Posts Tagged ‘greg priamos’

CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. PORT OF LONG BEACH: COURT STATES THE ORANGE BLOSSOM SPECIAL CAN PASS WITHOUT GREASING EMERALD CITY!

Posted: August 26, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4

Who’s driving this thing? Steve, put a little elbow grease in that crane.  Greg what do you mean we dropped the case, we’re making a killing out here in container fees!

According to the City of Riverside, this was all about the increase in train traffic running through the City and causing an increased level of pollution.  But, after three court rulings against the City of Riverside, they decided not to continue to hold the Port of Long Beach hostage for hopes of receiving a container fee ransom.  Why did the City sue?   Were they running out of money?  The container fees were to be used for newly constructed underpasses allowing local traffic not to be disrupted.  But awhile back, the city could have also considered the idea of re-routing the cargo trains closer to
the Santa Ana River as many had suggested, considering the port was expanding and local traffic in and around the city would increase.  But it appeared it was never seriously considered.

Mayor Ron Loveridge did take notice of the repercussions of the law suit,  when he stated, “I think it is time for us to join the region (in) working on enhancing the two ports.   Our lawsuits were slowing that down.”  Slowing things down, why did the city initiate it in the first place?  Did the city  think it was all quite frivolous to began with?   Well in reality, maybe these cases were just frivolous, and in the terminology City Attorney Greg Priamos would use, the lawsuits  “have no merit.”  But Riverside Councilman Steve Adams, a major proponent of the lawsuits, said he doesn’t see dropping them as
a sign of failure. He said the city’s approach showed other agencies the seriousness of the problem and got them to listen. He now is working on a national strategy that would include a container fee charged at all U.S ports.  Suing the ports, Adams said, “was the right thing to do at the right time, and this is the right thing to do now.”  So now it’s not a local issue,  looks as Steve is now  working on a national strategy for adding a container fee, which will probably be added to the final cost of goods to the consumer.

The cost to the taxpayer has also come into question.  City Attorney Greg Priamos estimated the city spent between $350,000 and $450,000 on outside legal counsel.  Could it be Best Best & Krieger?  He also stated that a considerable amount of staff time was dedicated to the case, though he declined to put a dollar figure on the in-house work.   Possibly “attorney client privilege” scenario?   Thanks Greg!  Was it about $350,000.00, or was it $450,000.00?  I just don’t remember because I can’t read a ledger book, or because I and my outside legal counsel, BB&K,  appear not to need no stinkin contracts?  Contracts you say, well my friends contracts just do not exist in Emerald City with BB&K, but it allegedly appears as if verbal bilateral one does.  Well, what the heck, plus or minus a $100,000, what’s the big deal?  It’s not my money.   That’s transparency for you.  But we did manage to find a signed agreement between City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, ex Riverside County District Attorney now working for BB&K,  when they needed representation for Chief Russell Leach.  There is no doubt this is simply and purely negligence of these public servants fiduciary duty to the tax payer, not to mention the unknown additional cost to the taxpayer on in-house staff time.

“I think it was three strikes and we’re out,” Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge said Thursday.  Well your right Mayor,  it’s just a ball game,  0 for the Taxpayer, 1 for BB&K somewhere around $350K  to $450K.  Didn’t the City  know what kind of pitcher they were dealing with when they couldn’t even get to first base?

LETTER WRITTEN BY JOHN HUSING & BOB WOLF TO THE EDITORS OF NEWS AGENCIES:

Editor:

In filing a misguided lawsuit aimed at stopping expansion at the Port of Long Beach, Riverside’s City Council has taken direct aim at the health of one of the Inland Empire’s primary blue collar job generators:  international trade and logistics.  After adding 76,200 jobs from 1990-2007, the sector has lost 7,900 in 2008-2009, largely due to falling imports through our ports, much of which is processed by inland warehousing workers.  Some of this decline will be permanent because national retailers are now diverting shipments elsewhere due to the constant lawsuits that make our ports a
decision-making disaster zone.  In just two years, the ports have lost 4% of their U.S. market.  Riverside is contributing to the chaos.

This is strange behavior from a city where 2008 Census data show one of 12 resident-workers is employed in logistics, and where 10,200 of the city’s fourth quarter 2008 jobs were in it, with a payroll of $449 million and workers averaging $43,800 a year.  These jobs could grow because the port slowdown has left 18.7% of the city’s industrial space empty.  They are badly needed jobs given that 46.3% of the city’s adults and 47.8% of those in Riverside County have not had a single college class.  Where else will this population get decent jobs with construction and manufacturing in deep trouble and service sector jobs like retailing, restaurant and hotel work paying at or near the minimum wage.

Why would the City Council do this?  Clearly, they are frustrated by the railroads bringing international cargo through the city and clogging its 26 at-grade track crossings.  They want money to build overpasses and apparently thought that throwing a punch at the ports would gain attention.  But, even if the lawsuit wins, there is no port funding to pay for off-port projects. At this writing, Riverside’s suit is the only obstacle to the Port of Long Beach starting construction on a long delayed Middle Harbor Project that will employ 10,000 man-years of construction workers and  permanently create 14,000 workers while also significantly improving Southern California’s environment.  Riverside has, in effect, become the principal barrier to a major environmental and green job effort.

Instead, the City Council is turning a city known for fostering regional cooperation, into a Southern California pariah.  To cite just one likely result:  In 2008, Senator Lowenthal of Long Beach tried to get funding for the off-port infrastructure construction that Riverside wants with a bill levying a fee on ocean containers.  Recognizing Riverside’s key needs, Lowenthal’s bill (SB 974) created a commission that would have overseen the funding with a seat specifically designated for the city of Riverside.  The bill passed but was unfortunately vetoed by the Governor.  He plans to reintroduce
it once a new Governor is elected.  But, why would he continue to help Riverside given the current attitude of its City Council towards his hometown?

Recently, Geraldine Knatz, director of the Port of Los Angeles, met with Riverside Council Members to try and gain Riverside’s cooperation by proposing that the city drop the lawsuit and the ports join hands in getting the Obama Administration to use its stimulus funds for city rail crossing projects.  Her bid was rejected out of hand.

For those of us who have worked hard and have successfully gained the cooperation of leaders throughout Southern California to support our efforts to gain funding for off-port projects in the Inland Empire, Riverside’s litigious behavior has become worse than an embarrassment.  It has undercut our ability to engage in fruitful discussions of the kind mentioned here.  This concern extends to the inland area’s regional agencies, the leaders of which are flabbergasted by this behavior.

If Riverside does not drop its ill-advised lawsuit, we fear that the consequence for blue collar workers in the economies of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, where we respectively live, will suffer.  Certainly, Riverside itself will not benefit.

Bob Wolf
Past Chairman, CA Transportation Commission, Former CA Undersecretary For Transportation

John Husing
Commissioner, CA Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission

UNKNOWINGLY PUSHING THE ENVELOPE, 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 PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST…  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  BY THE WAY, COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC…

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: YOU PROVIDE THE FOOD AND THE COUCH, I’LL PROVIDE THE MILLIONS!

Posted: July 22, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2

The whole idea that you build me the restaurant, and I’ll tell you how at a cost, then I’ll provide the food and service, again at a cost. How did the city and taxpayer get into the restaurant business? Close friends and possibly a little favoritism?  Well let’s look at how this whole web of events play out. First, we start with Rodney Couch who is president of Preferred Hospitality Inc.   Now, under this umbrella falls The Market Broiler chain and Provider Foods Contract Servicing.  Under Provider Foods Contract Servicing,  falls City Hall’s Raincross Café , Stewart’s Boat House Lakeside Room Fairmont Park, Grier Pavillion City Hall, Orange Terrace Community Center Café , Orange Terrace Library Café, and other City Recreation venues.  The city has six contracts with Rodney, and the only one making money in the relationship between the City and Provider Foods/ Market Broiler is Rodney Couch!  If this isn’t favoritism, I don’t know what is!  The City of Riverside has spent BUCKETS of money on Provider at a total loss to the taxpayer.  Need a caterer, nope you can’t use them, you have to use Rodney.  They are, afterall the sole caterer to the City, or let me clarify in politically correct terms “preferred” caterer.  Provider is also involved with other projects such as The Atrium Café Riverside on Lemon St., The Atrium Café at Riverside County Administrative Center.  Conflict of Interest? Monopolization of the surrounding free market place and a breach of laissez-faire economics?  Not to mention, that the Raincross Cafe was built with taxpayer money. We also paid for the kitchen equipment, maintenance, utilities as electric and water, repairs etc. It’s a great deal.  No other vending machines are allowed in city hall except Rodney vending machines.  

Rodney is also paid for his services from the net sales of operations, so it doesn’t matter if they make a profit or not. Then you have those encentive bonuses, 20k for advertising etc., of which we have yet to see.  We know the city has control of the billboard off the freeway for advertising, but we are sure Provider would not have to pay for that advertising service as others would.  Did the Law Firm Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse ask to see the receipts Provider/ Marketbroiler was suppose to utilize for advertisement and marketing services of City owned food service/ restaurant facilities?   Just like magic, as one of the partners Scott Grossberg performs on the side, they found no evidence that contracts were steered to friends of City Manager Brad Hudson.  That’s a shocker! You hire a law firm at taxpayer expense to represent you, and  voila, you get the answer you want!  That’s magic…  But it appears that magic has a price.  It appeared that the firm was very close to getting an answer on this favoritism debacle, when the City decided they needed to give the firm more money as to the tune of a measly $100,000.00, for a total payout of $150,000.00.   The firm’s final report, released this week, describes in detail several cases about which questions were raised, and of course the answers the City was looking for. 

But what continues to be agregious, I don’t know if people are seeing this, but you have a City Manager who thinks he can breach the lines of privacy and possibly violation of attorney client privilege information or even ECPA (the Electronic Communication Privacy Act) , and the law firm Brad hired is stating it is acceptable. Brad Hudson is not Assistant Deputy Attorney Raychele Sterlings superior.  City Attorney Greg Priamos is!  There is something wrong when the City Manager goes beyond his range of duty, and breaches an associates department.  The council or the mayor don’t appear to really understand this scenario. But I would expect more from Greg Priamos, a leader and superior of that department.  If this same scenario happened in the private sector, Brad Hudson would have been fired. City Hall has become a culture of enablers creating a dysfunctional introverted world. This scenario is wrong. But what we have is a culture of relationships, such as Greg Priamos and Brad Hudson seen on a Friday night, June 10, 2011, with two unidentified ladies at Duane’s Restaurant at the Mission Inn have dinner and conversing.  So do we have microcosm’s of undefined relationships breaching the laws the community has set forth?  Well, we must then ask ourselves, what would be Raychele Sterling’s modus operandi?  Sterling said city employees brought their concerns to her because they didn’t feel comfortable going to the Human Resources department, but she never stepped outside her role as a city attorney.  “There would be no reason for me to make this stuff up,” she said. “I got fired for doing the right thing — where’s my incentive?”  That’s exactly right, why would an Assistant Deputy Attorney make this up?

 The law firm’s investigator found that Hudson had a legitimate reason to look at Sterling’s emails “based upon concerns that he had received in February 2011 from a public works employee about (Sterling) improperly interfering in public works business affairs.” The report also says Hudson cited a 2009 complaint about Sterling’s conduct. Sterling said she has never been questioned about or given details of any such concerns. Again, a complaint against Sterling’s conduct would have properly been addressed in a one on one meeting with follow-up documentation of the event, usually signed by both parties. This would be impossible for Brad Hudson to know this or conduct a meeting at this level.  He is not the superior, Greg Priamos is.  City Councilman Mike Gardner said Thursday he doesn’t see that any rules were broken, and the report lays out reasonable explanations for how the contracts in question were handled.  Again there is so many holes in this investigation, and it is shameful that taxpayer money was waisted on this event, and especially shameful that Councilman Mike Gardner does not see the breach of duty by the City Manager, as well as the City Attorney, and goes as far to support the rejection of a statement by an Assistant Deputy Attorney implying wrongdoing. 

And where’s City Attorney Greg Priamos in all of this?  He still behind the closed secure doors of his office, possibly making a phone call or two for another expensive consult with Best, Best & Krieger, and that’s OK! it’s not his money… There’s alot here, and a good part was initiated with the leadership of the City Manager.  The law firm’s report also said  that Couch and Hudson are not personal friends, Hudson had nothing to do with  signing the contracts with Provider, and because of the profit-sharing  agreement, “a legitimate reason existed to issue a marketing contract to  increase profits.”   All original contracts with Provider were signed by Ex-Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis as The City Manager, with what appears to be Brad Hudson’s initials next to his.  This is how the real City Manager Brad Hudson rolls.  Most other contracts are signed by any of the assistant manager or staff as “for Bradley Hudson, City Manager”.  He therefore can always deny signing, but he is  ultimately responsible as the person in charge of this office, and he knows what are in those contracts.  And of course, the City Council and the Mayor are ultimately responsible for all his actions.  TMC is investigating the total amounts of payouts Brad Hudson has allowed to go to Provider, then you the taxpayer, can make your own decision about favoritism, corruption or missuse of public funds.

Read the contracts between The City of Riverside and Provider Foods: Be patient, some of these take a little time loading: 

1. Raincross Cafe Contract 2006

2. Provider Food Services Purchase Orders

3. Advertising Services for Raincross Cafe, Grier Pavilion, Stewart’s Boathouse Fairmont Park, Orange Terrace Community Center Cafe.

4. Preferred Food Service Provider Agreement to Stewart’s Boathouse and Orange Terrace Community Center Cafe.

5. Design Consultant Services for Orange Terrace Library Cafe and Grier Pavilion

6. City Hall Grier Pavilion Reservation Guidelines

“People are looking for something that I don’t think exists,” Gardner said. “I think people are reading perfectly innocent things as something sinister.”   OK, I got it Mike, that’s must be like telling us your running for City Council, then running for Mayor…

UPDATE: 07/24/2011: In the midst of Assistant Deputy Attorney Raychele Sterling indicating retaliation by City Manager Brad Hudson.  Just this past week, Riverside Police Department Sgt. Val Graham sued the police department and City of Riverside alleging racial discrimination and retaliation including with its promotional process. Named in the lawsuit are City Manager Brad Hudson, Former Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and Chief Sergio Diaz. Last year, three out of four similar lawsuits based on retaliation were settled out of court, which may have included the case of Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel and Officer Neely Nakamura.  If a “strategic plan” was in order, as promised by Chief Sergio Diaz, would this have made a difference? Again there continues to be a pattern of employee related lawsuits.  Is this a continuation of a lack of leadership skills or qualifications?  Why does the taxpayer continue to have to pay out enormous settlements to employee related firings. But this is nothing new, Sterling filed three complaints in February and April 2011 alleging retaliation by Hudson and City Attorney Greg Priamos.  There is a problem when the Council and the Mayor are unable to control the henhouse.  Community of Riverside demanded accountability after Ex-Chief Russ Leach’s DUI incident.  But a pattern of police behavior appears to continue, with no answer on this issue from Chief Sergio Diaz, except the response of irritation.  I believe these two powerful positions, Chief of Police and City Manager should be elected postions. We have a city in denial and a pattern of behavior with a track record that have yet to be addressed.

UPDATE: 12/05/2012: NO PROFITS EVER FROM RAINCROSS CAFE SINCE 2006 OPENING.  OPERATING COST HAVE COST THE TAXPAYER IN EXCESS OF $300,000.00  THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE MAY BE LOOKING FOR A NEW OPERATOR FOR ITS TAXPAYER OWNED RESTAURANT, BUT HOW SMOOTH OF AN OPERATOR WAS RODNEY COUCH?

RIVERSIDE: DUCK TAPING A MOUTH HAS A PRICE: A CITY GONE ROGUE

Posted: May 26, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

In my opinion it’s always been the nature of government to propose the proposition if there is no trail to an incident or event,  it didn’t occur.  In a free society we expect accountability and transparency, not some semantical play on words leading us further from the truth.  What is really disturbing is the fruition of a culture which has become unrepresentative of the needs of the community and has  become increasingly detached from mainstream economic theory, that its interference with the free market takes precedence.  What is best for the community is simply to do the right thing.   If that was done at all, we would not have so many employees fired at will.  But in retrospect, couldn’t this in essence,  be construed as a reflection of leadership?  And leadership can inadvertently distort the truth as a mechanism of defense.  Whereby an initial account of truth once disseminated, is followed by a transfiguration there of,  eventually becoming a subterfuge leading the community with a distorted perception of the truth.  For these reasons people are angry, people are frustrated, economically stressed and foremost, people are now asking questions.  Having questions is one thing, asking them is another.  People are feeling intimidated and afraid of government, and for good reason for which it has been quietly expressed in the community.  What has happened to our government, our protector and fervent leader?  What has propagated an entitled culture to developed independently of  the needs of surrounding community?  We have seen this within cities such as Bell.  People shouldn’t  have to feel that they are wrong  or be  intimidated by asking questions of public servants, or to feel they may be retaliated against.  Remember, elected and appointed officials are there to work at the pleasure of the people.

“Fear is the foundation of most Governments…”       

– John Adams, 2nd President of the United States of America,  January 1776

City Attorney Greg Priamos states he is there to protect the mayor and the council.  Is this an aberration of duty?  Or a momentary lapse of clarity?  …such as when an inquiry is initiated, and the assertion of attorney-client privilege is spawned.   Attorney-client privilege?…. lets analytically conceptualize the relationship.  In our tangible world it simply means the relationship between attorney and client, whereby the client hires the attorney for a fee.  Elected and appointed officials work at the pleasure of the people, taxpayers, and the community etc.,  therefore are we not their employers?  In essence, is the City Attorney present to protect the people and serve at the pleasure there of?  Therefore, would we not be his client?   An employee is still considered to be an employee, and we the people are technically their employer.  Such as the case of Best, Best & Krieger representing the Chief of Police via the tax payer,  we the employer/the CEO, do we not have the right to know what he may have done wrong and how it damages us as the employer?   Furthermore, is it the taxpayer/employer which must then hire a third party entity such as BB&K to actually tell us, again the taxpayer/employer, not the truth?  Led of course, by former Riverside DA Grover Trask, now with BB&K.  The City Manager, serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and the Council,  and therefore the responsibility of his actions reflects upon the mayor and council, it would be considered a breach of trust and of their fiduciary duty to the community  if they did otherwise.  It should also be assumed that the city council and mayor if necessary, could conduct themselves as city manager.  This would imply, a mastery of the appointed position, and this should be a requirement to becoming mayor or a member of the city council.  Understanding the work of the City manager is not only necessary but pertinent to the understanding the intricacies of the general fund.  Therefore there would be no justification to an aberrational abuse as seen with City Manager Robert Rizzo of the city of Bell.

Those that have been there longest have attained institutional memory, of which could be detrimental to a leaders agenda.  Ridding the work force of this intangible phenomenon insures the likelihood of implementing ones agenda without question, regardless if it is right or wrong.   Of course, those with institutional memory know right from wrong.  Is it a benefit to leadership to control and to rid their immediate arena of institutional memory?  And when expelled from the work arena,  does it have a corresponding price?  Duck taping a mouth always has a price within a city gone rogue. (Note: This Original Link Dissapeared From The Press Enterprise Site).  Without integrity there ultimately would be no need to question the actions of representative leadership.  Say what you don’t mean and mean what you don’t say.  Thank-you Sean Gill and Raychele Sterling for doing the rightful work of the people and with the integrity, and thank-you for asking the questions which help us, the taxpaying community,  to protect us from the abuse of public funds.  You have not been forgotten….

Newer Entries