Political feud splinters quiet Glendora
Charges, countercharges and acrimony prevail as a former mayor leads an effort to topple the City Council. It's the latest chapter in a long fight
By Jim Newton, Times Staff Writer
Nestled unobtrusively at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, the city of Glendora hardly seems a place stewing with political controversy. Its streets are quiet, its parks plentiful, its light poles proudly decorated with names of servicemen and women fighting in Iraq.
But over the last several years, this quiet little town has waged a series of spirited, sometimes angry and sometimes frankly ludicrous debates. Acrimony often overshadows City Council meetings, and a local public-access television show has become a sort of government-in-exile by a former mayor, a Los Angeles deputy district attorney named John Harrold.
Led by Harrold, critics of the current mayor and council accuse them of bending, even breaking, the law in order to help a political benefactor, of retaliating against those who speak out and of violating state public records laws. Among their allegations: that the council earlier this year approved a rezoning and development agreement that benefited a local sprinkler and irrigation company, Rain Bird Corp., whose top official supplied most of the money that helped put those same council members in office.
City leaders vehemently deny any wrongdoing in that or any of the other areas that have sparked dissent. They instead complain about being harangued by Harrold and his allies. The result is a fractious town, sharply divided over the work of its government and facing off in bitterly opposing camps.
The effect on local politics has been unmistakable. In a little more than five years, Glendora elected one slate of leaders, then tossed them out in a recall, then brought in new ones and chewed up some of them. It has cycled through 11 council members and six mayors. Politics, says the city manager, who was hired by one faction and now works for the other, has devolved into "blood sport."
Doug Tessitor, the city's current mayor, acknowledged that his town has become a divided, sometimes nasty, place. He chiefly blames Harrold, whom he describes as "sick" and prone to leveling "charge after charge after unsubstantiated charge." On one recent afternoon, Tessitor watched a recording of one of Harrold's shows, shaking his head in wonder as he was derided as "incompetent" and "a crook" atop a "culture of corruption."
"There," he said, as the program was paused. "You get the idea."
Harrold, who served for three years as mayor before being ousted, fires right back. "A group of insiders has great influence at City Hall," he said. "I disrupted that."
"These guys," another resident, Gil Aguirre, said of the current council, "don't like to be challenged."
The current struggles for power in the 52,000-resident town on the edge of Los Angeles County date roughly to the late 1990s, when advocates of slower growth and open government united to begin running candidates for office. In 1999, two of those candidates won seats on the five-member council. That attracted some concerned interest from local developers, and their worries were realized two years later when two more candidates advocating slower growth won their campaigns.
The new council majority worked quickly to consolidate its power, replacing a number of city commissioners and officials. And then the counterrevolution began. Alarmed by what others viewed as a purge, council critics launched a recall. Tessitor was picked to oversee campaign finances.
He and other recall supporters turned, as many in Glendora have in recent years, to Arthur Ludwick. Heir to Glendora's leading business, Rain Bird Corp., Ludwick has deep pockets and an abiding interest in Glendora civic life. His name and that of his wife grace the new wing of a local hospital, and his philanthropy has extended to other community projects as well. So when recall supporters needed cash to support their effort, they reached out to Ludwick. He and his wife produced. They donated, lent or otherwise supplied more than $125,000 toward the effort. They were, by far, the biggest contributors to the campaign.
The recall prevailed, casting out three members of the council -- including Harrold -- and replacing them with three others. The next year, another election brought Tessitor to office.
Once in place, the new council was presented with a development proposal that involved Ludwick. Rain Bird was interested in selling a large parcel of land in Glendora, and William Lyon Homes agreed to develop it. For that project to proceed, however, the land needed to be rezoned to allow residential development.
Last Jan. 24, the City Council approved the rezoning and the development agreement. The vote was 4 to 0, with one council member abstaining because he lived close to the development area. Of the four votes in favor, three were from council members involved in the recall — two who won office directly as a result and Tessitor, who helped organize the campaign.
Critics noted the neatness of that exchange: Rain Bird's executive paid for the recall that helped turn over the council. The new council then approved the deal sought by Rain Bird.
Tessitor, a retired insurance salesman who acknowledges that he has sold some policies to Rain Bird officials over the years, says it's true that Ludwick may have benefited from the council vote, but he defends the vote as a good move for the city. The rezoning took land that could have been developed for light industrial uses and transformed it into a small residential community, he said.
Eric Ziegler, the city manager, agrees. "The fact that Art Ludwick financed a recall does not create a conflict," he said. "In terms of the legalities here, there is no question."
Council critics, however, seized on that vote as further evidence of what they see as a city leadership all too willing to accommodate development and other moneyed interests. They question a recent renewal of a contract with the city's trash hauler. They object to the council's decision to allow the developer of a new shopping mall to post a sign on city property. At every turn, they suggest that money is changing hands; when Harrold gets on a roll on his show, he pulls a sheaf of bills from his pocket and fans them for the audience as a reminder.
As that gesture makes clear, when the sides collide in Glendora, it can get ugly.
Take the sunny Memorial Day weekend afternoon in 2005. Ziegler and Gary Clifford, then the mayor, were tooling around town when they spotted a man named Richard Hicks washing out paintbrushes into a storm drain. They called authorities and Hicks, whose wife had spoken out critically about the council, was cited the next day, accused of violating a misdemeanor toxic-waste disposal law.
Although Hicks ultimately pleaded no contest, others saw it as a clear case of retaliation. What, they asked, were the mayor and city manager doing outside Hicks' home that afternoon? Harrold accused Ziegler and Clifford of stalking Hicks. Ziegler protested that it was merely a coincidence, that they had been out driving and happened to spot Hicks — not that they'd gone looking for him.
To this day, Hicks is not sure whether he was simply caught with a paintbrush or targeted for retaliation. He just wants to put the matter behind him and rushes a reporter off the phone. Asked whether he was a scofflaw or a political prisoner, he answered, "It's hard to say."
The paintbrush incident embedded itself in Glendora's fast-expanding political lore alongside a continuing and, to the participants, infuriating debate over the city's handling of public records. There, the leading protagonist is Gil Aguirre, who owns property in town and sought access to city records relating to the formation of a street lighting district. He opposed the idea and asked for documents that would provide information on it.
The city at first tried to brush him off -- illegally demanding to know why he wanted certain documents before agreeing to hand them over — then attempted to impose an administrative fee, also illegal under the Public Records Act. Aguirre, a mild-mannered but persistent sort, kept at it, demanding his rights under California law.
Ziegler now admits that the city failed to turn over documents to Aguirre as required by law but says it eventually complied. Aguirre continues to protest and has filed suit. His case is slated for trial next year.
Even the most casual perusal of Glendora's record-keeping suggests it's far from perfect. Take the Jan. 24, 2006, council meeting at which the Rain Bird-William Lyon Homes project was approved. The city's news release omitted all mention of Rain Bird, and its website featured another curious omission. By this fall, minutes of every one of this year's council meetings through August were posted for the public to review — except for the Jan. 24 meeting.
"I'm not a conspiracy guy, but what does that tell you?" Aguirre asked.
Those minutes were not displayed for more than six months. A few hours after The Times requested a copy of them, the city clerk posted them on the website.
All these controversies play out in Glendora and, inevitably, on Harrold's television show, "Public Comment." The show gives Harrold a weekly platform to attack his adversaries, and he uses it to considerable effect.
In 2005, Harrold satirized Tessitor and the rest of the council by comparing them to the characters in "The Wizard of Oz." Unamused, Tessitor informed Warner Bros., which then delivered Harrold a stern letter threatening to sue him for unauthorized use of the film and warning that its damages could exceed $200,000.
Harrold kept at it. This spring, he used his show to question a recent renewal of the city's trash contract and laced his commentary with barely concealed hints of organized-crime involvement. During the show, one panelist asked Harrold: "If you were to do a word association and you were asked, 'What business do you associate with organized crime?' "
"Trash!" Harrold replied.
That earned Harrold another threatening letter, this time from lawyers for the agitated trash hauler, who did not appreciate that comment or others, including one noting the prevalence of trash companies in the "Sopranos."
Tessitor's wife urges him not to watch Harrold's show, but he can't help himself. It offers, he said, clear evidence of what he's up against — a reckless opponent willing to dirty up those he does not like, even at the fringes of the law.
Harrold admits no such thing. He sees himself as being in battle with the forces of repression, a shadowy but venal old-boy network.
He takes to cable week after week; just last month, he was accusing Tessitor of incompetence and obstruction of justice while three other panelists looked on in agreement and callers, some of them regulars on the show, dialed up to register their approval.
And so it goes in Glendora.
There is no doubt that Harrold and Tessitor are locked in a long combat with few points of agreement. And on that, at least, the two do concur: Neither side sees this ending any time soon.
"I have a feeling John Harrold will be back, will be running for office again," Tessitor said with a sigh.
A few days later, Harrold proved him right. "I am," he said last week, "on the ballot and running for City Council."
Los Angeles, Times, December 17, 2006
Holding pols to standards
WE'RE not on the getting-elected side of the politics dodge. Thankfully, there's a kind of unwritten law that would prevent that complication from ever arising. (Times have changed - and rather quickly - though. Oddly enough, it was just a few decades ago that William Blair, after whom the high school is named, served both as an elected member and then president of the Pasadena Unified School District Board of Trustees and as editor of the Pasadena Star-News.)
So we're sure there are countless paperwork hassles and headaches the likes of which we can't imagine when it comes to filling out the financial-disclosure forms California politicians are required to file with officials in Sacramento.
But, complex though the forms may be, it's not as if the candidates aren't informed in a timely manner by the state just what the disclosure requirements - and the deadlines for them - are.
Yet a surprising number of them locally each election season thumb their noses at the laws that require such filings. Unless you've just fallen off the Diebold voting machine fix-it man's repair truck, you have a hard time believing the standard excuse: "Gee, I was just so gosh-darn busy on the campaign trail."
The real reason pols file at the last minute or even after the deadline is that if their opponents aren't made aware of their spending patterns, it's harder to respond in kind.
All the talk about personal contact aside, local elections are mostly won and lost in the mailbox. Glossy, expensive mailers touting the virtues of Pol A - just as often touting the vices of Pol B - are what the mother's milk of West San Gabriel Valley politics pays for.
Newcomers are perhaps given a bit more slack when they don't fully comply with the regulations.
Seasoned veterans have no excuse.
In South Pasadena and Alhambra politics, David Margrave and the Messina family define seasoned veterans.
Barbara and Michael Messina have both served on the City Council on and off since the 1980s; Barbara has also served on the school board there.
David Margrave also served a term on the South Pasadena City Council in the '80s and then returned to the council several years ago. He had indicated he wouldn't run for re-election; now he is campaigning again.
So, they know the rules. And yet they flout them.
Give Margrave credit for a creative mea culpa this time around. Knowing that council rival Mike Ten would ask for a state Fair Political Practices Commission investigation of Margrave for buying political ads in a South Pasadena weekly newspaper without having formed a campaign committee, Margrave did an end run and asked the FPPC to investigate himself.
Creativity doesn't make it right. Margrave constantly plays fast and loose with conflict-of-interest and other regulations designed to protect the people's interest.
In Alhambra, Mike Messina is claiming that his veteran politician wife, newly elected Councilwoman Barbara, surely an expert on following the rules, had no idea that he was donating $20,000 of their own money to a shadowy political action committee for a glossy campaign mailer that attempted to link her opponent, Dan Arguello, with Indian gambling interests. No idea whatsoever. Not the kind of thing that ever came up at the dinner table. He says that he didn't tell her about it until election night. He also just happened to miss the spending-disclosure deadline, so that no one else could see what he was up to, either.
These are examples of willful disingenuousness, slaps in the faces of the Alhambrans and South Pasadenans local politicians represent. These are people who are too experienced in the business of politics to be allowed to get away with a pseudo-sheepish "sorry."
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, December 14, 2006
Corruption hits cities in L.A.'s shadows
By Michael R. Blood, December 2, 2006
LOS ANGELES --A string of gritty suburbs in the shadow of Los Angeles has produced a growing parade of public officials jailed for corruption, and prosecutors say illegal schemes on a scale more commonly associated with big Eastern cities have devoured tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
The latest to be led away in handcuffs is the former treasurer of South Gate, sentenced this past week to 10 years in prison.
Already known for clotted freeways and fading neighborhoods, the area south of Los Angeles now is drawing additional notoriety for thieving, bribe-grabbing public officials.
With little civic involvement by residents and only glancing media scrutiny, the cities "essentially laid themselves open for corruption, not through any fault of anybody's, but more or less through some sense of benign neglect," said Jennifer Lentz Snyder, an assistant head deputy in the Los Angeles County district attorney's public integrity division.
She believes the corruption is more pervasive than prosecutors have uncovered.
South Gate Treasurer Albert Robles aspired to build a "power machine" to secretly control cities throughout the economically struggling area, according to trial testimony. One now-jailed former mayor from the area sought to steal $6 million by steering city contracts to a shell company he owned.
South Gate and other towns including Lynwood, Bell Gardens, Maywood, Huntington Park and Vernon dot an area that once was blanketed with cauliflower and berry fields, until it was marketed decades ago as a suburban refuge where homes were affordable, the weather mild and opportunities rich.
Within a generation, a largely white, middle-class population has mostly vanished, replaced by many Hispanics, including a large immigrant population. However, corruption charges have cut across racial lines.
"When new groups come to power, and become entrenched ... then they tend to rule it as a fiefdom," said Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles.
And what might be driving the corruption?
"It's a combination of the local, insular political structure ... with the context of poverty and limited opportunity," said Becky M. Nicolaides, author of a book about Los Angeles' working-class suburbs. "That's a recipe for problems."
Those problems have given the area of southeast Los Angeles County at least a whiff of the rogue politics that became the stuff of legend in New York, Philadelphia and Chicago.
In the South Gate case, Robles, 41, was sentenced on Tuesday to 10 years in federal prison for extracting nearly $2 million in bribes from contractors, funneling the money to family and friends.
"There are different levels of hoodwinking, but I didn't think hoodwinking was a crime," Robles said in court. He was recalled by voters.
The case's federal prosecutor said Robles turned South Gate into a "pay-to-play" city where bribes were a cost of business.
Some other cases in southeast Los Angeles County include:
-- The former mayor of Lynwood was sentenced in March to nearly 16 years in prison for funneling millions of dollars in city contracts to a sham consulting company he secretly controlled. Paul Richards, 50, was found guilty of multiple counts of mail fraud, money laundering, extortion and making false statements to investigators.
-- Long-serving Vernon Mayor Leonis Malburg was charged with voter fraud in November, and a former city administrator was accused of bilking $60,000 in public money to pay for massages, golf outings and other personal perks. Critics have long depicted the tiny city as a virtual company town, where election shenanigans, secrecy and even thuggery were used to maintain power for a few. Malburg has pleaded not guilty.
-- Compton's self-proclaimed "gangster mayor" Omar Bradley was sentenced in 2004 to three years in custody for misappropriating public funds and making an unauthorized loan. He and two others were charged with using city-issued credit cards as "personal piggy banks."
-- Two former mayors of Carson and one City Council member received prison sentences ranging from home detention to nearly six years for a series of bribery schemes that cost the city more than $12 million.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, whose office created a special unit to concentrate on public corruption, says the recent run of cases can be easily explained.
"I think it was going on all the time," he said. "No one was investigating it."
Boston Globe, December 2, 2006
Vernon Mayor And Ex-Official Are Indicted;
One is accused of voting illegally; the other, of corruption
Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writer
Capping years of investigation, Los Angeles County prosecutors filed public corruption charges Wednesday accusing Vernon's longtime mayor of voter fraud and the former city administrator of using public funds for personal purposes.
The indictments come after decades of complaints by critics that the small, quirky industrial city a few miles south of downtown Los Angeles is operated as a fiefdom by city leaders, including Mayor Leonis Malburg, who has been in office for more than 50 years and is the grandson of Vernon's founder.
Most of the homes in Vernon are owned by Malburg, other council members and the city, and a majority of the 91 residents are city employees.
Prosecutors charge that Malburg, 77, has been fraudulently voting in Vernon elections for decades as he allegedly lives in his grandfather's former estate in Hancock Park, 20 miles away.
The mayor's alleged voter fraud dates to at least 1967, according to a criminal complaint.
The mayor's wife, Dominica Malburg, and their son John, were also accused of illegal voting in Vernon.
"These charges go to the heart of the problem in Vernon, where they're trying to maintain the status quo and control the pool of voters," said David Demerjian, the head of the district attorney's Public Integrity Unit. "If they were voting, they should be voting in L.A., not Vernon."
The district attorney's office also charges that longtime city administrator Bruce Malkenhorst Sr., 71, spent $60,000 in city money for personal use, including massages, golf outings, meals and political contributions.
Malkenhorst was the highest paid municipal official in the state before stepping down two years ago, earning more than $600,000 a year for running a city with fewer than 100 residents. The city also paid for a limousine to transport him.
Prosecutors alleged that Malkenhorst regularly reimbursed himself for expenses -- including paying off his personal Visa credit card -- without seeking approval from anyone, including the City Council.
"I can't come up with a reason for why massages would be paid for with public money," said Max Huntsman, a deputy district attorney leading the case.
The charges mark the biggest challenge in decades to the reign of Malburg and his allies. Prosecutors say their investigation is continuing.
Earlier this year, the city hired gun-toting private investigators to follow challengers seeking to unseat Malburg and the other council incumbents.
The city evicted the candidates from their dwellings and kicked them off the ballot, although a judge later ruled that the election, Vernon's first in 25 years, had to go forward.
Malburg was reelected in a disputed election that was the subject of months of court challenges.
Prosecutors have been building their cases against the city officials for years, but Vernon waged a long court battle in an unsuccessful effort to avoid turning over city records to prosecutors. Huntsman said district attorney's investigators found that many city records were missing or had been destroyed.
For nearly 80 years, critics have accused Vernon's leaders of running a political machine that kept power in the hands of the city's founding family and a small group of other leaders.
Vernon was founded in 1905 by a charismatic Basque immigrant named John Baptiste Leonis, who over the next few decades consolidated power and purchased property around the city. As early as 1925, a Los Angeles Times expose accused Leonis of operating the city as a fiefdom where dissenters were run out of town.
In the 1940s, the district attorney indicted Leonis and other Vernon leaders on charges that are eerily similar to the case presented Wednesday.
Prosecutors called Leonis a "boss" who committed voter fraud by casting ballots in Vernon when he actually lived in the Hancock Park home his grandson allegedly occupies.
But the charges against Leonis were eventually dropped, and by the time he died in 1953, he had amassed an estate reportedly worth $8 million.
The inheritance went to Leonis Malburg, who as a boy hunted doves with a BB gun at the family stockyards and took his first job as a messenger at his grandfather's bank.
Neither Malburg, Malkenhorst nor their attorneys returned calls seeking comment, nor did Vernon's city attorney.
In the past, Malburg has said he lives in an apartment atop a commercial building he owns on Leonis Boulevard, a street named after his grandfather.
People who in the past have clashed with Vernon's leaders hailed the indictment as a historic turning point for the town.
"This is a good day for democracy," said Roy Ulrich, a public interest lawyer and former Vernon property owner.
"It's a hopeful sign. It's good that [D.A.] Steve Cooley has uncovered what's been going on in Vernon, what's been apparent to a lot of people for some time now. This is not a real city. It's a business with a charter," Ulrich added.
Prosecutors said that under the law, a person is allowed only one legal domicile. That is where the person can be registered to vote.
While Malburg might spend time in his Vernon apartment, Demerjian said, he and his family clearly live in Hancock Park.
"And I don't think there's any evidence that his wife ever lived in Vernon," the prosecutor said.
"It will be up to a jury to decide whether this man lived in a mansion in Hancock Park or a little apartment in the city of Vernon."
Malburg, his wife, son and Malkenhorst are expected in Superior Court today for arraignment. If he is convicted on all 18 counts, Malkenhorst would face up to 21 years in prison while Malburg would face up to seven years.
The five-square-mile city has one of the smallest populations in California but a heavy concentration of manufacturing that draws 44,000 workers each day.
The election earlier this year focused national attention on Vernon, but within the city, some residents and business owners remained loyal to the mayor.
Residents said city leaders gave them discounts on rent for their apartments while business owners say the city is well run.
But Philip Reavis, a former Vernon Chamber of Commerce president who ran for office in 1980, said he was gratified that prosecutors examined the way business runs in the city.
"Who needs a limousine going into Vernon?" he said, referring to Malkenhorst.
As for the indicted mayor, Reavis added: "I always looked at Vernon after my experience like it was a big Erector set that Malburg inherited."
Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2006
Attorneys cost over $1.1 million last fiscal year
By Chris Moran
CHULA VISTA -- South County's high school board has scrapped a $200-an-hour contract with its main attorneys in favor of a $320,400-a-year deal designed to rein in legal spending that topped $1.1 million in the year ending June 30.
The Sweetwater Union High School District board renegotiated the contract after The San Diego Union-Tribune reported in July that the district's legal bills rose by 77 percent in one year. Burke, Williams and Sorensen, the district's main law firm, billed the district $840,279 for the year that ended June 30.
The district used several other firms on a smaller scale, which accounted for $300,000 more in legal costs.
"We look forward to our costs going down this year," said board President Greg Sandoval. However, he said, "In the end it depends on what legal issues come up during the course of the year."
The board voted 4-0 Monday night, with trustee Pearl Quiones absent, to approve the new contract. It caps normal legal services, but does not cover what the agreement calls "extraordinary" matters, such as lawsuits and hearings, labor negotiations and investigations of district employees.
There were at least two such investigations last year.
One targeted an employee suspected of conspiring with a contractor to overcharge the district for paving. Another was of a principal who resigned amid allegations that she stole from her middle school, including a treadmill so large she built a room around it in her home.
Last year, the district also assumed the costs of defending and settling a lawsuit filed by a former principal who contended she was demoted for filing a sexual harassment complaint. Yet more legal bills mounted because of construction-defect lawsuits as the district nears completion of a building program of more than $300 million.
Under the old contract, the district's main attorney, Bonifacio Garcia, had been billing the district for drive time and mileage from his Los Angeles office.
The district was being charged more than $1,100 per visit before Garcia ever set foot in the district's Fifth Avenue headquarters in Chula Vista. He routinely attends board meetings, though some other sizable local districts have an attorney present at board meetings only when a legal issue is identified ahead of time.
Sweetwater relied on Garcia for its recently completed 14-month search for a superintendent, much more than other districts have used attorneys in recent searches. In fact, the district was billed for nine hours of Garcia's time on a day the board met with a former elementary school superintendent who was never officially a candidate for the Sweetwater job.
The new contract is with Garcia Calderon Ruiz, which Garcia formed with attorneys he took with him from Burke, Williams and Sorensen.
See http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20061026-9999-1m26legal.html.
San Diego Union Tribune, October 26, 2006
After 6-Month Delay, Choices of Vernon Voters Are Known;
Sequestered since April, ballots from the city's first contested election in 25 years are counted. The incumbents win
Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writer
Better luck in 2031?
The first contested election the industrial town of Vernon had in 25 years has come to an end. On Thursday, in a standing-room-only chamber in City Hall and amid a collective titter of expectancy, ballots from the April election were finally counted.
History was made, but it was repeat history: The three men who moved into the city, who weathered an eviction, court challenges and gun-toting private investigators, had forced an election. But as has been the case for the better part of half a century, the challengers lost to longtime incumbents.
Sixty-eight ballots -- sequestered in a red box for six months as legal challenges to the election made their way through the courts -- were counted in this city of 93 residents. The challengers got 10 votes.
When the results were read, the crowd broke into applause.
The small chamber was packed with city employees, including utility workers and firefighters, many of whom live in city-owned houses that are heavily subsidized. In the build-up to the ballot counting, they commented on the large crowd.
"I think we're exceeding our fire capacity," one employee said.
"It's OK; our firefighters are here," another replied.
Most of the votes were for longtime Councilmen Thomas Ybarra and Michael McCormick and Mayor Leonis Malburg, whose grandfather co-founded Vernon and who has served on the council for half a century. Most residents live in homes owned by the city.
Two of the challengers -- Don Huff, 42, and David Johnson, 25 -- stood disappointed outside Vernon City Hall after the count. A third challenger, Alejandro Lopez, was not present.
Huff, who has lived for periods out of his sport utility vehicle after being evicted from his home in Vernon, said the city would never again go a quarter-century without an election.
"I'm going to do the Arnold Schwarzenegger thing and say, 'I'll be back,' " Huff said. "From now on, it's going to get tighter and tighter and tighter for them."
Huff said he learned a lot from challenging the city.
"When I come back on the playing field -- which is going to be real quick -- I'm going to know all their strategies," Huff said. "There's not a dang thing I don't know.... I'm still going to fight to get on that seat."
But for others, including business owners, the defeat of the three challengers was a victory.
"If it isn't broke, don't fix it," said Bill Sallenbach, vice president of Steel Services Grinding. The challengers "were just here to line their own pockets.... What did they have to offer the city? Nothing."
His uncle, Steve Schaffer, said: "All of the business people in the city of Vernon are really pro-Vernon. I wish other cities were organized and run in the business-like manner in which this city is."
Some Vernon officials, including the former city administrator -- and father of current City Clerk Bruce V. Malkenhorst Jr. -- are under criminal investigation by the district attorney's office for alleged misuse of public funds and vote fraud.
But Schaffer said such things did not bother him.
"Whatever was done by the people who run this city or ran this city in the past, they have been pro-business, and they've always thought business," Schaffer said. "And they've always taken care of the city."
The counting of the ballots culminated a bizarre election that captured national attention and focused new attention on a town that critics say operates more like a feudal fiefdom than a local democracy.
It began in January when eight strangers moved into a small building in the tiny city four miles south of downtown Los Angeles. Within days, three of them had filed petitions to run for the City Council.
Shortly afterward, city utility trucks shut off their power and inspectors slapped red tags on the building, decreeing it uninhabitable. The residents were placed under surveillance by investigators -- two of whom were arrested in South Pasadena for allegedly pointing guns. Eventually, city police and officials drilled holes in the locks and evicted the would-be office seekers.
The three candidates' voter registrations were canceled by the city clerk, who accused them of being part of a plot led by convicted former South Gate treasurer Albert T. Robles to take power in the industry-rich town.
County election officials subsequently said the city clerk had no authority to cancel voter registrations, and a Superior Court judge later ruled that the election should go forward. But after the ballots were collected April 11, a judge ruled that the city could sequester the ballots until the litigation was resolved.
The attorney for the three challengers, also named Albert Robles, objected to the ballot counting, arguing that there could be no assurances that the secrecy of the ballots had been secured.
He said that history did not support the belief that Vernon officials would allow a fair election to go forward, and that in the past they have disqualified votes and tried to cancel other elections.
In the crowded City Council chamber, Robles argued with Linda Hudson, an election consultant hired by the city to oversee voting. Hudson said she ensured that everything was done ethically. She said she was the only person with a key to the vault that held the ballot box.
Robles' persistent questions were met with guffaws from the audience. One woman gave her cellphone to another so she could take a picture of him.
When a television reporter asked Robles if he could move to allow for a better shot of the ballots, someone in the gallery cracked to Robles: "You're short, but not that short."
After everyone had filed out of the chamber, Robles said he and his clients would consider whether to file an appeal. But he did not sound optimistic.
However, he brightened when noting a surprise in the vote tally. He said including those of Huff, Lopez and Johnson, they had expected only eight votes. But his clients got 10, Robles said.
The residents of Vernon "succumbed to the pressure of living in city-subsidized housing and being employed by the city," he said. "But we do celebrate that at least two residents in the city of Vernon had the courage to vote for the challengers."
Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2006
Wal-Mart opens
By Christina L. Esparza Staff Writer
ROSEMEAD - The Wal-Mart Supercenter that spurred the upcoming recall election opened Wednesday after the City Council took an action some contend broke state open-meeting laws.
Wal-Mart officials said late last month the store would open in "early fall," but the City Council on Tuesday directed staff to grant permits allowing the retailer to open Wednesday morning.
City officials said issuing a permit is normally done without council action. However, it took a unanimous vote to discuss issuing the certificate, and Councilwoman Margaret Clark moved to direct the planning director to give Wal-Mart the permits early, officials said.
"The people want it open," said Councilman Jay Imperial. "They would have wanted it a month ago, two months ago."
City Attorney Pete Wallin said Wal-Mart asked for the permits before it finished some landscaping work, and the planning director didn't want to grant it without council approval.
Melissa O'Brien, spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said store officials are glad the store is finally open, amid all the controversy surrounding it.
The motion to grant the permits passed 3-2 with Councilmen John Tran and John Nunez casting the dissenting votes.
Critics say the action was a clear violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which governs how public meetings are conducted, because it was an action taken without being on the council's agenda.
"Their illegal action has jeopardized the city and its residents," Tran said. "Obviously, this maneuver was an act of desperation and puts into question who controls the city - Wal-Mart or the people?"
The Brown Act does allow an item not on the agenda to be acted upon if four-fifths of the council agrees "an emergency situation exists."
But Terry Francke, counsel for Californians Aware - an open-meetings advocacy group - said the council needs to make a preliminary finding that an immediate action needs to be taken, and the issue was not known to the agency while the agenda was being prepared.
"I really believe when it says there is a need to take immediate action, the need must be the public's need, not the need of a private company," Francke said. "What is it that prevented Wal-Mart from approaching the city while the agenda was being prepared, indicating the need for the request?"
Planning Director Brad Johnson said his office was going to issue the permits within the next couple days anyway.
Wallin said the Garvey School District and anti-Wal-Mart group Save our Community - which are suing the company and city over the Supercenter - asked a judge Wednesday morning to place an injunction on the store's opening until the trial set for next week is over. The judge denied the request, officials said.
The store's opening comes less than a week before voters decide whether Wal-Mart supporters Mayor Gary Taylor and Imperial should stay in office.
Their support in 2004 of the nation's largest retailer prompted members of the community to launch a recall campaign after two other Wal-Mart supporters were ousted from office in 2005.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, September 14, 2006
Montebello votes to fire attorney
By Pam Wight Staff Writer
MONTEBELLO - In a surprise move, the City Council voted 3-2 in a special closed-session meeting Tuesday to fire City Attorney Marco Martinez.
The council also voted to appoint attorney John Pringle as interim city attorney until a permanent replacement can be found.
Both votes to get rid of the law firm of Best Best & Krieger were by a 3-2 majority consisting of Council members Norma Lopez-Reid, Jeff Siccama and Mayor Bob Bagwell. Martinez works for the law firm and also serves as assistant city attorney for Colton, Azusa and Big Bear Lake.
The meeting was called by Bagwell in an effort to push through what he said had been stalling tactics by the two dissenting council members, Bill Molinari and Rosie Vasquez, in regards to Martinez's evaluation.
"I'm the one who put it on the agenda because we've been waiting for three months to get an evaluation done \," Bagwell told the council in response to questions about who had called the meeting and why.
The last-minute call for a special meeting surprised even Martinez.
"I found out about it at the same time everybody else did," Martinez said. "I'm grateful for the opportunity the council gave me and proud of our accomplishments. They have a wonderful staff that they should treasure."
When Vasquez and Molinari demanded explanations as to why the move could not wait for the next regular meeting on Sept. 13, Lopez-Reid blamed them for holding up Martinez's evaluation process for months.
"Unfortunately, the make up of this council doesn't allow business to take place," Lopez-Reid said. "I feel badly that Mr. Martinez didn't get more feedback from us, but my biggest concern is the council's inability to move forward on things."
Bagwell echoed Lopez-Reid's sentiments after the meeting, but pointed to Martinez specifically as having failed to properly control the council's often raucous debates.
"He was as upset and frustrated as we were," Bagwell said. "But I felt he had no control of the proceedings. Why should we as a body continue with a city attorney who can't control the council? We can't move forward on anything."
City Administrator Richard Torres said the council had directed staff to negotiate a short-term agreement with Pringle by the Sept. 13 meeting.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, August 30, 2006
Open meetings: DA vs. cities
By Ruby Gonzales, Staff Writer
COVINA - At its Dec. 20 meeting, the Covina City Council received a visit from Santa Claus, heard a resident complain about drivers running red lights at Puente and Grand avenues and talked about cracking down on taggers.
That same night, the three members of the council present changed hats and met as the Covina Redevelopment Agency. They then went into closed session to discuss a $1.75 million loan to Bert's Motorcycle and Watercraft Mega-Mall, which wanted to expand and remodel its 128,000-square-foot building on Azusa Avenue.
When Peggy Delach, John King and George Chadwickcame out of closed session, they approved the deal. It included reimbursing Bert's owner, Seidner Enterprises Inc., an additional $2.25 million over 10 years for construction costs.
That decision has propelled the Covina Redevelopment Agency into a legal battle with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, which alleges the agency violated the state's open-meeting law when it went into closed session. Prosecutors sued the agency on March 2.
Each side interprets the Ralph M. Brown Act differently.
Prosecutors say the redevelopment agency broke the law because its discussions of the loan went from being an open-session issue to a closed-session item. Covina officials say that the Brown Act allows them to meet in closed session in this particular instance.
"We are merely attempting to point out to the District Attorney's Office, and we've done that on numerous instances, that the Brown Act allows for closed-session meetings on real property negotiations," said Covina City Manager Paul Philips. "There's just a deep division on what their view is and ours."
The Brown Act was created in 1953 to ensure elected bodies don't make decisions without the public knowing. It requires all meetings be held in public. But it does allow agencies in certain circumstances to meet behind closed doors, such as when they need to talk about employee salaries and benefits, pending lawsuits and real property negotiations.
"It boils down to a simple concept: Everything you do has to be in public unless you can exert a specific exception," said District Attorney Steve Cooley.
Covina officials deny they violated the Brown Act.
"The District Attorney's Office has no right to assign guilt or innocence. Just because they said we violated the law doesn't mean we did," Philips said.
Public access watchdogs say it's not unusual for cities to say they didn't violate the Brown Act or disagree with the prosecutor's interpretation of it. What is rare is to fight it in court.
"I would say it's unprecedented," said Terry Francke, legal counsel for the nonprofit Californians Aware, which advocates for open government. "What they usually say is: We see it differently but we're not looking for a fight."
The Covina case marks only the second time L.A. County prosecutors have sued a governing body for possible violation of the Brown Act. More often, a letter from the District Attorney's Office is enough to get agencies to comply, said Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Snyder.
"Our goal is compliance. We want the law followed," said Snyder, one of two deputy district attorneys who handle Brown Act complaints. "The fact there's only been two lawsuits speaks to the fact that most agencies comply."
Philips said Covina officials asked to meet with prosecutors several times but were rebuffed. He said they have never interviewed him, the city attorney or any of the city staff. He said prosecutors asked for and were provided documents, including an audio tape of the Dec. 20 meeting.
Philips said prosecutors also rejected his suggestion to hire a retired judge to listen to both sides' points of view.
"What is the harm in sitting down and discussing differences in opinion? Sending letters back and forth and filing lawsuits - it's a tremendous waste of public funds of the county and city," he said.
Philips said he isn't trying to stir up things and added that the city has a high regard for the District Attorney's Office.
"They need to tell us how the Brown Act will be handled," Philips said. "There has to be a dialogue. A lawsuit doesn't serve anyone. It's unfortunate but we have to defend ourselves."
But as it prepares to defend itself in the lawsuit, Covina has been accused of trying to harass and muzzle two critics. One of them, former Mayor Bob Low, wrote the complaint that led to the District Attorney's lawsuit.
Covina's lawyer, Jennifer Pancake, served subpoenas to Low and Stephen Millard, who are witnesses to the lawsuit. Both were told to appear at depositions and to provide 10 years' worth of documents - from letters to the editors to this newspaper to communications with prosecutors.
Low and Millard say the city is harassing them and trying to make them an example to others. Pancake denies that accusation. She said Covina is entitled to find out what witnesses know as part of discovery.
Snyder, the deputy district attorney, declined to discuss the Covina case because it is an ongoing litigation. But she said the District Attorney's Office does receive requests to sit down and meet with agencies.
"Our job is not to advise but to enforce," she said. "The most reasonable minds may differ, but we don't believe the appropriate forum is a sit-down, closed-door meeting."
The District Attorney's Office often participates in panel discussions held by organizations about the Brown Act. Prosecutors say they do a lot of training and outreach to make people aware.
"When city attorneys disagree with our analysis, they can go to court. We can go to court," Cooley said.
The Public Integrity Division
In Los Angeles County, the job of making sure city councils, school boards and other agencies follow the Brown Act falls to the District Attorney's Public Integrity Division, which was established five years ago.
The division is just a small part of a department with 965 deputy district attorneys, about 250 investigators and an operating budget of $288 million.
Comprised of eight attorneys and 12 investigators, the Public Integrity Division is also responsible for investigating complaints of corruption and wrongdoings by government agencies and officials.
From 2001 to 2005, the division received 204 complaints of Brown Act violations and dispatched 51 letters to agencies notifying them of their mistakes. Called a "cure and correct" letter by Snyder, each explains what steps must be taken to correct the alleged violations. An agency has 30 days to respond to the letter.
Violating the Brown Act is a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and a maximum of six months in jail. But the division hasn't filed a criminal case against anyone. Prosecutors mostly rely on the letters to get their message across. But if needed, the Public Integrity Division can file a civil lawsuit.
"Our ultimate goal is compliance, not prosecution," said Snyder, who is second in command at the division.
She and Dave Demerjian, who heads the unit, handle Brown Act complaints.
Since its creation, the unit also has filed 125 felony cases against politicians and their associates. And the most recent figures show it obtained 77 convictions, including that of former Compton Mayor Omar Bradley and attorney Pierce O'Donnell, who pleaded no contest to laundering campaign funds for former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn.
The office files charges in about 7 percent of the cases it looks at, Demerjian said.
"I don't care about politics," Demerjian said. "I only care about crime."
The division receives an average of 338 complaints of all types to review and investigate each year. It only handles written complaints.
About 80 percent of those complaints aren't crimes at all and are closed, Demerjian said.
But the issue that keeps the division busy is enforcing a law that in the past has been widely ignored - the Brown Act.
Snyder or Demerjian will review complaints of possible Brown Act violations. If there's enough information about the alleged violation, they will open an investigation.
She said typically, a Brown Act violation can be assessed by looking at the meeting agenda, the minutes of the meeting and listening to recordings of the meeting. There could be circumstances when investigators will be sent to talk to people, she added. They also will check if the agency was the subject of a prior complaint.
When prosecutors send out letters, Snyder said they usually get 99 percent compliance.
She said the types of complaints run the gamut.
The division can't reveal the names of whoever makes a complaint. It's privileged information under the state evidence code. But in certain cases, the names do come out. That was true in the Covina case.
The unit also doesn't publicize the names of the agencies being investigated.
"Anybody can make an allegation about anything. ... We are cognizant an allegation is not true until proven," Snyder said.
Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, said she doesn't recall her office ever issuing a press release saying an agency received a "cure and correct" letter or that somebody was being investigated for allegedly violating the Brown Act.
But the District Attorney's Office will verify if such an agency is being investigated or received such a letter.
Other incidents
Covina isn't the only local agency to allegedly run afoul of the open meeting law.
In February, the Public Integrity Division sued the Renaissance Academy Charter School, which was then located in West Los Angeles, for alleged Brown Act violations. Snyder said it was the first group to be sued by the division. The lawsuit was settled shortly after it was filed and the case was dismissed a month later.
"In general, they were not giving proper notice, meeting in closed session improperly and not allowing \ public in meetings," Snyder said.
She said the school, which was interested in complying, didn't understand the law. The school later secured an attorney to help them. The board agendas later showed the school had complied, eliminating the need for a lawsuit, Snyder said.
Knar Mouhibian, chairwoman of the school board, said they were basically picked on by a group of people who were calling the District Attorney's Office and making allegations.
She said the District Attorney's Office filed the lawsuit to protect the statute of limitations. They were sued while they were arguing the technicalities of one issue with prosecutors. They settled quickly.
"It was a mutual working it out. The lady at the District Attorney's Office was very nice, not mean to us or anything. They just had to follow up on these complaints," she said.
In Pico Rivera, the City Council had to cancel its previous decision to give then-City Manager Dennis Courtemarche a pay raise after prosecutors alleged a Brown Act violation.
In July 2003, a council majority voted to give Courtemarche a $40,000 raise. But in October 2003, the District Attorney's Office said the council violated the Brown Act by discussing pay raises for Courtemarche and Assistant City Manager Ann Negendank in closed session.
Prosecutors told the council to repeal the raise, which they did.
The council voted a second time on a pay raise for Courtemarche, but it failed 3-2. The issue came up again in 2004 and was successful.
"The District Attorney's Office said through the city attorney, `There's a little gray area here. To clear it up this is what I suggest you do,"' said Pico Rivera Mayor Pete Ramirez, who voted against the raise.
"The bottom line is, it was a gray area, not totally totally wrong. They fixed it and that was it," he said. Ramirez doesn't know who filed the complaint. He said the council didn't consider challenging prosecutors.
"Why? I'm a retired police officer. If it's wrong, it's wrong," Ramirez said. "The legal counsel said it was best to follow what the District Attorney's Office said."
Ramirez said he has no problems with the Public Integrity Division. He said the unit has to do what it has to do. He considers it a good checks-and- balances system.
In 2000, residents sued the Whittier City School District over its decision to construct a new elementary school on property next to the district office. The plan would have called for homes and a park to be taken.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge decided that the district violated the Brown Act by not properly disclosing items related to the school site in its closed-session meeting agendas and secretly deciding on a location before the public vote on June 30, 2000.
School officials appealed and lost. In February 2002, a state appeals court upheld the lower court ruling.
The District Attorney's Office conducted a criminal investigation. The school district rescinded its vote on the school site after that probe. Officials in the District Attorney's Office said they also believed the school district had violated the Brown Act.
Law is tough to enforce
Francke of Californians Aware said it's difficult to prosecute the Brown Act as a crime thanks to lobbying by city associations and school districts. He said it's also a difficult crime to prove.
He used speeding as an analogy. To prove speeding, police only need to show that the driver exceeded the speed limit.
But if police used the requirements to meet a Brown Act violation, Francke said officers would have to show the driver was aware they were speeding and intended to hurt somebody.
One could still enforce the act without resorting to filing a criminal lawsuit, he said.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, August 6, 2006
Legal costs leaking funds from Otay Water District;
But officials say troubles are over
by Anne Krueger, Staff Writer
SPRING VALLEY -- With legal expenses of more than $500,000 this year, the Otay Water District is still spending a lot more for lawyers than other water districts in the county.
But Otay officials say that much of their legal bills now are for items that a water district should be paying for: dealing with contracts, advising the board or settling with a homeowner when a pipe breaks.
Otay General Manager Mark Watton said the legal budget was a marked improvement from what he called "the dark days" when the district was filled with dissension and legal problems. Those issues culminated in 2004, when the district spent $2.2 million in legal bills.
Otay officials say they're now able to focus on providing water to about 48,000 customers in a rapidly growing section of southeastern San Diego County, instead of worrying about infighting among board members and lawsuits from fired employees.
The water district serves southern El Cajon, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, eastern Chula Vista, Eastlake and Otay Mesa.
The lessening of tension is reflected in the budget for legal costs, Watton said.
"Our legal agenda is about as boring as our board agendas," he said.
At their meeting this week, board members agreed to a yearlong contract with the law firm of Garcia Calderon Ruiz, which includes a retainer of $262,500.
Yuri Calderon and Aerobel Banuelos, the district's attorneys, had been with the law firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, which has represented the district since 2001. Burke Williams is closing its San Diego office, and Calderon and Banuelos, along with 13 other attorneys, are forming a new firm.
The law firm had been closely involved with some of the controversies the water district faced. Ruben Rodriguez, the district's former auditor, claimed in a lawsuit that he was fired in July 2001 after he was told to investigate questionable hirings and massive legal bills. A Superior Court jury decided in favor of the water district.
Tom Harron filed suit in 2001 after he was fired as the district's attorney and replaced with the Burke Williams firm. Harron's lawsuit is still pending.
Another pending lawsuit was filed by six employees who said they were fired in early 2001 because of a scheme to have them replaced by Latinos. The suit was filed in San Diego County Superior Court after it was dismissed in federal court.
The district also incurred legal expenses to obtain a restraining order in May 2002 against then-board member Tony Inocentes, prohibiting him from harassing two other board members, then-general manager Bob Griego and others.
The legal troubles caused Otay's attorney fees to swell to $1.3 million in fiscal 2002, more than $1 million in 2003, and $2.2 million in 2004.
Watton said legal bills were starting to go down. The district spent about $852,000 in 2005 and $577,000 this fiscal year.
He said actual legal expenses were lower because the district had recovered or expected to be reimbursed by its insurance company for some legal expenses. The district also received a settlement of almost $1 million when it successfully sued its first attorney in the Rodriguez civil suit, claiming he wasn't prepared for trial.
In contrast, other water districts of comparable size pay much less for their annual legal expenses. The Helix Water District, with more than 54,000 customers, paid about $266,000 for legal expenses last year, and $207,000 the year before, General Manager Mark Weston said.
The Padre Dam Municipal Water District, with more than 23,800 customers, paid about $157,000 in legal bills last year, and $212,000 the year before.
Watton said Otay's legal bills were high in part because the district was growing so quickly. The number of customers is predicted to nearly double within the next 15 years, he said, to about 80,000 a year.
Legal expenses
Otay Water District's legal costs by fiscal year (July to June):
2002 $1,348,480
2003 $1,026,061
2004 $2,215,608
2005 $852,284
2006 $577,691
San Diego Union-Tribune, August 6, 2006
City officials under fire for trip to China
By Christina L. Esparza Staff Writer
WEST COVINA - Two councilmen returned from a taxpayer-funded trip to China this week, prompting criticism from a colleague who claims he and the public were left in the dark.
Councilman Mike Touhey - who traveled with Mayor Steve Herfert on the five-day trip - said he kept the excursion quiet for the home and family's safety and fully disclosed the details of his visit when he returned Tuesday.
The two were part of a 20-member delegation to Shanghai led by the Southern California Association of Governments to study Maglev, a high-speed train that can travel 20miles in eight minutes, Towhee said.
Touhey told the city manager and staff to keep his whereabouts private until he got back. Councilman Roger Hernandez said he asked if his colleagues were on a trip on official city business and staff and City Manager Andrew Pasmant refused to provide details.
"I believe it would be irresponsible to put council members and their families and their property at risk," Pasmant wrote in an e-mail to Hern ndez.
Instructing the staff to keep the trip under wraps, Hernandez argued, may violate a voter-approved ordinance that states: "The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly held meeting of the city council and no individual councilman shall give any orders of instruction to the city manager."
"This is like a spouse not telling their partner that they're off to Europe on family business," Hernandez said. "Last I checked, this is a five-member council, but once again, my colleagues continue to behave like it's a four-member deal."
However, Touhey said, he and Herfert - who did not return phone calls seeking comment - were not required to disclose their whereabouts under state law until they got back.
"I don't publicize when my home is vacant," Touhey said. "Roger is \ ... bachelor, and I have a wife and kids. I have to protect my wife and kids."
Pasmant said he did not have the specifics of the trip while the pair was away, and anyway would not have given them out for security reasons.
He said he had firsthand knowledge of how people can take advantage of an empty home, and the security and privacy of the council members and their families are a prime concern.
"Who has the right to know and security is the reason I felt it was paramount ... to protect individuals' right and their families," Pasmant said.
Hernandez contends an official city trip kept from other council members is highly unusual, since the members are informed of them weekly.
SCAG paid for Herfert's trip. Touhey, who stayed for five extra days on his own, said he paid upfront for his trip and expects to be reimbursed by the West Covina Community Development Commission.
Touhey estimated the cost of the trip at between $2,100 and $2,400. He said he does not know how much he will be reimbursed.
In Baldwin Park, Councilman David Olivas said each council member knows when colleagues go on a trip to a conference or other city-related event out of town.
"Any city trips are public records and council members are informed in the city of Baldwin Park of such trips," Olivas said.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, July 27, 2006
Mayor asks critic to speak under oath
By Christina L. Esparza Staff Writer
WEST COVINA - John Scheuplein stood behind a microphone and swore to a room full of people to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Routine in a courtroom setting.
But this was West Covina City Hall and Scheuplein, 66, was speaking in front of the City Council at a July 13 public hearing on the sale of some property at the BKK landfill.
"What they're trying to do is circumvent public content," said Scheuplein, 66, a former City Council candidate and a critic who has spoken his mind to the council for nearly
20 years.
Sometimes he speaks as often as six times in one night, but said he's never before been asked to swear in.
This time, however, Mayor Steve Herfert spurred some collective head-scratching in the room when he requested the city attorney swear Scheuplein in because he started to make accusations against Councilman Mike Touhey.
Culver Heaton, Glendora's assistant city manager, has been regularly attending meetings for about 35 years in different positions.
"I've never seen something like that take place in the city of Glendora," Heaton said. "I can't think of any time someone was required to testify under oath."
Herfert did not return calls for comment.
Touhey said he supports free speech, but Scheuplein was making unfounded, slanderous accusations and should be held accountable like everyone else.
"He makes these accusations and he leaves them out there," Touhey said, adding Scheuplein is a witness in an ongoing civil lawsuit between the city and West Covina Motors owner Ziad Alhassen.
"I'm not saying \ is always the thing to do, yet it's not every time someone who is a witness in an ongoing civil case \. That's what concerns me," he added.
Candy Toscano, Azusa's assistant city manager, said for the 11 years she's been recording council meetings, no resident has been sworn in while addressing the council.
"I have never witnessed that," she said.
Heaton said, the rules and procedures vary in each city, and West Covina has a provision in the government code that allows the mayor to ask a resident to swear in.
The code states: "The presiding officer may require any person to be sworn as a witness before addressing the council on any subject. Any such person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify truthfully, willfully and contrary to such oath states as true any material matter which he knows to be false maybe held to answer criminally and subject to the penalty prescribed for perjury by the provisions of the Penal Code of the state."
Yet, argued Councilman Roger Hernandez, when Scheuplein attacked him during public comment, Scheuplein was never asked to swear in. He said he thought Herfert's request was meant to intimidate residents.
"The majority of the years I've been on the City Council, Mr. Scheuplein was critical of me, but it would never have been appropriate for me to attempt to deny his First Amendment right," Hern ndez said. "Apparently, when he was attacking me, it wasn't a problem."
Terry Francke, legal adviser for Californians Aware open meetings advocacy group, said in public hearings, witnesses can be asked to swear in, but it has to be all witnesses, not just those the mayor thinks may be suspect.
No other speakers were asked to swear in.
"The \ do not permit a city council or other local bodies to insist on people being sworn in when they're simply addressing the council on miscellaneous pieces of business" under the Ralph M. Brown Act governing public meetings, Francke said.
Scheuplein said he will not concede his right to scrutinize elected officials because of what happened.
"When you ask to be an elected official, you put yourself in the position to be criticized," he said.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, July 23, 2006
Inquest called too broad
By Ruby Gonzales Staff Writer
COVINA - A lawyer for two residents who were served with subpoenas by Covina said Friday he will seek a protective order to stop their depositions unless Covina's attorney responds to his demand to meet before Tuesday.
Nolan King is representing city critics Bob Low and Stephen Millard for free. He said several issues need to be resolved before his clients can be deposed.
Covina is defending itself against a lawsuit filed by the District Attorney's Public Integrity Division over alleged violations of state open-meeting laws. As part of its defense, Covina on July 3 served Low and Millard with subpoenas seeking 10 years of personal documents and recordings, including letters to this newspaper and correspondence with the DA's Office.
King said he faxed a letter Thursday asking to meet and confer with the city's litigator, Jennifer Pancake, before Tuesday. If he doesn't get a response before then, King said he will ask the court to stop the depositions, which are scheduled Thursday for Low and Friday for Millard in City Attorney Ed Lee's Los Angeles office.
King wants the depositions to be held in Covina. And he said the subpoenas are overly broad.
"Come forward and tell us what they're looking for," King said. "Don't take depositions to harass these guys. They know these guys are on a limited income. If they want legitimate information, we will give it to them."
Pancake said she got the letter late Thursday and will answer it before King's deadline.
"I'll definitely be responding to it because I don't agree with his interpretations," she said.
The subpoenas ask for Millard and Low to provide items dating to Jan. 1, 1996, including a list of council and redevelopment meetings they attended; documents related or referring to Bert's Motorcycle and Watercraft Mega-Mall and correspondence with a deputy district attorney, the Attorney General's Office, the city and other people. The subpoenas cover e-mails, recordings, notes and telegrams.
City officials said the two men got the subpoenas because they were identified by prosecutors as witnesses to the lawsuit by the District Attorney's Office against the Covina Redevelopment Agency.
Prosecutors sued the agency March 2 saying it violated the Brown Act when it held a closed session Dec. 20 to discuss a loan to Bert's Motorcycle and Watercraft Mega-Mall. The issue went from being an open-session item to a closed-session item.
The agency, which later approved the loan that night, claims it could meet in closed session under the real property negotiations exception.
In his letter to Covina's attorneys, King pointed out that:
The date, place and time of the depositions create a hardship for his clients. The incident happened in Covina, the two men live in the city and there is no reason why the depositions shouldn't take place here.
Millard has jury duty on the date of his deposition and Low will be preparing for a vacation around that time. King will be trying a case and won't be available on the deposition date.
The Notice to Produce Documents is confusing as to time and substance. Pancake listed three items which attempt to compel his clients to give legal opinions as to documents they believe would violate the Brown Act.
Pancake is asking Low and Millard to produce documents and records generated by the city and are presently on the city's Web site.
Neither Low nor Millard are parties to the lawsuit, which was brought by the District Attorney's Office.
King said the city is harassing his clients.
"The two most critical speakers at city meetings are Low and Millard. And lo and behold, they're the only ones subpoenaed," King said.
"If the city is really acting in good faith, they will continue the depositions to a reasonable date and tell us what they want."
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, July 22, 2006
Sweetwater racks up large, clouded legal bill
Descriptions of services left off released forms
CHULA VISTA -- The Sweetwater Union High School District busted its legal budget halfway through the fiscal year that ended June 30.
Sweetwater reports it spent more than $1 million on legal services for the year, 77 percent more than in the past fiscal year, with some expenses for June yet to be logged.
It's tough to tell why.
Through a public-records request, The San Diego Union-Tribune got invoices documenting the district's legal bills, but the descriptions of services rendered were redacted by order of the district's general counsel, Bonifacio Garcia, who is based in Los Angeles.
With no detail of services, the public can't know if an attorney was working on a lawsuit, advising a board member or attending a board meeting.
Garcia said the billings are not merely descriptions but status reports on legal work, which could reveal strategy to opponents if they were made available to the public.
That may be true in a few instances, but most of the information would not give away any secrets, said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition.
The systematic redacting in over 1,000 pages of legal bills of every single description of the services rendered can only reflect a knee-jerk impulse for secrecy," Scheer said. "It also underscores how forgetful public officials are that this information belongs to the public."
Garcia himself billed the district as much as 15.3 hours in a day, and $131,708 between July 1, 2005, and the end of May. The district has not yet produced June's invoices.
Garcia's legal meter starts running hours before he sets foot in the board room. In what Garcia terms "portal-to-portal"; billing, he begins charging Sweetwater $200 an hour for his time the minute he leaves Los Angeles for a 2-hour commute to Chula Vista. He also charges for the drive back and $133.50 in mileage expenses.
That means it costs Sweetwater more than $1,100 to have Garcia at a board meeting, in addition to time he spends on open-and closed-session deliberations.
When asked why he doesn't dispatch a San Diego-based attorney to the meetings, Garcia said, "This is a business that is a service business, and it depends on who the client is comfortable with."
Nor does it mean he's the best attorney of the bunch, he said, but it's the choice of the board to use an attorney with whom it has a decade of experience.
"We're not widgets," Garcia said. "It's about the confidence of the client in the counsel."
Board President Greg Sandoval said he believes Garcia can use drive time to talk with Sweetwater staff by phone. But when asked why the board doesn't use a San Diego-based attorney to save on the $1,100-per-meeting cost, he said, "I guess we're going to have to review that."
Months ago Garcia presented district trustees with his findings that Sweetwater's legal bills are in line with those of similar-sized districts in Northern California.
However, the Sweetwater school board appears to have leaned more heavily on attorneys than most other local boards. Garcia attends every Sweetwater board meeting, joined the board for a series of interviews with superintendent candidates during spring and sat in on a Saturday exploratory conversation with former Chula Vista Elementary Superintendent Libby Gil that Sandoval avoided calling a job interview.
San Diego city schools has its own attorneys, and one sits on the dais with the board at meetings. Sweetwater, with 42,000 seventh-through 12th-graders, is the county's second-largest school district, and it contracts with several firms for legal advice, as do other local districts.
But the third-, fourth-and fifth-largest local districts -- Poway Unified, Chula Vista Elementary and Vista Unified -- only have an attorney present at board meetings when a particularly controversial issue is on the agenda. The next-largest district, Grossmont Union High, has an attorney present at every board meeting.
Garcia said he could not comment on why he was at the superintendent candidate interviews during spring and why he's not attending this week's interviews. Spokeswomen for the Oceanside and Poway districts said attorneys were not present at their boards' interviews of the candidates who now hold the superintendent jobs.
Sandoval said Garcia sat in on interviews with four Sweetwater finalists so he could negotiate on the spot with a candidate of the board's choosing. On the day of a special board meeting on March 2, Garcia billed Sweetwater $3,060 for 15.3 hours of work.
At that time, Sandoval said, the board was negotiating with Anthony Monreal, superintendent of a much smaller Fresno-area district. But in mid-March the board announced it was seeking new candidates and never took a vote on Monreal.
In addition, Sweetwater was billed for 9.1 hours of Garcia's time on the day the board spoke with Gil, who was never officially a candidate.
On Monday, the Sweetwater board is scheduled to consider approving a contract with Garcia's new firm. He's leaving Burke, Williams & Sorensen to form his own firm, Garcia Calderon Ruiz. He's taking his team of Sweetwater attorneys with him.
He's also taking his clients. Southwestern College, San Ysidro School District and Otay Water District, which also use Burke, Williams & Sorensen, will consider making the same change at upcoming board meetings. Those other agencies use San Diego-based attorneys at their board meetings.
After doing some litigation for the district in the early 1990s, Garcia was contracted to become the district's chief attorney in 1996. Garcia was in Los Angeles even then, so he established a San Diego office for local attorneys who could serve Sweetwater on legal matters outside of direct work with the board.
Garcia has donated to the election campaigns of trustees Jim Cartmill, Arlie Ricasa and Sandoval. Campaign finance records show donations of $1,000 to Ricasa in 2001-02, $1,000 to Sandoval in 2002 and $975 to Cartmill in 2002.
In separate interviews, Garcia and Dianne Russo, the district's chief financial officer, said there are several reasons for the increase in legal costs:
The investigation of an employee suspected of conspiring with a paving contractor to overcharge the district for paving.
The investigation of a principal who resigned amid allegations that she stole property from her school, including a treadmill so large that she built a room around it in her Eastlake home.
The costs of defending and settling a lawsuit filed by a former principal who contended she was demoted for filing a sexual harassment complaint.
Construction defect lawsuits to correct substandard work among the hundreds of millions of dollars of school building projects done in recent years.
Garcia acknowledged that his time on the superintendent search probably helped boost Sweetwater's legal bills above their average. Billings to Burke, Williams & Sorensen were nearly $800,000 this year, Russo said. That's up from $442,441 in 2003-04 and $102,760 in 2002-03.
San Diego Union-Tribune
July 22, 2006
---------------------------------
Sweetwater's annual legal expenses:
2001-02 $ 495,267
2002-03 $ 451,425
2003-04 $ 639,494
2004-05 $ 603,919
2005-06* $ 1,070,863
Sweetwater's annual payments to Burke, Williams and Sorensen:
2001-02 $ 104,357
2002-03 $ 102,760
2003-04 $ 442,441
2004-05 $ 521,304
2005-06* $ 778,481
* Not all accounts for 2005-06 have been settled. Figures could increase.
Source: Sweetwater Union High School District
San Diego Union-Tribune
July 22, 2006
See article at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20060722-9999-6m22legal.html
In 4 months, $1 million in bills for Los Osos services district
Abraham Hyatt
Over a four-month period, legal and management firms charged Los Osos taxpayers almost $1 million to fight and settle multiple lawsuits, handle personnel issues and find a way to pay for a sewer project stalled by years of political infighting.
None of the bills, obtained by The Tribune through the California Public Records Act, exceed the terms in the firms' contracts with Los Osos Community Services District.
But administrative costs charged by the district's primary law firm, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, are high enough that one legal expert contacted by The Tribune chided the lawyers for turning their office equipment into what she described as profit centers.
Steven Onstot, an attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, declined to comment for this report.
The district paid its legal and management bills with money from a state loan until April, when a judge blocked it from using those funds.
District officials say they now will have to find a way to continue paying the approximately 23 lawyers, paralegals and engineers from the different firms it employs.
$1 a page, per fax
Between Dec. 1 and April 1, three law firms and one engineering firm charged the Los Osos district nearly $1 million.
About $332,600 of that was from bills submitted by Burke, Williams & Sorensen for work performed by 19 lawyers and paralegals.
While the district blacked-out the exact nature of the work from invoices, the firm's bills were grouped into several categories including board issues, sewage-treatment planning, and the various lawsuits filed against the district since it stopped construction on a long-planned-for sewer project in early October.
That move, which followed a recall election that replaced the majority of the district board, led to the loss of a crucial $135 million low-interest state loan, $6.6 million in fines from regional water quality regulators, and more than 15 lawsuits filed against the district by citizens groups, the contractors hired to build the project and regulatory agencies.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen's contract with the district spells out hourly rates for lawyers and paralegals that range from $105 per hour to $240 per hour, which are not unusual in the industry.
But the contract doesn't specify how much the firm would charge for expenses and administrative costs.
In that four-month period, Burke, Williams & Sorensen billed the district $1 for each page it faxed, and 20 cents for each page it copied - almost three times what copy shops such as FedEx Kinko's charge.
In all, the firm billed the services district a combined total of $942 for copying and faxing. That was one of the highest overhead-related bills.
In comparison, the firm charged $1,233 for driving between its Los Angeles offices and Los Osos, $206 for long distance and cell phone charges, and $39 for parking fees.
'Reprehensible'
"For a law firm to turn the fax machine and the photocopy machine into profit centers is unethical and is an embarrassment to the profession," said Lisa G. Lerman, a professor of law at Catholic University Law School in Washington, D.C., after The Tribune reviewed the firm's overhead costs with her.
Lerman argues that lawyers charge high hourly fees so they can cover staff salaries and overhead and that any additional charges should be billed at cost.
"For a firm to do this in billing a government agency is especially reprehensible," she said.
But other legal experts say a firm cannot perform some tasks at cost because of the additional staff required to complete them.
According to James C. Turner, the executive director of HALT, a legal-reform organization based in Washington, D.C., firms that bill two or three times the market rate for some services are not uncommon.
Turner said it's up to the party that hires the law firm to pay attention to the "frilly stuff around the edges" of the agreement.
"When they go into a situation, they have to be smart about it," he said.
The California State Bar, which would not comment for this report, recommends lawyers consider 11 different points when billing a client.
Those include looking at the amount of the fee compared to the value of the service performed and the time and labor required.
Officials justify costs
Lisa Schicker, the district board's president, said board members recalled in September are to blame for about 80 percent of the district's current legal problems.
The previous board majority took payment of a $6.4 million state loan and began construction on the highly contentious project about one month before the recall, a decision the current board decries because of the uncertain political climate at the time.
"We're all paying now," Schicker said. "This board is mopping up a mess, and it's costing a huge amount of money."
Both Schicker and Interim General Manager Dan Bleskey said they didn't think Burke, Williams & Sorensen's overhead costs were out of line.
Schicker, however, said the district would consider discussing the firm's rates.
"It doesn't sound like it's too different (compared to other firms). But that doesn't make it right," she said.
Schicker said the district will also be looking for ways to continue paying its legal staff as it begins to craft its budget for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1.
How Los Osos bills add up
Bills accrued by the Los Osos Community Services District are from law firms - Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Leibold, McClendon & Mann, and Shipsey & Seitz - and Willdan, the Orange County-based engineering firm that provides the district with staff members, including its $140-an-hour interim general manager, Dan Bleskey.
The total bill includes settlement payments made to Burke Williams and Sorensen after board members, elected in a September recall election, dropped five pre-recall lawsuits initiated by activist groups associated with current board members.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen: $332,614
Leibold, McClendon & Mann: $161,223
Shipsey & Seitz: $70,046
Willdan: $182,184
Settlement payments: $246,000
Total for Dec. 1 to April 1: $992,067
Source: Los Osos Community Services District documents obtained under the California Public Records Act
San Luis Obispo Tribune, May 30, 2006
Late meals or backroom deals?
A restaurant for council members, city attorneys and city managers to nosh and chat? The Dal Rae in Pico Rivera is that place. Nothing wrong with eating and schmoozing. Or is there? There is when four council members go together - we call that a Brown Act violation, or a very good imitation.
Open meeting laws forbid a majority of a governing body to meet outside a public forum to discuss government business. That's the key, discussing the people's business in private meetings. Because three of five council members represent a quorum, such outside get-togethers are discouraged.
That didn't stop four members of the West Covina City Council, the city manager, city attorney and a
planning commissioner convening at the Dal Rae recently following a council meeting. The only folks left out were Councilman Roger Hernandez, developers and of course the public. That's the point.
Did the group discuss city business? They say they didn't and took the city attorney along to see that the evening was kept social not civic. However, by going to the Pico Rivera restaurant, the group stirred more controversy than it might have otherwise. Folks wonder why they went out of town for the after-council social, perhaps to avoid hometown scrutiny?
Too, they couldn't have chosen a worse watering hole. The Dal Rae is notorious for political deal making and pols make good use of the booths during campaigns to discuss strategy, etc. Nothing wrong with that. But while Rep. Gary Miller and Assemblyman Ron Calderon have dropped some big bucks at the restaurant that specializes in steaks, lobster and other chop house fare, they didn't have a majority of the House of Representatives or the state Assembly along.
Our view is if something looks, acts and walks like a duck, it usually quacks. It's near unprecedented that a city council would reconvene after a meeting with the city manager and city attorney in tow. It looked like a council meeting, it acted like a council meeting and if steak and lobster don't make you waddle, what does?
Certainly we don't like the idea of backroom deals by politicians or those who just might be meeting with lobbyists to talk about dispensing the people's money on special-interest projects.
Our elected officials ought to be circumspect in avoiding such compromising situations. At the least, such action further erodes the public trust, already wearing thin under a barrage of congressional wrongdoing involving similar situations.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley's Public Integrity Division has done good work in shaking out election law and Brown Act violators and looking into possible conflict-of-interest in this end of the county. Perhaps it's time his investigators take a closer look at such meetings - even if it ruffles feathers.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 16, 2006
Projects spur legal switch
By Ben Baeder Staff Writer
SOUTH EL MONTE - With four major housing and retail projects on the drawing board, the city has fired its Community Development Commission attorney and hired a new firm - but it is paying about $75 more an hour.
"I don't know if the other council members get it, but we don't have a bunch of money to be throwing around," said Mayor Blanca Figueroa, who voted against hiring the new attorney. "We have had no problems with the current attorney. He's done a good job. We're not getting sued by anyone. He's under budget. And he gets us the details we need."
Councilman Joseph Gonzales also voted against the change from attorney Quinn Barrow to the new attorney, James Casso. Barrow will still serve as the city attorney for matters not relating to the Community Development Commission.
"They say South El Monte is unfriendly to developers," Gonzales said of council members Louie Aguinaga, Angelica Garcia and Hector Delgado, all of whom voted to hire Casso. "What do they want our attorney to do, just let the developers run the city?"
But other members said they were afraid the city was getting a reputation for being tough on businesses.
"We have big developers who work in a lot of cities telling us, `No wonder you haven't had much development in the past, you guys are not business- friendly,"' Aguinaga said. "For the first time in like 20 years, we have a lot of projects all going. This is our chance for some real change, and we are really trying to make the city government more efficient."
He also said that Casso and his firm, Myers Nave, promised to stay under budget. The firm charges $250 per hour, compared to Barrow and his firm - Richards, Watson & Gershon - which charged $175 per hour.
"Yeah, it's true he's charging a little more by the hour, but he hopefully will be more efficient," Aguinaga said. "He promised to stay under budget. And if he goes over, he's fired."
Casso said he has been following South El Monte's politics and development since the 1980s. He recently joined Myers Nave after leaving the firm Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin. He said both cities where he serves as city attorney, La Puente and Pico Rivera, decided to keep him even after he changed firms.
"We're really excited here to be in there," he said of South El Monte. "The way I see it, we have five individuals who are incredibly interested in getting projects off the ground."
Barrow said only that his firm offered a competitive rate.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 13, 2006
Barakat rejects lawyers' opinions
By Molly R. Okeon, Staff Writer
BRADBURY - Newly appointed Mayor Rick Barakat chose to take part in discussions about the new civic center despite warnings from a Los Angeles County District Attorney and the city attorney to recuse himself due to his home's proximity to the property.
Though he has bowed out of such conversations in the past, Barakat said both lawyers were wrong to say his involvement in choosing civic center subcommittee representatives at Tuesday night's City Council meeting would have a financial impact on him.
"Formulating the committee has nothing to do with to build, not to build or how \ is going to be built," said Barakat, who earlier this week was unanimously voted mayor by the council. "I think our city attorney sometimes makes some errors, and I just need to do some research on my own to find some facts."
Barakat said he had a letter from the California Fair Political Practices Commission that supports his position on the issue. He declined to send the letter to this newspaper for review.
"I don't feel I need to defend myself on this," he said Thursday. "Had I, in fact, done illegal deeds \, I haven't heard back from the DA. So, I don't believe I've done anything wrong."
However, a letter from L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Maureen O'Brien says differently. The letter states that the proximity of Barakat's residence to the property on which the new civic center will be built "triggers" the need for him to comply with a law that addresses conflicts of interest.
"It is clear that you have chosen to disregard the advice of your city attorney, and have acted in violation of Government Code 87100," O'Brien wrote.
Specifically, the letter notes that any council action taken with Barakat's participation in regard to the new civic center could be set aside. In addition, the letter said Barakat could face up to a $10,000 fine and county jail time.
Former Mayor Beatrice LaPisto-Kirtley, who lost her council seat after redistricting placed her outside District 5, said it would benefit Barakat to familiarize himself with conflict-of-interest laws and Robert's Rules of Order.
"I would love to see any proof he has from the FPPC," she said Thursday. "To date, he has not produced anything. He's not an attorney and obviously chooses on various occasions not to take legal advice."
Tuesday, LaPisto-Kirtley announced her retirement from the council after 21 years.
District 2 Councilman Bill Todd, who leads the council's subcommittee on the civic center, said he supports City Attorney Ken Rozell's position.
"I think the city attorney is qualified to make that call," he said. "I have to go with what he says."
However, Todd noted, he does not have a problem with Barakat's suggestion that each district be represented on the committee. Formerly, Todd, District 1 Councilman Richard Hale III, District 1 Planning Commissioner Frank Hernandez and community representative Andrew Arden sat on the committee. Now, each council member will either represent their district or appoint a representative to do so. Barakat said he will select a representative.
Rozell said Thursday that it remains Barakat's choice whether to participate in discussion about the new civic center, despite his recommendation against it.
"I've prepared memos analyzing the conflict-of-interest issues, they have been provided to Mayor Barakat," he said. "I have also given my oral opinion at various council meetings, and it is up to Mayor Barakat to decide if he wishes to follow my advice on this issue or not."
Barakat also has requested a closed-session meeting Tuesday, in which "personnel issues" would be discussed. The meeting's stated purpose is employee performance evaluations for the three city staff - which includes the city manager, city clerk and management aide - as well as contracted city positions, which include Rozell, the city engineer and city planner.
Rozell said that if any "reportable action" is taken at that meeting, an open meeting must be called directly afterward to notify the public. Also, he said, if any allegations of wrongdoing arise, those being evaluated have the right to demand a public hearing.
Pasadena Star News, May 5, 2006
Officials' outing criticized
By Christina L. Esparza Staff Writer
WEST COVINA - Four City Council members met for an after-meeting snack in Pico Rivera on Tuesday night, raising questions whether their get-together was legal under state open-meeting laws.
Mayor Steve Herfert, Councilman Mike Touhey and Councilwomen Sherri Lane and Shelley Sanderson dined at the Dal Rae restaurant in Pico Rivera with City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman and City Manager Andrew Pasmant after the City Council meeting.
The council members and Alvarez-Glasman said the meeting was "social," therefore not illegal.
"As long as we're not discussing city business," Herfert said.
The Ralph M. Brown Act states it is illegal for a quorum of a legislative body - in this case three or more council members - to meet outside of a public meeting to discuss city business, unless it is closed session.
David Demerjian, head of the Public Integrity Division of the District Attorney's Office said it is "perfectly fine" for the council members to anjoy a social dinner.
Although the four council members maintain they were not discussing city business, Terry Francke, general counsel with Californians Aware - an open-meetings advocacy group - said the dinner is suspect.
"I would say it establishes a reasonable suspicion of a Brown Act violation because in a community that large, I think you have to assume the members, and the others there, \ all not just social friends dating from before their common city-business link," Francke said. "It would at least put the burden on them to explain how that dinner could be characterized as purely social."
The Brown Act exempts purely social gatherings.
Sanderson said Alvarez-Glasman was at the dinner to make sure the members did not discuss city business.
She said she liked her colleagues, and enjoyed relaxing and discussing with them family matters, non-city-related work and other topics.
"The council and our staff is well aware of the Brown Act ... and we've done nothing wrong," Sanderson said. "Nobody's trying to hide anything."
Alvarez-Glasman said city councils sometimes get together after meeting to unwind.
"It's not uncommon for a city council to gather after a council meeting in a social setting," Alvarez-Glasman said, adding if the council wanted to participate in a private meeting, they wouldn't have dinner in a public restaurant.
Council members from Walnut and Covina said they would not have dinner with their colleagues if it wasn't a public event, for fear of how it would look.
"I don't want to find ourselves in a discussion about city business and it not be on the record," said Walnut Councilman Tom King.
Covina Councilman Kevin Stapelton agreed.
"It's too crazy under the current climate," he said.
West Covina City Councilman Roger Hernandez, the only council member not present at the restaurant, said he's confident his colleagues wouldn't violate the Brown Act.
"I wasn't aware of any dinner, nor was I invited," Hernandez said. "But I'm sure they'd be conscientious about what's discussed around the dinner table because city business should be discussed before the public."
No other patrons, besides the West Covina council members and two West Covina residents, were dining at about 11 p.m. at the restaurant. However, the West Covina officials said there were a lot of people dining while they were there, but they stayed a little while longer.
"If we were to receive a written complaint, we would certainly look into it," the DA's Demerjian said. "It certainly has the potential to be a Brown Act violation."
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 4, 2006
Embattled COG agrees to reforms
By Gary Scott, Staff Writer
ARCADIA - The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments adopted reforms Thursday aimed at clarifying job roles, healing board divisions and refining the group's mission.
Changes include hiring an outside accountant to oversee day-to-day bookkeeping duties and the scheduling of annual performance reviews for the executive director.
The group also agreed to strengthen its committee structure to provide more oversight of issues, give individual members more of a voice as to what appears on the group's monthly agenda, and hold a strategic planning session to lay out a five-year work plan.
The issue that garnered the most discussion was the decision to bring in an outside bookkeeper, a move board Secretary David Olivas described as imperative for getting past the controversies that have mired the group for the past two years.
"Maybe I can't help fix what occurred in the past but in order for COG to grow we need to have independent checks and balances like larger institutions," Olivas, a councilman from Baldwin Park, said.
He added that having someone other than the executive director write checks and file invoices helps eliminate the perception of conflict that has been the subject of two financial audits and a District Attorney's investigation.
All three probes focus on a three-year planning contract performed by the private consulting firm owned by COG Executive Director Nicholas Conway.
Arroyo Associates, which is based in Pasadena, also provides management services for COG through a separate contract.
Last spring, board members questioned whether it was appropriate for Conway to manage a contract he was also performing. The concern led to a complaint being filed with the DA and exacerbated a financial audit of the contract when billing irregularities were discovered.
Conway has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Neither the audit nor the investigation has led to any charges being filed.
It was Conway who originally proposed stripping his firm of the bookkeeping duties as a way to erase even the appearance of conflict. He reiterated his position Thursday night.
"What we don't want is people making allegations of writing bogus checks or padding employee" salaries, Conway said. "We want to address the unfounded allegations we've been subjected to the last 15 months."
The board voted to appoint a committee to interview candidates for the bookkeeping job in hopes of getting someone before the next fiscal year. The position will cost $1,000 to $2,000 a month.
It is not clear that the decision will satisfy questions from auditors and investigators. But Board member Ernest Gutierrez, mayor of El Monte, said COG should be sure to alert the DA that the action was taken.
"I want to get out from under the shadow of the DA," Gutierrez said.
Some of the reforms require a change in the group's by-laws, and so will have to be ratified at next month's board meeting. These include new financial reporting requirements, a better defined committee structure and the annual performance evaluation.
The board agreed to a June 3 strategy session to lay out future goals and try to rebuild relations among the 30 member cities.
The meeting may include talk of increasing annual dues payments to solve a structural imbalance in COG's budget. The group expects to run a deficit of more than $100,000 this year, largely because of unexpected legal bills. But members say that as the region grows, and the problems grow more sophisticated, the COG budget needs to grow as well.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, April 21, 2006
Covina denies meeting violation
By Ruby Gonzales, Staff Writer
COVINA - The Covina Redevelopment Agency denied violating open-meeting laws when it met in closed session last year over a loan deal for a local business.
The agency outlined its argument in a legal document in response to a March 2 lawsuit by the District Attorney's Office. The city attorney's office filed the response April 14, two days before the deadline.
"The city's position is we disagree with the DA's legal analysis and the facts they're citing for the basis of their petition," said Jennifer Pancake, an outside litigator representing the city.
The DA's Public Integrity Division sued the redevelopment agency over its Dec. 20 decision to hold a closed session on a loan for Seidner Enterprises, which wanted to renovate and expand Bert's Motorcycle and Watercraft Mega-Mall on Azusa Avenue.
That night the Redevelopment Agency approved a $1.75 million loan and an additional $2.25 million over the next 10 years to Seidner. However, that deal has been set aside since Seidner later asked the agency for a new agreement.
The new agreement, which the agency passed March 7, gives Seidner a $1.75 million loan for the remodeling and rehabilitation of the business.
The DA said the agency violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, which details when officials can meet in closed session, because the Dec. 20 loan agreement with Seidner wasn't done in public and no notice of a closed session was given. Prosecutors also question why the agency went into closed session.
City officials said the redevelopment agency could go into closed session under the "real proper negotiations" exception.
The DA's Office argues that the loan agreement doesn't involve the purchase, sale or lease of property by or for the agency.
The agency has a leasehold interest in the property, city officials said.
Pancake said the agency leases the property from the owner and subleases it to Seidner Enterprises. That information was on the original loan agreement given to the DA's Office, she added.
In its response to the lawsuit, the city argues items discussed in closed session pertained to price and terms. The amendment to the loan agreement came up after the Dec. 20 agenda had been prepared. The agency board voted to add it to the closed session agenda before going into closed session.
The Covina City Council, which is also the Redevelopment Agency, recently directed City Attorney Ed Lee to defend the agency against the lawsuit.
"We don't agree with the DA's interpretation of the law," said City Manager Paul Philips. The DA's Public Integrity Division has only sued twice over alleged Brown Act violations.
"We've not taken anybody to this level since the Public Integrity Division began in 2001," said David Demerjian, who heads the unit.
The DA wants the court to order the Redevelopment Agency to tape closed sessions, take notes of discussions and make documents available upon request without delay. They are asking the court to declare the Dec. 20 decision null and void.
The Redevelopment Agency asked the court to find the DA's action "clearly frivolous and lacking in merit."
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, April 19, 2006
Election probe looks at detectives
SOUTH PASADENA -- Private investigators hired by Vernon officials have harassed people, pulled weapons and driven recklessly, according to police, the latest twist in a bizarre election in Vernon, a tiny industrial city south of Los Angeles.
Vernon's first municipal election in 25 years was held on Tuesday, but the highly disputed votes sit locked up and uncounted because of wrangling over their legality.
Leading up to the election, South Pasadena Police called Vernon officials to complain about the private detectives, whose behavior they said was closer to intimidation than undercover surveillance.
''What we were concerned about was that it was escalating, to a point where people were not just driving dangerously,'' said Police Sgt. Mike Neff. ''Now people were pointing guns at other people. They even got mixed up over who they were following.''
Attempts to reach Vernon city officials for comment Saturday were unsuccessful. A City Hall recording said the offices were closed, and did not allow for messages to be left.
The problems began in January, when eight people established residence in a commercial building in Vernon, whose population is less than 100.
Three of the eight filed petitions to run for the city council in an attempt to replace incumbents who had held virtually uncontested seats for decades.
The challengers -- some of whom have ties to South Pasadena residents-- had their voter registrations rescinded. Power in their building was shut off, inspectors identified the structure as dangerous, and the residents were eventually evicted.
The incumbents voted to cancel the election, but in March a Superior Court judge revived the challengers' bid for office, ruling that city officials had acted illegally.
For about three weeks leading up to the election, police in South Pasadena said they got two to three calls per shift about the surveillance.
Private investigator Mark Summerhays, 38, allegedly pulled a gun on David Johnson, one of the three council candidates, at a South Pasadena gas station on Jan. 29. Summerhays was charged with weapons violations earlier this month.
In another incident, Johnson's adviser, Cris Summers, who lives in South Pasadena, was followed by a vehicle along with her husband Garry on April 4, police said.
Garry Summers stopped his car, got out, and then pounded on the window of the trailing car. Private investigator Robert Lampers, 26, then allegedly pulled a gun.
The couple called 911, and police arrested Lampers. He was scheduled for a June 1 pretrial hearing on charges that include drawing a firearm, police said.
A police report said Lampers was contracted by the Anaheim-based Homeland Security Services. But Lampers said the company was hired by officials from Vernon.
City Council criticized for 'confusing' public
Christina L. Esparza, Staff Writer
WEST COVINA -- Open-government advocates are saying the City Council took action behind closed doors Tuesday that was inconsistent with the agenda.
The City Council agenda stated the closed session meeting was to direct staff regarding "further legal action against for failing to timely complete automobile dealerships as required" by an agreement between the city and Alhassen.
A Wednesday story in this newspaper reported that the council voted to pursue legal action for the reason stated on the agenda.
But Mayor Steve Herfert said the council, acting as the Community Development Commission, moved to retain legal counsel to pursue a sales-tax guarantee shortfall from Alhassen of about nearly $200,000.
Terry Francke, legal counsel for Californians Aware -an open-meeting advocacy group - said although the council did not violate the Ralph M. Brown Act, it confused the public.
"All I can say is the city controls the amount of confusion that's left in the public's mind," Francke said. "They present a very confusing picture."
According to the agenda, the council was to discuss its agreement with Alhassen in which he missed a March 15 deadline to make improvements to several of his auto dealerships.
City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman reported out of closed session the CDC voted unanimously to hire an attorney to pursue action against Alhassen, but did not say whether it was to pursue action regarding the tardiness of Alhassen's construction on his dealership per the $3.5 million agreement, or to collect money owed on another matter.
"Arnold's pretty aware of the Brown Act," Herfert said, adding if the council had violated it, Alvarez-Glasman would have spoken up.
Further, Herfert said the action was listed on the CDC agenda under "anticipated litigation."
But Richard McKee, president of Californians Aware, said confusing the public is in part violating the act, as is hiring an attorney without allowing the public's input.
Alvarez-Glasman could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.
"I really have problems with this," McKee said. "I would say it's improper to formulate any kind of contract and simply announce it."
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, March 23, 2006
Mayor Gets Longest Sentence Ever In Political Corruption Case
LYNWOOD, CA---The former mayor of Lynwood, California has been sentenced to 188 months in federal prison, which is believed to be the longest sentence ever issued in a federal political corruption case.
Paul H. Richards II received the sentence after being convicted last year of a host of federal corruption charges related to a scheme that defrauded city residents by funneling city business, including exorbitant no-bid contracts, to a "consulting company"� controlled by him and his family.
Richards, 50, was remanded into custody at the conclusion of Tuesday afternoon's sentencing hearing before U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner. Richards served as a Lynwood city councilman, which included seven stints as mayor, from 1986 until he was recalled in a special election in September 2003.
Following a jury trial, Richards was found guilty on Nov. 1, 2005 of 20 counts of "honest services"� mail fraud for depriving Lynwood residents of his honest services while serving as an elected official. In addition to the "honest services"� mail fraud counts, the federal jury convicted Richards of five counts of mail fraud, extortion, eight counts of money laundering and making a false statement to government investigators.
The evidence presented at trial showed that Richards set up a consulting firm, ostensibly owned by his sister, that was awarded a series of unnecessary and exorbitant consulting contracts that had the potential to cause the City of Lynwood to lose more than $6 million.
Two Richards associates convicted at trial were also sentenced. They are:
Richards' sister, Paula Cameo Harris, a 57-year-old Altadena resident, who purportedly served as the president and owner of Allied Government Services (AGS), the company Richards set up to obtain consulting contracts with Lynwood, was sentenced to 72 months in prison; and
Bevan Atlee Thomas, a 57-year-old resident of Anaheim, a former consultant to Lynwood, who allegedly obtained a $25,000 per month consulting contract with Lynwood, which he secretly subcontracted to AGS, was sentenced to 119 months in prison.
Richards, Harris and Thomas participated in a scheme to defraud the citizens of Lynwood of their right to Richards' honest services. AGS's primary source of revenue was three lucrative contracts initiated and approved by Richards
In the first contract, Thomas obtained a "nuisance abatement"� consulting contract in 1999. Under this contract, Thomas would be paid up to $25,000 per month for performing consulting services and nuisance abatement work for the city. However, Thomas secretly subcontracted his work to AGS, which then subcontracted to other friends of Richards, including his personal gardener. Lynwood taxpayers ended up paying five times what they should have for the work performed.
In the second contract, Richards forced the city' trolley operator, Commuter Bus Lines (CBL), to retain AGS as a "transportation consultant"� in exchange for receiving a five-year extension of CBL's contract with Lynwood. CBL had agreed to hire its own consultant and to pay for the cost. But when the city insisted that CBL hire AGS at $7,500 per month, CBL objected and demanded increased fees to pay AGS. The city, led by Richards, agreed. Although AGS performed little or no work for CBL under the agreement, the city authorized CBL to pay AGS more than $60,000.
In the third contract, Richards orchestrated a deal between Lynwood and AGS in which AGS became the city's exclusive representative to negotiate a contract for the construction of billboards along the Century Freeway (I-105). In exchange for representing the city, AGS would be paid a 20 percent contingency fee, and the city would pay all of its expenses. Before AGS received this contract, Richards had already given his tentative approval to a multi-million dollar billboard project with Regency Outdoor Advertising. Because the billboard deal was largely pre-negotiated by Richards, AGS stood to earn $960,000 for no actual work except hiring one of Richards' friends as its attorney. AGS sought no competing bids for the billboard project.
During the trial, a lobbyist for Regency testified that he gave Richards an illegal $7,500 campaign contribution while Richards was negotiating the billboard contract. That lobbyist, David N. Smith, a 65-year-old resident of Palmdale, previously pleaded guilty to making a corrupt payment to Richards and is scheduled to be sentenced on April 10, 2006.
As a result of the three contracts with AGS, Richards violated his duties to the city by, among other ways, failing to disclose his interest in decisions benefitting AGS and Thomas. Richards specifically benefitted in the following ways, among others:
AGS and Thomas satisfied debts for campaign literature for Richards's political campaign and the campaigns of allies; AGS and Thomas gave contributions to a political action committee set up by Richards' sister and nephew, with that money being used to fund political campaigns of Richards' allies in Compton, who supported a real estate development Richards was pursuing in Compton; AGS paid for an improvement on a Richards home in Cerritos; AGS paid a salary to Harris, who distributed the funds to other members of Richards' family; AGS paid a salary to Richards' nephew, who performed personal projects for Richards while on the AGS payroll; and Harris withdrew large sums of cash from AGS' bank account, which corresponded to large sums of cash deposited by Richards into his personal account. Harris was convicted of 18 counts of mail fraud, four counts of money laundering, and one count of perjury for lying to a federal grand jury.
Thomas was found guilty of nine counts of mail fraud, four counts of money laundering, two counts of bribery and one count of perjury for lying to a federal grand jury. 3-21-06
North Country Gazette, March 21, 2006
Margrave resigns from transit board
Gene Maddaus, Staff Writer
SOUTH PASADENA--Councilman David Margrave resigned from the Gold Line Construction Authority board on Wednesday night, ending an eight-month standoff with his own City Council.
Margrave also apologized to the city's staff, admitting that he had created a "hostile work environment" in the city planning department.
In addition, outgoing mayor Odom Stamps announced that Margrave would not seek re-election in March 2007.
Taken together, the announcements represented a career low for Margrave, who has been dogged by allegations of conflicts of interest since joining the council in March 2003.
Margrave and his wife own property in the ostrich farm at Pasadena Avenue and Monterey Road. They have plans to develop two senior housing projects on land straddling the Gold Line tracks.
Margrave maintained Wednesday night that he has no conflicts of interest, but said he will no longer participate in discussions of ostrich farm development issues.
"There is a perception of conflict," he said. "We live with perceptions, not facts."
Margrave's resignation from the Gold Line board appears to end a lengthy impasse regarding governance of the extension of the commuter rail line from east Pasadena to Montclair.
The council appointed Keith Hanks, a representative of the eastern San Gabriel Valley, to fill its seat on the board in July as part of a complex governance arrangement engineered by Rep Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, and Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard.
Margrave refused to resign last summer, arguing that the rail line remained too noisy as it passed through South Pasadena, and vowing to stay on the board until the problem was fixed.
Margrave's resignation Wednesday clears the way for the eastern San Gabriel Valley cities to take majority control over the rail extension.
Margrave's apology to staff was the result of a six-week investigation into his conduct, performed by an outside firm. The city allocated $10,000 for the investigation last month.
Margrave has clashed recently with Planning Director David Watkins and Senior Planner Patrick Clarke over a 49-unit condominium project in the ostrich farm.
Watkins and Clark have maintained that the project, which abuts land owned by Margrave and his wife, is not permitted in the area. It is zoned as a business park.
Margrave strongly disagrees, and harshly cross-examined Watkins on the issue at a council meeting two weeks ago.
At that meeting, Margrave failed to recuse himself from discussion of a moratorium on development in the ostrich farm.
Margrave and his wife have strongly lobbied the other council members in recent weeks, hoping that he would be appointed mayor Wednesday night.
Stamps suggested that Mayor-Pro Tem Philip Putnam be named mayor. But citing Margrave's decision not to seek re-election next spring, Stamps suggested he be named mayor for December 2006 and January 2007.
The other council members scuttled that idea. Putnam said it would be inappropriate "in light of what's happened."
Putnam was named mayor and councilman Michael Cacciotti was named mayor pro tem for the coming year.
In his apology, Margrave said he would abide by city code, which mandates that he direct all his concerns with city staffers to the city manager, and not take them up with the staff directly.
The circumstances of the investigation remained unclear Wednesday night as the city has not released the staff member's complaint or the investigative report.
The issue was discussed in closed session Wednesday night before the announcements were made.
Pasadena Star News, March 16, 2006
Council bickers about Habitat
Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
ARCADIA -- The City Council's dispute over Habitat for Humanity kept simmering this week as Councilman Mickey Segal took aim at Councilwoman Gail Marshall over her suggestion that he and Councilman Gary Kovacic had broken the state's open-meetings law.
Segal characterized Marshall's comments at an earlier council meeting as "her semiannual, self-serving, factually incorrect speech to all of us."
Marshall had suggested that Kovacic and Segal violated the Brown Act when they struck a "backroom deal" with Mayor John Wuo to support a Habitat for Humanity project.
When Wuo backed out and voted against Habitat, Kovacic and Segal withdrew their support for his re-election campaign.
Marshall did not directly accuse the councilmen of violating the open meetings law, but did suggest that "others would be making that determination," referring to the city attorney and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
At this week's council meeting, Segal called that a "reckless remark" and an "outburst." He also seemed to welcome Marshall's upcoming departure from the council, when he praised the electorate for enacting term limits.
Accusations of Brown Act violations are common, and they almost never result in prosecutions. More often -although still rarely - legislative bodies are required to "redo" their actions in public.
Segal declined to comment further Thursday, saying it is best to move on.
In her comments at the Feb. 7 meeting, Marshall took issue with the Star-News' coverage of the controversy, saying it was "one-sided" in favor of Habitat for Humanity.
At the same meeting, Councilman Roger Chandler apologized for a remark implying that poor people belong in El Monte but not in Arcadia. Chandler was part of a 3-2 majority that rejected the Habitat proposal for low-
income housing on Alta Street at a Jan. 17 study session.
The city will instead seek a private developer to build moderate-income housing on the site.
At the Feb. 7 meeting, Marshall laid out a detailed history of Kovacic's efforts on behalf of Habitat, arguing that he had a "win-at-all-costs attitude."
Pasadena Star News, February 24, 2006
City strikes secret deal
Ben Baeder, Staff Writer
Fontana's redevelopment agency spent $5 million to buy land from an area congressman without notifying the public, which lawyers and open-government advocates say may have violated state open-meeting laws.
Fontana's Redevelopment Agency in July 2005 bought 10 parcels totaling about 10 acres near the Foothill [210] Freeway and Citrus Avenue from Rep. Gary Miller. The Republican represents all or parts of Whittier, Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights, Chino and four cities in Orange County.
Claremont land attorney Bob Ferguson, who has published papers on redevelopment for the Claremont Institute, said he believes the deal was illegal.
"In my opinion, that's fraud on the public - a violation of law," he said.
But Michael G. Colantuono, city attorney for Sierra Madre, said there are provisions in state law that could allow a redevelopment agency to buy land without announcing it.
"It's tricky," said Colantuono, who has worked as a city attorney in several other cities. "It really depends on how the city went about it."
Three city attorneys reached for this story said it was difficult to say if the transaction was legal, but all said it was highly unusual and they would advise their cities not to keep land deals secret.
Terry Francke, counsel for Californians Aware, an open-government advocacy group, said there is no point in having public agendas if cities are able to spend $5 million behind closed doors.
"The notion that they can spend public money, especially that much of it, and never tell the public, that's totally wrong," said Francke.
Fontana City Attorney Clark Alsop said there was no need to report the deal, because the City Council voted earlier in the year to authorize staff to make land purchases on Fontana's behalf.
Fontana never published on public agendas anything that would indicate it was buying the property, such as parcel numbers, negotiating parties or a statement the city had bought the land, according to records from City Hall and statements from city officials. And Miller's name never appears on city agendas.
California open-meeting laws, often referred to as the Ralph M. Brown Act, mandate that any parcel discussed in closed session by a public body be identified in city agendas. It also says that negotiating parties must be listed.
In Fontana, as well as most cities, the City Council acts as the redevelopment agency board. Both fall under the Brown Act.
Alsop said the purchase was never discussed by elected officials, therefore it never had to be published in a public document.
Miller reported that he owned the property on his 2004 financial disclosure documents. He said he was angry that Fontana never published the sale.
"'Extremely upset' just barely describes how I'm feeling," Miller said. "On my end, I did everything to tell the public what was going on."
According to tax records and statements from Miller, he made about $50,000 on the sale. That was barely enough to pay the taxes and escrow fees, he said.
Miller bought the land because he had until the end of 2004 to encumber profit he had made two years earlier on the sale of a different plot to Monrovia, he said. If not, he would have had to pay a tax penalty, he said.
He said he called friends at Lewis Investment Co. and asked if they had any land for sale. The company offered to sell him the 10 parcels in Fontana, Miller said.
After buying the property from Lewis for about $100,000 more than Lewis paid for it, Miller seven months later sold the land to Fontana, according to tax records.
Officials from Lewis Investment Co. collectively are Miller's No. 1 campaign contributor, having donated $18,100 to his campaigns during the last two election cycles, according to campaign-finance records published by the Center For Responsive Politics.
And Lewis and Miller in 2004 were business partners in the development of a Target and about 200 homes in Diamond Bar. Miller was recently criticized by campaign-finance groups for helping to allocate $1.28 million in federal funds to a street beautification project in front of that property.
Ray Bragg, Fontana's director of redevelopment and special projects, said the city has no plans for the property it bought from Miller. He said Fontana was trying to assemble the the smaller lots into one large parcel - possibly for commercial development.
Bragg said he had originally negotiated a deal in which Lewis would buy the land and then sell it to Fontana for a small profit. Instead, the redevelopment agency bought the land from Miller. Bragg said he had no idea why Miller was involved in the purchase. He agreed with Alsop that the redevelopment agency did not have to notify the public of the purchase.
Fontana Mayor Mark Nuaimi said that he and other city officials have openly expressed interest in acquiring land in the area near Citrus Avenue and the 210 Freeway. He said the city usually lists parcel numbers in agendas and that he was not sure whether it had listed the property the redevelopment agency bought from Miller.
He defended Fontana's right to use Lewis Investment to buy land in the area, even though the city never voted to enter a land-acquisition contract with Lewis Investment. He said Lewis gets better prices.
"When people know the city is interested in buying land in an area, the price suddenly doubles," Nuaimi said. "What the city wants to do is pay fair-market value and not an inflated rate. I think that's what the taxpayers want."
The executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, Bob Shirey, said he believed Fontana acted within the confines of the law. He said cities, like any negotiating party, need to be able to act quickly and quietly to acquire land.
Rich McKee, a chemistry professor at Pasadena City College who is the volunteer president of Californians Aware, criticized Fontana for spending money and making unwritten contracts without notifying the public.
"This is a secretive style of government that the people will not stand for," he said.
McKee will consider filing a complaint against the city, he said.
"This type of transaction I don't think would ever hold up in court," he said.
Pasadena Star News, February 15, 2006
Carlsbad's role in private talks about parcels is called proper
Michael Burge, Staff Writer
CARLSBAD -- The city did not break the law by hosting a series of meetings with property owners about future development of agricultural land near Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, the city attorney said.
And the public should have access to records produced at those meetings, City Attorney Ron Ball told council members Tuesday.
The issue of closed-door meetings between city staff members and property owners became controversial after a group that wants to preserve more than 300 acres for agriculture found out about them through a California Public Records Act request.
The group, Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad, learned that records of the 11 meetings, which were held from March 2004 through December 2005, were housed on a private Web site operated by Sterling Insights Inc. The records were accessible only through a password.
The records have since been moved to the city's Web site, www.carlsbadca.gov/pdfdoc.html?pid=480, where they can be accessed without a password.
The land in question includes the strawberry fields south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and two parcels near Legoland.
Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad has accused the city of conducting secret meetings to hatch a deal to develop the land.
City staff members said the meetings with developers were designed to explore future use of the land and not a specific proposal.
Last month, Mayor Bud Lewis asked the city attorney to look into the meetings and advise the council whether any laws had been broken.
Ball told the council Tuesday that the state's open-meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, applies to legislative bodies such as the council or to panels the council creates, but not to meetings between staff members and individuals.
The city's planning director, Marcela Escobar-Eck, also said a property owner may discuss concepts with city staff before he or she files an application, and those discussions are not required to be open to the public.
However, Escobar-Eck said after a development application has been filed the city plays more of a regulatory role in the process, and the public has opportunities to participate through hearings and other means.
Ball said some notes and records made by city staff before an application is filed may be subject to public disclosure.
"The Public Records Act has been followed, so there's no violation of state law and no violation of federal law," he said, noting that the city made the records available after Concerned Citizens asked for them.
Concerned Citizens, in a statement dated Monday and addressed to the mayor and council members, accused the city of paying Sterling Insights $100,000 to facilitate the meetings involving property owners and city staff, and repeated its contention that the meetings should have been open.
Sandy Holder, the city's community development director, said Sterling Insights has been paid $100,000 for all its work with the city, $30,000 of which was paid for facilitating the meetings regarding the agricultural land.
Asked by Councilman Matt Hall if it would have been better for the developer to pay that bill, Holder said the meetings were attended by several property owners and the city, and she did want the process tilted in favor of the developer. That was why she thought it better for the city to pay the tab, she said.
Concerned Citizens has said it will circulate a petition to put an initiative on the ballot to preserve for agriculture the 255-acre strawberry fields between Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Cannon and two parcels near Legoland, one 46 acres and the other 26 acres.
It also wants to preserve as agriculture the 53-acre Flower Fields, northeast of Palomar Airport Road and Paseo del Norte, but that parcel already has that designation.
The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 9, 2006
An unwritten, unspoken message -- yet understood?
Maybe it was a case of twin-speak, identical twin toddlers understanding each other's babblings. Maybe it was mental telepathy. Or maybe it was just four city councilmen being together for so long they can communicate without talking.
How else to explain the way the Chula Vista City Council hammered out the process to fill a council vacancy without violating the state's Brown Act?
The Brown Act is designed to prevent public bodies from deciding public business in secret. It restricts closed meetings en masse, round-robin phone calls and the like.
A private citizen has filed two challenges to the council's Dec. 16 appointment, citing alleged violations of the Brown Act. The city has responded with a three-paragraph opinion from the county District Attorney's Office that the Brown Act was not violated.
But perceptions are paramount in politics. And the perception is that the appointment procedure, if not a violation of the Brown Act, was nevertheless grossly mishandled.
Chula Vista, both the city attorney and the mayor agree, has no written policy on filling council vacancies. In December, council members talked about, but never took a vote, on a process to replace Patty Davis. Yet, between special meetings a week apart in December, the four remaining members claim to be quite clear on a procedure they had never completed before at this level. Nineteen applicants became three finalists without interviews, without any discussion in public about their merits. Between the special meetings, the council members simply phoned in to the city clerk a list of people they would like to see interviewed.
Somewhere along the line, a two-sentence memo popped up from the mayor saying that only applicants with the support of two or more council members would be interviewed.
A city without a written policy for filling a council vacancy, other than the broad parameters set in its charter? That should be a warning flag.
A system little better than semaphores to compile a list? That should be a warning flag, too.
With Chula Vista's primary election for this seat just six months away and three candidates campaigning for it, this was an appointive choice made with power politics dripping all over it.
Ironically, in a supposed effort to give a relatively inexperienced appointee the cachet of a public vetting process, the council accomplished just the opposite.
Patricia Chavez is now in office with a cloud over her, through no fault of her own. The process that selected her is questionable, morally and legally. Chavez may -- or may not -- have the energy, personality and ideas to make up for her very short civic resum. Because of what happened, however, she also must make up for the council's blunder.
What if, city officials were asked, no applicant had been supported by two councilmen in the phone-in winnowing system? What if, in the absence of a formal vote on the procedure, a councilman had stood up and said he wanted to hear from more than just three of the 19?
Those are "what-if" scenarios, officials responded.
To be sure, in the absence of a written policy, the council could have dispensed with applications, special meetings and even interviews. One member of the council could have nominated Chavez, the other three voted for her, and the council moved on. In retrospect, that would have been a more honest approach. The suspicion in Chula Vista is that the real interview process came before the council vacancy even formally existed.
Chula Vista should take steps to prevent future misadventures. Council member Steve Castaeda, to his credit, last week called for a charter review and asked the appointed member of the council to pledge publicly not to seek election in June.
The first corrective step Chula Vista should take is to adopt an official city policy on the logistics of filling a council vacancy. A written policy, not an ordinance, would give a future council a clear starting point, but the flexibility to take a different tact.
Second, the city should indeed look at revising its charter again. In 1996, Chula Vista voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition F, limiting the council's right to appoint to certain circumstances. Clearly not limited enough. It's time to consider taking away other opportunities for mischief as well.
San Diego Union-Tribune, January 19, 2006
