Assertions In Quincey Claim Create Conflict For Upland City Attorney

The wrongful termination claim filed against the city of Upland by former city manager Robb Quincey has put the Upland City Council in an awkward position that will result in the city finding someone other than city attorney Bill Curley to dispute the demands made in Quincey’s claim, the Sentinel has learned.

Bill Curley

The city council relied upon  Curley for guidance in firing Quincey last year.
The city council on November 28 rejected Quincey’s claim notice seeking unlimited damages over his May 4 termination filed on his behalf by attorney Joseph Wohrle on November 1. In that claim, Quincey maintains the city breached his employment contract, violated the labor code and wrongfully terminated him. According to Wohrle, Quincey’s sacking was precipitated in large measure because of his efforts to rein in the legal billings made to the city by Curley and his law firm, Los Angeles-based Richards, Watson and Gershon.
Wohrle has six months from the November 28 rejection of that claim to file a lawsuit on Quincey’s behalf or otherwise seek arbitration on the matter as is specified in Quincey’s employment contract.Wohrle did just that  last month, filing a petition with the San Bernardino County Superior Court at the West Valley Courthouse in Rancho Cucamonga for an arbitrator to be appointed. The court is to consider that request on February 14.
Whether the matter is heard by a arbitrator or in a trial, the consideration that Quincey is citing the activity of Curley and his firm as a central issue in the events leading up to his firing has resulted in a potential or real conflict-of-interest that cannot be laid to rest unless a lawyer or law firm independent of Richards, Watson & Gershon is brought in to advocate on behalf of the city.
Quincey, who was handpicked by then-mayor John Pomierski to serve as city manager in the aftermath of former city manager Mike Milhiser’s forced departure in 2005, had zoomed to a level of unprecedented authority in Upland while working for a city council dominated by Pomierski. But his fortunes shifted shortly after FBI and IRS agents on June 10, 2010 descended on City Hall and Pomierski’s home to serve search warrants in conjunction with a federal probe of political corruption in Upland’s municipal government, including charges that Pomierski, with the assistance of city staff, was shaking down developers and others with business proposals or permits pending before the city.
In the aftermath of those law enforcement raids, information about questionable actions involving Quincey circulated in Upland, including a report he had retaliated against a police sergeant, John Moore, who had investigated an alleged domestic disturbance incident involving the city manager, by preventing Moore from being promoted to  lieutenant and that he then acted improperly to create a third captain position in the department and promoted one of the department’s lieutenants into that newly formed post to ultimately promote Moore after Moore began to prepare a legal complaint alleging retaliation.

Robb Quincey

It was action Quincey took in the aftermath of Moore’s promotion in which he went beyond his legal authority as city manager to make maximum $25,000 disbursements without prior council authority to cover $50,000 of a $57,816 bill for services rendered to Moore by the law firm  Lackie, Dammeier & McGill that formed the basis of the city council’s decision to fire him. In his claim, Quincey maintained the payments to the law firm were properly processed by the city’s finance department. In firing Quincey, the city also relied on information pertaining to Quincey’s relationship with former assistant finance director Ruby Carrillo, who was reportedly involved in providing and documenting the payments to Lackie, Dammeir & McGill. Carrillo is no longer employed by Upland.
The claim asserts Quincey’s contention that he was actually terminated because in the latter part of 2010 he had undertaken a critical evaluation of the billing practices of the city’s legal counsel, the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon, which employs city attorney Curley.  “For years, claimant expressed concern to his staff and the city council about legal fees generated by Richards, Watson & Gerschon,” the claim states. “[D]uring October 2010 claimant engaged the city’s independent, third-party claims investigator, NovaPro, to audit one month of Richard, Watson & Gershon’s legal fees on two litigation matters it was handling for the city. The results of NovaPro’s audit shocked claimant. The NovaPro’s audit disclosed that on one litigation matter brought by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District against the City of Upland, Richards, Watson & Gershon racked up charges of $105,830 for September only. On this matter alone, just for this month, Richards, Watson & Gershon billed for the time of seven partners and employees who charged up to $348 per hour; the total hours billed were 367.3 at $288 per hour. The NovaPro audit also disclosed that on another litigation matter, People v. G3 Holistics, Inc., Richards, Watson & Gershon generated billings of $72.973.20, again, for September only. On this matter alone, just for this month, Richards, Watson & Gershon billed for the time of nine partners and employees who charged up to $348 per hour; the total hours billed were 269.5 at an average rate of $271 per hour. Notably again, just during September 2010, in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District matter, Richards, Watson & Gershon billed 22.5 hours for discussions amongst six partners and/or employees, at a cost of $6.079.60. During September 2010, in People vs. G3 Holistic, Inc., Richards, Watson & Gershon billed 20 hours for discussions amongst seven partners at a cost to the city of Upland of $5,954.80. The NovaPro auditors found that the city of Upland should not have been charged for conversations between Richards, Watson & Gershon, and it should have been charged a maximum hourly rate of $250 per hour per ICRMA [Independent Cities Risk Management Association] guidelines. Had Richards, Watson & Gershon merely refrained from charging for employee conversations and billed at the appropriate rate, the city of Upland would have saved $42,428.40 just during September 2010 and just on the two cases mentioned above.”
In his claim, Quincey furthermore maintains that “On December 2, 2010, claimant was provided with an additional report regarding the NovaPro audit by Mr. [Stephen] Dunn [who was then the city’s finance director and who has now succeeded Quincy as city manager]. The same day, claimant corresponded with the mayor and city council regarding his concerns over Richards, Watson & Gershon’s billings, which approached $250,000 per month, an enormous sum for a municipality of approximately 70,000 residents. Claimant also expressed concern over city attorney Curley’s recent actions toward claimant, Mr. Dunn and their support staff.  On December 8, claimant advised the mayor and city council that a. City attorney Curley was requesting information from claimant’s staff without claimant’s consent; b. The information Curley was requesting involved, for example, a list of federal projects approved for the city of Upland; and c. The list of federal projects budgeted for the city of Upland that city attorney Curley was requesting was far beyond the scope of records sought by the federal grand jury subpoena served on the city of Upland on November 30, 2010. Claimant was concerned city attorney Curley was retaliating against claimant because of claimant’s audit of the billings of Richards, Watson & Gershon, and because of claimant’s refusal to execute any waiver of conflicts of interest that would allow Richards, Watson & Gershon to represent other local municipalities and/or water agencies of which the city of Upland was a member, in some instances, in litigation matters against the city of Upland. Such conflict waivers were requested by city attorney Curley and/or his law partner, James Markman.”
It thus appears that Curley and his firm will be a focus of the case Wohrle will be attempting to make on Quincey’s behalf. A platitude in the legal profession is that no one should ever represent himself or herself in a legal matter, as differing rights and privileges are extended to litigants and those who represent them. An oft-quoted witticism reflecting this principal is that “Anyone who serves as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”
Experts in the realm of legal practice and legal ethics consulted by the Sentinel suggested that having Curley or anyone from Richards, Watson & Gershon representing the city could become problematic.
Stephen C. Yeazell, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who teaches theory of legal procedure and the dynamics of modern civil litigation, told the Sentinel that a lawyer or firm representing an entity in an arbitration or litigation in which the action of that lawyer or firm on behalf of the entity is an issue “would not necessarily be a violation of legal ethics, although it could be. I would think if you were the city you would want to get a second opinion from a disinterested source. I think it would be bad judgment by the city council not to check with someone else before going ahead with a defense.”
Yeazell’s colleague at the UCLA School of Law, Scott Cummings, who lectures on professional responsibility and legal ethics, told the Sentinel  that Curley and Richard, Watson & Gershon’s circumstance vis-à-vis Quincey’s claim against Upland, “presents an interesting fact pattern which certainly tests whether the city attorney should be prohibited from representing the city because of a conflict.  Without having read the complaint with great care, there doesn’t seem to be any current direct conflict that would disqualify the city attorney.”
Nevertheless, Cummings said, “One issue is that the city attorney might be called to testify against its own client, the city, and I suppose that, at some point, the city attorney could be named as a defendant itself.  So a potential for conflict does exist if that is true.”
Cummings said that Curley and/or his firm could be permitted to represent Upland with regard to Quincey’s claim, but only if the city council fully understands the implications and consents to the arrangement and waives its reservations with regard to the potential conflict.  “Their representation is fine, so long as the city is informed and agrees,” Cummings said.
Upland city manager Stephen Dunn told the Sentinel the city will not make that waiver or give its consent to Curley and Richards, Watson & Gershon representing it with regard to Quincey’s contention that he was wrongfully terminated.
“They will not be representing us because we look at them as a potential witness and we want to avoid any kind of conflict,” Dunn said of Curley and Richards, Watson & Gershon. “We are in the process of selecting an attorney to represent the city in this. We have not chosen an attorney yet and that is why Robb and his attorney have not gotten a response from us yet. Robb gave us until December 23 to come up with a list of arbitrators in response to a list of four arbitrators he wants to have us use. We did not meet that deadline because we are not going to go with Richards, Watson & Gershon or Bill Curley to represent us. After we select an attorney we will file the appropriate responses at that time.”
Repeated attempts by the Sentinel to reach Curley for comment were unsuccessful.

51 Drums Of Napalm Were Buried For Decades At Chino Airport

More than fifty drums of what is believed to have been napalm were buried at Chino Airport decades ago and remained there until they were discovered in 2010, documents obtained by the Sentinel show.
While the material represented a potential ecological hazard to the ground and groundwater beneath the airport, the prompt removal of the drums and their contents by county officials alleviated that danger and most or all of the contamination has been remediated, a state water resources official said.
On the afternoon of July 22, 2010, three buried drums were discovered at the airport during trenching for installation of a storm drain pipeline for a new Southern California Edison facility. The county of San Bernardino Department of Airports was notified and it contacted the county fire department’s hazardous materials division and TetraTech, an environmental assessment company under contract to the county. TetraTech retained Double Barrel, a commercial hazardous materials emergency responder, to assess the situation.
Additional drums were discovered that day and by sunset on July 22, 2010, eight buried drums had been removed from the excavation. The drums did not have lids and contained soil on top of a tan resinous material. The contents of the drums were field tested using a chemical identification kit and determined to be a non-explosive, flammable, non-corrosive, organic resin-type material. The eight drums were placed in a roll-off bin. Two more drums were visible in the excavation, but were left in place due to limited remaining daylight. Samples were collected of the soil, the material in the drums, and the liquid in one of the drums. The samples were delivered to Microbac Laboratory in Riverside, and analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semi-yolatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons carbon range, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, flashpoint and their content of antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. The analytical results indicated that high concentrations of benzene were present in all of the samples. Benzene concentrations ranging from 1,600 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) to 6,800 mg/kg were detected in the resinous material in the drums. The benzene concentration in the soil sample was 170 mg/kg. Also detected were toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, styrene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and naphthalene. The tan resinous material appeared to be a jellied fuel mixture.
On July 28, 2010, a geophysical survey was conducted in an effort to locate any additional buried drums. During the survey, anomalies were found in several areas to the east and west of the original excavation, and were marked as possible targets for further investigation. TetraTech formulated a removal strategy and submitted it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board office in Riverside on August 9, 2010 and the staff for the board provided same-day verbal approval of that plan.  Excavation and removal of the remaining drums was conducted between August 16 and August 25, 2010. A total of 51 drums, several aluminum canisters and pieces of wood were removed from the excavation and placed into six vapor tight closed top roll-offbins. Excavated soil without obvious contamination was stockpiled and additional soil was excavated from beneath the drums, placed in stockpiles and covered. The resulting excavation measured approximately 100 feet from east to west and 20 feet from north to south. The bottom of the excavation varied from 10 to 15 feet below ground surface.
Patricia Hannon, a staff member of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, observed the collection of the final confirmation soil samples on August 26, 2010. Personnel from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control were also present. The samples were submitted to a California certified laboratory for analysis. The analytical results for the soil samples showed very low concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene,  trimethylbenzene,  naphthalene, gasoline, diesel and motor oil.
The analytical results were reviewed by Hannon and discussed by phone with TetraTech employees Ben Wienk and David Bertolacci on August 31, 2010. Hannon informed TetraTech that based on the results of the confirmation samples, no further sampling of the excavation was needed and the excavation could be backfilled.
TetraTech’s analysis of the soil samples for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and total petroleum hydrocarbons showed concentrations of benzene up to 17.3 I-Ig/kg, ethylbenzene up to 3.2 I-Ig/kg, toluene up to 17.2 I-Ig/kg, xylene up to 7.54 I-Ig/kg, total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel range up to 32.2 mg/kg, and total petroleum hydrocarbons motor oil range up to 149 mg/kg. 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was detected in only one sample at 5.91 pg/kg. Based on the analytical results of the stockpiled soil, TetraTech determined that the soil was non-hazardous and it was transported to TPS Technologies in Adelanto, California for disposal on August 20 and 21, 2010.
Based on the high benzene concentrations detected in the contents of the drums, the waste materials placed in the roll-off-bins were classified as hazardous. On October 11, 2010, the sealed bins, containing waste product, drums and debris, were transported and disposed of at Rineco in Benton, Arkansas.
Kurt Bechtold, the executive director at the Riverside office of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region, told the Sentinel,  “Our staff oversaw and verified the adequacy of the clean-up. We were satisfied the county had done a thorough job of cleaning up. The material that was found in the drums was never conclusively identified. It was a jellied petroleum substance consistent with napalm.  There was a chemical analysis to figure out what was in it and there were a number of petroleum compounds present in the material. The surrounding soil was removed.  It appeared that the contamination of the soil was fairly minimal. The material in the drums was not particularly fluid. It was described as resinous in nature, which meant that was not particularly mobile in the environment. Nearly all of the material appeared to be contained within the drums. There was some amount of contamination in the vicinity of drums but the contaminated soil was removed with the drums.”
The county had acted responsibly with regard to the circumstance, Berchtold said. “We are satisfied the county has adequately investigated any potential source on the airport property and the county is adequately addressing the contamination found to date,” he said.
Chino Airport is an asset of the county overseen by the county’s airports division. Another problem there consists of a plume of perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) that originated at Chino Airport migrating south-southwest from the western end of the airport property. The plume has reached a point about 7,500 feet from the airport, just south of Bickmore Avenue.  There are 28 permanent wells in the area and 33 additional sample ground water collection probes that have monitored the extent of contamination and its movement.  The highest level of TCE detected is 420 parts per billion.  The allowable California safe drinking water standard is 5.0 parts of TCE per billion, such that some of the water in the basin is testing at a level that is 84 times higher than is considered safe.
There are multiple points within the plume where readings of over 100 parts per billion have been encountered.
Some of the plume is being captured by a desalter project that has wells within the area of the plume. The desalter plant was built to capture water and remove the high concentration of salt and nitrates present in the water as a consequence of the significant number of dairies in the area before the water reaches the Santa Ana River. The plant also pulls in TCE, so a portion of the TCE is not making it into the river but the desalter plant is inadequate to the task of effectuating the whole clean-up. The county is working with TetraTech in an effort to devise a plan to remediate the TCE and PCE contamination. That plan has yet to be effectuated.
Berchthold said the TCE and PCE contamination, which is likely to have originated as a consequence of the use of those solvents on aircraft at the airport, is unrelated to the drums of what appears to be napalm that were buried at the airport.

St. Mary Makes Bid For VVCH

VICTORVILLE—St. Mary Medical Center has made a highly competitive bid for Victor Valley Community Hospital, reducing considerably the likelihood that the bankrupt Victorville hospital, which for the last three months has been operating on an infusion of funds from Dr. Prem Reddy’s Prime Healthcare, Incorporated, will not be absorbed into Reddy’s portfolio.
St. Mary’s parent company, St. Joseph Health Systems, offered to purchase Victor Valley Community Hospital for $35 million and then pump an additional $25 million into the faltering hospital to make capital improvements over the next five years.
The St. Joseph/St. Mary offer brings to a total of three the number of health care entities willing to assume either sponsorship or ownership, control and operation of non-profit Victor Valley Community Hospital.

Alan Garrett

In 2010, Victor Valley Community Hospital, staggering under more than $20 million in debt, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the 101-bed hospital was put on the auction block. KPC Global Care, owned by Dr. Kali P. Chaudhuri, outbid Prime Healthcare, tendering a $37 million offer in November 2010 that was $2 million above Reddy’s offer. But after KPC obtained the state attorney general’s approval for the takeover, it failed to finalize the acquisition because it was not able to line up  financing and that deal fell apart in May 2011. Subsequently, a federal bankruptcy court judge approved an agreement allowing the non-profit arm of Reddy’s for-profit venture, known as Prime Healthcare Service Foundation, to purchase the hospital for $35 million.
On September 20, however, the state attorney general’s office intervened, blocking Reddy’s plan. A major consideration was that Victor Valley Community was founded and set up as a non-profit institution.  The attorney general’s office had moved to ensure that the High Desert preserve at least one non-profit hospital in an area with a multiplicity of for-profit medical centers, including one already owned by Reddy, Desert Valley Hospital.
“We have concluded that this proposed sale is not in the public interest and will likely create a significant effect on the availability or accessibility of health care services to the affected community,” acting chief deputy attorney general Michael Troncoso said at that time.
Nevertheless, with Victor Valley Community teetering on the brink of financial collapse, Reddy on October 14, 2011 proffered capital in the form of loans and a consulting arrangement to prevent the hospital from having to close its doors. That assistance was codified in the form of what was called a “post-petition revolving credit and security agreement between Victor Valley Community Hospital as borrower and Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. as lender.”
The California Attorney General’s office redoubled its effort to prevent that agreement from being actuated and filed on October 28 for a temporary restraining order to prevent the hospital from entering into a financing plan and consulting arrangement with Prime Healthcare. On October 31, Superior Court Judge Steve Malone tentatively denied the attorney general’s request for the restraining order. In November, Malone again denied the state attorney general office’s effort to block the $6 million financing and consulting agreement.
The scenario was made more complicated when, also in November, KPC Global reasserted its interest in acquiring Victor Valley Community, filing legal and financial documents to create an entity known as Victor Valley Hospital Acquisition Inc., and indicating it stood ready to put up $31.1 million toward that end. Victor Valley Community Hospital officials were somewhat resistant to the KPC Global offer at that point, and were seemingly more favorably disposed to working with Prime Healthcare.
The St. Joseph/St. Mary bid was provided to the Victor Valley Community Hospital board at its January 9 meeting.
Immediately, the Victor Valley Community Hospital board directed its legal team to open up a dialogue with regard to a sale. The board’s willingness to begin negotiations with St. Joseph/St. Mary demonstrated that Reddy’s grip on Victor Valley Community was tenuous, at best.
A complicating factor now facing Alan Garrett, the CEO of St. Mary Hospital in Apple Valley, is how much of the purchase price will go to Reddy.

Prem Reddy

According to the complaint for injunctive relief filed by the attorney general on October 28, “The consulting agreement transfers control of a material amount of the operations of VVCH [Victor Valley Community Hospital] to Prime Healthcare management. The loan agreement conveys and transfers a material amount of VVCH’s assets to Prime, Inc.  By entering into this loan agreement without the attorney general’s consent, VVCH will incur additional administrative costs by $6 million, thereby increasing the amount of cash necessary for other potential buyers to purchase VVCH. By increasing VVCH’s debt, the parties will be manipulating the market value of the hospital. The loan agreement also subjects VVCH to default. The loan agreement provides that if VVCH subsequently defaults on the loan agreement, all of Prime Inc.’s loan must be paid in full, in cash immediately.”
It thus appears that at least $6 million of the agreed-upon purchase price will go to Prime Healtcare.
Victor Valley Community Hospital officials may be relieved that another viable entity has entered the picture. In recent months, Reddy and Prime Healthcare have been dogged with accusations of improper billing practices.
The Sentinel has learned that the FBI, at the direction of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, is looking into reports that Prime Healthcare facilities consistently billed Medicare for treating elderly patients with specific medical issues at a frequency far beyond the billing patterns of several other comparable hospitals.
One unconfirmed report was that the FBI investigation is touching upon  previous accusations leveled at Prime Healthcare with regard to Medi-Cal and Medicare billing irregularities that were investigated by the state. That probe was closed out with no action when investigators failed to turn up sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution or further action. According to that report, the referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office originated with the California Attorney General’s Office.
Publicly obtained documents show that Prime Healthcare facilities have a pattern of billing for rare and serious medical conditions that typically generate bonus payments to the hospital. Elderly patients admitted to three Prime Healthcare facilities –  Chino Valley Medical Center, Alvarado Medical Center in San Diego and  Shasta Regional Medical Center – are listed as suffering from medical conditions such as acute heart failure, kwashiorkor (a form of severe malnutrition), accelerated hypertension, and septicemia at rates that are far beyond the statistical average at hospitals in California.
Medicare payment formulas remunerate doctors and medical facilities with more substantial payments for treating more serious conditions.
Fraudulently inflating Medicare billings by misrepresenting the gravity of a patient’s medical condition, known as “upcoding” in the medical business, is prohibited under federal statute. Prime Healthcare maintains it does not engage in upcoding and that diagnosing patient conditions is carried out by medical doctors and is not a function of the billing department.
While there are reports that the FBI has interested itself in allegations of upcoding at Prime Healthcare facilities, in October the California Department of Public Health closed out an investigation into whether Prime Healthcare Services had artificially inflated reports of its documentation of bloodstream infections, concluding there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal or administrative case against the hospital chain.

Paul Cook Forsaking Board Bid For Congressional Run

Assemblyman Paul Cook (R-Yucca Valley), who in September said he would run for Third District San Bernardino County supervisor this year, will instead seek the Republican nomination in the newly created 8th Congressional District.
Neil Derry is the incumbent in the Third District, which includes Loma Linda, a portion of San Bernardino, Highland, Redlands, Mentone, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, Twentynine Palms, Big Bear, and Barstow. Cook’s departure leaves Derry and James Ramos, Chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, as the only declared candidates in the Third District race.
Cook, of Yucca Valley, currently represents the 65th Assembly District in Sacramento. He was elected to the Assembly in 2006 and will be termed out of office next year.

Paul Cook

Cook served 26 years in the US Marine Corps, including tours of duty in Vietnam where he earned a Bronze Star for combat bravery and two Purple Hearts. He ended his military career as an infantry officer stationed at the Twentynine Palms Marine Base before going on to serve as a council member and mayor in Yucca Valley. He also taught history and political science at Copper Mountain College and public administration at Cal State San Bernardino.
One of Cook’s longtime political allies, former Yucca Valley mayor Chad Mayes, who is now the chief of staff to Second District supervisor Janice Rutherford,  has signed on as  Cook’s campaign manager.

Local Governments Scramble To Create Successors To RDAs

A fortnight after the California Supreme Court ruled that the state of California has the authority to dissolve the redevelopment agencies maintained by counties and cities throughout the state, San Bernardino County and local municipalities have begun the process of designating themselves as the successors to their respective redevelopment agencies.
Redevelopment agencies are, or were, adjuncts to local government intended to eliminate blight by encouraging economic development. Redevelopment agencies were empowered to issue bonds and use the proceeds from the sale of those bonds to create infrastructure or undertake improvement projects within a designated redevelopment project area. That infrastructure was intended to spur development and eradicate blight, thereby increasing the value of the property in and around the project area. The increase in property tax realized as a consequence of the improvements would then theoretically be utilized to debt service the bonds, i.e., make annual payments over a period of time – usually 20 to 30 years – to the bondholders.
Last year, governor Jerry Brown induced the state legislature to pass a law that called for the elimination of redevelopment agencies and for money normally passed through to them by the state to be utilized for education and law enforcement funding.
On January 3, the Chino City Council adopted a resolution designating the city as the successor agency to the redevelopment agency.
That reorganization will have an impact on the city’s cultural arts center undertaking, which was to include a 350-seat theater. The council early last year earmarked $990,000 for a design contract that went to WLC Architects of Rancho Cucamonga. Those plans will now be abandoned or lie fallow until some alternate means of financing the project can be had. Also, plans for the completion of Ayala  Park have been put on hold.
The city was also using roughly $2 million a year to cover the salaries of municipal employees who were reported as performing work related to the redevelopment agency. It is unclear how the city will continue to cover the cost of their salaries and benefits. One option is for the city to lay off seven to 13 employees.
On January 9, the Yucaipa City Council, with councilwoman Denise Hoyt absent, voted 4-0 to dissolve the city’s redevelopment agency and have the city inherit the agency’s debts and assets.
Yucaipa city manager Ray Casey told the council that timely action on the council’s part to comply with the new law will allow the city to recover $250,000 in administrative costs related to the phasing out of redevelopment.
California’s cities have until today, January 13, to declare themselves as the successor agency to their redevelopment agency or allow another agency such as the county to oversee bond payments, administer programs begun before the redevelopment abolishment law went into effect and dispose of properties acquired by the agency.
In Yucaipa’s case, it has $5.8 million tied up in the Uptown Streetscape program to recontour a half-mile portion of Yucaipa Boulevard and make improvements designed to benefit businesses in the area.
On January 10, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted to have the county become the successor agency and the successor housing agency for the county redevelopment agency and become the successor agency and the successor housing agency for any redevelopment agency of any city or joint powers authority within the county that chooses not to elect to become the successor agency of its respective redevelopment agency.
According to Mary Jane Olhasso, the administrator of the county’s economic development agency, the county, like Yucaipa, stands to gain “at least $250,000 for the express purpose of administration of the successor agency” by taking the action it did. Olhasso said, “At a future board meeting, the board will consider establishing a new budget, transferring all resources the successor agency is allowed to retain, approve semi-annual obligations schedules, and direct staff to transfer all real estate assets to the new entity. The successor agency is authorized to continue to pay and meet the enforceable obligations of each former redevelopment agency. The successor agency may retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the redevelopment agency.”
On the evening of January 10, the Loma Linda City Council adopted a resolution activating the Housing Authority of the City of Loma Linda and a second resolution to have the city of Loma Linda serve as the successor agency to the Loma Linda Redevelopment Agency. By that action, the housing authority will retain the housing assets and function previously performed by the redevelopment agency.
In a specially-called meeting held at the Ontario Convention Center on January 11, the Ontario City  Council pronounced itself as the successor agency to the Ontario Redevelopment Agency and transferred the agency’s housing assets and functions to the Ontario Housing Authority.
In a number of cities throughout the county, officials were rushing this week to meet the January 13 deadline. Upland city attorney Bill Curley, whose law firm Richards, Watson & Gershon represents more than two dozen municipalities in Southern California, was booked solid on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday with meetings related to creating successor entities for redevelopment agencies.

Four In Office Without Standing For Election

Four individuals have been appointed to elective offices in the county without being elected.
The board of supervisors this week approved  county registrar of voters Michael Scarpello’s recommendation to designate the four to positions as directors of the Barstow Heights Community Services District, the Apple Valley Foothill County Water District, and the Yucca Valley Airport District.
Those posts were up for election in the August 30, 2011 and November 8, 2011 elections, but an inadequate number of persons ran for those offices.
Elections Code Section 10515(b) provides that if no person has filed to vie for any office, the supervising authority, which in these cases is the  board of supervisors, shall appoint any person to the office who is qualified on the date when the election would have been held, and those appointed shall serve exactly as if elected at a general district election for the office.
Following discussions between members of the affected governing districts and their respective supervisorial district staffs, Daryl R. Schendel was appointed to the Barstow Heights Community Services District; Sharon Silva-Houts was appointed to the Apple Valley Foothill County Water District; Timothy W. Lewis and Irving Craig were appointed to the Yucca Valley Airport District.
The Barstow Heights Community Services District and the  Yucca Valley Airport District are in the Third District; the Apple Valley Foothill County Water District lies within the First District.

LA County Pays SB County $108,000 For Two 2010 Lost Hiker Search Efforts

In accordance with a rarely invoked section of the state’s Government Code, the county of Los Angeles this week paid San Bernardino County over $108,000 for the costs of carrying out two separate searches for Los Angeles County residents who became lost in remote areas in 2010.
On Tuesday the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors accepted as a “full release and settlement of all claims” from the county of Los Angeles in the amount of $43,664.39, for the reimbursement of search and rescue costs for Los Angeles County resident Edward Rosenthal, and further accepted a “full release and settlement of all claims” from the county of Los Angeles, in the amount of $64,609.96, for the reimbursement of search and rescue costs for Los Angeles County resident Michelle Yu.
San Bernardino County Code Section 12.0511 gives the sheriff the authority to search for and rescue persons who are lost or are in danger of their lives within or in the immediate vicinity of the county. Government Code Section 26614.5 allows the county of residence to pay the county conducting the search and rescue for expenses in excess of $100.
From September 27 to September 30, 2010, the San Bernardino County sheriff’s department conducted a search and rescue operation for Los Angeles County resident Edward Rosenthal, then-64 of Culver City, who went missing during a hike near Black Rock Campground inside Joshua Tree National Park on September 24.  He was found alive on September 30 and airlifted to a hospital.
San Bernardino County made a claim against Los Angeles County for reimbursement totaling $43,764.39, including labor ($15,747.39), vehicle mileage ($297), and aircraft services ($27,720). The Government Code only authorizes reimbursement of expenses that exceed $100; therefore the net claim against the county of Los Angeles was $43,664.39.
From December 5 through December 8, 2010, the sheriff’s department conducted a search and rescue operation for Los Angeles County resident Michelle Yu, 49 of Venice, who became lost while attempting to reach  Mt. Baldy peak following the Sierra Hut Trail. The rescue operation was unsuccessful and Yu’s body was found at the 7,900 foot level in very steep and icy terrain.
San Bernardino County’s gross claim for reimbursement totaled $64,709.96, including labor ($17,677.46), vehicle mileage ($952.50), and aircraft services ($46,080). The net claim to the county of Los Angeles was $64,609.96.
Claims for searches for out-of-county residents are generally handled internally through the sheriff’s department, in conjunction with risk management and county counsel. Given the size of the claims relating to the Rosenthal and Yu rescue efforts, Los Angeles County processed them as tort claims, thus requiring approval from the board of supervisors before payment could be made.

Mystery Remains Over Brown’s Continuing Tenure With County

Questions continue to dog the second highest ranking member of the county auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector’s office with regard to the role he and a political action committee he controlled played in illegally passing through and laundering money for those convicted of or charged with participation in a bribery and extortion conspiracy.
At issue is how Matt Brown, a former member of the Republican Central Committee and the one-time chief of staff to former Second District San Bernardino County supervisor Paul Biane, has been able to avoid being criminally charged after he became entangled in a set of circumstances that led to the indictment of Biane, as well as another former member of the board of supervisors, Bill Postmus, together with the chief of staff to another supervisor, a one-time county employee union president and the businessman accused of bribing them.

Matt Brown

Brown was moved into the position of assistant county auditor-controller in 2010 by county treasurer/auditor-controller Larry Walker. Brown is also the founder/principal of two political action committees, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans and the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association.
In 2006, Brown, who was then supervisor Biane’s senior staff member, founded a political action committee (PAC) to assist Biane and other members of Biane’s political circle in distributing money to politicians they supported. That PAC, known as the San Bernardino County Young Republicans, has been alleged by the California Attorney General’s Office and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office to have been used as a vehicle to launder bribes and kickbacks to Biane.
During the first year of its existence, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC had raised $7,500. In November 2006, Biane joined with his then-colleagues on the board of supervisors, Bill Postmus and Gary Ovitt, to approve a $102 million payout to Rancho Cucamonga-based Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit that company had brought against the county over flood control issues at the Colonies at San Antonio residential subdivision and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivision projects in northeast Upland. Supervisors Josie Gonzales and Dennis Hansberger opposed that settlement.
Campaign finance records show that the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC, received a $100,000 check from Colonies Partners, L.P. on June 17, 2007. In two separate indictments, one returned by a criminal grand jury in February 2010 against Postmus and his one time political associate Jim Erwin and in another indictment returned in May 2011 against Biane, Erwin, Colonies Partners managing principal Jeff Burum and the former chief of staff to supervisor Ovitt, Mark Kirk, it was alleged that Biane actually controlled the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC through Brown and that the $100,000 donation was a quid pro quo paid in exchange for Biane’s vote to approve the settlement.  Also delineated in the February 2010 indictment were five unindicted co-conspirators identified as John Does 1 through 5, who are identifiable through information contained elsewhere in the public record including the superseding May 2011 indictment  as Colonies Partners managing principals Burum and Dan Richards; Colonies Partners public relations consultant Patrick O’Reilly;  Kirk; and Biane.  According to prosecutors, Postmus controlled two political action committees, the Inland Empire PAC and the Conservatives For A Republican Majority PAC, which each received separate $50,000 donations from the Colonies Partners principals which were also bribes. Erwin’s Committee For Effective Government PAC likewise received a $100,000 donation from Burum and Richards that was a bribe, according to prosecutors; and Kirk’s Alliance For Ethical Government PAC received a $100,000 contribution from Burum and Richards that was also a bribe, per the indictment.
Postmus last March pleaded guilty to the five felonies alleged against him in the February 2010 indictment, including conspiracy, one count of accepting a bribe, one count of conflict of interest, and one count of misappropriation of funds. Postmus in April was the star witness before the second grand jury which indicted Burum, Biane and Kirk and reindicted Erwin. Erwin, who served as assistant assessor under Postmus after the latter was elected to that post in 2006 and took office in 2007, continues to maintain his innocence on the charges stemming from that case, including conspiracy, two counts of corrupt influencing, two counts of offering a bribe, two counts of extortion, one count of misappropriation of public funds and one count of forgery. Biane, Kirk and Burum maintain their innocence. As of yet, no charges have been filed against Richards or O’Reilly.
The indictments allege that Burum in 2006, with the assistance of Erwin and O’Reilly, had brochures prepared which purported that  Postmus, who was then the chairman of the board of supervisors as well as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee and was running for county assessor, was a homosexual who was addicted to methamphetamine, and that Biane, who was then the vice chair of both the board of supervisors and the Republican Central Committee and at that time engaged in an election campaign, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Burum’s company, the Colonies Partners, had filed a lawsuit against the county in 2002 over flood control issues at the companies Colonies at San Antonio development in northeast Upland. Ultimately, Burum withheld the mailing of those brochures. It was three weeks after the November 2006 election, in which Postmus and Biane were elected and reelected, that the board of supervisors voted 3-2 to confer the $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners. The indictments allege that the series of $100,000 donations to the political action committees founded and controlled by Postmus, Brown, Kirk and Erwin were in fact quid pro quos — bribes — paid in exchange for the approval of the settlement. Prosecutors allege that Biane, through Brown, secretly controlled the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC.
The Sentinel is informed that a complaint has been filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission citing a PAC founded by Brown in 2008, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association, which is separate from the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC alluded to in the indictments. According to well placed sources, both the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association and the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC were involved in the activity now under further investigation.
On March 17, 2008, Brown formed the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC and named J.M. Olchawa as the PAC’s treasurer. Both Brown and Olchawa are residents of Grand Terrace. Olchawa endowed the PAC with its first operating capital in the form of a $100 contribution.  Less than a month later, on April 9, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC contributed $40,000, which had apparently originated with the $100,000 contribution from the Colonies Partners the previous year, to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. The following month, on May 29, 2008, one of the political action committees controlled by Postmus, the Inland Empire PAC, infused the San Bernardino County Taxpayers PAC with $3,000 and the month after that, on June 2, 2008, with another $2,000. That $5,000, too, had apparently been originally provided by the Colonies Partners.
In the less than two month period between the $40,000 contribution from Brown’s own Young Republicans PAC on April 9 and Postmus’ Inland Empire PAC’s $2,000 donation on June 2, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC received a substantial amount of money in the form of both contributions and loans, all from other political figures. On April 25, 2008, the Committee to Elect Paul Biane gave  the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC a $15,000 contribution. On April 29, 2008 the Committee to Elect Dick Larsen provided the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC with a $10,000 loan. Larsen was then the county treasurer. On May 5, 2008 the Committee to Elect Gary C. Ovitt made a $15,000 contribution to Brown’s San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. That money may have originated with the Colonies Partners before being provided to Kirk’s Alliance For Ethical Government PAC and then being provided to Ovitt. On May 9, 2008, the Josie Gonzales for Supervisor campaign provided a $15,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers PAC. On May 16, 2008, Bill Emmerson for Assembly 2008 made a $5,000 contribution to Brown’s recently formed PAC. The same day, the San Bernardino Public Employees Association PAC provided Brown’s PAC with a $10,000 contribution. On May 23, 2008, the Committee to Elect Gary C. Ovitt provided Brown’s PAC with a $10,000 loan. On May 27, 2008, the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee made a $25,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. The next day, May 28, the Paul Cook for Assembly 2008 Committee provided Brown’s PAC with a $5,000 loan. The same day, the Committee to Elect Paul Biane made a $10,000 loan to Brown’s PAC. On May 29, Bill Emmerson for Assembly 2008 made a $5,000 contribution to the PAC and on June 2, 2008, the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee made a $15,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC.
The lion’s share of the money Brown’s PAC took in was used to fund Hansberger’s effort to be reelected as county Third District supervisor that year. According to campaign disclosure documents, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC  on May 18 provided the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee with $57,030.70 and on June 30, 2008, more than three weeks after Hansberger had lost the election to Neil Derry on June 3, Brown’s PAC gave the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee $100,920.29.
The Fair Political Practices Commission is now investigating the lack of any subsequent accounting for the $35, 000.00 in loans made to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC by the Larsen, Ovitt, Cook and Biane campaign committees. All references to those loans disappeared from subsequent campaign filing statements made on behalf of the PAC by Olchawa. The loans in question appear to be outstanding. No explicit reference to repayments to any of the lending parties can be found in any of the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC’s financial disclosure statements. While the online filing made by the Committee to Elect Gary Ovitt shows an outstanding loan of $10,000 to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC committee as of 12/31/2010, online filings for the other lending parties were not immediately available. There is no indication in any available documentation showing any of the loans were repaid.
The lack of repayment, and lack of accounting of the still existent outstanding loans or failure to note the loans were forgiven is alleged to be multiple violations of the Political Reform Act. Moreover, the lack of notation of the loans might suggest that the funds received by the committee during the 2008 electioneering season from the Larsen, Cook and Biane campaigns were being laundered for Hansberger, according to the complaint received by the FPPC.
Another issue in the complaint and the follow-up FPPC investigation is the connection between the PAC and the Hansberger Campaign, which contributed money to the PAC and was also the major beneficiary of the PAC’s expenditures. In this way, money provided to Brown’s PAC is suspected of having been used to attack Derry without adequate disclosure of the origin of that money. Those mailers sent out attacking Derry did not disclose that Hansberger’s campaign was involved in funding them.
Many familiar with Brown’s role in the Colonies matter have questioned why prosecutors did not seek and obtain from the grand jury an indictment of Brown. The indictment itself describes how the political action committee he founded and controlled served as a laundering vehicle through which bribes allegedly provided by Burum were passed, action virtually indistinguishable from that engaged in by the indicted Kirk, another chief of staff to a board member who voted to approve the Colonies settlement.
Brown was one of 45 witnesses who testified before the grand jury this spring before it handed down the indictment naming Burum, Biane, Kirk and Erwin. In that testimony Brown said SEBA, the sheriff’s deputies union that Erwin once headed, had promised to provide, but then failed to come through with, backing for a countywide measure Biane was sponsoring in 2006 to boost the pay for county supervisors. An examination of campaign reporting documents and other material, however, indicates that SEBA in fact did support the Biane-backed proposal, known as Measure P, which passed, resulting in an immediate $22,000 annual increase to supervisors’ salaries. Prosecutors declined to say whether Brown’s misstatement of fact before the grand jury constituted perjury. No charges have been filed against him.
A possible explanation of how it is that Brown has avoided prosecution on several counts is that he has been working as an informant for the district attorney’s office. It is known that beginning in 2009, Brown began wearing a “wire,” that is, a hidden electronic audio device at work while he was serving in the capacity of Biane’s chief of staff. Reportedly, the target of this effort was Biane himself. To date, no incriminating statements by Biane on any of those tapes have surfaced or been produced by the prosecution, despite requests by defense attorneys for their production. Transcripts of some of those conversations have been turned over to defense attorneys.
At some point in the spring of 2010, Biane became aware that his chief-of-staff was seeking to entrap him. There ensued strained relations between the two and Brown was put on paid leave after he filed a claim in which he alleged he was being harassed. Brown was then transferred to the county treasurer/auditor-controller office under Larry Walker. Walker installed Brown as his second-in-command, i.e. as the assistant auditor-controller. In so doing, Walker ousted his longtime assistant and close associate Betsy Starbuck, who was ignominiously sacked after having served more than twenty years as Walker’s right hand woman, both when Walker was  Fourth District supervisor, the position he held before  he ran for auditor-controller, and as auditor controller.
The displacement of Starbuck, who after more than eight years in the position of assistant auditor-controller practically ran the division, to accommodate the inexperienced Brown has sparked a widespread belief in the halls of the county that the move was imposed on Walker by county chief executive officer Greg Devereaux and district attorney Mike Ramos as part of an effort to protect a witness seen as crucial to the prosecution of the Colonies settlement criminal case. Collectively and individually, Walker, Brown, Devereaux and Ramos were unwilling to comment on the matter.

Upland Rejects Quincey Claim

UPLAND – The city of Upland has rejected a wrongful termination claim filed against it by former city manager Robb Quincey.
In his claim notice seeking unlimited damages over his May 4 termination filed on his behalf by attorney Joseph Wohrle in November, Quincey maintains the city breached his employment contract, violated the labor code and wrongfully terminated him.
Quincey, who was handpicked by then- mayor John Pomierski to serve as city manager in the aftermath of former city manager Mike Milhiser’s forced departure in 2005, had zoomed to a level of unprecedented authority in Upland while working for a city council dominated by Pomierski. But his fortunes shifted shortly after FBI and IRS agents in June 2010 descended on City Hall and Pomierski’s home to serve search warrants in conjunction with a federal probe of political corruption in Upland’s municipal government, including charges that Pomierski, with the assistance of city staff, was shaking down developers and others with business proposals or permits pending before the city.

Robb Quincey

In the aftermath of those law enforcement raids, information about questionable actions involving Quincey circulated in Upland, including a report he had retaliated against a police sergeant, John Moore, who had investigated an alleged domestic disturbance incident involving the city manager by preventing Moore from being promoted to  lieutenant and that he then acted improperly to create a third captain position in the department and promoted one of the department’s lieutenants into that newly formed post to ultimately promote Moore after Moore began to prepare a legal complaint alleging retaliation.
It was action Quincey took in the aftermath of Moore’s promotion in which he went beyond his legal authority to make maximum $25,000 disbursements without prior council authority to cover $50,000 of a $57,816 bill for services rendered to Moore by the law firm  Lackie, Dammeier & McGill that formed the basis of the city council’s decision to fire him. In his claim, Quincey maintained the payments to the law firm were properly processed by the city’s finance department. In firing Quincey, the city also relied on information pertaining to Quincey’s relationship with former assistant finance director Ruby Carrillo, who was reportedly involved in providing and documenting the payments to Lackie, Dammeir & McGill. Carrillo is no longer employed by Upland.
The claim asserts Quincey’s contention that he was actually terminated because in the latter part of 2010 he had undertaken a critical evaluation of the billing practices of the city’s legal counsel, the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon, which employs city attorney William Curley.  “For years, claimant expressed concern to his staff and the city council about legal fees generated by Richards, Watson & Gerschon,” the claim states.  Quincey’s claim sets forth that he balked at allowing the law firm to provide legal services to other cities and water agencies where there was some level of conflict with regard to those multiple representations.
Quincey’s claim also alleges mayor Ray Musser and councilman Ken Willis defamed him in statements to the press.  The official reason provided for terminating the 51-year old Quincey, who was receiving a base salary and add-ons  of $368,529, benefits of $92,096 for a total compensation package of $460,625 per year, was that he failed to follow specific city council directions and had breached his employment contract.
The city council quietly rejected Quincey’s claim on November 28. Wohrle has six months from that date to file a lawsuit on Quincey’s behalf. He has not done that, but last month Wohrle filed a petition with the San Bernardino County Superior Court at the West Valley Courthouse in Rancho Cucamonga for arbitration in accordance with Quincey’s employment contract. The court is to consider that request on February 14.

Class Action Suit To Seek $9 M Recovery For Red Light Camera Tickets

Barstow-based attorney Robert Conaway has taken several key steps toward filing a class action lawsuit against the city of Victorville and Australia-based Redflex Traffic Systems to recover over $9 million in actual damages on behalf of 4,300 people who’ve received tickets from Victorville’s red light camera system.

Bob Conaway

Conaway delivered a claim to the city and Redflex on December 9 informing both parties that he intends to proceed with a class action suit if the city and the company do not alter the fashion in which red light camera tickets are issued. In a December 23 letter he calculated the damages in the claim, stating that  based on numbers through the end of November 2011 the alleged victims of the illegally-run red light camera ticketing system were due $2,457,135.49 in restitution damages, $6,000,300 in estimated damages for higher insurance premiums paid, $215,000 in legal fees, and $860,000 in lost  wages for those required to attend arraignments and/or trials
Conaway said the $2,457,135.49 represented the amount of fines paid by those wrongfully ticketed by the Redflex system in Victorville and that the $6,000,300 in higher insurance premiums was based on a calculus of $1,500 per policyholder for three years times the 4,300 people issued tickets and who were forced to pay. He said the $215,000 in legal fees was derived by typical charges made by lawyers on red light ticket cases times ten percent of those issued tickets. The figure of $860,000 in lost  consumer wages was based on a formula of an average of $200 per day in wages times 4,300.
He said the claim was made against the city and Redflex due to the conduct by both parties that was and  is “unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and deceptive.”
Conaway said that he would also seek from the city “any additional award the court may permit in the way of a penalty per violation in its discretion” if the case is taken to trial. Moreover, Conaway said, if the matter is not settled prior to trial “as to Redflex, lead plaintiff Michael Curran and the class will seek punitive damages in the amount of three times the alleged actual damages based on the above figures, $28,597,000.”
Conaway said he anticipates both parties will reject the claim.
Conaway maintains the use of cameras to issue tickets is unconstitutional and illegal because those ticketed are not allowed to confront their accuser and that there is a conflict of interest in allowing Redflex, which has a financial interest in seeing alleged red light runners convicted, to collect, analyze, process and store the evidence used against those cited.
According to Conawy, “The declarations that appear in the citations sent to consumers as part of the Redflex-Victorville red light automated traffic enforcement system, are subscribed under ‘information and belief’“ which (1) under People v. Oppel (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1153] is unlawful, (2) is deceptive and misleading under Business & Profession Code 17200 et seq and finally (3) violates defendants’ rights under 42 USC 1983. ‘An affidavit based on “information and belief” is hearsay and must be disregarded, and it is “unavailing for any purpose” whatsoever,’” Conaway wrote in his letter of December 23. “Matters alleged on ‘information and belief’ do ‘not serve to establish the facts … because an affidavit which is to be used as evidence must be positive, direct and not based upon hearsay.’ A ruling ‘of the court is to be based upon acts which may be presented to it, and not upon the belief of the affiant.’ Such allegations on ‘information and belief’ furnish… ‘no  proof of the facts stated ….’”
As of press time this week, Conaway had not received a response from the city or the company. He vowed to file the class action suit by January 27 if the city and Redflex do not take action to stop issuing tickets based solely upon the images caught on camera as analyzed by Redflex personnel and instead utilize San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies, who are contracted to provide law and traffic enforcement in Victorville, to monitor the live video feed and issue tickets in real time.
Victorville maintains the red light cameras are a legitimate traffic law enforcement tool.
In a corporate statement, Redflex said “There’s no good excuse for running red lights.”