concurred, or felt she was challenged by true legality of this aspect, which led her altered legal opinion in favor of Hunters original proceedings.

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ATTAINING EMAILS TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE CLAIM.

FORMER BB&K ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER SENDS EMAIL JANUARY 16TH TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE DEMANDING THAT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE COMPLY WITH THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT PROVISIONS ABOUT ASSIGNING ISSUES TO THE CONSENT CALENDER..  Pepper states that the method the City has adopted for assigning issues to the consent calender violates the Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.

Pepper therefore demands on behalf of all residents of the City of Riverside, that:
    (1) the contents of all future Consent Calendars for City Council meetings be set, as required by law, at an open, public City Council meeting,;
    (2) that such Consent Calendar be set by the City Council as a whole, rather than by the Mayor and the City Manager and Assistant City Manager;
    (3) that the public be given the appropriate opportunity to make public comments objecting to an item being placed on the Consent Calendar before the City Council votes on the make-up of such calendar.

demandconsentcalender

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW FULL EMAIL

UPDATE: On January 18th, Attorney Pepper sent out an addendum letter to her first letter, regarding the demand that the City comply with the Ralp M. Brown Act provisions about assigning issues to the consent calender.  Within this letter Pepper makes the connection that she believes that their is circumstantial evidence that prior Council member Don Betro was involved in a broad based conspiracy, along with other former elects and city executives such as City Attorney Gregory Priamos, Mayor Loveridge, City Manager Brad Hudson, CFO Paul Sundeen and Assistant City Manager Michael Beck, to pillage the City’s, or taxpayers finances.

addendumletter01182014

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW FULL LETTER

IS THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MAKING MONEY ON A PUBLIC EVENT?  It has been brought to TMC’s attention that the yearly public event known as the Annual State of the City, may be just a campaign fund raising event, which appears to tell the public to not come!  This should be advertised as a free even since it is a public event.  Why has it appeared to be taken over by a non-profit, the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce?  They are asking that there is a charge of $50.00 per ticket, there is nothing to state that the public can come or attain free tickets. The truth of the matter is that the Chamber has a total of 650 tickets, 50 of those are free general public tickets and 600 are being sold

It also appears that Public Utilities is paying for advertisement on this site.  There was controversy last year when $500,000.00 of taxpayer monies was to be set aside to the Chamber to coordinate the Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful Program, without the bidding process.  TMC wants the same deal, we will gladly advertise Public Utilities for $24,999.00 right under the maximum amount Public Utilities Manager Girish Balachandran can cut a check for.

stateofthecityGRCCLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE (figure one)

It appears that the taxpayer funds the Chamber, even through Public Utilities, but the public is not even publicly invited to this event.  Is this what the Chamber has done a ruse or front for raising campaign funds for their “go along get along” candidates?  To be fair the PE did mention their would be a limited number of “free seats available.”  Really now, doesn’t that just want to make the public not want to go or even attempt to compete for these limited number of free seats?

sponsorpkg     PEfreeseats

Again questions arise if employees of the City, as former Public Utility General Manager Dave Wright, should be on the Chamber board.  Curently,  Riverside Public Utilities General Manager Girish Balachandran, is on the board of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, and Taxpayer monies are cut from this General Manager to the Chamber as seen in this advertisement (figure one).  Unbelievable…  Conflict of Interest, or Culture of Corruption?

Girish-Balachandran        RCCGirish

Incidentally, Cindy Roth is the CFO/President of the Chamber who’s husband Richard D. Roth is now Senator for the State of California, and has been a recipient of taxpayer monies for doing the City’s dirty work, as many in the community have said, though are afraid to state their opinion for fear of retaliation by the City Department Agencies or even RPD.  Sorry folks, I’m only the messenger..  But many are told when calling the Chamber that the limited number of free seat are for the “General Public” which must be seated in the back of the event.  I say, the “Elite Public” can pay for a taxpayer event, but the rest, “General Public” sit in the back of the bus..  Quite fitting as January 19th is Martin Luther Kings Birthday.

1956_South_Carolina_bus_segregation  martin

DON’T WE HAVE A STATUE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING IN FRONT OF RIVERSIDE HALL?

The question is why would anyone want to do business or even live in the City of Riverside when they don’t even feel safe by the Police Department or even that they can make a living under the duress of many rules and regulation by the City which makes it difficult to doing real business.

IS IT TIME TO RECALL RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERVISOR’S FOR ABUSE OF TAXPAYER’S MONIES?  ACCORDING TO A LETTER IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE THE ANSWER IS YES..  Sounds like our former Riverside City Manager’s shoe shine machine at taxpayer expense of $600.00.  The bastard couldn’t even pay for his Starbucks coffee for two bucks without hitting the taxpayer..  you named him, former City Manager Brad Hudson.  Hopefully, Hestrin will place the likes of him in incarceration, and his cohort Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham, alleged lover.

godfatherartwork14 copy

Opps, Jeff Stone not in the picture anymore, he took his bat to the Senate.

 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

CREW

Now a second complaint alleging violation of City Charter 407 came in, this time it’s against Councilman Paul Davis.  Less than a week ago, a complaint came against Councilman Mike Soubirous.  It seems that the powers that be continue in their attempt to get back to a 7-0 team player vote.  We are assuming that the $16,000.00 Team Motivator/Psychologist isn’t working.  It’s clear by the information provided, that Davis was targeted at least on two facts, the work performance of the City Manager Scott Barber and what Davis said in testimony in the Raychele Sterling Case, which may not have made the City Attorney Greg Priamos look so good.

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS

When you view the overall pictorial of both Councilman, you cannot rule out a conspiratorial aspect by some of the usual suspects.  Just weeks ago Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason presented to City Council and spoke on how we will have a budget shortfall.  They continue to frivously spend tax payer monies in an effort to support their enormous egos and defend there inadvertent liabilities.  We must also ask the question, who are the players and what could they have to lose.

Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza.  He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact.  Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager?  The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council.  Certainly violated the Charter Amendment.  What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them?  A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.

 Ferret (Mustela putorius furo) on white background

Do we have a rogue staff?  City Attorney Greg Priamos gives the order to Officer Sahagun to arrest public speaker Karen Wright for going over the 3 minute mark, then lies about having any part of it, until exposed by Sahagun’s police report.  He calls the report inaccurate, then rescinds his comment when he receives a letter from the Police Officers Association resulting in an appology to the public at City Council.  But I regress, there’s a double standard regarding the 3 minute rule?  While former Mayor Ron Loveridge is allowed to go over the 3 minute mark and the buzzard turned off, and no arrest, why are others at a whim being arrested?  Even RUSD Mike Fine went over the 3 minute rule and it was simply okay.  So we target, retaliate and financially shake down those who practice their 1st amendment right of free speech in a public forum.  This is as off beaten as City Attorney Greg Priamos writing a book on ethics and giving a course in ethics to council.  Isn’t that “the pot calling the kettle black?”  Therefore, Priamos must have taken a course in governmental ethics somewhere in order to have the knowledge to provide it.  Where did Priamos take his course?  The laughs are never ending in the on going reality melodrama “As River City Turns.”

Responsible legal advice by our City Attorney is pertinent to decrease the liabilities of the taxpayer.  But we have seen, it may have been the case as in the Moreno Law Suite which addressed violations of Proposition 218 by the City of Riverside.  Further, the city’s approach to the campaign as in conflict of interest mailers in the Measure A campaign as well as the Measure V campaign, whereby taxpayer monies from the general fund are utilized, for what the city states are “informational purposes.”

measureajpg                                              MeasureV

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Though the Supreme Court stated that “a special edition created and sent to would-be voters, specifically because of the upcoming election,” is improper campaign activity.  I guess Priamos does what is necessary for the greater good of those who feed off city revenues.

Councilman Steve Adams recently spoke of witnessing undo influence within the RFP (Request For Proposal) process, which in turn a formal Ethics Complaint was made, which resulted in complaint being unfounded.  But when you look at the Ethics Complaint process, one can see that process is set up to result in a favorable finding for the defendant, just by default.  Was a city paid investigator hired to investigate this?  Do we pick and choose opportunistically when such activity becomes politically advisable.  Who would play the role of the consigliere, possibly someone with a law degree?  Will these complaints lead new Councilman Jim Perry taking this as a message to not divert course?

In both the Davis and Soubirous case, the PE reports that all emails have been requested in which referenced Barbers “employment status.”  This is telling; what happened between these two council people and the City Manager?  Another question, could it have been the connection between families which include Councilman Mac Arthur, Mayor Bailey and Albert Webb, of Webb Engineering?  Webb contracts were brought in the Raychele Sterling Case.

We certainly would now have to consider if these city employees filed they’re complaints on the they’re own volition, or did they have encouragement, or were they promised promotion?  Plausible denial by some of the usual suspects may give us more thought to a theoretical conspiracy in this matter.

The fact that Councilmen Soubirous and Davis called for a forensic audit for transparency and accountability, IS exactly why these two councilmen are being investigated. These two men ask the tough questions on our behalf. City Hall status-quo do not want a forensic audit. Councilmen MacArthur and Perry do not want a forensic audit. Councilmen Gardner and Adams appear to not want a forensic audit. Councilman Melendrez is undetermined. A forensic audit is what is needed at Riverside City Hall.  – Donald Herman Gallegos, Commenter on the PE

UPDATE: 05.05.2014: CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN CAUCUS OUTRAGED!

The Riverside African-American Community and Law Enforcement are outraged with Riverside NAACP President, Woody Rucker-Hughess over Riverside District Attorney Paul Zellerbach to receive the prestiges Drum Major Award May 14, 2014.  The California Friends of the African-American Caucus are asking Ms. Rucker-Hughes to rescind the award to Paul Zellerbach after he was caught twice removing campaign signs of his opponent Mike Hestrin last month.  President William Hutchinson of the Palm Springs Police Officer’s Association read a statement to the press which describes Zellerbach taking down signs, using a County vehicle and the assistance of a county employee, his retaliation after getting caught of the veteran law enforcement officer and his family.

08TUTUS_1117_G_dwb     Untitled-2     zellerback

Is it because Woody and Paul sing the same tune and dance the same steps? DA Mr. “Z” obviously is enjoying himself! Maybe we have something here folks, the dance styling”s of Woody & Paul…

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

 

Stop Elder Abuse Sign

UPDATE:06.03.2013: IT WASN’T ENOUGH THAT BB&K ATTORNEY JACK CLARK ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF CITY HALL IN RECOGNITION OF RON LOVERIDGE..  NOW WE FIND JAMES ERICKSON, VICE CHANCELLOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE, ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF MAIN STREET UNDER THE NAME OF RON LOVERIDGE.  IN WHAT CAPACITY WE DO NOT KNOW.. LOVERIDGE LANE, RONNY’S STREET OR EVEN RONALD BOULEVARD.. 

Untitled-2 copy                       Untitled-3

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

STRONG-ARMING SENIORS FOR A YES VOTE:  ISN’T THAT ELDER ABUSE?

There is nothing more despicable than taking advantage and misinforming seniors.  Where is Ofelia Yeager on this issue, the Chairperson on the Yes on Measure A Campaign?  Why was she chosen to spearhead this issue?  Why was Mathew Webb of Webb Engineering, the Co-Chairperson christen to participate in this elusive endeavor?  Why would Webb Engineering have a master engineering contract with Municipal Water?  How does this affect Mathew Webb’s relationship with Councilman Chris Mac Arthur, are they cousins or just doing the Hanky Panky?    Or Mathew Webb’s association with now Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, stating he has known him for decades.  Is this all about keeping it in the family?  Does it dispute the fact that Webb Engineering recieved 13 Checks on the same day under former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary account?  Where is the Council on this one, the Mayor and especially Steve Adams who has asspirations aspirations of being a Congressman?  This is only a reflection of how our City operates.  Every month the amount transferred goes up, it was $6.1 million now it is $6.7 million, probably because they are not allowed to transfer just yet.   But, what now appears to be covered by this transfer is everything that property taxes are suppose to cover.  In City Manager Scott Barber’s analysis of possible cuts if Measure A doesn’t pass could very well be considered a scheme, artiface or fabrication since it was simply based on projections.  Was this orchestrated and designed to attempt to mislead the voters?  The projections have no basis because they never had any accounting track record of expenditures to refer to, they don’t exist.  If no prior allocation records exist how does one extrapolate a true analytical projection?  According to the City’s October General Fund Forecast, the Mayor Bailey’s Office is overbudgeted by $116,100.00.  Instead of cutting his budget, he would rather cut Police and Fire?  Further, as indicate City Manager Scott Barber used the number of the adopted budget for the Mayor’s office to apply his 3.0% cut, which comes out to $22,000.00, therefore this amount would be cost applied to the 11.5% transfer.  The funny thing is that the number cannot be legitimatel verified because no accounting records of that number exist!  Every account that Barber utilizes applies the 3.0% in the same manner.  This is an example of how they are misinforming the public.

mayorsbudget             mayors budget

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question to be asking the City, and many are asking the question by the way, “why do they appear to be strong arming the community into a Yes vote on Measure A?”  From candidates, community groups, community services, city employees etc.  Is it that the City is threatening funding to these programs if a Yes vote is not supported?  Money always seems to talk, especially when it is not your own money to spend.

This is a flyer that was dispersed at the Janet Goeske Center which states what will happen to senior funding if they do not vote Yes on Measure A.  Is the City of Riverside strong arming residents with an iron fist of reason?  Or is it extorsion?  Afterall isn’t the Hyatt suing the City of Riverside on this issue?  Yes they are.  Demand answers!  Demand Transperancy! Demand Leadership!  Well…at least the first two, and the only way to do this is to show up at City Council and voice your opinions.

JGFLYER

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FLYER DISPERSED AT THE JANET GOESKE CENTER

In the last two utility bills you received;  you as a taxpayer have paid for the few rogue City Officials who felt it was necessary to spend your tax money to misinform you, further, to deny your constitutional right of reaching a balanced voting decision.  City Tax money was used to favor a “Yes” vote on Measure A.  This flyer states to go to the City of Riverside’s web site for more information. If you go the City of Riverside’s web site, what we have can be construed as a Yes on Measure A bonanza!    Another FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) violation?

PUMEASUREAOFUTILITYBILL

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHAT YOU PAID FOR, EVEN IF YOU DON’T AGREE!

According to Letitia Pepper, Riverside Attorney, the City is using city funds to promote Measure A, and to promote it with lies and propaganda — propaganda is “half-truths.”  She says to look at your May Riverside Public Utility bill, on the back ( the above image).  There’s a full page promoting the passage of Measure A.  This page includes the biggest of all lies:  “By re-affirming these previous voter actions, Measure A continues this funding [allegedly and impliedly only for for clean water programs], WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.” The real reason this issue MUST be submitted to the voters is not the self-serving settlement into which the City entered with the Moreno’s that required the City to submit the issue of the excess charges to the voters. The REAL reason the City is doing this is that since 1996, it has been illegal, under Prop. 218, for cities, incuding charter cities like Riverside, to charge more for water than the actual cost of providing it. To make such chares, cities had two years after Prop. 218 passed to submit them for a vote as taxes — and the City never did that until it got caught last year.

Another aspect of this measure is that it appears to be paying for alot of services!  The amount the City has indicated has gone from $6.1 million to $6.7 million.  If you are a taxpayer as I am, this transfer appears to be doing a better job of covering all expenses of city services than our property taxes.  Potholes, Storm Drains (we doubled the tax in 2012), Police, Fire, 911 dispatch, Childrens Lunch Programs, Clean Water (Covered by your water rates), Gang Control (Covered by Federal Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Library, Crossing Guards, Tree Triming, Disabled Services, Senior Services, SRO’s (School Resource Officers), Maintaining Fairmont Park Lake, Low Income Lunch Programs, Powerwashing Downtown Streets, Installing Curbs and Gutters, Summer Camp Programs, Dealing with Abandoned Vehicles, Using Code Enforcement if your Landscaping doesn’t conform to the Politically Correct criteria of the City, Code Enforcement citations if you Overwater your landscaping, Code Enforcement citations if you have Trash exposed, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that you have Outdoor Storage, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that your property is contributing to storm drain contaminants and it goes on and on.  The storm drain fees don’t really help Riverside residents, but it contributes to Orange County Clean Water.  Property Taxes pay for City Services, the User Utility Tax on your utility bill pays for services and Proposition 172 allocates 1/2 cent from the sales tax to city services.  Government should live within their means, afterall you and I have to.  The new advertisement on Measure A on your utility bill states cleaning storm drain catch basins and storm drains.  But what! We had an increase from $2.83 to $5.22?  Yes folks, last year we had an increase in our Storm Drain Tax ( also know as Storm Sewer System), documents as follows:

STORMDRAIN           PAGE4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Is the City contemplating a triple tax by this above action?  Is the truth of the matter that the City is in need of paying upcoming bond obligations?  Would this be the real issue?

As indicated by Dan Berstein’s of the Press Enterprise new article, is this another Sleazy Campaign Mailer?  Rather than making cuts in their own back yard, the City of Riverside would like to punish residents that already have made cuts in their household with the fear of higher taxes, as indicated a couple of weeks ago by Councilman Steve Adams where he stated, “if Measure-A doesn’t pass, we have a change in the status quo, and we will have to raise your rates (referring to water) and increase your taxes.”

flash_1886

WELL LET’S DO A DRUM ROLL TO INCREASE TAXES; SHALL WE COUNCILMAN ADAMS?

The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points, but this new mailer just received is from the City of Riverside, and it has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber.  It cannot get any more blatant than this.  Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months the City has stated it was on a Measure A informational tour.  This four page City mailer shows that the language can be ultimately construed as a campaign publication endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A.  This can be seen by the language and pictorial used, the tone, tenor and timing is there. Further this mailer was paid for by you and me the “Taxpayer.”  Therefore is the City of Riverside on the verge of violating FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) rules and regulations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds?  Elections Code § 8314(d) and Gov’t Code § 8314(d).

Gov’t Code § 8314 (a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

Gov’t Code § 8314(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure on state activities, operations, or policies, provided that (1) the informational activities are otherwise authorized by the constitution or laws of this state, and (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

According to a new article by Dan Berstein of the Press Enterprise, the Council knew of this piece, according to Councilman Mike Gardner, but didn’t discuss the content.  So who were the individuals or individual that approved and designed this mailer?  Well it appears it was within the City Attorney’s Office.  So, who approved the $23,777.00 for the cost of printing and mailing at taxpayer expense?  You would think if there was any inkling or sugestion of misappropriation of taxpayer funds that the council would have the descency to ask those obvious tough questions. This I say in lieu of City Attorney Gregory Priamos not returning Berstein’s calls. If it was approved by Priamos, it must be legal, right Greg?

Another editorial in the Press Enterprise, “Don’t use taxpayers’ monies for election fliers.”   Is the City of Riverside really a “Muni Mafia?”  How do they compare to San Bernardino? Or Moreno Valley?

The City continues to claim that these transfer monies are used for everything under the sun, and every week we have something new that it covers.  The reality is the City has no bonafide track record of accounting of any of these fund at anytime, this we see as Bernstein undercovered in reference to “library books.”  Remember folks, only tax money can be deposited into the General Fund.

I guess in the real realm of things why won’t District Attorney Paul Zellerbach act on this? Possibly, because of this rhetorical question: “Is it illegal or just bad business?”  Possibly all the above, but we won’t expect this office to react in reference to the oath of office you sworn to uphold….regardless, your track record indicates clearly, your answers and responses to local community inquiries.  What kind of message does this send to the community when the City itself doesn’t follow the letter of the law?  Our we a Banana Republic or an American City based on constitutional rights?

zellerbach

SO WHAT IS A D.A. TO DO?

As of May 28, 2013 as indicated in the Press Enterprise, the “Yes on Measure A” campaign has contribution commitments which are in the neigborhood of $46,000.00, and the “No on Measure A” campaign has continues to maintain steady monetary commitments of $0.00

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

539110_506054042765037_303798518_n

COUNCILMAN ADAMS BRINGS HIS CITY VEHICLE IN FOR THE USUAL REPAIRS…

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU.  NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA?  RATED 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

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 

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO WATCH THE VIDEO!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

THE PRESS ENTERPRISE IS REPORTING THAT CITY OFFICIALS ARE EXAMINING HOW MONEY BUDGETED OR APPROPRIATED FOR COUNCIL ASSISTANTS, ALSO KNOWN AS LEGISLATIVE FIELD REPRESENTATIVES,  IS BEING SPENT.   QUESTIONS AROSE AFTER THE REVIEW OF HOW ONE COUNCILMAN USED THESE FUNDS.   IN 2010 THE LEGISLATIVE FIELD REPRESENTIVE’S POSITION BECAME FULL TIME WITH A SALARY RANGING UP TO $52,000.00 WITH BENEFITS.   AT ONE TIME THIS POSITION WAS PART TIME AND CONTRACTUAL, THEN BECAME FULL TIME AND SALARIED.  THE DETAILS OF HOW MANY COUNCIL PEOPLE UTILIZED AN ASSISTANT, AND THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE ASSISTANT POSITION OVER THE YEARS APPEARS HAZY AND NOT QUITE DOCUMENTED.  A BIG JOB FOR INTERIUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER WHO IS TRYING TO HASH IT OUT THE QUESTIONS, OR AS HE STATES “FERRET OUT”.  THIS WHOLE MESS CAME TO THE FOREFRONT BECAUSE THESE MONIES WERE ACTUALLY BUDGETED AND APPROPRIATED FOR THESE LEGISLATIVE FIELD REPRESENTATIVES ONLY.  WELL COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS UTILIZED THESE FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  DON’T GET ME WRONG, INSTEAD OF PAUL USING THE $50,000.00 FOR AN  ASSISTANT,  HE FELT THESE FUNDS WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN THE COMMUNITY,  AFTERALL IT IS THERE MONEY.  THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THAT THESE FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED FOR ONE PURPOSE, AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY, FOR USE ON AN ASSISTANT.  OF COURSE, WE HAVE ALL HEARD THIS QUOTATION,
INGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BREAKING THE LAW.  SINCE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EXECUTIVE PERSONEL ARE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD, THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER, OTHERWISE THIS WOULD BE A VIOLATION. DAVIS STATED THAT FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON TOLD HIM HE COULD USE THESE FUNDS TO HIRE AN ASSISTANT OR USE THE MONEY FOR THE COMMUNITY.  BUT APPARENTLY WHAT HUDSON DIDN’T TELL DAVIS, WAS THAT THE FUNDS CAN ONLY BE APPROVED ON A ONE-TIME BASIS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGERS OFFICE, OTHERWISE TO REGULARLY SHIFT THESE FUND FROM THEIR BUDGETED OR ALLOCATED PURPOSE REQUIRES A COUNCIL VOTE.  THIS GOT ME THINKING, IT IS WELL KNOWN OF THE TENSE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON AND COUNICLMAN PAUL DAVIS.  FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO WELL KNOWN OF HUDSON’S ALLEGED INSUBORDINATION TOWARD DAVIS.  THE QUESTION IS, WAS COUNCILMAN DAVIS SET UP?  AFTERALL, IT WAS HUDSON’S JOB TO SERVE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNICIL PEOPLE.  REGARDLESS, ALL SEASONED COUNCIL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW IF YOU VOTE FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, IT MUST BE FOR THAT ITEM AND THAT ITEM ONLY, TO DO ANYTHING OTHERWISE WOULD BE MISSAPPROPRIATION.   THIS HOT TOPIC IS NOT OVER YET, IT HAS BEEN SENT OVER TO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR MORE HASHING OUT, OR AS INTERIUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER STATES, THESE ARE QUESTIONS “TO FERRET OUT”.  THE QUESTION OF MISSAPPROPRIATION SHOULD NOT TAKE LONG FOR A SEASONED INTERIUM CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER, UNLESS IT’S HUNTING SEASON.  ARE THERE MORE PROCEDURAL GLITCHES OR RED FLAGS THAT HAVE RECEIVED THE ATTENTION OF BARBER THAT HAVE YET TO BE MENTION SINCE HUDSON SKIPPED TOWN?    TMC RECOMMENDS THAT SCOTT REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT!  IT’S EASY, I EVEN LOOKED UP THE NUMBER FOR YOU, 916-445-2636, ASK FOR JOHN, OR BETTER YET, BRING IN CITIZEN AUDITOR VIVIAN MORENO IN, SHE WILL FIGURE IT OUT.

UPDATE: 10/18/2011: THE PRESS ENTERPRISE, DAN BERSTEIN, HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT FERRETS AND THE DEEPER PHILOSPHICAL QUESTIONS WHICH NEED TO BE FERRET OUT…

UPDATE:10/20/2011: PRESS ENTERPRISE OPINION: COUNCIL SPOILS

UPDATE:12/08/2011: NO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! WHEN FUNDS ARE SET ASIDE FOR A PARTICULAR USE, THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, AND THAT SHOULD BE A GIVEN… TMC BELIEVES THAT ASSISTANTS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE USED.  CITY STAFF SHOULD BE UTILIZED.  THE QUESTION IS, WAS FORMER BRAD HUDSON GIVING BAD ADVICE, OR FURTHER, WAS CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS NEGLIGENT IN PROVIDING PROPER AND CORRECTED ADVICE?

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!   TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT!  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM