CLICK TO ENLARGE TO VIEW JULY 2, 2015 GRAND JURY FINDINGS AGAINST COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY PRIAMOS.
COUNTY COUNSEL CONSIGLIERE GREGORY PRIAMOS
According to the latest report released by the Grand Jury on July 2, 2015, they believe they were retaliated against by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, when on April 8, 2014, the 2013-2014 Riverside County Grand Jury made public a report entitled, “Political Reform and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors”. This report focused on the use of Community Improvement Designation (CID) Funds and was critical of the way some of the funds were utilized.
Fifty-eight days later, they state, a new County of Riverside County Counsel with a “controversial reputation, a known history of Grand Jury interference, and over the objections of many concerned citizens, was unanimously appointed by the Board of Supervisors.” According to the Grand Jury the following report is what started it all … or, in other words, HOW DARE THEY QUESTION OUR USE OF PUBLIC MONEY TO BOLSTER OUR CAMPAIGNS!?
Three main points were made in this newest release by the Riverside County Grand Jury with reference to County Counsel Gregory Priamos.
The first focused on the bid process. An anonymous Supervisor’s Chief of Staff, during testimony, was asked how extensive the geographic area was when the ‘Supes recruited for the position of County Counsel. His reply? “Three blocks.” Although not required, the Board of Supervisors chose not to use competitive procedures, and instead handed a $250,000/year position with lavish benefits over to a buddy of theirs. Was this was not Supervisor Marion Ashley’s Chief of Staff, Jaime Hurtado, whom we hear is being groomed to take over Ashley’s position?
Second, the Grand Jury had issues with Priamos’ “interference,” in their investigation. Priamos in an email, asked that all County Departments and Special Districts contact his office (specifically, Anita Willis and Jeb Brown – his main squeeze at the City of Riverside) immediately if contacted by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury wants transparency and the truth when they interview people. The Grand Jury believes this message was sent to control County employees out of fear of retaliation should they not be able to speak privately with them. Nothing new to us hear at Thirty Miles: just Gregory attempting to have control of the message as he did in the City of Riverside.
Third, Priamos’s contract with the County should immediately be “nullified!” This means that the Grand Jury feels that the County Board of Supervisors did not execute best practices for the hiring of a qualified (cough, cough…ethical) County Counsel. Therefore, the Grand Jury is requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct an actual, advertised recruitment for the position of County Counsel so that the best candidate can be appointed as County Counsel to serve the people of the Inland Empire. Opps..sorry Greg! That means somebody who is “not you.”
Since in his letter to county employee, Priamos references the County Executive Officer, Jay Orr, as his co-conspirator, perhaps the Grand Jury ought to investigate that angle as well, and whether Orr needs to be replaced…
County of Riverside, Executive Fool Officer, Jay Orr
County Sups, Just a Chain of Fools?
RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES SAYS, “WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER…”
What is not covered in the above memo is that if the State of California was really serious about the drought, they would place on moratorium on new development … of course that’s about as likely as the Gov Moonbeam’s bullet train coming in under budget.
So many issues with the current policies, we hardly know where to begin. While some are tearing out their front yards, if you have a pool, that’s exempt! What if you have a share of the Gage Canal water, which many homeowners do? …exempt!
In the City of Riverside, Brown is not only Sexy, it’s beautiful! Our front lawns may be brown but are back yard pools are bright blue full of water! Why is that folks? It could be that the City of Riverside has a Contractual Obligation to Riverside Property Owners to Provide Water! The City of Riverside has Pre-1914 Water Rights to Ground Water from the Bunker Hill Basin. Which means that we are not in control of the California State Water Resources Control Board, Why? Because we have our own Board, Why? Because we as a City own Our Water Rights! The Leadership of the City of Riverside misguided you, the taxpayer, to believe otherwise. Causing by their incompetence, that they, the Council, would like you to pay more to cover their illegitimate transgressions. Not to mention the illegitimate transgressions of your Pretty Boy Mayor, William Rusty Bailey. Vote No on Measure-Z 2016! Again those you have placed in leadership positions have deceived you! You will be paying more for the Heroes you thought were Heroes..Fire and Police. They are not are Heroes when it comes to scamming the taxpayer for perceived increases in pension and salary increases.
click this image to enlarge (click this link to go to the city source)
Riverside is unique in that we own our water. Twenty percent is sold to outside locals. So why are we conserving, while the city is mandated by law to harvest “x’ amount of water from the Bunker Hill Basin or lose those rights! New City Attorney Gary Geuss file a lawsuit on behalf of the public asking the State to reverse their requirements since we own our own water. What he forgot to tell the State is that the City has a “contractual” association with the homeowners that requires them to provide water. What this means is that it trumps the State Water Drought Declaration. More on this to come. What’s more egregious is that the city of Riverside is asking their residents to be “snitches” on their neighbors concerning the new restriction, which will of course cause further undo tension and discourse in the community…for absolutely no good reason.
BREAKING STORIES FROM THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REFERENCING RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES.
JULY 04, 2015: CITY FIELDS QUESTION ON UTILITY RESERVES The question arises from community activists, based upon and city of Riverside public utility documents, whether its ratepayers, that’s you and me for the uninitiated, have over-charged for services over the past decade. The reserves have grown beyond what City official policies state, thereby violating those rules. The the city was caught with their pants down, so they’re crafting language for new policy, and spinning the criticism. We ask why is RPU General Manager, Girish Balanchandran, rewriting policy, if it wasn’t followed to begin with? Seems to us like a waste of time if the City’s just going to do whatever the heck it wants anyway.
There is no question in our minds that the new policy will be written specifically to bring into conformance the existing policy violations, so that no one ever has to take any accountability….same ‘ole, same ‘ole. The right thing to do would be to return the excess funds back to the ratepayers. But that will be a challenge: your public utilities (“We Own It!”) currently does not work in your best interests. What the City has done to the ratepayers over the years is just plain wrong.
JULY 02, 2015: RIVERSIDE: RESIDENTS WANT TO AX UTILITY TAX A common theme: residents are fed up with all the taxation. TMC is asking for your support to be part of a Ratepayer Advocacy Group that would serve as a watchdog on utility practices, and hopefully prevent some of the abuses we’ve suffered under the Loveridge/Hudson/Priamos (and their cronies) years. The Board of Public Utilities does not advocate for the taxpayer, but for the city.
Finance Director Brent Mason stated that the utility user tax brings in $30 million a year to the general fund to pay for police, fire, parks and other services …. we thought that was what the General Fund Transfer was for!? Seems to us like double taxation.
The utility users tax is not a sales tax (the State administers those); it’s an excise tax. Riverside residents pay the City for the “luxury” of gas, water, electric, and phone service. I don’t know about you, but those don’t seem like luxuries to me. They should all be repealed. The City needs to stop abusing its residents through excessive taxation in the form of fees like the Utility Users Tax and General Fund Transfer at its public (aka, monopoly) utility or risk losing them both…and maybe even its entire utility…in the process. My belief is that the City is breaking the social compact to provide these services at “cost plus” and will pay a steep price if it doesn’t come to the table soon with those that want reform at RPU. Just my two cents. – Jason Hunter, commentor to the Press Enterprise
THANK YOU CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND SUPPORTERS OF TMC FOR REACHING 200,000 HITS!
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “DISGUSTING,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “ABOMINABLE,” “APPALLING,” “DETESTABLE,” “SLEAZY,” “SLANDEROUS,” AND
MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ARE ALL OF THIS, WE ADMIT IT, SO PLEASE…DO NOT READ IF OFFENDED! 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