(November 16)   By Gail Fry
Two failed developments located in the San Bernardino Mountains are costing the taxpayers of San Bernardino County about a million dollars.
At its October 23 meeting, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation by the county’s public works director, Gerry Newcombe, to “initiate performance & maintenance securities foreclosure” on a project in Lake Arrowhead known as Mill Pond.
The Mill Pond Project originally approved by the board of supervisors on November 3, 1998 included 67 parcels that were to be developed into custom homes.  In the conditions for approval, the developer agreed to indemnify the county taxpayers against any legal fees or court costs incurred if any action were taken against the county in approving the project.
To date, sixteen lawsuits have been filed as a result of the Mill Pond Project.  Notably, none of the lawsuits involved the county of San Bernardino as a party.  The majority of the lawsuits involved payment of its subcontractors.  One lawsuit was brought for quiet title purposes, that is, to end dispute over ownership of the land and development, while another was brought with regard to the removal of trees from the property.
The Arrowhead Lake Association brought a lawsuit with regard to the erosion and silt that ended up in Lake Arrowhead due to the development.
The state of California, under the authority of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board,  filed for an injunction against Mill Pond Partners on December 18, 2008, in order to force the developer to comply with its cleanup and abatement order issued December 31, 2007.  The cleanup and abatement order issued by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) pertained to storm water erosion originating from the site entering Orchard and Cumberland Creeks and entering into Lake Arrowhead.
On January 8, 2010, the case filed against Mill Pond Partners by the state of California was dismissed when a stipulated judgment was reached with the developer.
Lahontan supervising water resources control engineer Chuck Curtis told the Sentinel that Lahontan “has never been paid for enforcement” of its cleanup and abatement order and a demand letter was sent out to the developer.  Curtis explained his agency is currently “evaluating options” while acknowledging that the developer hasn’t “done all the work to stabilize the site.”
Curtis said the next step is to collect on its judgment and require stabilization of the site.  Curtis explained that it will depend on the current owner, and Lahontan plans to impose its requirements on the new owner.
According to property ownership records from the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office, on February 7, 2012, the lender PME Mortgage Fund, Inc. foreclosed on the property, becoming the current owner of the Mill Pond Project.
The action authorized by the San Bernardino County supervisors at their October 23, 2012 meeting, allows county counsel to initiate foreclosure proceedings against the developer and/or surety “to collect sufficient monies (total estimated construction costs:  road and drainage – $125,245, water – $17,540 and sewer – $12,500) to complete the required improvements for Tract 15740.”
San Bernardino County public works staff analyst/public information officer Roni Eddis told the Sentinel this will allow the county to collect sufficient money from the developer, its bondholder or the present owner in order to “finish up what needs to be done to make the development safe.”
Eddis explained, “Now it’s just a legal issue between county counsel and them,” referring to the developer, its bond holder or the present owner.  Eddis informed the Sentinel that the county has been unable “to get a hold of them” and “We haven’t heard from them.”
The report/recommendation submitted to the board of supervisors shows the project’s required road and drainage improvements have not been completed and the developer is in default under the terms of its agreement with the county.  The report/recommendation also indicates that the bondholder, Western Insurance Company, has filed for insolvency and is being liquidated, and further provides “the county has not “received any funds from Western.”
Western Insurance Company’s insolvency and liquidation appears to leave the county of San Bernardino holding the bag for the cost of completing the project’s improvements, which total $155,285.
Peter Jorris, representative for San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society,  told the Sentinel that his group did not get involved in the Mill Pond Development Project because the project was surrounded by development, but that he perceived problems that cropped up at the development to be exemplary of the county not monitoring projects or enforcing its own general plan or laws.
Another development project located in the San Bernardino Mountains known as the Hawarden Project, again in the community of Lake Arrowhead, has resulted in the county of San Bernardino paying legal fees in the amount of $757,451.
The Hawarden Development Project was approved by the San Bernardino County Planning Commission on August 18, 2005 and consisted of 63 lots that were to be developed into 57 custom homes.
The developer, Blue Ridge Development, Inc., agreed to indemnify the county taxpayers against any legal fees or court costs incurred if any action were taken against the county in approving the project.
On December 15, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Save Our Forest Association and the Sierra Club filed a writ of mandate against San Bernardino County and Hawarden Development Company for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act.
On November 30, 2006, Judge John Wade declined to grant a writ on the issue of water supply as well as on the issue of waste water, denied the writ with regard to the developer’s mitigation with regard to the Southern Rubber Boa and other environmental impacts while granting the writ with regard to its fire safety plan.
The major issue with regard to the fire safety plan involved the lack of evacuation routes without the completion of Cumberland Road from Cedar Glen to State Highway 18.
On January 31, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Save Our Forest Association and the Sierra Club filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth District Appellate Court.
On October 27, 2008, the Fourth District Appellate Court upheld Judge Wade’s decision with regard to its fire safety plan while ruling against Judge Wade’s decision with regard to the issue of water supply, California Environmental Quality Act issues and the Southern Rubber Boa.
Specifically, with regard to the fire safety plan the appellate court found, “By approving the Blue Ridge Project tentative tract map and conditional use permit without requiring completion of Cumberland Road, [the] county violated the express requirements of its general plan.”
With regard to the issue of water supply, the court found the environmental impact report “does not comport with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because the document does not identify a source of water for the project or discuss the environmental impact of obtaining water from each of the various sources.”
With regard to the Southern Rubber Boa, the appellate court found, “the environmental impact report  conclusions regarding the SRB (Southern Rubber Boa) habitat located on the project site are not supported by substantial evidence and therefore the environmental impact report fails to set out adequate mitigation measures, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.”
A press release dated September 20, 2010, issued by the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Save Our Forest Association and the Sierra Club clarified that a 2009 ruling by San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez had “arbitrarily minimized the fee award” and that an appeal to the state appeals court directed that “attorney fees awarded to the four plaintiff organizations be supplemented to provide a higher award.”
On September 14, 2011, the San Bernardino Superior Court held a hearing with regard a motion brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Save Our Forest Association and the Sierra Club to the awarding of attorney fees.
On September 26, 2011, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Gafkowski found the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Save Our Forest Association and the Sierra Club were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $757,451.
By the time the court made its award for attorneys fees, Hawarden Development Company had gone out of business and was unavailable to pay the attorneys fees as it had promised in its indemnity agreement with the county.
Peter Jorris, speaking on behalf of the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, told the Sentinel that in cases where citizens uphold the California Environmental quality Act and serve in the capacity of a private attorney general that the parties were entitled to their legal fees.
Jorris said if the judge decides “the government overstepped its bounds egregiously then you can have a multiplier applied to the legal fees,” as in this case.  Jorris suggested the award was a “lesson to the county to listen to its citizens when they make reasonable arguments” and  that “it was a resounding victory after six years.”
According to records from the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office, Provident Savings Bank foreclosed on the property slated for the Hawarden Project on March 7, 2012.

(November 16)   MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE—The Mojave Cross has been re-erected at Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, where it stood for 67 years to honor those American soldiers slain in what was once known as the Great War, now referred to as World War I.
The Christian symbol was taken down after Frank Buono, a National Park Service employee, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit in March 2001 against the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and the superintendent of the preserve to have the cross removed from public land. Buono, a Catholic Vietnam War Veteran, was offended at the National Park Service’s denial, on separation of church and state grounds, of a request by Buddhists to establish a dome-shaped Buddhist shrine on a rock outcropping at a trailhead located near the cross in 1999.  The district court concluded that the presence of the cross in the preserve violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, that portion of the First Amendment which prohibits one religion from having too much influence. In July 2002, the court entered a permanent injunction ordering that the “defendants, their employees, agents, and those in active concert with defendants, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from permitting display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.”
After an appeal to a higher federal court upheld the removal of the cross, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 ruled that a property exchange, by which the land around the cross was deeded over to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a non-governmental entity, could take place and provide a constitutionally acceptable means by which the cross could be resurrected.
On Veterans Day, November 11, nine days after the acre upon which the cross previously stood and now stands was formally exchanged for land owned by Henry and Wanda Sandoz located elsewhere in the desert, California Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Earl Fulk formally rededicated a new seven-foot-tall iron cross at the same spot the original Mojave Cross occupied.
More than a hundred people, most of them veterans themselves or their family members, came to Sunrise Rock, which is 12 miles off Interstate 15 about halfway between Barstow and Las Vegas, for the dedication.
Several crosses that had previously graced the site were vandalized or stolen. Henry Sandoz, of Yucca Valley, committed to serving as a caretaker of the Mojave Cross in 1983 when he made a promise to that effect to Riley Bembry, one of the WWI veterans who erected the cross in 1934, on Bembry’s deathbed.
Buono, who was in 2001 the assistant superintendent of the preserve, despite his own religious faith objected to the presence of the cross on public land, saying he did not think it proper for any religious symbol to be displayed on government property if symbols of all faiths were not to be tolerated.
Buono’s case cut a tortuous path through federal courts, where it was twice ordered that the cross be removed. Shortly after a federal court ordered the removal of the cross the first time, Congressman Jerry Lewis, in an effort to circumvent the court’s authority, arranged a land transfer in legislation he had passed in 2003, by which the five acres of privately owned property was delivered to the federal government in exchange for the acre beneath and surrounding the cross being given to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. That legislative solution was indistinguishable from the land exchange that was formalized this week but was not previously actuated after a federal appellate court nixed it, ruling that a transfer of the land upon which the cross stood to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the middle of the 1.6 million acre federal preserve “will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement” of a religious symbol.
The 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed the return of the cross to its original spot was a sharply divided one, with the go-ahead given in a 5-4 decision. “The goal of avoiding governmental (religious) endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Hiram Sasser, an attorney with the Texas-based Liberty Institute, who is credited with carrying out most of the legal battle that led to the reestablishment of the shrine, said “It rises once more.”
The Veterans of Foreign Wars have placed a plaque into Sunrise Rock, demarking the cross as a memorial for all U.S. war veterans. They have also put a fence around the site, but have left entrances for visitors.
In the coming weeks, Sandoz and other volunteers will return to fill the hollow iron cross with concrete to make it more difficult to cart off.
While there are signs that say the shrine site is private land, in the spirit of openness, anyone can come onto the property, leaving it vulnerable to vandals and thieves, part of the reality and paradox of freedom.

(November 16)   The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, commonly known as the Border Patrol, has exercised its option to terminate a contract it had with San Bernardino County for training at the Sheriff’s Emergency Vehicle Operations Center.
The Border Patrol entered into a contract with the county in May 2010 for the sheriff’s department to provide its Emergency Vehicle Operations Center (EVOC) in support of the Border Patrol’s training. Under the terms of the contract, the department provided use of its EVOC facilities in Devore, including the driving track, skid pan, classroom space, Offensive Driving Technique (ODT) vehicles, and support staff. The Border Patrol provided its own instructors, curriculum and vehicles for training (other than ODT vehicles).
The course instructed drivers on how to identify, avoid, and recover from various types of skids; the practice of defensive driving techniques; the use of vehicle dynamics for advantage in a pursuit situation, precision vehicle placement at slow and high speeds; safe driving techniques under adverse driving conditions; and the use and control of various types of  collisions in a law enforcement context. The contract was amended five previous times, most recently on June 5, 2012 to increase the contract amount by $1,356,018.44 and extend the term through June 8, 2013.
On September 27, 2012, the sheriff’s department was notified verbally that due to budget cuts, the Border Patrol was exercising its option to terminate the agreement. Amendment No. 6 to the contract approved by the board of supervisors last week was deemed acceptance of the written notice of termination, effective October 1, 2012.

(November 16)   The federal government has provided San Bernardino County with $941,715 for reimbursement of a portion of the costs to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens in county detention facilities between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.
That reimbursement represents pennies on the dollar of what the actual costs were, according to sheriff Rod Hoops.
Just before the money was electronically wired into a county account, Hoops’ designated liaison to the board of supervisors, captain Steve Higgins, told the board, “The sheriff’s department estimates its cost to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens in Fiscal Year 2010-11 was $17.3 million. This State Criminal Alien Assistance Program award, in the amount of $941,715, will reimburse only 5.4% of these costs.”
The U.S. Department of Justice, through its Bureau of Justice Assistance and its State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, annually makes funds available nationwide for the reimbursement of detention costs associated with the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens who were in custody for four or more consecutive days and convicted of a felony or second misdemeanor.
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program does not fully reimburse actual cost; instead, data received by all applicants is combined to determine each applicant’s relative percentage of the total program allocation.
On June 26, 2012, the board of supervisors approved an application for the reimbursement of a portion of the costs to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. The county’s application was successful and funding in the amount of $941,715 has been awarded, resulting in a total of $15.8 million received over the past fifteen years.
Under the terms of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, funds awarded must be used for correctional purposes only.

(November 16)   For the victors, there was elation after the November 6 election. For the losers, there was abject disappointment. At the polls throughout San Bernardino County there were a few unexpected twists and some perhaps predictable but still noteworthy developments.
The least expected outcome from November 6 was the fall of the Baca Political Dynasty. Incumbent Congressman Joe Baca, Sr. was sent into retirement by state Senator Gloria Negrete-McLeod, who will now represent the voters of California’s newly redrawn 35th Congressional District  in Washington, D.C. Baca’s son, Joe Jr., was likewise turned back in his attempt to return to the state Assembly in his run against Cheryl Brown, the co-publisher of the Black Voice News and a staff member for outgoing Assemblywoman Wilmer “Amina” Carter. Of note, all of those involved in those races, both Bacas, Negrete-McLeod and Brown, are Democrats.
Joe Baca, Sr., a Vietnam Era Army veteran, engaged in epic battles against Jerry Eaves, another Democrat, in races for the Assembly in the 1980s. Baca came up short in each of those engagements but resiliently fought on, finally gaining victory and revenge in 1992 when he defeated Eaves’ protégé, John Longville to go to Sacramento to represent the 62nd Assembly District, newly redrawn after the 1990 Census. In 1998 he stepped up to the California Senate in the 32nd District. In 1999, he was elected to succeed longtime Congressman George Brown following his death in office. At that time, the senior Baca represented California’s 42nd Congressional District. Following redistricting based on the 2000 Census, he successfully ran for reelection as Congressman in California’s 43rd Congressional District.
Baca, Sr. was something of an enigma, a living paradox that seamlessly embodied contradictory elements. In the years he was struggling against Eaves, union backing eluded him, but once in office, he commanded strong union support. He aligned himself with and became a dominant figure within the Hispanic Caucus in Congress but then butted heads with a celebrated Latina lawmaker, Loretta Sanchez, who abruptly resigned from the Latino Caucus because of her differences with Baca.
Joe, Jr,, with the advantage of the name recognition and support provided by his father, successfully ran for the California State Assembly in the 62nd District in 2004. Two years later, he vied for the California Senate in the 32nd District. His opponent in that contest was Negrete-McLeod, who defeated him as she would his father six years later. That same year, Joe, Jr.’s sibling, Jeremy Baca, had sought to succeed him in the 62nd Assembly District, but lost to Carter. In time, Joe, Jr. would land another political gig, as councilman in Rialto.
2012 had held promise for the Baca family. If Joe Sr. and Joe Jr. had won, they would have represented the most powerful familial legislative combination in San Bernardino County, indeed in the state of California.
But McLeod, assisted by $2.7 million provided to her campaign by Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, surged to a come-from-behind victory over Joe, Sr.  Joe, Jr., who had better funding than Brown, was no more successful on November 6 than his father.
On the western side of the county, the long sleeping Latino political giant that has gradually been awakening over the last decade-and-a-half is coming to even fuller consciousness. It was not until 1999 that Ontario elected its first Hispanic councilman, Paul Leon. Leon was  not only the first Hispanic elected, he would be the first one reelected. He then acceded to the mayor’s post in 2006, and in 2010 became the first Latino re-elected mayor.
Pursuant to the polling on November 6, Leon will be joined by a second Latino on the council dais, Paul Vincent Avila. Voters also thought they were electing, or re-electing, a third Hispanic candidate, Debra Dorst-Porada. Four years ago, Dorst-Porada used her full name during her campaign. This year, she shortened her surname to simply Porada. Her yard signs did not even mention her first name. Many have mistakenly assumed that Porada is a Spanish surname, when actually, it is Polish.
While Dorst-Porada was granted another four years on the council, Avila displaced the other incumbent in the race, Sheila Mautz. Mautz went down to defeat despite having the advantage of incumbency and accompanying name recognition, not to mention the largest political war chest of any of the candidates – $80,000. Avila won despite having run virtually no campaign. He spent less than $1,000, ran no ads,  and did not provide a ballot statement.
In addition to Avila, there were three other Hispanic candidates in the race –  Josie Estrada, John Lira and Ruben Valencia. Notably, of the five candidates presumed to be Hispanic, it was the one at the top of the ballot – Avila – and the one at the bottom of the ballot – Porada – who won. Four years ago, when there were likewise two open seats up for election, it was the candidate at the top of the ballot – Mautz – and the candidate at the bottom of the ballot – Dorst-Porada – who prevailed, as well.
In the Ontario-Montclair School District Board race, there was further evidence of Latino political dominance. Sam Crowe, whose presence on the school board has been almost universally recognized as a stabilizing and beneficent factor key to sustaining a district that is under severe challenge because of financial and other factors, failed to achieve reelection. Selected by voters were J. Steve Garcia and Maureen Mendoza. Ironically, Mendoza, who has a Spanish surname, is not a Latina.
In Yucca Valley, the balloting this year proved something of a cliffhanging nail-biter, although it did not turn on personalities. Both of the incumbents in that town of 20,700 up for reelection, George Huntington and Robert Lombardo, faced no opposition. Rather the real horse race involved Measure U, which called for the imposition of a one percent municipal sales tax to provide town officials with funding to pay for a host of improvement projects, foremost of which is a sewer system being mandated on the town by the state of California.
There was something of a spectacle to Yucca Valley’s elected town officials, all of whom are Republicans who normally abide by a strong anti-tax ethos, advocating the passage of a tax measure. Prompting the town to this out-of-character tax gambit is the consideration that the desert town is entirely reliant on septic systems. In 2007, the state agency responsible for protecting water quality, the California Regional  Water Quality Control Board, adopted a resolution identifying the town of Yucca Valley as one of 66 communities throughout the state with groundwater threatened by the continuing overuse of septic systems. As such, the state has imposed septic discharge prohibitions due to be triggered as of May 19, 2016. Under that mandate, phase 1 of a wastewater system must be completed or significantly on its way to completion by that date or the state will initiate enforcement action. The first phase of the project is to cover the downtown area of Yucca Valley, the area most proximate to the heart of the groundwater basin.  Similarly, phase 2 must be completed or nearly completed by May 19, 2019 and phase 3 must be completed by May 19, 2022.
If those systems are not in place by the stipulated dates, further development in Yucca Valley will be prohibited. Moreover, existing property owners will receive cease and desist orders with the potential of daily fines for non-compliance. They will be ordered to discontinue the discharge from their septic systems, seal them off and pump them regularly. If they do not, the fines to be levied against them can reach $5,000 per day.
In the face of those threats, town residents as a whole did not feel compelled to approve Measure U, which went down to defeat, as  3,147 residents of the town, or 47.97 percent voted yes and 3,443, or 52.03 percent voted against the measure.

(November 9)  For the second time in less than four years, San Bernardino County’s incumbent sheriff will make a sudden departure from his post in the midst of his elected term.
Rod Hoops, who was nominated by his predecessor as his successor and then appointed sheriff on the strength of that recommendation when Gary Penrod abruptly resigned as sheriff in January 2009, announced he would abdicate as sheriff on November 7.  He asked that the county board of supervisors select assistant sheriff John McMahon to succeed him.
Hoops said he was induced to leave by the offering of a fellowship with the National Police Foundation in the nation’s capital. His departure came one day after the November election in which one of the candidates for county supervisor, James Ramos, won and another candidate for supervisor he endorsed, sheriff’s captain Rick Roelle, lost.
After his appointment in 2009, Hoops was elected sheriff in the 2010 election in his own right, albeit with the advantage of incumbency. Shortly thereafter the department was hit with a string of scandals that brought the agency and Hoops’ leadership of it into question.
Circulating even during Hoops’ campaign for election were reports that a number of his deputies and higher ranking officers had fraudulently claimed to have completed in-service classes and seminars in conjunction with the state of California’s Police Officers Standards and Training protocols that are required for police officers to maintain their certification and allow them to qualify for higher rates of grade and pay. After months of swirling rumors, in March 2011, seven officers and department employees, including a former assistant sheriff, a captain and two lieutenants, were indicted for having falsely claimed to have completed Police Officers Standards and Training coursework or aiding and abetting others in the falsifications.
The following month, a deputy, Nathan Gastineau, was arrested and charged with having sex with a 16-year-old police explorer scout he was mentoring. And a month later, a second deputy, Anthony Benjamin, was arrested and charged with having sex with another explorer scout he was mentoring.
This year, two other deputies were charged with beating a suspect and then falsifying their identities by identifying themselves to the beaten suspect as two other deputies.
In announcing his retirement, Hoops made no mention of those difficulties, instead insisting “I have witnessed the department grow into one of the finest and most respected law enforcement agencies in the country.”
In his announcement, Hoops said, “I have dedicated the last 34 years of my professional life to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. When I began my career as a 21-year old deputy sheriff in 1978, I had no idea as to what kind of adventure I was in for. I have lived my dream and have made many friends along the way. As your sheriff, I have never allowed myself to become more important than the office into which I was sworn to uphold.”
Hoops spelled out accomplishments he felt he has achieved in the last three-plus years.
“I am very proud of the changes made to the department during my four years as sheriff,” he said. “An emphasis has been placed on a better educated and more diverse workforce. A workforce that will serve our constituents well for many years to come. We are an organization that is made up of exceptionally talented and dedicated individuals that are prepared and ready to lead the department into the future.
“This has not been an easy decision for me, but the time is right for me to begin the next chapter of my life,” Hoops continued. “I have accepted a position as an executive fellow with the Police Foundation in Washington, D.C., the country’s oldest non-partisan policing research organization. It is an exciting opportunity that will allow me to remain involved with the law enforcement profession on a national and international level.
“December 2012 will be my last month of service as sheriff-coroner-public administrator of San Bernardino County,” he said. “I am leaving on my own terms, with peace of mind, in good health and with no regrets. My remaining time in office will be dedicated to insuring (sic) a smooth transition for the next sheriff. I look forward to working with our board of supervisors and our CEO to assist with the selection process.”
The abruptness of Hoops’ departure summoned recollections of Penrod’s sudden exodus. Penrod tendered his resignation in January 2009, less than a month after he was called as a witness to testify in the criminal trial of former Orange County sheriff Mike Carona, who had been charged by federal prosecutors with  accepting illegal campaign contributions, as well as bribes, in exchange for public and private favors. Carona would eventually be acquitted of those charges but was convicted of witness tampering. A nexus was drawn between Penrod and Carona because both had utilized Donald Haidl, a major campaign donor to both, to head their respective reserve deputy divisions. Haidl had profited financially from his relationship to  law enforcement agencies in that he owned a vehicle auctioning business that sold cars recovered or confiscated by those agencies.
When Penrod was called as a defense witness in the Carona trial, he testified he was never overly concerned with fund raising but acknowledged that in San Bernardino County those given honorary deputy or reserve deputy sheriff status were oftentimes his campaign contributors. Penrod said he perceived no problems in such arrangements.
Penrod’s testimony on behalf of Carona in which he maintained that providing special deputy status to those willing to bankroll his political campaigns was an acceptable way of running a law enforcement agency antagonized federal prosecutors. It was widely perceived that the U.S. Attorney’s antipathy toward him led to Penrod’s resignation as sheriff the following month.
Despite the consideration that he had acceded to the position of sheriff primarily because of Penrod’s recommendation of him to the board of supervisors, Hoops nine months later took action to curtail the quid pro quo arrangements between campaign donors and the department.
In October 2009, Hoops without fanfare withdrew from circulation the hundreds of honorary sheriff’s badges Penrod issued to his friends, associates and campaign supporters.  Hoops issued a directive to his deputies instructing them that if during routine operations such as incident investigations or traffic stops they encountered anyone brandishing a special deputy or posse badge issued by Penrod, those badges were to be immediately confiscated.
With that directive, Hoops effectively diffused charges by any would-be electoral opponent or the U.S. Attorney’s office that he was condoning Penrod’s practice of conferring special or honorary deputy status on the politically well connected.
Other than the adverse publicity the department had suffered as a consequence of the criminal cases filed against 11 of its employees over the last 20 months, there was no indication that problems similar to the one dogging Penrod was bedeviling Hoops and had prompted his resignation.
Nevertheless, like Penrod before him, Hoops seemed intent on handpicking his replacement with a department loyalist.
McMahon, 48, grew up in the High Desert and graduated from Apple Valley High School in 1982. He began his law enforcement career with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department in 1985, working patrol out of the Needles station.
McMahon obtained an associate’s degree in police science from Victor Valley College and a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice management from Union University. He eventually returned to his hometown after he attained the rank of captain, serving as the station commander of the sheriff’s operation in Apple Valley from 2003 to 2007. He subsequently was a deputy chief with the department, overseeing desert patrol and the detentions and corrections bureau. He promoted to assistant sheriff two years ago.
With the choice of  McMahon, to oversee the department’s 3,700 personnel and $440 million budget, it appears that undersheriff Robert Fonzi may have been stepped over.
Paul Schrader, who ran against Hoops in 2010 and has announced he will again run for sheriff in 2014, said he hopes Hoops will rethink the wisdom of appointing a replacement from within the department and that the board of supervisors this time will not blindly comply with the departing sheriff’s wishes.
“I hope that he will abandon his request to appoint an incumbent to his office, which has been a very bad past practice,” Schrader said.

(November 9)    In what came across as an aggravated insult, Los Angeles International Airport officials on November 5 signaled further disregard of the diminishing passenger traffic at Ontario Airport, with one major carrier advertising direct flights out of Los Angeles International to the popular winter vacation destination of Aspen in Ontario’s hometown newspaper.
On the same day that American Airlines and American Eagle began running the ad on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin’s website along with a link that allowed Daily Bulletin readers to click and book reservations, the newspaper ran an article headlined in its on-line version, “Ontario airport passenger traffic to continue downward.”
The article, authored by Daily Bulletin staff writer Liset Marquez, reported that Robert Hazel of Oliver Wyman,  a global management consulting firm, had projected that Ontario International Airport flight schedules through April indicate the airport will have 6 percent fewer seats available and that passenger traffic in all of 2012 is anticipated to decline 5.5 percent from last year.
Passenger traffic at Ontario International Airport has been in severe decline since 2007, when the number of those flying into and out of the airport reached an all-time high of 7.2 million. But with the downscaling of the economy and other factors, passenger traffic has lapsed to 4.6 million per year.
In the meantime, Ontario officials have blamed the entity that runs Ontario Airport, Los Angeles World Airports, for deliberately mismanaging the facility as part of a ploy to increase use at Los Angeles International Airport, which is also run by Los Angeles World Airports. Ontario officials maintain that the decline in passenger traffic at Ontario International has damaged the local economy. They are pushing to have the city of Los Angeles deed Ontario Airport back to the city of Ontario.
In 1967, the city of Ontario entered into a joint powers authority arrangement with the city of Los Angeles to allow the larger city to operate Ontario Airport, which at that time boasted fewer than 200,000 passengers per year. Los Angeles was able to use the leverage it possessed to control gate positions at Los Angeles International Airport to induce airlines to increase the number of flights into and out of Ontario. Simultaneously, Los Angeles and its department of airports, which today functions in conjunction with the Los Angeles World Airports non-profit corporation to operate the four airports Los Angeles owns, embarked on a series of improvements to Ontario International Airport, which to date represent an undertaking costing in excess of $550 million.
In 1985, after Los Angeles had met all of the requirements spelled out in the original 1967 joint powers agreement, the city of Ontario in accordance with that agreement deeded Ontario Airport to the city of Los Angeles for no consideration.
Ontario officials have pushed forward with their contention that the city of Los Angeles is exploiting its ownership of Ontario Airport to the benefit of Los Angeles International Airport, which has undergone extensive renovations and improvements in recent years. Los Angeles’s action, according to Ontario officials, has redounded to the detriment of Ontario International Airport, Ontario and the Inland Empire. Ontario’s leadership has publicly suggested that Los Angeles should simply redeed the airport back to Ontario. That suggestion was accompanied by statements to the effect that the airport, as a public benefit property, has no value as real estate. Privately, however, Ontario officials made a confidential offer to purchase the airport for $50 million and an assumption of $71 million in bond debt related to financing for improvements that had been made to the airport and another $125 million to repay Los Angeles for passenger facilities charges collected at Los Angeles International Airport that were used to make improvements at Ontario Airport.  The existence of that offer became public, however, damaging the credibility of Ontario officials and their earlier insistence that the airport has no value in terms of a sale.
Unfazed by that blow to their prestige, Ontario city officials formed with the county of San Bernardino another joint powers agency, the Ontario International Airport Authority, intended to serve as the entity that will manage the aerodrome once it is wrested away from Los Angeles.
Los Angeles officials, meanwhile, have been offended by Ontario’s aggressive efforts and what Los Angeles World Airport officials maintain are misrepresentations about how the airport is being operated. Los Angeles officials reject Ontario officials’ contentions that factors exclusively under Los Angeles World Airports’ control, including higher per enplaned passenger fees charged by Los Angeles World Airports at Ontario than at other airports, are solely responsible for the passenger reductions in Ontario. They point out that they offered to allow Ontario to undertake the marketing of Ontario International Airport after Ontario officials asserted Los Angeles was neglecting the airport in this regard. Los Angeles maintains that the long-sputtering economy accounts for the diminution of ridership out of and into Ontario. They have expressed doubt that Ontario has the means, skill, expertise or the staffing to actually manage an airport, let alone bring it back to profitability. They maintain the airport will recover when the economy does.
Los Angeles officials have scoffed at Ontario’s $246 million offer for the airport, maintaining publicly that they are not prepared to accept anything less than the $550 million expended to put in improvements at the airport since 1967, although there are contradictory indications Los Angeles will accept $450 million for the airport.
This week the on-line advertisement that ran on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin’s website was widely seen as Los Angeles thumbing its nose at Ontario officials. Ontario does not offer similar frequent nonstop flights to Colorado at the height of the winter skiing season. The presence of the ad in the Daily Bulletin was particularly galling, since the Daily Bulletin has been highly supportive of Ontario’s efforts to win the airport back, providing plenty of coverage of Ontario officials’ assertions of the mismanagement of Ontario Airport at the hands of what Ontario’s politicians have characterized as greedy, duplicitous and Chauvinistic Los Angeles officials.

(November 9)  James Ramos made history this week, becoming the first Native American in San Bernardino County history to accede to the position of county supervisor. Ramos took a commanding lead early, capturing 58 percent of the absentee ballot votes tallied before balloting from the precincts recorded on election day were received. As the precinct results were counted later in the evening of November 6 and into the morning of November 7, Ramos widened that lead, ending with 59.09 percent of the vote.
Derry, a Republican who defeated Dennis Hansberger, also a Republican, in 2008, succeeded in holding onto the Third District supervisor’s post for only one term. Derry’s victory in 2008 came when Hansberger, who had served five four-year terms as supervisor over a span of 36 years, underestimated Derry, a former Marine who had worked as a representative for former state assemblyman Fred Aguiar before successfully running for a position on the San Bernardino City Council.
The Third District is home to more than  183,000 registered voters who live in Grand Terrace and Loma Linda,  Barstow,  Highland, Redlands, Mentone, Yucaipa, Big  Bear City, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms, Johnson Valley, Lucerne Valley, Landers  and the eastern portion of the city of San Bernardino.
In 2008, Derry was able to fund his supervisorial run with more than $50,000 provided to his campaign war chest by the county’s sheriff’s deputies’ union. Derry’s displacement of Hansberger created a division within the county’s Republican Party and earned the enmity of Hansberger, who was a prominent member of that portion of the Republican political machine based in Redlands. Hansberger, along with other members of the Redlands Republican wing, which includes district attorney Mike Ramos and Congressman Jerry Lewis, broke party ranks to endorse James Ramos, a Democrat.
James Ramos is also the former chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a tribe of 167 members who own the San Manuel Casino near Highland. That casino generates a significant amount of money for the tribe, estimated at $400 million per year. James Ramos and the tribe have used that money to powerful effect, making political contributions and endowing charities to create a political machine of their own, which has now reached fruition with the election of Ramos to Third District county supervisor. The financial advantage enjoyed by James Ramos proved a political juggernaut, as donors who had lined up behind Derry four years ago began to rethink the wisdom of continuing to support him in the face of Ramos’s overwhelming funding advantage. A key defection crippling Derry this year was the decision of the deputies’ union to withdraw its support of him in favor of Ramos. The San Manuel Tribe, while it was chaired by Ramos, had made hefty political donations to the deputies’ union, totaling $300,000 since 2005.
Another problem besetting Derry’s reelection effort was the filing of criminal charges against him last year by the state attorney general’s office relating to what was alleged to be Derry’s attempt to launder a $5,000 donation to his electioneering fund from Highland developer Arnold Stubblefield in 2007. Those charges were based upon information gathered by investigators for the San Bernardino County district attorney’s office and included one felony count of fund laundering, one felony count of perjury and a misdemeanor count of campaign fund misreporting. The two felony counts were dismissed upon Derry’s agreement not to contest the misdemeanor charge. Though Derry would assert that the matter had been overcharged by prosecutors who were linked to district attorney Mike Ramos, a member of the Redlands political machine he had upset with his successful challenge of Hansberger in 2008, he was not able to overcome the negative publicity that attended the matter. James Ramos used Derry’s no contest plea to the campaign fund misreporting misdemeanor in his campaign, characterizing his opponent as a criminal.
While in county office Derry sponsored, supported or had a hand in three ethics reform measures that have been enacted. One of those was a county “Sunshine Ordinance,” which makes meeting records more readily accessible to the public. Another was the establishing of campaign contribution limits for county-level elected officials. The third provided for reductions in lavish benefits afforded to various elected and appointed officials.
The campaign contribution limit measure caps campaign contributions at $3,900 per election cycle effective January 1, 2013. Currently there is no limit. The State Fair Political Practices Commission is designated to investigate and enforce the new rules. The benefit reduction measure affected reductions in various retirement contributions and capped the amount of leave time that may be cashed out by affected employees.
Two days after the election, Derry told the Sentinel he was at peace with the outcome of the race. “That’s life,” he said. “We have elections for reasons. I wish James the best. I hope he does the best for our constituents, since I am one. I ran a campaign without a lot of resources and we tried to be competitive. We did everything we could and the voters made a decision.”
Alluding to the disappearance of many Third District-related documents from the office he came into in December 2008 after the departure of Hansberger, Derry said he was seeking to make a smooth transition between his administration and that of Ramos. “There won’t be file shredder’s running amok on the Fifth Floor [of the county administration building, where the supervisors’ officers are located]. I hope James will bring a lot of the projects we started to fruition.”
Ramos said that his priorities in office will be to “bring jobs to our area and grow economic opportunities, keep schools and neighborhoods safe, protect taxpayers through sound fiscal management, improve education and youth programs, and oppose the illegal fire service tax being imposed by the state in our unincorporated areas.”

(November 9)  The annual celebration of the founding of Etiwanda by the Chaffey Brothers this year will feature a tour of the restored Chaffey-Garcia House and the 1883 Chaffey-Isle House. The historic area also includes the 1902 Etiwanda Church, the Victorian Norton-Fisher home, and the Pacific Electric Etiwanda Railroad Station.
The Chaffey-Garcia House was the only home of George Chaffey, Jr. while he laid out his model colonies of Ontario, Etiwanda and Magnolia (Upland). It was here George erected the first electric light in Southern California in 1882, installed the first concrete irrigation pipe west of the Mississippi, and introduced the first hydroelectric power west of the Rockies. George was then recruited to light the streets of Los Angeles. Later he designed and built the canal that carried water to the Imperial Desert, known today as a result of his efforts as the Imperial Valley.
The Chaffey-Isle House was built for the Chaffey Brother’s mother and sister. It is the only house built by George Chaffey in any of his model colonies.
Enjoy demonstrations of old-time crafts, a blacksmith at work, sale of collectibles, a drawing for an antique quilt, a cake walk, entertainment, delicious snacks and chuck wagon chili. Children’s activities are to include butter churning, candle making, gingerbread cookie decorating, gold panning and more. The celebration will be held Saturday, November 17 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. 7150 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
Admission is $2. For more information, call (909) 899 8432

(November 9)   By Gail Fry
On October 9, the California State Attorney General’s Office granted Arrowbear Park County Water District’s request to bring a so-called quo warranto action against its former board member, Richard Kuritz.
A quo warranto is defined as a legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.
Kuritz was elected during the August 25, 2009 election, in  which he received 22 percent of the votes, closely behind Pat Oberlies, who received 23 percent.  With two vacant board positions, Kuritz and Oberlies took their place on the board of Arrowbear Park County Water District (APCWD).
According to Kuritz, while on the board he started questioning some of the actions taken by the water district, such as the drilling of a well on property that didn’t belong to it, the relaying of water pipes at a cost of $230 per linear foot and a legal bill characterized as a personnel matter.
Kuritz told the Sentinel that the Arrowbear Park County Water District ended up having to pay about double for the property on which it had drilled a well, the re-piping cost the district about $100.00 per linear foot over market and the legal bill described as a personnel matter on its agenda in April 2011 was payment for water district legal counsel Joseph Aklufi preparing a complaint to file with the district attorney’s office about Kuritz’s eligibility to hold office based on his domicile.
Kuritz believes his questions led to certain individuals wanting him removed from the board, observing, “They have a little kingdom and they don’t want anyone poking around in it.”
In early 2011, complaints were filed with the district by board members, residents and a nonresident alleging Kuritz did not live in the district, making him ineligible to be on the board.  Kuritz spoke of people peeping into the windows of his home and investigating his former wife.
According to California Election Code Section 349, a person’s residence for voting purposes is his or her  “domicile” and a domicile is “that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning” and “at a given time, a person may have only one domicile.”
However, California elections code section 2031 defines a person’s domicile as the residence, ”Listed as the person’s current residence address on any driver’s license, identification card or vehicle registration issued to that person by, and on file with, the Department of Motor Vehicles.” Kuritz had provided Aklufi with these documents indicating his residence as Arrowbear.
Additionally,  the Arrowbear Park County Water District adopted in January 2012 a policy with regard to its residency requirements for candidates and elected board members allowing it to demand additional information including federal and state income tax returns as well as their driver’s license, car registration and original envelopes and enclosures reflecting mailing address information from credit card statements, bank statements, auto insurance policies, property tax bills, utility services statements, rental agreements and more.
San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Communication Manager Felisa Cardona told the Sentinel, “Some municipalities and districts create their own policies, certainly” and “They have the right to create their own policies.”
According to Kuritz he provided many of the documents requested by Aklufi to prove his domicile but balked when asked for his federal tax return.  Kuritz explained Aklufi had even gone so far as to ask him to sign an authorization so that Aklufi could request a copy from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) directly, and was not satisfied with just a copy of his tax return.  Kuritz questioned Aklufi’s legal authority to demand he sign an authorization form for the IRS.
At its August 13, 2011 meeting, Aklufi presented the documentation provided by Kuritz to prove his domicile was in Arrowbear, including his Southern California Edison bill, water bill, bank account information, application for his post office box, California driver’s license, car registration and registration to vote in San Bernardino County.
Supervisor Neil Derry’s special projects coordinator Joseph Turner attended the meeting informing the board that to remove an elected board member it was his “understanding from county counsel this is a topic that should go to the attorney general’s office.”
Aklufi concluded the documentation provided was insufficient to establish Kuritz’s legal domicile as Arrowbear.  Aklufi informed the board under Government Code section 1770 a vacancy would exist if a board member ceases to have his domicile within the district, finding “Director Richard Kuritz is not a legal resident of the district as required by law.”  At the conclusion of the August 13, 2011 meeting, Kuritz was removed by a board vote.
According to Kuritz on October 24, 2011, he submitted his resignation to APCWD.  On November 3, 2011, APCWD requested leave to sue quo warranto.
On October 9, 2012, the State Attorney General issued its opinion in the matter and granted APCWD’s request to sue in quo warranto.   In its opinion, the State Attorney General concluded, “Whether Richard Kuritz is unlawfully holding the office of director of the Arrowbear Park County Water District because he does not reside in the sistrict presents substantial questions of fact and law warranting judicial resolution.”
Subsequently, the State Attorney General obtained a copy of Kuritz’s October 24, 2011, resignation from the board.  According to APCWD’s general manager David Harich they never received Kurtiz’s resignation letter.
At its October 18 meeting, Arrowbear Park County Water District heard from Aklufi that he was now expecting a letter from the State Attorney General’s Office “advising us that in the AG’s opinion the matter is moot.”
Aklufi informed board members that the State Attorney General’s Office had delayed its opinion because it waited to receive the resignation letter from Kuritz as promised in his December 2, 2011 email.
Aklufi explained after waiting several months, the State Attorney General’s office proceeded with its review and issuing its opinion “authorizing us to proceed with our lawsuit declaring his seat vacant as a matter of law.”
General Manager David Harich read an email from the State Attorney General’s office, “As our opinion makes clear we repeatedly asked Mr. Kuritz before the drafting and issuance of the opinion to provide proof of his resignation from the district board;  he never did so.  You also informed us that neither your office nor the water district ever received a letter of resignation from Mr. Kuritz.”
“So, basically this is saying we have the legal right to go even further right now to make this a more solid case for us?“ vice president Mark Bunyea asked.  Aklufi responded, “No, that letter takes it out of our hands now.”
“She has ruled he has no legal standing to hold a seat on this board,” Wymer remarked.
“[That is] the opinion of the attorney general, but it still was an open question until this resignation letter,” confirmed Aklufi.
General manager David Harich asked, “I have a question, Joe, if you don’t mind. One of the concerns that has come up is that this issue is not an isolated issue  [and] that this has taken place prior [to this] within the district. So the question is, is it your professional opinion that this information we received recently is adequate enough where you would recommend that the district not pursue any further legal action as a point of principal if for no other reason or to clearly define the definition of domicile so we won’t have another potential problem again in the future?”
“You will always have a potential problem,” Aklufi responded. “It’s just how easy will it be resolved? We did adopt a policy, though, didn’t we on domicile of residency of prospective board members, so that was designed to ward off some of that. Now you have your official attorney general opinion which you can put in your file, which provides an awful lot of guidance to prospective candidates.”
Aklufi voiced, “I think people would be mightily impressed, you might not ever see it again if you hand that out with every candidate.”
Director Sheila Wymer added, “We’re not afraid to come after you.”
Kuritz provided the Sentinel with his December 2, 2011 email to Susan Lee of the State Attorney General’s office acknowledging he resigned as a board member of APCWD on October 24, 2011 and confirming that he would mail them a copy.
Kuritz confirmed to the Sentinel that he did in fact mail his resignation letter to APCWC on October 24, 2011 and mailed a copy to the State Attorney General’s office in December of last year.  Kuritz said he did so to save the ratepayers of the Arrowbear Park County Water District money and the state taxpayers money from having the State Attorney General investigate and issue its opinion.
Kuritz explained the purpose of a quo warranto is to determine if he had a right to hold office and he believed if it went forward APCWD “would have to deal with the fact that they illegally threw me off the board.”