Posts Tagged ‘jack clark’

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TOMATO..TOMAHTO, POTATO..POTAHTO, INTER-FUND..INTER-AGENCY, OVERSIGHT..MONEYLAUNDERING?? AHH..LET’S JUST CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!

Posted: January 3, 2015 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

In reference to the current audit, what the PE failed to report was that the scope of the audit was to not only include a forensic audit of the sewer, but the electric and water.  In addition, community advocates emphasized that the scope of the audit must address inter-agency transactions, not inter-fund transactions (of which we knew the majority of those were fine).  Inter-agency loans are those made between to agencies such as the City of Riverside Sewer Department and the State with reference to Redevelopment.  Inter-fund transaction happen all day long!  From one department to another within that single agency, such as the City.  So our question is, who got to the council?  We don’t know?  Did the best advocate for a resolution of this issue flip-flop?  We say, yes!

Let’s take a look at the above transaction.  Originally, the City Council approved the $5.4 million as a short term 120 day loan from the Sewer Fund to Redevelopment.  What Council voted on was different than what actually occurred behind the scenes under former CFO Paul Sundeen.  Council voted for a short term inter-agency loan (not inter-fund) from the Sewer Fund to Redevelopment which is a State Agency.  What happened was instead of paying from the Sewer Fund, they drew the $5.4 million from the Workers Comp Fund as indicated.  Then what happen next was the Electric Fund paid the Workmans Comp Fund.  Then the Sewer Fund paid the Electric Fund.  Why did all this happen?  We call it money laundering.  When the issue was brought forward, the City called it an “oversight,”  we called it the “Sundeen Shuffle” (in reference to former CFO Paul Sundeen).  The lingering question is how many instances of oversight does it take, to consider the actions fraudulent?

Barber and Sundeen have no concerns about how the City will make payments on debt because : a) they are part of the team that created the enormous mountain of debt, and b) the payments on the debt are the responsibility of City taxpayers/ratepayers. Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan.  -whosincharg, Commenter on the PE

CCI08112014_00015millutilityplazapurchase

CLICK THIS IMAGE TO ENLARGE

How bout this one!  Another oversight, as the City is labeling them.  The original transaction was to be a $5 million dollar loan from the City Sewer Fund to the State Agency of Redevelopment.  What actually happened was the $5 million was drawn from the Electric Fund as an inter-agency loan to RDA, instead of the Sewer Fund.  What happened next was that the Workers Compensation Fund payed the Electric Fund.  Then the Sewer Fund payed backed the Workers Compensation Fund.  Again why was this done?  We call this the “Sundeen Shuffle.”  No it’s not a dance, as we know it, but a dance in perception.  Why did the funds take this turn of event again?  Was it nothing more than an attempt to “launder” taxpayer monies?

We noticed in 2011 that City of Riverside was commingling Redevelopment monies with our General Fund, and actually believed the city did this because to give the appearance of a healthy General Fund.  This would be important for those such as investors, who would be looking at the financial healthy of our general fund. We asked the question if the City of Riverside was doing what the City of Miami was?  In this Press Release by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it states that the City of Miami was transferring monies to their General Fund in order to mask increasing deficits in the General Fund.  The City of Miami was actively marketing bonds to the investment public while their primary operating fund was boosted to give the appearance of strength.  According to the SEC Press Release, Miami did not disclose to bondholders that the transferred funds included legally restricted dollars which, under city code, may not be commingled with any other funds or revenues of the city.

june2011wrda  june2011woutrda   MFNOV2011    generalfundSept2011

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

As you can see in the first thumbnail listed as June 2011, we have a commingling of State Funds with the General Fund.  When we brought this to the attention the following month we saw a visual decrease by approximately 77% in the General Fund, this is thumbnail July 2011.  By November 2011, thumbnail three, we noticed the General Fund contains just about $2,000.00.  How would this look to an investor?  In September 2012, thumbnail four, we find our General Fund was negative $73,412.00, again does not look appealing to investors.  We have to remember, that it takes approximately 13 to 16 million a month to run the City of Riverside.

This is an example, of what former CFO Paul Sundeen did in order to give the impression that the General Fund was healthy.  A no no in accounting practices, since those assets are from a State Agency, Redevelopment.

THE CITY OF PASADENA’S $6.4 MILLION EMBEZZLEMENT WOES POINTS TO ONE CITY EMPLOYEE, WHILE THE COMMUNITY POINTS THE BLAME AT CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK FOR HIS LACK OF OVERSIGHT AND ASK FOR HIS FIRING!  Former Assistant Riverside City Manager Michael Beck, now City Manager of the City of Pasadena, is on the hot seat for a lack of oversight which the community resulted in the embezzlement of $6.4 million which lead to the arrest of three people, including a city employee, and the suspension of four other city hall employees.

AR-150109730.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

Michael Beck

Danny Ray Wooten was a management analyst with the City of Pasadena’s Public Works Department who is now accused of embezzlement, and is being charged in a 60 part felony complaint, according to the DA’s office.

AR-150109768.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

Pastor Wooten

The clincher here is that Mr. Wooten is also known as Pastor Wooten of the New Covenant Church in Pomona.  Even that church is scrambling to check and audit their finances to see if they have been scammed by pastor Wooten in any way.  But don’t sit down yet folks, it gets better, what the press has yet to mention is that former Public Works Director for the City of Riverside was Siobhan Foster… she is currently now the Public Works Director for the City of Pasadena, under the direction, of course, of Michael Beck.  So what was Ms. Foster’s excuse for her inability to catch this criminal act?  Possibly because she is not qualified?  While Director of Public Works in Riverside, employees mentioned that she would asked the question of what a “pot hole” was..  Foster also had her bout with fuzzy math and the bid process which were the brunt of employee complaints.

siobhan-fostertw

Siobhan Foster

Both Michael Beck and Siobhan Foster when they both worked for the City of Riverside, were under the direction of disgraced City Manager Brad Hudson, who’s decisions that were made will cause our City to confront treacherous financial waters as the years pass.  But what many in the community are asking, is why did she resign in order to go to the City of Pasadena?

Incidentally, former interim City Attorney Christina Talley was the former 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.  Kiss that $6.4 million good bye Pasadena, it will cost another $6.4 million in legal fees to attempt to recover it!  Beck and Foster need to go down for this one.

UPDATE: JANUARY 9, 2015: PAUL ZELLERBACH PLEADS “NO CONTEST” IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT:  Of which many in the community are just considering a favor by Riverside County Superior Judge Beck Dugan, according to the Press Enterprise, Zellerbach pleaded no contest to following:

· Vandalism Under $400 (594(2)(a) California Penal Code)
· Trespassing to Place Unauthorized Signs (602(f) California Penal Code)
· Trespassing with Intent to Cause Damage (602(k) California Penal Code)
· Embezzlement (504 California Penal Code)
· Theft of Public Funds (424(a)(1) California Penal Code)
In lieu of the seriousness of the charges, Judgy Duggy didn’t throw the book at Zelly Baby but gave him a cushy ruling!  1.) pay various fines totaling $1,070.00, 2.) Take part in 60 hours of community service and 3.) One year of probation, (and this is cushy probation, not the hardball probation everyone else must take).  There you are folks…
And of course, as is good practice with the PE, besides blocking commenters, is to bring the story out, and quickly bury it into the anal of internet ink..  Corruption runs deep from this trash we call Paul Zellerbach, to the Judges, Grand Jury, County Sups, Sheriff’s Unions etc. etc.
SHOULD SKIN COLOR BECOME AN ISSUE IN RIVERSIDE?  LEE MCDOUGAL, FORMER RETIRED CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR HIRED TO BE INTERIM RIVERSIDE CITY MANAGER.  It is unfortunate that we must make race an issue regarding these announcement, as if this has any bearing on ones job position.  According to the PE City Spokeshole Phil Pitcford said that McDougal would be the first African American to lead Riverside.  Shouldn’t ethnicity not matter, and shouldn’t we be choosing people by their experience, qualification and the content of their character, and not bring skin color into the mix?  We did this again when our first black Fire Chief for the City was hired, Michael D. Moore, the PE notated his skin color.  Are we attempting to describe as a City, something about our future and something about our past?  Have we arrived as municipality that has no restrictions?  Shouldn’t skin color never be an issue to began with?  I think so.  Now that I placed skin color to the way side, why do we have so many public servant retirees coming back for a second round of benefits?  That is the question which needs to be answered.  Both McDougal and Moore are retirees, who continue to work.  Is the age for public retirement just to low?  Of course it is, who are we fooling?  Why is the public sector now the best gig in town?  Because you as voters and residents allowed this to happen.  You must be part of a Democracy or Republic in order for this exercise to occur.  It is not free, you must be part of it in order for true Democracy to exist.  This dysfunction seems relevant to the public sector.  This seems to be a phenomenon relative to the public sector as opposed to the private sector, and gives individuals a second opportunity to feed at the taxpayer trough?  That is of course, being able to retire at 55 years of age, and get a second attempt to repeat the process within a lifetime is just a misappropriation of taxpayer funds.
It is again unfortunate that we need to look at the outside for individuals to guide our City forward.  We all know for example, that Interim Chief Mike Esparza should have been the Fire Chief.  But did they all leave in order to solidify their pensions before the flow of money becomes less within the City in the coming years?
OUTSIDE LEGAL HELP PROBLEMATIC? DID WE HAVE A ROGUE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY WHO BY PASSED THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OUTSIDE LEGAL HELP WITHOUT COUNCIL AUTHORITY?  ABSOLUTELY YES!  With the new article in the PE regarding the hiring of outside legal help, which has been a common practice in the City of Riverside to do it without any sort of binding agreement or contract.  Not only was the contract issue a concern for many in the community, because no one knew what was really being spent by former City Attorney Greg Priamos’s office.  In many cases we felt that he used the taxpayers monies for his own legal agenda and agenda’s of the very few which in the long run, did not benefit the taxpayer, only cost them more.  One good example of Gregory’s contempt, was violating the will of the voters by blocking a ballot measure to be voted on, and of course, at taxpayer expense, as in the following PE article.One good example of Gregory’s contempt, was violating the will of the voters by blocking a ballot measure to be voted on, and of course, at taxpayer expense, as in the following PE article.
sexsalon23_priamos_3002
Former City Attorney Gregory Priamos
According to the PE in a December 9th article, stated that in a December 3rd decision, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Brian S. McCarville ruled against the city, writing that the state’s initiative process “is a right that should be jealously guarded,” and that “the better reasoned approach is to allow this type of challenge to be resolved after the voters have spoken to the issue.”  Therefore, the City of Riverside violated the voters right to place an initiative on the ballot, as is acceptable under the Democratic process.  Again people ask if the City of Riverside is a Dictatorship?  But what becomes more evident is that taxpayer monies were spent to block the Democratic process.  Further, more taxpayer monies will more than likely be spent to appeal the decision.  But that’s Riverside..  and of course, Priamos never protected the sanctity of taxpayer monies..he used the budget as if it was his own money, and of course never benefiting the best interest of the taxpayer.
talleybw
How would Christin Talley respond to this?  I would imagine “No Comment.”  Of course, Talley has had her own set of problems with competency with other cities whom hired her through Best, Best & Krieger Law Firms.

In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach.  What a surprise, it’s signed by former City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K.  Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”.  Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off…  Wish we could, but it gets better.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHOLE DOCUMENT

This was an article we posted back in May of 2012 when we requested all contracts for outside legal help by the City Attorney’s office.  There were no documents responsive!  This was recently brought to the forefront with a new article by Dan Bernstein from the Press Enterprise, “Riverside: The (Hidden) Cost of Business.”   Bernstein refers to all the non contractual outside legal services which are not documented, a hidden cost as he calls it, but not hidden to taxpayer monies.  One of the most striking documents we at TMC found a couple of years ago was one which Best, Best & Krieger had their own charge card, to charge the City of Riverside as they needed to for legal work rendered.  Charges to the tune in excess of six figures?

CorpCard    CCTWO    CCTHREE    CCFOUR    CCFIVE

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENTS OF CORPORATE CARD

 The writers of the below public records request were trying to determine by what authority did the City Attorney’s Office claim their right to hire outside legal without City Council approval.  The following first two documents are the letter of request to the City Attorney’s Office asking them to answer the question of no contracts.  The last letter is a response by City Attorney Greg Priamos stating there are no documents responsive.

4-14-09 PRR 1 of 2 001                      4-14-09 PRR 2 of 2 001                     4-27-09 City response 001

CLICK ON ABOVE DOCUMENT IMAGES TO ENLARGE

sec702

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE REFERENCING SECTION 702

The question then arose was because of Section 702 Eligilbility, powers and duties of the City Attorney, from the City of Riverside City Charter.   This section of the charter stated, “The City Council shall have control over all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or to assist the City Attorney therein.”  We were also told that state bar requires a lawyer to provide a contract for any work done for a client.  We ascertain that Section 702 makes all outside legal services require approval by the majority of the City Council.

With this in mind, an new issue arose, this was of the City Manager, Scott Barber.  The PE reported that the city has hired, with two contracts of $49K each, a law firm to conduct an investigation of two councilman, Davis and Soubirous.  The $49K is significant because it is just below the $50K cap that the city manager can spend without seeking council approval.  We don’t contest that the City Manager has the right to spend this money without council approval, but we don’t believe that Section 701 of the City Charter gives the City Manager the authority to hire outside legal without City Council approval.

Section 703 of the City Charter says: “The city clerk shall have the power and be required to: (c) maintain separate books, in which a record shall be made of all written contracts and official bonds.”  We believe the intent of this charter requirement is for there to be a publicly accessible record of how public funds are being spent.  The practice of hiring outside legal services circumvents the intent of this section.

 Section 1401 of the city charter states: “the violations of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment of a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.”  We can therefore ask the question, “Is it per incident?”  If it is, it certainly can add up for some individuals.  When we are talking about millions of dollars, as indicated in the Press Enterprise, we have to ask the question, “Does it become a felony?”  How then can one account for such mismanagement of taxpayer monies without a legal rationale for the beneficial purposes of those monies?  What is the real truth here that appears to have been circumvented by City Attorney and City Managers by a document called a City Charter?  A document which appears not to be abided by when it should.

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

Or the time, which involved City Attorney Greg Priamos denying that he had anything to do with the command for the arrest of public speaker, Karen Wright.  Officer Sahagun was commanded by the City Attorney to arrest public speaker Karen Wright.  Then Priamos calls the police report “inaccurate”, this then implies that officer Sahagun is s liar.  Brian Smith, RPOA President states, “we call that a lie in the profession, and the State of California calls it lying in a police report a crime.”  So if it is in fact a lie, will Priamos prosecute Officer Sahagun for falsifying a police report?  To this day it remains unclear what Priamos meant by referring to the report as “inaccurate.”  In addition, has yet to give an explanation of what was actually said between himself and Officer Sahagun.  Again is City Attorney Greg Priamos a liar?

The question is, “Why should the taxpayer put up with what appears to be “rogue” activity?  What should be done about it?  Why isn’t anything being done about it now?”  It is appearing that by default we are experiencing the “two sets of rules syndrome.”  So why does the house always win, when the taxpayer should be in charge? When will Council take the reigns of power they were given to them by the taxpayer and defend them?

MAY 2012 ORIGINAL TMC ARTICLE: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING CONTRACTS!”

may2014twoIt has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside.  What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.  According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated.   When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent.  According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record.  Therefore, non is required.  Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on?  This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading.  And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies.  You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture.  Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DENIAL LETTER

Above is a letter sent to Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos.  The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.

On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, “how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”?  What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer.  We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act.  As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract?  I would say not.  When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”?  Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer?  If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.”  One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside?   What is it between the two?  As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card?  It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more.  So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers?  It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost.  So who’s minding the store?  Inquiring taxpayers would like to know.  But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register.  Why? Quite possibly as a direct result of their incestuous relationship between this law firm and the city that has grown over the years.

Such a cozy arrangement between certain ex-city of riverside employees as well as BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees.  Conflict of interest?   The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside, who previously worked with the city, or on their boards and committees are numerous.  Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership), now of course, our interim City Attorney Christina Talley.  BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.  Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California.

Measure A… The City of Riverside used taxpayer monies to bankroll their campaign against citizen advocate groups!  The scam that continues to continues to give, masterminded by former City Attorney Gregory Priamos!

OUR NEW INTERIM LAWTINA CITY ATTORNEY CHRISTINA TALLEY NOW SUING HER FORMER EMPLOYER THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.  According to OC Weekly Talley states that she is victim of council majority’s war on Latinos.  In this suit she is using the race card by claiming discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment.  The majority of the lawsuit is aimed at Council member Kris Murray, who incidentally, is a white female, which Talley says was “extremely rude, condescending and sarcastic” in personal dealings.  Talley has a hearing set for January 5th, 2015, but in a prior hearing in November 2014, District Judge David O. Carter ordered both parties to try to resolve the dispute through mediation.

Christina-Talley_9150

One blog site defends Talley regarding her advice to Council members, and states that her advice on the issue of the Gardenwalk project was sound.  But one commenter on the Orange Juice Blog made this comment.

Michelle Rodriguez
Posted February 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Quit pulling the race card here and praising someone who doesn’t deserve it. I know this woman personally and trust me she would sell any of her “fellow Hispanics” down the river if it furthered her own personal agenda. She is cold, calculating and selfish and has used, manipulated and cast aside innocent people to get where she is. I hope she rots in hell.

ReasonableGuy2, Anaheim Blog, Posted February, 2013

…The Anaheim City Attorney was a horrible public servant. All one had to do, including you, was attend or watch a Council meeting on cable.  She allowed the Mayor to bully her into giving him the answer he wanted.  She wasn’t being paid by the taxpayers of Anaheim to tell Mayor Tait what he wanted. She was being paid by the taxpayers of Anaheim to provide legal advise to the ENTIRE City Council. In the end, her malpractice caught up with her.  As a self-proclaimed good government advocate, you should have been first in-line demanding she resigned and stop taking a taxpayer funded salary and benefit package. Her malpractice and games caught up with her.  A victory for taxpayers!

Talley, now with Best Best & Krieger was recently fired last year by the City of Colton for legal advice given to them.

IS GENERAL MANAGER GIRISH BALACHANDRAN OF THE RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES IN CONFLICT BY BEING A BOARD MEMBER OF THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE?  What has been brought to the attention to TMC is that the newly christened General Manager of our Riverside Public Utilities is also a board member with the Greater Riverside Chamber Commerce.  We find this a conflict of interest in that it directly impacts the public he represents without our input.  Checks written to the Chamber by Public Utilities for what ever supportive reason is not in the best interest of the public and the rate payers, especially if they are approved under the General Manager Mr. Balachandran.

Girish-Balachandran        RCCGirish

WHAT STAYS IN VEGAS DIDN’T STAY VERY LONG?  FORMER RIVERSIDE GENERAL MANAGER DAVE WRIGHT TAKES JOB WITH LOS ANGELES DWP.  Wright retired from the City of Riverside Public Utilities as the political heat got to him their General Manager in July 2013 to take a job in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Who retires to take another job?  If you say you are going to retire don’t you just retire?  Who retires at 53years of age? The common phenomenon with public workers is that you are set to retire early to take a pension, then you can go on to double and even triple dip into public taxpayer monies even more.  Then you are set to buy that mansion in Bel Air.  Now, Mr. Wright will begin work with the LADWP this coming February, 2015 as their Senior Assistant General Manager.  Good Luck Dave! you’ll probably fit in with all the scandal with LADWP, god knows what you did in Riverside.  The scandal of course involved inaccurate customer rates and $40 million in revenues that were mysteriously spent by then General Manager Ron Nicols and the head of DWP’s biggest union.  Brian D’Arcy, union head continued to skew the issue of how public monies were spent in the form of non-profit trust.

n22i3k-wwright0712binary1098362dw2014LV

IS IT A TAX OR FEE? THE QUESTION DEFINED BY THE WASHINGTON POLICY CENTER.  The question arises many times the definition of a tax and the term “fee”, and is a fee a tool utilized by Cities to create revenue.  But are they doing this illegally or getting around the law by calling a tax a fee?

NEXT UP: ONE OF RPD’S AND RPOA’S  FINEST…AND WE HAVE TO THANK SERGIO FOR THIS ONE!

chris-lanzillo

 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: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: ‘WE DON’T NEED NO STINK’N CONTRACTS!’

Posted: May 21, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3

It has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside.  What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.

According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated.   When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent.  According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record.  Therefore, non is required.  Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on?  This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading.  And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies.  You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture.  Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos.  But there was nothing to hide after allowing $159 million in illegal RDA loans to be approved by City Council, then rejected by the Finance Office for the State of California.  What would then be the result of his performance evaluation, which was being discussed in closed sessions Tuesday April 4, 2012, at City Council?  I’m sure, just as it went well for our former City Manager, this will go well..

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DENIAL LETTER

Above is a letter sent to Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos.  The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.

On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, ‘how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”?  What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer.  We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act.  As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract?  I would say not.  When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”?  Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer?  If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.”  One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside?   What is it between the two?  As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card?  It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

 And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more.  So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers?  It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost.  So who’s minding the store?  Inquiring taxpayers would like to know.  But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register.  Why? Quite possibly in their incestuous relationship that has grown over the years.

Such as the cozy arrangement between certain ex city of riverside employees or just BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees.  Conflict of interest?   The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside are numerous.  Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership).  BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.  Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California.   In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach.  What a surprise, it’s signed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K.  Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”.  Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off…  Wish we could, but it gets better.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHOLE DOCUMENT

Then there is developer Mark Rubin’s connected liaison with the City of Riverside and the City’s alter ego, the Redevelopment Agency. There is no doubt the brazen display of a conflict of interest displayed and perpetrated by the City of Riverside in approving the Citrus Tower’s lease deal between Best, Best & Krieger, Developer Mark Rubin and the City of Riverside.  “Three peas in a pod?”  Is it at all possible that the BB&K deal was orchestrated and designed to provide a lease revenue stream for the bonds held on the Citrus Tower project?  Was BB&K involved in bond advice for the city?  Councilman Paul Davis first told colleagues he’d heard concerns about “the general perception of the gift of public funds and creating a monopoly” to benefit a private developer, but he ended by saying it was a moot point because the city already has signed a lease.  How long will the City of Riverside continue to terrorize the taxpayer with shear incompetence and their breach of fiduciary duty to protect the coffers of hard earned taxpayer monies by the City Attorney’s Office? Good questions for City Attorney Greg Priamos, who coicidently has attended two of my alma maters, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California.  A sad day for both university’s Gregory.  The question in the community are the ruthless expenditures within the City Attorney’s Office.  How much taxpayer money has been litigated out, or settled out as if it was your own, without any rational cognitive reasoning?  Or was it just for sport?  Or is the threat of litigation just a city tool used against the opposition for what is known in the business as “client control”?  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  TMC believes the later is mostly true at our expense.  Therefore why would the city litigate to the tune of 9 million, then lose, and then have to award out 250K in one documented case?  Of course, that wouldn’t happened because after all as taxpayers we should all believe what the city does is rational and in our best interest.  Well the truth of the fact is, that it did, and nothing was in our best interest.  Though he serves at the pleasure of the council, should the City Attorney answer rightfully to the employer, which would be “we the people”?  This I say because the council and mayor has failed to supervise the activities of the city attorney.  The failure is such that we must ask the question of what makes one believe the city attorney needs to incorporate police lights with all the bells and whistles in their pimped out city vehicle? Where did one lose the sight of whose money it really is?  TMC can’t answer that, but I’m sure there is a rational answer from our city attorney, as in the case with the ‘no contracts allowed with our best customer.’  It may not be right but it is an answer.  Ultimately, the council and mayor is responsible for the activities, failures and actions of the city attorney.  In an article in Cactus Thorns, the 29 Palms City Council questions the spending to their City Attorney,  and when they looked at public records, that was even a total shock.   In this continuing painful saga, one can hire BB&K to run a city attorney’s office.  Carte Blanche in Riverside. For a price, instant city attorney, as in this article in The Orange County Register?  In the City of Yorba Linda, for example, BB&K attorney Sonia Carvalho represented the city in the capacity of the City Attorney for over a decade.  Conflict of interest? 

What is the responsibility of the city attorney?  What is the responsibility of the Federal Government?  Gregory Priamos is now after marijuana dispenseries as Hoover was after so called Communist. But now that Gregory is going after business owners such as the Johnson’s for leasing their property to a marijuana dispensery.   How allegedly connected is Gregory to pot smoking friends?  The contradiction is even Gregory allegedly has pot smoking friends, so why is he doing this?  Why does City Attorney Gregory Priamos think, as Vivian Moreno Self Appointed Citizen Auditor states, ” go and want to beat everybody up” in our fare city?

Gregory, even our forefathers smoked pot….. Gregory do you have pot smoking friends?  Do you need time to think about this one?

CLICK THIS LINK TO WATCH THE VIDEO

Well the contradiction is our first President was known to smoke hemp as it was called from time to time… or do we have to help remind you? So why is Gregory not after the most addictive drug of all time? Tobacco? or even Alcohol?

Questions have also arised in the controversial ambulance monopoly in the City of Riverside between AMR’s Peter Hubbard and City Officials.  The community is asking what are the alleged ties between City Attorney Greg Priamos and Peter Hubbard?  What are the alleged ties between Councilman Steve Adams and Mr. Hubbard?  What are the alleged ties between Fire Chief Steve Early and Mr. Hubbard?

What are the alleged ties between President of the City of Riverside’s Firefighter Union Tim Strack and Mr. Hubbard?  Why is AMR now a primary advertising entity at Regal Cinemas at the Riverside Plaza?  Does the following have any weight in the decision making process of the Council and Mayor’s influence in allegedly favoring AMR (American Medical Response)?  Bruce Barton, Director of the Riverside County Emergency Medical Services Agency, according to the corresponding document, appears was previously in the employment of AMR in 2004.

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DOCUMENT

Could this contribute to a conflict of interest outcome?  Will we find it is too close for comfort in the back of an AMR ambulance?  For a price maybe.  But AMR and the City of Riverside is not an isolated incident.  Alameda County has been a battleground for AMR’s ambulance wars.

UPDATE: FORMER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING SERVES CITY OF RIVERSIDE COMPLAINT SUIT!

Last week former Deputy City Attorney, Raychele Sterling served the following complaint to the City of Riverside.  The suit incidently, names City Attorney Gregory Priamos, Former City Manager Brad Hudson, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Kristi Smith and of course, the City of Riverside.  This complaint was filed in United States District Court-Central District of California-Western District.  Besides the demand for jury trial, the complaint is for damages relating to violation of individual Civil Rights and Federal Law.  Already, the attorney defending the City, Brian Walter of Los Angeles based Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore, is using Priamos’s famous words, “We believe there is absolutely no merit at all to any of her (Sterling) claims”.  In addition, wrongful retaliation in exercising free expression under the auspices of the whistleblower act.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL COMPLAINT

EXCERPTS FROM THE COMPLAINT

Priamos threatened plantiff not to have any contact with the City Council…

Priamos stated that Hudson “never wanted to see her (Plaintiff’s) face again”..

Misuse of the 550 Sewer Fund has been a pervasive pattern in the City since Brad Hudson was appointed City Manager. Public Works Director, Siobhan Foster, and Deputy Public Works Director, Tom Boyd, routinely advised Public Works staff to use the 550 Sewer Fund for non-sewer related work.

     

During lunch SB ( Superintendent of Parks Division) stated to Plaintiff that she had been instructed by the Park and Recreation Director to set aside money from her budget to subsidize the City Hall café, as Provider (Company contracted with Rodney Couch to operate the Raincross Café) , was not making enough money and Hudson wanted to assist Provider.

The bond issuance documents were prepared by Best, Best & Krieger LLP (BBK) in Riverside, California, and had advised potental investors that the issuance of the bonds was to remimburse certain previously incurred improvement cost ($14,377,083.00) and to finance certain capital projects ($186,382,300.00) of the City’s Sewer System.

through its CFO, Paul Sundeen, did submit fraudulent and false documentation to the IRS to secure Treasury Credits it knew it was not eligible for…

LETTER WRITTEN BY STERLING TO THE SECURTIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The city, through Hudson, hired an outside law firm to investigate the claims, and it found no wrongdoing. Walter, attorney defending the City, pointed to this internal city probe and an apparent investigation by the Riverside County’s District Attorney, Paul Zellerbach’s office, none of which resulted in any censure or charges.  But should we be surprised?  Considering the close quarters they all live in?  We experienced a similar result when citizen concerns were brought to his attention regarding Connie Leach, former wife of former Chief of Police Russ Leach and the City’s use of Asset Forefeiture monies in the amount of $35,000.00 to fund the Multi Cultural Youth Organization or was it really used to fund Connie Leach?

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW

I believe the internal probe they are referring to was former City Manager Brad Hudson’s hiring of the law firm Chigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse to investigate the allegations of himself.  This was whereby city employees told Sterling that Public Works bids were being fixed in order to favor one company.  Any monies left over from this department were diverted to subsidize Hudson’s friend, Rodney Couch, who ran the City Hall Raincross Café, or is know better in the community for running the Market Broiler Restaurants.  Of course after $150,000.00 legal bill to the taxpayer for this investigation, nothing pertinent was found.  Maybe if this crack law firm was to actually interview those involved, such as City Engineer Warren Huang, Sewer Treatment Plant Manager Craig Justice an former Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling, we may have come up with a different story.  But for $150,000.00 it allegedly appears that the conclusion derived was well orchestrated and designed to achieve an intended end result.  According to Sterling, Priamos was told about these incidents, and she was fired for doing the right thing and trying to protect the council.

In addition, where did Hudson’s paranoia lead?  It led, according to Sterling, to hacking into both Sterling and Priamos’s emails.  It led to Hudson ordering the Human Resource department to hire a private detective to tail Ms. Sterling and her children.  This at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of $80,000.00.  A similar incident of tailing took place with former Public Works Contractor Sean Gill, with a similar cost.  But according to Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey, Hudson was a ‘moral compass’.  Further, at public comment Raychelle Sterling talked about Priamos’s secretary decorating his house during a party, a former employee Kathy Gonzalez and alleged insurance fraud and Priamos playing golf with the former police chief while being paid for working.  If this is all true, should we as constituents of the City of Riverside allow this to happen?  While the council continues to be oblivious to these alleged activities, shouldn’t all involved be accountable if at all true?

The City should have fired Priamos years ago. His marginal legal advice has cost the City so much money during his tenure.  I hope Ms. Sterling takes the City to the cleaners. I hate to say that as a Riverside resident, but when the City starts acting like organized crime, they deserve to be punished.  I hope that Priamos’ days as City Attorney are numbered. Hudson is gone; Sundeen is on hiatus; it’s time for Priamos to leave. Maybe with a clean state in the leadership positions, and an new mayor, the City can start to make amends to the populace. With Priamos still in place, that can never happen.               – Kaptalizm, Commenter on the PE

City Attorney Greg Priamos should be tried under the RICO act.  – C’mon…Really?, Commenter on the PE

Again, in the name of transparency, good will and trust … TMC request the positions of the City Attorney, City Manager and the Chief of Police be elected positions, due to their failure to lead and their failure to protect the taxpayer.  Elected positions which would answer to the ‘people’ as opposed to a ‘do nothing or should we say do anything they want’ delegated source.  Now that the state auditor was in, will certain documents disappear?  Will the City again ‘verbally’ employ BB&K for advice or even a possible defense?  We know you heard the rings of Bell and even the clangs of Montebello, but are you hearing the Raincross Bells in the City of Riverside? Or is it just dumb bells I’m hearing?

Related Links to Stories in this TMC Blog:

Public Works Foster’s & Boyd’s the Bid Process

Fuzzy Math and the Bid Process in the Sewer, Bubbles Up the Usual Suspects

Fired Employee Alleges City Officials Awarded Millions in Contracts Without Bid

UPDATE: 05/22/2012: Former Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling drops another bombshell, another employee lawsuit against the City of Riverside.  Human Resources Department named in the suit.  Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, spoke of the denial of public records regarding the City Attorney Gregory Priamos’s expenditures.  She state she will resubmit her request, and where is Priamos?  Is he making his exit strategy? Mary Shelton told the council that her public records were 3 week tardy.  The question to Mr. Barber, who was also not in attendance, was if the city gave it’s request to vacate from their current location. Usually a two year notice is given, and so far no response.  Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno, asked for a refund of $250.00 for documents requested.  When these particular documents were requested, the documents that were delivered were not what was requested.  They were different, altered and bogus documents. 

Currently, no response from Congressman Ken Calvert when asked by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello to investigate sewer bond fraud in the City of Riverside.  Interesting enough, from old research, we were surprised to see why he may not be of help, but helping himself in other self gratifying endeavors..

  There are other interest Congressman Calvert has that may not concern the constituents he represents.  Getting ‘caught with your pants down’ means, of course, what it is intended to mean.

“I noticed the male subject was placing his penis into his unzipped dress slacks, and was trying to hide it with his untucked dress shirt.”

It also appears according to a campaign he is not sensitive to the issues of the gay community, and quite possibly gay people in general, according to this 1994 campaign mailer against an openly gay opponent Mark Takano, running for the Congressional office.

Further, Congressman Ken Calvert allegedly benefited from earmarked projects he earmarked for Perris, California in 2005 with tax payer money, where he incidently owned seven properties.

 CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE YOUTUBE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

But in all fairness, it appear that the House of Representatives came to the rescue on this one.  They concluded that the earmarked project would not provide any other direct or unique benefits to the properties. 

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL DOCUMENT

They concluded that any increase in the value of the properties resulting from the earmark would be incremental and indirect.  I realize the House usually has a way with words, but is this about semantics? or degrees?  Really now, how closely tied are all these individual in Washington D.C.?  Any guesses?  Interesting enough, I am told that many of his constituents are now seeing him much more differently than before..

Right you are, that’s an unexpected thumbs up by the Chief with respect to this unexpected bit of information regarding our local Congressman.

But in another aspect, there still has been no apology from Chief Sergio Diaz to public commenter Karen Wright, whereby she was confrontationally acosted and verbally berated at a March 16th City Council Meeting, on her opinion regarding the naming of Tequesquite Park after fallen officer Ryan Bonamino.  It appears that there are more instances of information coming into TMC whereby the Chief’s behavior was not up to professional standards, and many others who need apologizies that we can name, and others who recognize his abhorrent behavior within his own working environment that find it unprofessional.  And oops, does he have a hell of problem with bloggers?  Yes he does, and he doesn’t hold back, as apparent in many of his community and work related forums.  Many who appeared at his breakfast at the Mission Inn were vehemently aware of his focus, which again speaks of his professionalism.  One individual present, called the display of behavior “unfortunate”.

                                 

Chief Diaz is not one for freedom of speech as the majority sees it, this is suppose to be America.  There is no place for a strong repressive government ideals as he may be familiar with from his roots, this in essence can have counterproductive repercussions on our Democracy.  In a quote from the PE,  Before the evolution in technology, Diaz said, “We didn’t have the benefit of ignorant, inexperienced and hateful and cowardly and anonymous people give us their unsolicited opinions on the internet.”  But let’s not forget that’s what blogs and comment sections of many news agencies were intended to be.  It’s to get a true, raw and real opinion of how many feel, without the fear of retaliation, no matter how extreme one may percieve an opinion to be.  These comments should be put into good use, rather than censor them as some type of Batista/ Castro government would.  They are one person’s opinion, just as Diaz has an opinion, and this is all good in the central mix of opinions, whereby people can listen to all opinions and deduct their own.  The problem is whereby, censorship becomes acceptable, and one’s opinion becomes the only opinion.

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

What Chief Diaz needs to remember is that if he strived to make his department more transparent, questions of police tactics wouldn’t arise, or at least there would be a dialogue.  This was the very reason he was brought in and hired, to change the public’s perception after many years of allegations of favoritism, double standards and special treatment within the ranks of RPD.  In addition, just because community leaders have an opinion, you should’t castigate them, as a leader, he should embrace those concerns and work to bring the community closer together, rather than plant the seeds of divisiveness.  And if Chief Diaz feels that local bloggers are the problem, as he appears to be evidently consumed with, we have bigger problems.  Because bloggers are not the problem, leadership is, and I believe are community is seeking this in our Chief.

Mary Shelton from Five Before Midnight Blog, has much to say regarding Emperor’s with no clothes in this new blog posting..(click this link).

Or before you hit the above link to get to the really good stuff, and find free speech offensive, you may want to click this link instead..

Diaz told The Press-Enterprise at that time those posters were “sitting at home eating Cheetos in their underwear” and making anonymous comments online.

“Respect for the community, respect for other officers, respect for ourselves is going to be the byword by which I will attempt to lead the city of Riverside over the next few years”  – Chief Sergio Diaz

A contradiction in terms?

“I want to live in a society that people can voice unpopular opinions because I know as result of that a society grows and matures,”   – Hugh Hefner

Double dipping must be a public sector phenomenon, but again we see a retirement at age 55, something unheard of in the private sector…and again, the gain of secondary benefits at taxpayer’s expense.  Possibly for their second life?  And another double dipping story as the one regarding former City Manager Brad Hudson below..

UPDATE: 05/24/2012: THE SACRAMENTO BEE STATES THAT BRAD HUDSON IS FLUNKING A KEY TEST- TRANSPARENCY..

According to the Sac Bee, Hudson, Sacramento County Executive plans to release his first budget proposal late.  Hudson planned to release his budget as late as June 7, whereby the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the budget June 14 or 15.  Even Hudson’s predecessor, Steve Szalay, released his budget last year in mid-May.  Well, as Councilman Mike Gardner said when Hudson was City Manager, ” you’ve got to pay for talent”.  Well alright, we did, now Sacramento is paying for it now.

People from Riverside could tell you a lot about Brad Hudson.  His few admirers (mostly wealthy, and involved in dealings with the city) said he was effective, but most people were distressed by his manipulations, his secretiveness, and his obvious collaboration with a few corrupt developers.  I am sure that the Sacramento County Supervisors were aware of this reputation before they

 hired him, and in fact that is probably why they hired him.  The supervisors’ feet should be held to the fire by voters until they fire him, as this will be the only way any transparency or honesty can come to Sacramento county government.  – Kevinakin1950, Commenter on the Sacramento Bee

The question that Sacramento should be asking…Is Hudson competant or even qualified for the position?  These were the same questions Riverside constituents were asking, but were turned a blind eye by the Council and the Mayor on this issue.  So far according to the Bee, the way he’s runnig the budget only adds to questions about his judgement, skills and qualifications.  Sac is on to him, for River City, he just might have bamboozled them…
A Little Sac Humor..
UPDATE: 05/31/2012:  RIVERSIDE’S VERY OWN “MORAL COMPASS”, CONTINUES TO MAKE NEWS.  SACRAMENTO GET’S IT! HOW BOUT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE? SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERVISORS NOT HAPPY ABOUT  HOW COUNTY EXECUTIVE BRAD HUDSON IS HANDLING THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET PROPOSAL!  AND NEW EDITORIAL ON HUDSON FROM SAC BEE: COUNTY EXEC HUDSON COMES TO HIS SENSES ON BUDGET SCHEDULE, SORT OF..   HUDSON EVEN RECEIVED THE ATTENTION OF PRESS ENTERPRISE’S ALICIA ROBINSON WITH HER BLOG POSTING: FORMER CITY MANAGER HUDSON UNDER FIRE AGAIN.  ALSO, TAKE A LOOK AT THE UNCENSORED COMMENT SECTION ON THE SAC BEE, COMPARED TO OUR PRESS ENTERPRISE WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH ZIP.   POSSIBLY DUE TO THE IRON FIST OF CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ?

UPDATE: Alicia Robinson blogs regarding the Status quo on the menu at Riverside City Hall cafe.  The taxpayer has paid in excess of $3 million dollars to construct this cafe, which is open to the public.  The question TMC asks as Ms. Robinson ask, is the question is it the role of the public sector to pass that gray line and began to run their own businesses at taxpayer expense, in direct competition with the private sector?  TMC brought this to the attention with a posting regarding Rodney Couch, Provider Foods/ Market Broiler, and the thin line that exist between associations, friendships and favoritism:  You Provide the Food and the Couch, I’ll Provide the Millions!

UPDATE: 05/25/2012:  Standing outside our home, I watched elderly female individual taking a photo of the no parking sign during street sweeping. When I asked if she received a ticket, she said yes.  She lives down the block, her husband just had a stroke, and her son left the car out on that Wednesday, and they cannot afford the $42 ticket.  What we have been telling council is that there are families who are on tight budgets, and can’t afford a $42 dollar parking ticket.  Forty dollars can very well be food on the table.  Many who receive tickets around the wood streets are students.  The irony is that the City champions education, and would like students to eventually think of Riverside as a city to reside in.  Well, not this way… and the city doesn’t have to spend $25,000.00 on an outside consultant to find that answer.  I just gave it to you for free.  Remember, just because the street sweeper and the parking nazi have left the vicinity, they can still ticket between the hours indicated on the sign.  As a result, the residents know this isn’t an issue about cleaning streets, it’s about raising revenue at our expense..  Who makes a profit on your blue can recyclables while you pay a service fee for pick up.   A month ago we brought to our readers attention that tickets were even being issued to business vehicles as in the following TMC posting.

 In these tough economic times, will the city’s next endeavor be to ticket vehicles during trash pick up?  Will they consider billing Riverside residents for weekly garbage pick-up by the pound?  Especially now that they are doing a bang up job on creating a profit  debt with the Fox Theatre and City Hall’s Raincross Cafe.

UPDATE:05/26/2012: REDDER THAN A FOX’S COAT?  HAS THE FOX LOST IT’S PANTS?  NEW ARTICLE IN THE PE REGARDING OPERATING COST WERE GREATER THAN EXPECTED LEAVING THE FOX IN THE RED, OR SHOULD I SAY, “THE TAXPAYER”.

Councilman Paul Davis stated that, “the council should look at options such as offering a long-term lease or selling the theater”.  Now, selling the Fox Theatre is not a bad thing, it should be up for sale to be runned by private enterprise.  This is what Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno stated a year ago.  The Fox would have financial problems and it’s likelyhood that it would be closed or sold by summer 2012.  Why would the city feel that they can run a business when they fall short at running city government.  If these same numbers were corresponding to a private business enterprise, the Fox would be in foreclosure or up for sale.  That’s the real world, you just can’t continue to subsidize a deficit at taxpayer expense and believe that it is alright.  This is just a skewed way of thinking.

 City Finance Director Brent Mason said he doesn’t think city officials consider the theater a failure.  If anyone can consider any business not to be a failure when it loses close to a million dollars a year it would be someone that is spending other peoples’ money.  – Welrdelr, Commenter on the PE.

The Council and the Mayor has given a smoke screen to the problems and lost of revenue in the Fox Center.  The topic came up at the Mayoral debate and each Council candidate praised it but one honest candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello spoke out about how much this was costing the taxpayers and we didn’t make money we were losing money each year.  Dvonne suggested the City sell the Fox Center to stop losing money.  Adkison, Bailey, Gardner and Melendrez felt the city should keep Fox Center and hope for a profit in the future.  But Dvonne shocked the candidates and the crowd with the yearly lost can be doing nothing the loss would increase.  She suggested we sell it and recoup our loses.  Now that the public knows we see the same councilmen changing their view.  Dvonne has the facts of most of the debt and future debt we will learn about but the council just hope voters will elect them to stay Mayor Loveridge course and keep the deals secret and the large debt secret.  God does things for a reason and we ar learning things that have been kept secret.  Dvonne has a plan to clean up the debt and keep the council on track to do the work for the citizens not business friends.  We can expect more shockers to come as Dvonne said.  We need her to lead up to recovery and the council should be glad she took the time to get the facts to correct the mess.   – Airjackie, Commente on the PE.

According to Chief Financial Officer Bret Mason the expected deficit will be $900,000.00 for fiscal year 2012-2013.  While some of the council disturbingly feel the deficit is acceptable, no one in their right mind within the private sector would consider this acceptable.  Since when is losing money acceptable? Not in the private sector, this must be a public sector phenomenom, because when the money you are dealing with is not your own, you don’t feel the pain..  As I see it, that $900,000.00 loss could have been used for police and fire.  The city would rather have a loss then to utilize the wasted funds to pay for a police or fire salary.

UPDATE: 05/28/2012: Reported by 24/7 Wall Street, Riverside number one in home foreclosure’s.  In Riverside metro home prices fell by 56.6%, the foreclosure rate is 1 in 213 homes.

Current home values Riverside real estate and homes for sale as indicated by this link.

UPDATE: 05/29/2012: Lucky Greek owner sues the City of Riverside for $750,000.00 

Imagine what the old Marcy Library would like now if it was handed over to Lucky Greek?  What were the Council thinking?  According to the Press Enterprise the suit claims the restaurant suffered first from restricted traffic during construction of the nearby Magnolia Avenue railroad underpass as well as street configurations.  Many on the Main Street suffered from the construction, but were told they could not sue for loss of business, the city was protected against this.  Other businesses suffered from eminent domain and construction on Market Street.  Do these current businesses, some evicted and others who have gone, have someone to speak for them?  Or do they have any recourse against the City after the Redevelopment debacle?

UPDATE: 05/29/2012: RIEMER REAMING THE TAXPAYER NEVER HURT SO BAD?…According to the Press Enterprise, “Judge Riemer declared a mistrial after a week of trial testimony so he could take his vacation — costing the taxpayers (by his own estimate) up to $25,000 — on the day of closing arguments.”

          

WILL THE REAL JUDGE RIEMER PLEASE STAND UP?

WAS THE RIEMER FAMILY TRUCKSTER PACKED AND READY TO GO?

Riemer affirmed he said “something to that effect” regarding his comment to Cook. He agreed that it was regrettable. “It would be better to keep thoughts like that to oneself.”..  According to some, Rogue Judge Riemer making rogue judgments?  Not surprised, this is Riverside…

UPDATE: 06/01/2012: STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SENDS LETTER OF APPROVAL TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLOWING COVERAGE OF $26 MILLION OF THE ORIGINAL $159 MILLION ORIGINALLY REJECTED.  THEREFORE, CURRENTLY, APPROXIMATELY $133 MILLION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND REMAINS A DEBT OF THE CITY, OR SHOULD I SAY THE TAX PAYER.   

    

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW MAY 26TH APPROVAL LETTER IN PDF FORMAT

ACCORDING TO CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER’ S BLOG, THIS LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE STATE, GIVES “CONFIRMATION THAT THE ACTIONS OF OUR FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DID MEET THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW”.  BUT ACCORDING TO THE PRESS ENTERPRISE ALICIA ROBINSON’S BLOG, THE AMOUNT OF THE REMAINING DEBT IS ACTUALLY $21 MILLION.  WHICH DIFFERS FROM OUR AMOUNT OF $133 MILLION.  THEREFORE, IT APPEARS FROM THE CITY’S VIEW TO IMPLY THAT $138 MILLION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AS LEGITIMATE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS.

ACCORDING TO THE PE, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR EMILIO RAMIREZ STATED THAT NOT ONLY IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT STILL UNRESOLVED DOWN TO $21 MILLION, BUT “(JUST) BECAUSE THE LETTER DOESN’T INCLUDE EVERYTHING IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE OTHER (ITEMS) ARE DENIED”.   WE ARE THEREFORE ASSUMING THAT ALTHOUGH THE LETTER LIST $26 MILLION, THAT THE UNLISTED AMOUNTS ADDING UP TO $112 MILLION HAS BEEN BILATERALLY VERBALLY RESOLVED (Of course, no documents currently exist to corroborate Mr. Ramirez’s figure).  THEREFORE WE ASSUME THE FOLLOWING: $26 MILLION + $112 MILLION = $138 MILLION (STATE ACCEPTED EO’S).  THEN, $159 MILLION – $138 MILLION = $21 MILLION REMAINING DEBT IN QUESTION.  SO WAS THE THE $138 MILLION JUST WRITTEN OFF OR REMOVED IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS A STAFF OVERSIGHT?  OR WERE THEY, THE CITY, JUST TRYING TO PAD THE ROP’S TO SEE WHAT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH?  OH WHAT THE HELL, I GIVE UP..I ADMIT IT, THEY’VE WORN US DOWN..

UPDATE: 06/02/2012: NOW, FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, JACK OF ALL TRADES, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TINA ENGLISH IS NOW ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR? 

YES, IT’S TRUE..  BUT WILL SHE ASK THE QUESTION, FORMER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ALLEGEDLY ASKED?  “WHAT’S A POT HOLE”?  ACCORDING TO FIVE BEFORE MIDNIGHT BLOG, “MS. ENGLISH BRINGS A WEALTH OF PUBLIC WORKS EXPERIENCE TO THE JOB TO FIT IN WITH THAT PROUD TRADITION”.. AGAIN, WHAT DOES SHE HAVE A DEGREE IN?

 UPDATE 06/04/2012: IS RODNEY STILL PROVIDING THE FOOD AND THE COUCH, WHILE THE TAXPAYER PROVIDES THE MILLIONS?

WILL COUNCIL CONSIDER APPROPRIATING RODNEY COUCH, OWNER OF MARKET BROILER RESTAURANTS, WITH $48,000.00 FOR OPERATING COST ($35,000.00)  AND ADVERTISING ($13,000.00), FOR THE NOW TAX PAYER SUPPORTED CITY HALL RESTAURANT KNOWN AS THE ‘RAINCROSS CAFE’?  ACCORDING TO THE BELOW DOCUMENT, RODNEY IS ALSO CLAIMING LOSSES OF $123,800.00 THAT NEEDS TO BE REIMBURSED TO HIM BEFORE THE CITY CAN MAKE A PROFIT.  CLAUSE 4.2.1 STATES THAT ANY PROFIT RECOGIZED UP TO $100,000.00 SHALL BE PAID TO THE CITY.  IF PROFITS EXCEED $100,000.00, THEY WILL BE SHARED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE OPERATOR.  BUT IN CASE THERE IS A LOSS, AS THERE IS,  THE LOSS SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD TO OFFSET THE PROFIT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL DOCUMENT

 WHAT DOES THE TAX PAYER GET?  WHAT DOES RODNEY GET?

1. Advertising on the electronic billboard overlooking the 91 freeway.  (so the City/ Taxpayer is paying for advertising of the billboard.  All other restaurant owners in the City get this)?

2. Rodney is the preferred provider for catering of all City Hall events.  (Since when does the taxpayer pay for event food for city hall elite)?

3. The City provides all the furniture, fixtures and equipment.

4. The City provides all janitorial services.

5. The City will pay all utilities.

THIS APPEARS TO HAVE COUNCILMAN AND MAYORAL CANDIDATE MIKE GARDNER’S WRITING ALL OVER THIS…BY GOLLY IT DOES!  IF THIS PASSES THEY CERTAINLY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN SOME SORT OF FEE, PSEUDO TAX  OR SERVICE FEE…

UPDATE: 06/05/2012: OPP’S! WE DID IT AGAIN!  PASSED 7-0 ON THE CONSENT CALENDER.  EVEN OUR INDEPENDENT VOICE, WHO STANDS FOR PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT..

UPDATE: 06/05/2012: DOES THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TOM BOYD’S NEW RED CORVETTE?

RECYCLING THE MAYOR?  ACCORDING TO PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKER REBECCA LUDWIG, IF JOHN TAVAGLIONE IS ELECTED TO CONGRESS, WILL HE RECYCLE THE MAYOR (RON LOVERIDGE) TO REPLACE HIS VACANT POSITION?

UPDATE: 06/13/2012:  City Manager presents budget, rebuttles community concerns.  I just could not help myself but add this tid bit of information regarding a response by  City Chief Finance Officer Bret Mason to Blogger Mary Shelton regarding the use of Firestations as colateral for a loan the City took out.  Mason said those assets (firestations) make good collateral because lenders assume the city would be more motivated to avoid defaulting on the debt.  This financial relationship I’ve never heard of in the current market place.  If you take a second on your home, you will as the owner be motivated to avoid default, when you home is used for colateral?  Mason went on to say, even if the city defaulted, the lender may only use the facilities until the debt is resolved but may not foreclose and take them from the city.  The key to that statement is “may”, and these are the if’s and but’s which envelop citizen concerns.  So if one defaulted as a home owner, the bank will only take your home over and never foreclose.  They will hold it and give it back to when you catch up and resolve your debt?   He goes to finish that his statement by saying basically that scenario would never happen..  “It’s beyond comprehension that the city would allow itself to get in a position where it could not make debt service payments,” Mason said.

UPDATE: 06/16/2012: Pravda Press Enterprise continues it’s art of molding popular public opinion?  Does our Chief Sergio Diaz have a starring role?  PE leading the way to absolutely no comments?

WHAT’S WRONG PE? CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA & ILLEGALS STEALING AMERICAN JOBS? WHY YOU SENSORING ALL THE COMMENTS THAT ARE TRUE. WE ARE IN AMERICA ( OR I THOUGHT ) WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO LET OUR OPINIONS BE KNOWN!!   – obama hater, commenter on the Press Enterprise possibly prior to being censored..

JUST FOR LAUGHS!  EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU’RE REALLY MAD BY NOW..

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 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: IT MAY BE RATS FOR THE MAYOR, BUT IT’S A DOG’S DAY IN RIVERSIDE WHEN NAMING CITY HALL!

Posted: October 5, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

CLICK ON THE PICK FOR THE HD EXPERIENCE!

The story gets better all the time.  It appears as if there was a private committee headed by the ring leader, Jack Clark, a partner in litigation for BB&K, a firm which receives millions in taxpayer money for their legal advice to the city and not to forget the recently signed assumption of their lease with the city.  This self appointed private committee included recognizable names with long titles, as Ex-City of Riverside Manager Brad Hudson, Private Developer Mark Rubin, Yeager Construction Companies Jack Yeager, Senior VP of The Entrepreneurial Corporate Group which owns the Mission Inn Ted Weggeland , City of Riverside Chief of Staff Kristin Tillquist, Riverside County Fair Housing Executive Director Rose Mayes, President/CEO Riverside Chamber of Commerce Cindy Roth, Roth Carney Law Firm Partner Jane Carney, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger Luebs, Director of Center for Philanthropy La Sierra University Dr. Jim Erickson, Retired Superintendent Alford Unified School District Dr. Damon Castillo, RUSD School Board Kathy Allavie.  The majority of these people in one way or another have benefited from City Hall and/or have had their palms financially greased by the taxpayer.   If you look at the names they all have some connection with the mayor in terms of contracts, associations, employment by the city etc.  Councilman Paul Davis didn’t know this committee existed till just recently, and asked for an extension to hear out his constituents of which he has received 15 email concerns.  Nancy Hart also had reservations as to the appropriateness of city hall being named by the current mayor.  Usually this is an honor attributed to someone who passed on.  But more egregious, the community was not invited to be part of this process.  Again a culture of arrogance and narcissism.  Councilmen Mike Gardner and Andy Melendrez had no reservations in voting for the naming of City Hall after the mayor.  Steve Adams couldn’t contain himself, he had no problem voting for him right that instant and just push the proclamation through.  Though, he consider Councilman Paul Davis and Councilwomen Nancy Hart’s reservations on the vote and the need for 2 weeks as “confusion”.  But again felt this decision as deserving of nothing more that than a unanimous vote by the whole council when they returned back in two weeks, and this he believed the mayor wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.   Councilman Andy Melendrez Asked Councilman Paul Davis and Councilwoman Nancy Hart what exactly they would be looking at in the next two weeks from their constituents.  This struck me  as an oxymoron and quite obvious, City Hall is owned by the community of Riverside, not by the few councilpeople and a private committee. Have we all forgotten this simple premise?  Let’s not forget that BB&K receives millions of dollars from Riverside taxpayers for legal advice to the city and city attorney’s office.  Conflict of interest?  A gift back to the mayor for his BB&K support?   A private committee was formed without imput from the community at large on the issue of City Hall being named, “The Ron Loveridge Riverside City Hall.”   Or should we call it the “Best Best & Krieger Riverside City Hall”?  Since we do so much business with them, I’m surprise Council hasn’t voted to give them a floor at City Hall.   But it all appears the initiation of the naming was more than likely instigated by Councilmen Chris Mac Carthur and William “Rusty” Bailey, both of whose families have been in existence in Riverside for generations and have been part of the fabric of Riverside politics.  Speakers on this issue were vehemently concerned.  Some speakers suggested other names should be considered, names which embody Riverside, such as Eliza Tibbets, John Wesley North or even Frank Miller.  Others stated that Ron is getting paid to do the work of the people.  As our forefathers of this country stated, no one should be elevated to level of king for doing the work of the people.  Now, if Ron did the work of the people and didn’t get paid for doing it for his 30 plus years, I would have no problem voting for Ron today either. This would reflect a sacrifice and a deep passion for the community he served, and it should be that way getting paid. But people in the community also work 30 or 40 years in a job without anyone naming a building after them, and there job is just as important as the mayor’s.  Names are for extraordinary circumstances.  My opinion is that Rin Tin Tin personifies a historical facet of the City of Riverside.  The dog was loyal, honorable, ardent, trustworthy, trust worthy and true.  Something that simply does not personify Mayor Ron Loveridge as someone who was honorable, the ugly truth of the matter he wasn’t.  The establishment kept his behavior under wraps.   It appears this has all gone to the dogs, but the entity I believe embodies Riverside and the name I would use on the walls of city hall would be an icon Riverside keeps close to their heart, therefore, “The Rin Tin Tin Riverside City Hall”.

UPDATE: 10/17/2011: COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS CHANGING HIS TUNE? “IT’S NOT THE TIME TO CONSIDER CHANGE”.  IN REFERENCE TO THE CITY HALL BEING NAMED AFTER MAYOR RON LOVERIDGE.  ADAMS NOW BELIEVES THE NAMING OF CITY HALL NEEDS TO GO TO THE PEOPLE, AND A PRIVATE INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CALL.  PLAYING POLITICS DURING ELECTION TIME?

UPDATE:10/23/2011: PRESS ENTERPRISE REPORTS CITY HALL NAME CHANGE ON HOLD!

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” 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 CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!