Posts Tagged ‘steve adams’

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC WANT’S THE DIRT!

Posted: October 11, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2

CLICK ON THE PIC FOR THE HD EFFECT!

TMC staff thanks all who have supported us and quietly supported us.  In trying times we look for leadership and find none. There are new fees, fines and taxes.   We find gross fiscal mismanagement of funds.  We find government enacting new restrictions of what we can and cannot do on our own properties.  Restrictions and higher fees for violations on vehicles. All we ask, is that the government balance their check book, we have to.  TMC wants the City of Riverside dirt, if you have it, we want it, for example, mismanagement of funds, affairs, illegal property transfers etc.  Email us anonymously at thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com with your dirt.

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

UPDATE: THE DIRT IS ROLLING IN, AND IT’S ALMOST TIME TO PICK-UP THE TRASH!  THANKS RIVERSIDE!

TALKING ABOUT TRASH, DAN BERSTEIN OF PE IS REPORTING FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON FILES A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLEGING A TRASH TRUCK BACKED UP INTO HIS 2011 DODGE.  CLAIM AGAINST TAXPAYER NEGLIGENCE: $1,075.00, BUT ACTUAL COST $1,434.00.  BUT IF YOU EVER LOOKED AT HIS DISCRETIONARY FUND AND THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND, NON OF THE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE EITHER.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC CONTINUES TO REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL BOOKS! COOKING THE BOOKS OR BURNING THE BOOKS?

Posted: October 11, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

Again is this another display of our culture favoritism and selective treatment within the gates of emerald city? (Item #9).  The ambulance debacle, government again interfering with the free market system to the point of allowing a monopoly?  City councilman Paul Davis was right to ask the question if it’s the cities policy to allow one ambulance company, American Medical Response, in the city.  Does this violate antitrust laws?  What’s quite interesting is that the city issues franchise agreement to control who runs non-emergency ambulance services.  Any ambulance company is allowed to apply, but the clincher is AMR is the only company to be issued one.  The city firefighters union opposes Mission Ambulance’s bid to serve Riverside.  Why would a firefighters union get involved in the business of rendering an opinion?  Questions are continually raised in regards to union influence in the city, and to the extent of special interest request.  But you have your answer as to why no other franchise agreements were ever issued over the last 50 years.  But again, the city can save money by placing more services up for bid.  (Item #9) Again, is the city and the firefighters union involved in a monopoly? And are the firefighters unions really looking toward the health and safety of the public?  In City Council session,  The Public Safety Commission will be recommending that the Council deny Mission ambulance from attaining a franchise agreement.  Get this, the Public Safety Commision is made up of the City Council, Chris Mac Arthur, Nancy Hart and Andy Melendez.  Further, Fire Chief Steve Early will actually be conducting the assessment of Mission ambulance’s application, and rendering an opinion to the Public Safety Commision.  Yes, I’m not making this up, it’s incestuous.  Can you guess what is going to be their decision?  In addition, the City pays AMR for certain training services to the Firefighters etc., in addition, AMR has had their own set of problems.  But it appears that according to the references in favor of Mission Ambulance, that the city would turn a blind eye to the health and safety of Riversidian’s in favor of alleged special interest.

UPDATE: COUNCIL VOTES TO DENY MISSION AMBULANCE A FRANCHISE, EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS.  AMR HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAMPAIGN’S OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING DAVIS.  MISSION AMBULANCE CONTRIBUTED TO DAVIS ONLY.  BACK IN 2009, CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST AMR’S PETER HUBBARD, WHO WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE RIVERSIDE POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION.  MISSION AMBULANCE WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT MISINFORMATION HAS BEEN FED.  MISINFORMATION SUCH AS CHIEF STEVE EARLY STATEMENT THAT MISSION AMBULANCE MAY NOT RESPOND, IF THEY WERE CALLED, BECAUSE OF A COST FACTOR.  COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS ALSO STATED MISSION AMBULANCE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT PAY.  AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE IS CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES WITH THE CITY, AND YOU ARE ONLY CALLED IF CONTRACTED FOR 911 SERVICES.  MISSION AMBULANCE WOULD LIKE TO SERVE THE RETAIL END, AND CONTRACTS INDIVIDUALLY WITH PROVIDERS, AND SHOULD AND COULD HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTRACT FOR 911 SERVICES AT THE STANDARD CONTRACTS RATES IF ALLOWED.  MISINFORMATION ON THE DAIS?  CHIEF EARLEY RECOMMENDED THE APPLICATION BE DENIED, BUT WAS AT A LOSS OF WORDS TO RATIONALLY EXPLAIN IT.  WHEN ASKED BY PAUL DAVIS AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE DENIAL, CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS WAS THEIR TO RESCUE AND SPIN, AND REMINDING EVERYONE OF THE ISSUE AT HAND.  THIS WAS REMARKABLY DONE MORE THAN ONCE AS TO CEASE COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS’S QUESTIONING.  IN RELATION TO THIS PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR, A CLOSE OUTSIDE FRIENDSHIP IS ALLEGED BETWEEN CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND PETER HUBBARD WHO HAVE BEEN SEEN AT FAMILY GATHERINGS, NOW RAISING QUESTIONS AGAIN OF CONFLICT INTEREST.  FURTHER, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WAS ALLEGED SEEN HAVING DRINKS WITH PETER HUBBARD AT RIVERSIDE’S SALTED PIG RESTAURANT ON 10/11/2011.  WOULD THIS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON HIS DECISION MAKING ON THIS ITEM AS A COUNCILMAN?   HOW ABOUT THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCILMAN AND MAYOR PRO-TEMP CHRIS MAC ARTHUR, EVEN THE MAYOR HIMSELF, RON LOVERIDGE?  AND LET’S NOT FORGET THE INFAMOUS BAD BOY’S THEMSELVES, BRAD HUDSON AND TOM DESANTIS.  WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONAIRE’S CLUB?  WOULD MISSION AMBULANCE HAVE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE CITY UNDER THESE GROWING CIRCUMSTANCES?  DOES THIS NOW MEAN ONE FOR THE FIRE CHIEF, AND ONE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE UNION BROTHERHOOD? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CITY’S INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIPS EFFECTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE THE COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE, WITH POSSIBLE GRAND VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST LAWS?

Talking about firefighters their still negotiating their salaries and fringe benefits in closed sessions again under (Item #5), with you guessed it , the firefighters union etc.  Hopefully they’ll be negotiating low, because the city can’t afford to pay them more.  After all, the city will be at a standstill by next year 2012 when bonds come due. Maybe we should do as Norco did, dissolve their City Fire Department and bid out. In their case they went with Cal Fire/ Riverside County Fire Department,  or another alternative for saving money is go back to the Volunteer Fire Department. Another idea would be to dissolve RPD, and bring in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in order to save money.  Excessive pensions is placing a large dent in the Cities budget. It’s no secret that 70% to 80% of a cities budget goes to payroll. (Item #5, Closed sessions of course).  This is a good reason that the City Charter needs to be modified, and whereby items as this should be in open session to be scrutinized by the public, and these closed door sessions leave an open door to abuse, at taxpayer expense.  And that my friends is how the city rolls..

Parking Citations Amnesty. Parking always a problem in Riverside and excessive violation fees at $41.00 a pop is another.   Won’t work, people have no money, honest! (Item #16)  The idea proposed by Public Works Director Siobhan Foster is that the end result of the amnesty program, the city will bring in $33,925.00 in revenue.  The actual total revenue expected from the amnesty program is $125,025.00.  But this figure will be offset by the initial expense of the taxpayer have in the amount of $91,000.00 to implement the plan.  THE BOTTOM LINE, IT ORDER TO BRING IN 27% BACK IN REVENUE, IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYER BY THE OFFSET COST, 73%.  I WOULD ALSO ASSUME THAT THE PERCENTAGE IS HIGHER DUE TO THE COST AND ATTEMPT TO RECOVER PRIOR COST TO THIS PROPOSAL, THEREFORE THE REVENUE BROUGHT IN FROM THE AMNESTY PROGRAM WOULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN 27% AS INDICATED.  NOW WE KNOW WHY SIOBHAN FOSTER IS MOVING PLACES, AND PASADENA PICKED HER UP LIKE A BAG OF CLEAN SOCKS!

One more week to go on naming city hall!  But after the item #9 debacle, we all know how that is going to turn out as well…  Bad news for Rin Tin Tin…

UPDATE:10/18/2011: A VERY SENSITIVE AMR CANCELS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MURRIETA OVER A COUNCILMAN’S STATEMENT.  MURRIETA URGES COMPETITIVE BIDDING ON AMBULANCE CONTRACTS.    DID THEY ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING $1.4 MILLION IN “BLOOD MONEY” TO LOWER RESPONSE TIMES AS ALLEGEDLY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TOOK?

UPDATE:10/29/2011: WHILE COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS BELIEVE OUTSIDE AMBULANCE COMPANIES WOULD NOT PICK THOSE WHO CANNOT PAY WITHIN THE CTY, IT APPEARS THE COUNTY HANDS OUT A STIPEND, AN ENCENTIVE ETC. TO COVER THAT COST. 

UPDATE:12/08/2011: ACCORDING TO THE STATE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES COUNTY MEDICAL SERVICE PLANS, RIVERSIDE OFFICIALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP QUALIFIED AMBULANCE COMPANIES FROM FROM PICKING UP PATIENTS IN THE CITY.  THE QUESTION MANY CITY RESIDENTS ARE ASKING, IS THE CITY VIOLATING ANTITRUST LAWS?

UPDATE:02/13/2012: THE STATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (EMSA) STATES THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OVERSTEPPED IT’S AUTHORITY IN LIMITING AMBULANCE SERVICES.  COULD THE $1.4 MILLION AMR PROVIDES RIVERSIDE EACH YEAR FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT CONTRIBUTE TO HOW THE CITY VOTES ON ISSUES THAT IMPACT AMR?  OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE $1.4 MILLION ALLOWS AMR TWO MORE MINUTES TO THEIR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESPONSE TIME.  JUST LIKE HAVING A BAD BURRITO, IT JUST DOES’T SIT WELL IN THE STOMACH’S OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS.  BRUCE BARTON, DIRECTOR OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCY, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY WAS IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF AMR AS OF 2004.  COULD THIS CONTRIBUTE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OUTCOME?

UPDATE: 05/11/2012: COMMMENTER ON THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REGARDING THE AMBULANCE MONOPOLY IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE..

No,  what’s going on, you’ve got three mayoral candidates who already know from debates and feedback this is a major campaign issue and they don’t want to have to make any decisions about it before the June election. Gardner must think that most of us just got off the turnip truck yesterday based on his comments. But you know what? People in this city are capable of independent thought without being patronized. This whole ordinance was written back in the late 1980s to protect Goodhew Ambulance which was tied in heavily through the people connected to the city council and mayor at the time. It’s a shame that nothing’s changed since even though the city’s grown both in size through annexations and through its population.  The ambulance companies should call the Office of the Inspector General and ask him or her to initiate an investigation of the Federal Anti-Kickback statute. At best, there’s potential for a huge conflict of interest including financially in this case, but looking at the lettering of the statute, it might be more than that.   Exceptions or “safe reservoirs” for this law pertain to trying to avoid monopolies in high-need areas not create one. I’m sure if the inspector general has to start an inquiry into what’s going on, the City Council will be in a rush to reschedule its workshop.   – Mary Shelton, University of California, Riverside

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW… THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE.

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!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ROLE PLAY?

Posted: October 3, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
2

The City of Riverside Charter requires that it’s charter be reviewed every eight years in order to evaluate and make to changes to the current charter.   The Charter was originally enacted and filed with the Secretary of State January 5, 2007.   Several Community meeting are held which allows community to apply imput and recommendations.  If they actually will, it is up to the Charter Review Committee to bring it to the Council, whereby they will decide.  Charter Review Committee are made up of 15 members. As the Charter currently exist, the language and constructs remain vague.  Is it effective? Or just mass of motionless moves which has no effectiveness at all.  Afterall, the city council make the final decisions.  City Council choose the specific participants of the committee, even it appears to cross the lines of favoritism.  Would you choose a merchant whom leases a city own building, would that be conflict  of interest, would you choose an independent contractor whom is contracted with the city for services, would you choose a member of the local paper to be part of a committee, would you choose a member of a prestigious local law firm evidently being paid for services by the city with no contract?  Could we call these activities conflict of interest.  I found it quite remarkable that the City would, from a multitude of applicants, choose Michelle Ouellette, a member of the Best Best & Krieger where millions of taxpayer dollars are spent for outside legal advise to the city.  Conflict of Interest, I would have to say yes.  The Charter Committee use to be made up of real people, real residents of the community.  What happened City of Riverside?  Your Citizen’s would like to know…

The following are issues with the charter which have been brought up by the community as changes necessary in order that the language will not be so vague, and to bring clarity and preciseness to the City Charter.

  1. Contracts an Leases: Guidelines on to how the City of Riverside should enforce signed agreements.
  2. Decrease in the City Manager’s discretionary spending from $50K to $25K, where it was before Brad Hudson came on board. In one year 28 million was spent, in another year 29 million was spent, this without the oversight of the city council.  Once the citizen request was made for an accounting of the discretionary fund, it suddeenly went down to 1 million.
  3. Citizens shall have the right to remove an item form the consent calendar at City Council meetings.
  4. Section 405, Mayor Pro Temp, guidelines to to this position as it stands, appears to be abused.
  5. Part time to Full time positions of the council. The Council needs to be full time in order to be effective.  The thought behind this is that there would be more time to attend the chicken house.
    This specifically to reduce the power of the City Manager, because full responsibility for actions are ultimately that of the Council.
  6. Nepotism, Section 709.  Again, self explanatory, and yes, part of the culture of City Hall. Clarification on personal relationships between employee’s, and to revisit the personal relationships of representatives and those who receive contracts.  For example, why is Councilman Steve Adam’s brother employeed in Public Works?
  7. Contradiction of State Statutes.  The city charter directly contradicts the state for general government services by tax.
  8. Citizen Audit Committee- an oversight committee which prepares a separate, independent and non-biased review of City expenditures.
  9. Enforcing violations of the charter.  Over the years Council, Mayor and others have allegedley violated the charter with no repercussions.  The need for defining language to enforce violations.  Has the defining language been purposely overlooked?
  10. The Finance Department to be a separate and independent department from the City Manager Department.  There is no reason that the two should be intermingled.
  11. Check Warrants, the city check book, common practice to bring the books of current expenditures to city council meeting for viewing by the public.  Further, what is the criteria for approving an expenditure?
  12. Hiring outside council, such as BB&K, should not be common practice.  The City Attorney’s office should be able to handle the load, if not, the city attorney and the department should be reviewed.
  13. Code of Ethics Complaints.  The issue of how complain dealt with.  The criticism is that complaints are circumvented by the City Attorney’s office, and in doing so, never reach the council for review. Therefore the denial of due process come into play.
  14. Best, Best & Krieger contracts.  It appears that all contracts are oral contracts and no hard contracts with this particular firm exist.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to this firm with no pertinent or rational explaination to the taxpayer.
  15. Environmental Protection clause-that the city continues its efforts toward being a Green City.
  16. Design and Review Committee.  The need to bring them back to the forefront, so that Downtown Main Street Riverside stops looking like Main Street Moreno Valley.
  17. Budget and Review Committee- a committee to review expenditures.
  18. Measure C Committee- a committee of oversight and to prevent abuse.
  19. Company Restrictions- such as unions and contractor limitations in order to prevent the inference of preferential treatment as in contracts etc.
  20. Closed Door City Council Sessions- defining language as to what constitutes a discussion item to be in a closed door session without public imput.

In an atmosphere of government distrust, the question that many in the community of Riverside our asking, will there imput make any difference? Is the whole process a formality by government to give the community an illusionary appearance of community imput an transperancy? Or is it just simply a role play? Do we agree to disagree that no new changes are necessary will be made?  Is the committee a real reflection of the community, or for the selective few?

CITY CHARTER REVIEW MEETINGS: JANET GOESKE COMMUNITY CENTER, 5:30PM, TODAY OCTOBER 3, 2011.

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  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, YEP, WE SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…

UPDATE: OCTOBER 3, 2011 CHARTER REVIEW MEETING, APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE 15 MEMBER BECOME A NO SHOW? INCLUDING CONGRESSMAN CANDIDATE JOSE MEDINA, DAVID ST. PIERRE, DIANE MEDINA, PETER BENAVIDEZ ETC.  THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS A REVIEW COMMITTEE NOT A REFORM COMMITTEE AS STATED BY THOMAS P. EVANS CHAIR.  THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE COMMITTEE ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR CHANGE, OR IS ONLY A PERFORMANCE OF ACTION, WITH NO REAL ACTION?  INCESTUOUS? TELL US WHAT YOU THINK LEAVE US YOUR COMMENTS!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: WILL DEBT HOLD US BACK? A TOUGH LOAD TO CARRY, A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW!

Posted: September 27, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Is it true that the Redevelopment debt is increasing incrementally $100,000,000.00 per month?  According to the Enforceble Obligation Payment (EOP) in June 2011 the RDA debt was $1.5 Billion, The premliminary draft of the Enforceable Obligation Payment (IROPS-Initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule) as of September 27, 2011 states total RDA debt to now be $1.7 Billion.  Much of the the debt is being paid with bond proceeds as a revenue source.  How long can it sustain itself?  This would be as if one pays a debt with a credit card, then later uses another credit card to pay the first credit card.  Instead we are using bonds. Bonds are loans.  A bond is a formal contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals.  Will this unsustained failure to deal with lead to banckruptcy?  Illegal or just Bad Business?  Where does the actions of the council breach their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer?  Is there a point whereby bad fiscal decisions just becomes illegal?

“Lying rides upon debt’s back.” -Benjamin Franklin

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  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… 

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: TMC CONTINUES TO REQUEST A FORENSIC AUDIT OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL BOOKS!

Posted: August 8, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3

CLICK THE PIC TO WATCH BRAD HIDE IN SACRAMENTO!

NOW IT’S ONLY A HOP, SKIP AND A JUMP TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICES IN CASE STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG HAS A FEW AUDITING QUESTIONS REGARDING DISCRETIONARY FUND SPENDING IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BRADLEY HUDSON. 

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.   WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS.  IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT! 

Questions abound regarding Brad Hudson’s decision to leave Riverside.  Is it because he understands the books better than the city council or mayor?  Is it because of the enormous bond debt which will come due July 1, 2012?  His discretionary slush fund spending?  To the tune of over 25 million, then suddenly went down this year when a citizen brought it to the councils attention last year.   Or is he leaving because of the many restrictive inter-agency fund transfers.  Once transferred to non-restrictive account, become part of web of inter-fund transfers reaching their proposed goal?  Or did the questions regarding Connie Leach to the City of Riverside instigate Brad to make a quick getaway?  How long will the council and mayor continue to fall by the sting of the break-up even after the June 14th  love fest, especially Steve Adams, who appears would marry him if he could.   The question is, why would you leave his base salary of $295,000.00 to make $258,000.00 in Sacramento?   

Brad’s yearly basesalary                                                      $258,200.00

Carry on Employee Duty Expense ($700/month)                  $8,400.00

401a Plan Match Up                                                                 $9,000.00

Auto Allowance ($550/month)                                               $6,600.00

Total First Year Salary                                                          $282,200.00 

Additional Benefits:  Retirement Benefit,  Health Insurance Benefit, Dental Insurance Benefit, Vision Insurance Benefit, Professional Associations Expenses Benefit, Moving Expense Benefit of $25,000.00, First year entitled to 42 day leave (1 ½ mo off), Second year, entitled to 84 day leave max. (3mo off).  Cost unknown.   Though Brad Hudson’s has yet to formally submit a letter of resignation, does his vague current employee contract with the City of Riverside obligate to pay out the remaining two years in a lump sum?
Conditions in Hudson’s current five year contract with Sacramento County state a lump sum payout if he vacates the position early. 

Therefore, did the City of Riverside actually pay Brad Hudson to much?   Will an independent forensic audit of the the city accounts be implemented when Brad Hudson leaves, in order to get a baseline for the next City Manager?  Accountability and Transparency may be non-existent in City Hall, but TMC will ask the questions.  The questions the community of Riverside are now asking.  Now the agenda:

Item 11, is Michael Morales’s appeal of the ethics violations against Ward 7 Council Candidate John Brandriff.   What struck me as quite interesting is that there are two other subjects which have yet to be reported regarding their record of attendance.  TMC did our own rundown of the Community Review Police Commission Attendance.   According to the attendance records Brandriff attended 12 committee meetings and had 6  absences;  1 excused, 3 for sickness and 2 for business.  What’s quite interesting is that Robert Slawsby attended 11 committee meetings and had 6 absences, all six for business.  He is quite equal to Brandriff.  Last there is Rogelio V. Morales who attended 9 committee meetings and had 9 abscences,  5 for business and 4 which were UNEXCUSED.  There is a contradiction regarding Michael Morales with regards to his claims.  Errors can be made, but these are obvious in the sense of fairness.  You would also believe Michael Morales would have also filed complaints against the other two, otherwise you would have to believe there is an ulterior motive.  I am unaware if Rogelio V. Morales is related to Michael Morales though they have the same name and many are asking just that question.  The question arises if Michael Morales was hired to follow the daily activities of John Brandriff , or decided to do this as a sole individual?  This due to his extensive knowledge of Mr. Brandriff’s day to day activities and whereabouts.  It is also alleged that Michael Morales is a supporting associate of current Ward 7 Councilman Steve Adams, of which Council Candidate John Brandriff will be in a run off election with.  It is also known that Steve Adams and Brad Hudson are close associates or friends.  The question which allegedly appears to materialize,  is this a political play to damage the reputation of Councilman’s Adam’s opponent, John Brandiff.  Would it be to attain leverage for winning a re-election campaign?  Or would it be a form of political retaliation for other reasons? Brandriff did asked the hard question with regards to City Manager Brad Hudson’s responsiveness to the Chief Russ Leach DUI in 2010, where records for Hudson’s city cell phone showed no incoming or outgoing calls the day of the incident until 14 hours after the traffic stop.  Hudson’s explanation is that his phone was off.  John Bradriff stated, “You’re telling me he wasn’t on the phone with anybody, about anybody, all day, with this going on?  That’s hard to believe.”   So, this is where the question in the community came up regarding Hudson’s personal phone records, which were convieniently unsoepenable.  Or is there a way to utilize the city phone and circumvent the record with City software?  Well, we never received a rational answer from the City.  Or there is the case of Councilman Steve Adams and City Attorney Greg Priamos strong arming a community meeting, La Sierra/ Arlanza Neigborhood Group, as many have indicated who attended.  Adams then made a call to Brad Hudson to end the meeting,  then left.  When an ethics violation was filed, Steve Adams claimed politically motivated because he confronted Taffi Brandriff, LANZA Co-Chair,  the wife of Ward 7 Council Candidate John Brandriff who is running against him.  But this is not the first time, Steve Adams has claimed conspiratorially motivated, stating allegations of others on the dais. What is quite remarkable is the many alleged instances of impropriety against opponent John Brandriff, which make mentioning.   But if you love this so far, you are going to love the Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse Investigative Report coming soon on TMC.  (Item 11, 3:00 pm session).

 Item 36, the thing of importance is that the Roberts Consulting Group was originally hired as headhunters to find a suitable and qualified person for the City Manager position, whom back in 2005, you guessed it! was Brad Hudson.  Well they have been hired again to do the same.  It has also been allegedly stated that Roberts Consulting have ties to the Mayor’s office.  Conflict of Interest?  Business as usual?  It appears that the City Council or the Mayor’s office are incapable of hiring someone qualified and knowledgeable for the position.  If in fact they may actually lack the skills to know what they expect of a City Manager, or our they even incapable of asking the proper interviewing questions?  Isn’t that a reflection on the City?   See, many in the private sector do their own hiring, hopefully honesty will be one of the afformention requirements for the position.  Whoever Roberts Consulting chooses as capable, the council and the mayor will accept it as acceptable. Even though the Mayor received 6 outside bids, he still decided to choose preferentially his friend of Roberts Consulting Group.  What  a surprise they were also on top of the Mayor’s list last time they were searching and found our now exiting City Manager Brad Hudson.  In 2005, Norm Roberts, Roberts Consulting, had mixed success.  So much so that the council members rejected the city manager candidates Roberts found and recruited Hudson on their own.  Well they could have saved the taxpayer money.   Roberts also headed the process that led to hiring police Chief Sergio Diaz in 2010.  (Item 36).

 Item 28 Adopt an ordinance to continue and comply with the the new State’s Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program. On June 29, 2011 Governor Brown suspended all redevelopment activities in the State of California.  The State gave cities two options to this suspension, dissolve it or continue it.  Because of the abuses of redevelopment an if you choose to continue, the paperwork the State expects to fill out is tedious, and this has upset most city governments as ours.  Therefore, our city is requesting the adoption of an ordinance to continue the Voluntary Redevelopment Program.  This choice to continue becomes as the State calls it, “A Voluntary Choice”.   Therefore entering into this convenant, cities enter a more structured program to force the city to become more responsible, this is with the State’s view that it will mitigate abuse of funds.  Stay tuned for more on this one. (Item 28).

Item 31 Nancy Hart wishes to serve in place of Councilman MacArthur on the Development Committee for the discussion of the leasing program for city owned property located at 10530-60 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside.  Does any of these council people have a real estate license or property management background.  Where is Dennis Morgan of IPA (Inland Pacific Associates) who is the property management company contracted with the city in all of this? (Item 31).

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST SLANDEROUS BLOG SITE…

UPDATE: MICHAEL MORALES APPEAL DENIED 6-O. MICHAEL MORALES SLAMS PAUL DAVIS BY SUGGESTING HE RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE HE IS A SUPPORTER OF COUNCIL CANDIDATE JOHN BRANDRIFF.  CONTINUES TO CLAIM DOCUMENTATION, WITH NO DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED OF VALUE.  HIS ALLEGED ASSOCIATE AND ALLEGED PARTNER IN THIS DEBACLE, COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS IS ON VACATION IN TEXAS.  EVERYONE WAS THERE ON THE DAIS EXCEPT STEVE.  HE HAS YET TO FILE COMPLAINTS OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS ON SLAWSBY AND ROGELIO MORALES, WHO HAVE EQUAL OR WORSE RECORDS OF ATTENDANCE AS DOCUMENTED.  THIS IN ESSENCE, ONLY QUESTIONS THE MOTIVE OPERANDI OF MICHAEL MORALES.  COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS IN INSISTANT WITH REGARDS TO CONSPIRATORIAL REFERENCES TOWARDS HIM.  NO ONE IS REALLY SURE WHAT MR. MORALES OR COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS’S INTENTIONS ARE, BUT OTHERWISE INEFFECTIVE IN CONVINCING THE DAIS OF JOHN BRANDRIFF’S INEPTNESS, WITH REGARDS TO HIS ATTENDANCE RECORD.  THIS INTRIGUING INVESTIGATION HAS BROUGHT MORE FOCUS ON COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS WITH HIS CLAIMS OF POLITICAL VICTIMIZATION! IS HE REALLY THE VICTIM, OR HAS HE USED THIS AS  A SUPTERFUGE FOR FURTHER POLTICAL GAIN?

BRAD’S FAREWELL PARTY: A REFLECTION OF REALITY?  THE HUMOROUS EXUBBERANCE OF OUR CITIES UPPER ESCHELON  WAS NOT TO BE MISSED.  IN THERE MOMENT OF REPOSE THEY WERE ENTERTAINED WITH SUCH GOVERNMENT TOPICS AS POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE, SCANDALS AND CITY CHARTER VIOLATIONS IN A WHIMSICAL SORT OF VIEW.

THE CITY NOW NEEDS YOUR HELP, THE RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY, IN SELECTING THE NEXT CITY MANAGER.

UPDATE:08/25/2011: PE CONTENDS CITY MANAGER SEARCH HAS LOW ATTENDANCE.

UPDATE:08/27/2011: CITY PROVIDES NEW COMMUNITY IMPUT QUESTIONAIRE REGARDING WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE NEXT CITY MANAGER.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC…RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” BLOG SITE!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: TMC RECOMMENDS, FORENSIC AUDIT OF CITY HALL BOOKS!

Posted: June 28, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,
0

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS?  CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY!  WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.   CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS.  THIS IS A GOOD IDEA SINCE CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PAUL SUNDEEN ARE CURRENTLY NOT AT LIBERTY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SINCE THEY ARE BOTH ON VACATION…   IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL COME UP RIGHT!

JURUPA AVENUE EXTENSION: CAN SEWER FUNDS LEGALLY FINANCE A NEW PROJECT?

Posted: May 14, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

Second phase extension of the Jurupa Avenue extension was unanimously passed by City Council at Tuesday’s council meeting.   According to Riverside Municipal Code, the monies from those funds can be used solely for the maintenance, operation, construction and reconstruction of existing sewer lines, and cannot be used for the construction of new local street sewers.  Is this project actually legal?  Or a misuse of taxpayer funds and a violation of Riverside Municipal Code?  That is the question.

UPDATE:  It’s hard to grasp how someone can rationalize violating laws enacted to protect the sanctity of taxpayer monies and their potential abuse by elected and appointed officials sworn to protect the interest of the taxpayer.  It appears it all started in 2003, whereby developer Chuck Cox gave the city a parcel of land next to the golf course by Riverside Municipal Airport in exchange for a piece of land called simply the Old Agricultural Park.  The Old Agricultural Park had evidently been contaminated from and old city sewer plant on or adjacent to the parcel.  In the real world, it would have been up to Chuck Cox, the developer, to pursue an environmental study to test for soil contamination during the negotiations. Regardless, Cox then planned to build homes on the Agricultural site.  It was then that city officials decided to tell Chuck Cox the land had been contaminated by an old city sewer plant.  Why would the city knowingly not tell the developer this bit of info prior to the original parcel swap.  It seems to me this would be a violation of the law to sell a parcel of land with foresight of it being contaminated?  As City Manager Brad Hudson explained the deal, the city and Cox agreed to swap responsibilities — Cox would handle cleanup at the agricultural park if the city would build part of the Jurupa Avenue extension.  See, if you built your own house, connecting your house to new utilities such as water, sewage and electricity would be at cost to you.  Smell the sewage yet?  Well it gets better. Councilman Steve Adams who’s has an extensive background and knowledge of the city, based on his comprehensive level of experience in public service as a career politician and police officer, must know municipal code and law.  Adams said the sewer funds to be used for the road extension would otherwise have gone toward the site cleanup.  How can that be, the clean-up is not the cities problem anymore, it is the developer!  Further, sewer funds cannot be used for road extension construction or cleanup, but the developer may have a case for fraud against the city, since the city admitted having prior knowledge of land contamination.  The real issue is the location and existence of the old city sewer plant, what kind of contamination occurred and did it really happen at all.  Regardless, Councilman Steve Adams may need a refresher on municipal code for the city of riverside.  But again, no one can use Sewer Funds for new sewer construction. 

UPDATE: 06/07/2011: Sources state that due to the Jurupa Avenue Extension, the Sewer Fund has been depleted.  In an inter-agency transfer, monies from Public Utilities Fund will replenish monies lost in the Sewer Fund.  But at some point, your utility bill will increase to replenish the Public Utilities monies lost.  Comments Welcomed!  Give Us Your Insight.  TMC investigates, stay connected, watch for updates.

COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS CLEARED: A CORRUPTIBLE SURPRISE

Posted: May 14, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,
2

Friday was a good day in River City as Mayor Loveridge’s special panel cleared Riverside Councilman Steve Adam’s alleged ethics violations.  Yes, that’s right, the celebratory smile and giddiness goes along with the pic!  In response to the special panel make-up, Mayor Ron Loveridge states, “These were not personal choices, we chose from the pool that applied”.   Well, I can understand that, but what about City Manager Brad Hudson’s reply to the City’s settlement of Lts. Darryl Hunt and Tim Bacon law suite, well, it was surprisingly as follows,  “…the city would be better off  without those two around, so we paid them to retire”.  Sounds like another law suit Brad, how much money has the taxpayer paid out just in settlements and law suits just because of what you may have said to somebody?  Come to find out the city is not insured, they were dropped back in 2008.  Currently, we are as they call it, “self insured”, that means settlements are paid out using taxpayer money.  The question is, Does Mayor Love’s special panel serve any real purpose, or are they as the English Royalty are viewed, an instrument of perception.   And is it almost possible to say, that we may be able to predict the outcome of any complaint made against City Hall by this special panel?  The city charter says council members should not be involved in personnel matters such as promotions. Rumored allegations are that their was interference by Councilman Steve Adams, who incidently is a fomer RPD Police Officer.

Earlier in the meeting, Melsh indicated and noted that Hudson said in his deposition that he couldn’t recall details of events surrounding the promotions at issue.  That’s a good one Hudson.. Sorry Hudson, no one believes that one! Especially with your track record.

Newer Entries