Whiptail lizards populate portions of San Bernardino County’s Mojave Desert. Some, though not all of them, utilize an uncommon form of reproduction among animals, known as parthenogenesis.
Whiptails are of the family Teiidae. Whiptails can be distinguished from other lizards by the large rectangular scales that form distinct transverse rows ventrally and their generally smaller granular dorsal scales, as well as head scales that are separate from their skull bones. Furthermore, teiid teeth are solid at the base and “glued” to the jaw bones. All teiids have a forked, snake-like tongue. They all possess well-developed limbs.
Teiids are universally terrestrial and diurnal, and are primarily carnivorous or insectivorous, although some  include a small amount of plant matter in their diet. They all lay eggs, with some species laying very large clutches.
Certain genera of whiptail lizards have all-female or nearly all-female populations. These lizards reproduce by parthenogenesis.
Parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization. In animals, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell.
Teiids include the parthenogenic genera Cnemidophorus and Aspidoscelis, which account for about 75% of the species, as well as the  non-parthenogenic Tupinambis
Cnemidophorus and Aspidoscelis are entirely female genera. They simulate the copulation that takes place between the heterosexual Tupinabis. They effectuate this by  one female lying atop  another, engaging in pseudocopulation. There is a disputed theory among scientists that the simulated mating behavior increases fertility. Interestingly, the lizard that was on the bottom has larger eggs, while the one on top has smaller one. The lizards alternate their roles during each mating season. The offspring are genetic clones of their mother

By clicking on the portal below, you can download a PDF of the October 3 Edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 10-03-14

By Mark Gutglueck
(October 1) When is a deal not a deal?
When one of the parties decides it is unsatisfied with the outcome, according to Ontario’s high powered Washington, D.C.-based law firm.
In its response to the city of Los Angeles’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed last year to regain control over Ontario International Airport, Ontario maintains that the arrangement it negotiated with LA in 1967 and finalized in 1985 after the larger city met all of the criteria laid out in the original agreement is not a deal at all.
Rather, Ontario told Riverside Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask that she should declare the contract between the two cities null and void.
According to Ontario’s attorneys, the Ontario City Council in 1967, which was then comprised of Howard Snider, Sam Crowe,  Joseph Aime, William Paulin and Walter Stewart, and the Ontario City Council in 1985, consisting of Robert Ellingwood, Faye Myers Dastrup, Gus Skropos, Homer Briggs and Beecher Medlin, were acting beyond their authority as the city’s executive board when they, in the case of the former, entered into the relationship with Los Angeles for the management of the airport, and, in the case of the latter, signed over title to the airport.
Such agreements between municipal entities, according to Ontario, should contain an exit clause that would allow one side to withdraw from the terms of the contract or otherwise sunset after a specific amount of time
For that reason, Ontario should be allowed to exit the agreements it has with Los Angeles and take back possession of the airport, its legal team maintains.
In 1967, Ontario Airport had a gravel parking lot and was servicing fewer than 200,000 passengers per year, with Western Airlines making 26 daily flights daily from Ontario to Sacramento, San Francisco, Palm Springs and Los Angeles, and Bonanza Airlines offering fewer  than a dozen flights to Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix. On its own, Ontario had been unable to convince any other airlines to fly into or out of Ontario. The airport had $2 million in growing debt, which it had no viable prospect of paying.
Ontario willfully entered into a joint powers agreement with Los Angeles that went into effect on November 1, 1967, which allowed Los Angeles to use its clout with airlines to increase flights into and out of Ontario. Pursuant to that agreement, Los Angeles retired the airport’s debt. In addition, it agreed to make at least $20 million worth of improvements to the airport over an unspecified time frame.
Using its leverage over airlines based upon its ability to dole out or withhold favorable gate positions at Los Angeles International Airport, the Los Angeles Department of Airports induced more and more airlines to fly into and out of Ontario. By 1969, flights out of Ontario dramatically increased. In short order, Continental Airlines, PSA, United, American Airlines, Hughes Air West, and Delta established routes from Ontario. In the early 1970s, Ontario was in competition with John Wayne Airport in Orange County, which at that time was expanding dramatically. Though a benchmark of 10 million passengers at the airport by 1975 was not achieved, the Los Angeles Department of Airports still assiduously promoted Ontario International.
In 1981, a modern, second east-to-west runway was built, necessitating the removal of the old northeast-to-southwest runway. Los Angeles officials stepped up pressure on Ontario officials to have them cede ownership of the airport in total to Los Angeles, but Ontario’s then mayor,  Robert  Ellingwood, resisted, maintaining that all of the criteria specified in the transfer portion of the 1967 agreement had yet to be met. As tensions mounted between the cities and Ontario began levying a parking tax at the airport, which L.A. objected to as unwarranted and illegal in a lawsuit, Ellingwood pressed for the recission of the joint powers agreement and for Ontario to take full control of the airport. Los Angeles, which had control over the revenue being generated at the airport and was bankrolling the cost of operations there, threatened to stand down from the joint powers agreement, leaving Ontario in the position of paying all operational costs.  Ellingwood’s four council colleagues, believing Ontario did not have the financial means to operate the airport on its own, broke with him and during Ellingwod’s absence from the February 19, 1985 council meeting, voted 4-0 to transfer title to the airport to the city of Los Angeles.
In 1987, the departure runway was extended to the east.  In 1997 and 1998, Los Angeles built two modern 530,000-square foot terminals at the airport at a cost of $270 million. In 2005-2006, the airport’s departure runway was repaved, received storm drains, and runway lighting was improved. The airport’s taxiways were widened. The same year Aeroméxico started seasonal flights to Guadalajara and Mexico City, making Ontario a true international airport.  The airport was also renamed Ontario/LA International Airport, ostensibly to avoid confusion with an airport in Canada.
In 2007, use of the airport peaked, with 7.2 million passengers enplaning there and using its terminals. In recent years, Ontario Airport has seen its use decline. In 2008, 6.2 million passengers took flights from the airport, a drop of 13.5 percent compared to 2007. In 2009, the airport had 4.95 million passengers pass through it. That trend continued in 2010, with 4.8 million travelers flying from Ontario International. Simultaneously Los Angeles World Airports was undertaking a flurry of improvements at Los Angeles International Airport intended to make traveling in or out there more convenient to its passengers.
Just under 4.6 million passengers took flights out of Ontario International in 2011. That figure dropped to 4.5 million in 2012.
In 2009, Ontario officials, believing that Los Angeles airport officials were intent on driving up passenger traffic in Los Angeles, potentially to the detriment of Ontario, began a dialogue with Los Angeles World Airports about combating the downward trend in passenger traffic at Ontario. But Los Angeles airport officials were not keen on surrendering any share of the market Los Angeles International had captured in the aftermath of the extensive improvements made there. They countered with offers to improve the marketing of Ontario Airport, at one point offering to bankroll such a marketing campaign to be run by Ontario officials. Ontario declined that offer.
Ontario officials gravitated toward the conclusion that reacquiring the airport was paramount and that not leaving its destiny in the care of Los Angeles officials, whose first loyalty consisted in keeping Los Angeles International Airport thriving, was the only realistic approach to the problem.
They began pushing Los Angeles to allow a public agency-to-public agency transfer of the airport at no consideration, reversing the 1985 action.
Los Angeles officials balked at that.
Quietly, so as to not publicly contradict its official position that the airport grounds are a public benefit property and thus of no sales value, the city of Ontario privately tendered a $250 million offer to Los Angeles World Airports for transfer of the airport’s title and operational control. That offer included the city assuming $75 million of the outstanding bond debt obligations for past improvements to the airport, $125 million in future passenger facility charges to be realized at the airport and $50 million cash.
Los Angeles World Airport officials scoffed at the $250 million figure, pointing to the $560 million in improvements made to the airport since 1967 utilizing revenues generated at both Ontario and Los Angeles International Airports, Federal Aviation Administration grants, and proceeds from bonds issued by the city of Los Angeles at Los Angeles World Airports’ direction.
With ridership at Ontario International continuing to decline throughout 2011, 2012, and into 2013 and the relationship between Ontario and Los Angeles World Airports/the city of Los Angles continuing to deteriorate, a lukewarm effort at maintaining a running dialog between officials on both sides was made, as Ontario officials hoped they might make more progress after then-Los Angles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa left office. Despite that hope, in the waning months of the Villaraigosa tenure, Ontario, utilizing the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, filed suit against the metropolis in Riverside Superior Court in an effort to have ownership and operational authority over Ontario Airport returned to it.
Shortly thereafter, Eric Garcetti succeeded Villaraigosa as Los Angeles mayor. During his mayoral campaign, Garcetti had given some nebulous indication that he favored having Ontario International Airport returned to local control. Ontario officials interpreted that as a sign that Los Angeles, under his direction, would surrender the reins to the airport relatively readily. When, upon being sworn into office, Garcetti was faced with the fait accompli of legal action brought against Los Angeles by Ontario over the airport ownership, whatever accommodationist attitude he might have had evaporated. Both sides lodged the predictable round of pretrial motions such cases beget. Late last year, the case was put on hold while an effort to negotiate a solution to the myriad of disputes over the airport was carried out. Those talks ended without any substantial progress. The lawsuit resumed.
On September 10, 2014, Los Angeles World Airports filed a motion for summary adjudication, which is scheduled to be heard on October 31, 2014.  On Friday, September 26, 2014, the city of Ontario filed its response to that motion.
Represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton attorneys Andre Cronthall, Scott Sveslosky and Catherine La Tempa, Ontario is seeking to have its 1967 joint powers  agreement and its 1985 transfer of title to the airport to Los Angeles declared null and void.
According to Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa “Los Angeles’s abandonment of Ontario International Airport was inevitable given that the joint powers agreement and the subsequent 1985 acquisition agreement between Ontario International Airport and Los Angeles set the stage for the conflict of interest that eventually materialized. The agreements improperly attempt to forever delegate a core governmental function of Ontario — the operation of its airport –  to Los Angeles, a third party municipality some 40 miles away with its own competing airport and an untenable conflict of interest in owning and operating both airports at the same time. Los Angeles’s conflict of interest has become obvious during the past seven years as Los Angeles has admitted the existence of the conflict, and has neglected and mismanaged Ontario International Airport. As a result of that neglect and mismanagement, Ontario International Airport is on the brink of ruin. Even so, Los Angeles insists on continuing to operate and manage Ontario International Airport in perpetuity. Whether defendants’ intransigence is rooted in a desire to control a competitor or use Ontario International Airport’s funds to help finance the billions of dollars incurred for improvements at Ontario International Airport will fail unless Ontario regains control of its airport.”
According to Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa, California law prohibits municipal entities from entering into any agreements that do not have a defined duration or a mechanism for the parties to exit the relationship.
“Ontario seeks summary adjudication for rescission and reformation of the joint powers agreement and the acquisition agreement, on three primary grounds,” Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa state. “First, the joint powers agreement does not have a definite term of duration or permit termination or rescission by any party as required by California Law. Government Code section 6510 states that a joint powers agreement may have a definite term or provide for rescission or termination by any party. The joint powers agreement does not comply with this requirement. Instead, it requires an agreement by both parties to terminate or rescind the joint powers agreement. Thus, one party has the right to continue the agreement in perpetuity no matter what the circumstances, holding the other party hostage, despite the existence of a fiduciary obligation and a requirement to use ‘best efforts’ for the benefit of the other party. Such a scenario not only is illogical and unfair, it is unlawful under Section 6510 and applicable case law.”
Because of the flaws in the joint powers agreement Ontario signed in 1967, Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa maintain the agreement was inapplicable from the start.
“Second, Ontario officials lacked authority to relinquish ownership and control of Ontario International Airport for an indefinite and possibly infinite time period” according to Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa. “ The operation of a local airport is a key municipal function. Thus, the joint powers agreement was void ab initio as a violation of public policy prohibiting the abdication and bargaining away of core municipal legislative and governmental functions.”
Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa maintain Los Angeles is dead set on destroying Ontario Airport’s viability as a functioning entity.
“Third, the agreements must be rescinded because the public interest is prejudiced by permitting the agreements to stand,” according to the motion.”Los Angeles’s untenable conflict of interest in owning and operating both Los Angeles International airport and Ontario International Airport has resulted in the financial and operational ‘death spiral’ of Ontario International Airport and severely harmed the residents of Ontario and surrounding municipalities. As such, the public interest is harmed and prejudiced by permitting the agreements to stand and thereby permitting defendants to preside over Ontario International Airport until it is no more.”
Layered into the Ontario’s motion is an assertion relating to the generation of money at the airport which appears to be the basis for a future argument about the amount of compensation that will be due Los Angeles if it is called upon to relinquish the airport, bringing into dispute the assertion that airport’s selling price should exceed the more than $500 million Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports have invested in the aerodrome.
“From 1983 to 2000, at least $70,671,043 [in] revenue was generated at Ontario International Airport in excess of its costs and was retained by Los Angeles World Airports,” according to Cronthall, Sveslosky and La Tempa. “Ontario expects that further financial analysis will disclose that Los Angeles World Airports retained additional funds generated at Ontario International Airport from 1980 to the present.”
Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airport officials indicated that they would limit public comment with regard to the effort to wrest control of Ontario Airport from them to the information contained in its legal filings in the case.
“The court documents speak for themselves,” said Los Angeles World Airports spokeswoman Maria Tesoro.  “Due to pending litigation, Los Angeles World Airports  has no further comments.”

By Gail Fry
Staff Writer
(October 2) At the November 4, 2014, general election registered voters within the boundary of the Hesperia Unified School District will be asked to vote on Measure M, a $207 million bond measure purportedly to improve school district facilities.
On August 4, 2014, at the Hesperia Unified School District regular board meeting, the resolution ordering a school bond election for Measure M and authorizing necessary actions that are connected to the bond election was approved four to one with Hardy Black, Niccole Childs, Ella “Lee” Rogers and Eric Swanson approving the resolution and Cody Gregg dissenting.
Exhibit A of the resolution approved by the school district indicates that Hesperia Unified School District in issuing all of the authorized bonds “might require the outstanding debt of the district to exceed its statutory bonding limit of 2.50 percent of the total assessed valuation of taxable property in the district” and in order to exceed the limit the school district will need to “seek a waiver of its bonding limit from the State Board of Education.”
The 2.50 percent limit “the value of taxable property in the district” on the amount a unified school district can borrow is required by California Education Code Section 15106.
According to documents obtained by the Sentinel, during calendar year 2013, the State Board of Education processed 11 requests for waiver with regard to laws pertaining to school construction bonds from school districts throughout the state, of which all were approved with conditions.
In 2012, six waiver requests were submitted to the State Board of Education with five being approved with conditions, and no action taken on one.  Similarly, in 2011 the State Board of Education approved nine out of ten requests with conditions. One request was withdrawn.
Another restriction placed on school construction bonds is that the tax rate levied as a result of any single election be no more than $60.00 for a unified school district per $100,000 of taxable property value.
These two restrictions have led school districts to use creative financing in order to accomplish the goals of the bond measure while keeping the outstanding debt under the 2.50 percent of the “total assessed valuation of taxable property in the district” and keeping each assessment to the property owners at less than $60.00 per $100,000 of taxable property value.
The financing by school districts became so creative that it got the attention of the California state treasurer, the state schools chief and the California State Legislature. School districts across the state were financing their school construction bonds with a very costly type of bond known as the capital appreciation bond or CABs.
According to a news release from the California Department of Education. dated January 17, 2013, CABs “have forced taxpayers to pay more than 10 times the principal to retire the bonds.”  The news release continued, “The transactions have been structured with 40-year terms that delay interest and principal payments for decades, resulting in huge balloon payments and burdens on future taxpayers that cannot be justified.”
The reason these school districts were using CABs according to the news release was, “districts face a critical need to build or modernize facilities for their children,” and “falling property tax assessments” combined with “revenue losses,” along  with “statutory debt service limits” and reduced “districts’ debt financing options.”
On October 2, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring the ratio of total debt service to principal for each bond series not exceed four to one, that districts with CAB financing be allowed to payoff the bond “beginning on the tenth anniversary of the date the bond was issued,”  that the district’s carry out an  independent financial analysis, that the term not exceed 25 years and that the item be placed on two separate school board agendas that include specific information on any bonds having compound interest, that is, interest calculated on a balance that includes the interest accrued to date In other words, school districts can still finance their construction projects through CABs. They just have to be a little more transparent about it when they actually get ready to issue the bonds. They have to tell the school board the specifics on the bonds they are seeking on two separate agendas, require the district to obtain a financial analysis from a financial adviser unaffiliated with the school district, keep the ratio of total debt service to principal at four to one for each bond series, restrict the term of the bond to 25 years or less, and the bondholders have to allow the school district to pay off the CABs after 10 years.
As an example, if Measure M passes and Hesperia Unified School District issues $207,000,000 in bonds, the district can legally incur $828,000,000 in debt service, or equal to a four to one ratio of the bond indebtedness that the district is asking the voters to approve at the November 4, 2014 general election.  This means Hesperia schools will be provided with $207 million to undertake improvements throughout the district, but the taxpayers in the district will have to pay $828 million to retire the debt for utilizing that money.
There are many different types of debt instruments. In the bond market there are Build America Bonds or BABs, current interest bonds or CIBs, capital appreciation bonds or CABs, and convertible capital appreciation bonds or CCABs.
One concern regarding the $207 million bond measure requested by Hesperia Unified School District is that the district has hired as its financial consultant Dolinka Group, LLC., the same financial consultant who advised the Poway Unified School District in its construction bond financing that will end up costing its taxpayers more than a billion dollars for $105 million in up-front financing, according to the Voice of San Diego.
California State Treasurer Public Information Officer Tom Dressler told the Sentinel that the most common type of bond financing used by school districts are the current interest bonds or CIBs.
If 55 percent of voters within the Hesperia Unified School District boundaries approve of the $207 million bond measure to pay for acquisition, construction and improvement to its facilities, the Hesperia Unified School District through its bond brokers will go to Wall Street with a variety financing instruments in order to fund the amount of money as authorized by the bond measure approved by its voters.
For example, if the voters approved a bond measure of $207 million, then the school district through its bond brokers will package several individual bond sales, using a different types of bond instruments. They will go out to the market and obtain the market interest rate for that day and for their type of bond, marketing them accordingly.
Documents obtained by the Sentinel reveal that the money obtained through Measure M, if approved by 55 percent of the school district’s registered voters, would be deposited into the bank accounts of Hesperia School District Financing Corporation.   The district will then be free to disburse the money for those uses approved by the voters.
According to its articles of incorporation, Hesperia School District Financing Corporation, a California corporation formed on August 20, 1986, was created “To provide financial assistance to the Hesperia School District by acquiring, constructing and financing various facilities, land and equipment, and the leasing of facilities, land and equipment for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the public served by the District.
This corporation, Hesperia School District Financing Corporation, is registered with the California State Attorney General’s Office as a charity corporation formed for a public benefit and recognized by the state as a state charity on December 31, 1990.
The  board of directors of the financing corporation, according to its articles of incorporation, has the power to “control” the business and affairs of the corporation, “select and remove all other officers, agents and employees of the corporation, prescribe such powers and duties for them as may not be inconsistent with law or the articles of incorporation by by-laws, fix their compensation and require from them security for faithful service” and power “to borrow money and incur indebtedness.”
The articles of incorporation explain, “The property, assets, profits and net revenues of this corporation are irrevocably dedicated to the district, provided, however, that until all indebtedness of this corporation shall have been paid, such net revenues may be used for the purpose of paying or calling for redemption any bonds, certificates of participation, debentures, notes or other evidences of such indebtedness.  Upon the dissolution, liquidation or winding up of this corporation, or upon abandonment, the assets of this corporation remaining after payment of all or provision for all debts or liabilities of this corporation and after compliance with chapters 15,1 6 and 17 of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law shall be distributed to the district.”
In other words, the district’s assets were transferred to Hesperia School District Financing Corporation shortly after the organization was formed for the purpose of “acquiring, constructing and financing various facilities, land and equipment and the leasing of facilities, land and equipment” in order to provide “financial assistance” to the district.
The Hesperia Unified School District’s wish list of school improvements totals $614,807,000. Therefore the $207,000,000 bond it is asking the voters to approve is insufficient to complete all of the improvements the district intends to complete.
According to documents obtained by the Sentinel, the Hesperia Unified School District intends to spend $25,571,000 at Carmel Elementary School, $24,640,000 at Cottonwood Elementary School, $6,620,000 at Cypress School of the Arts, $23,929,000 at the Eucalyptus Elementary School, $17,941,000 at Hollyvale Elementary School, $39,209,000 at Joshua Circle Elementary School, $22,446,000 at Juniper Elementary School, $22,382,000 at Kingston Elementary School, $8,486,000 at Krystal School of Math, Science and Technology, $33,913,000 at Lime Street Elementary School, $28,137,000 at Maple Elementary School, $21,035,000 at Mesa Grande Elementary School, $26,843,000 at the Mesquite Trails Elementary School, $12,236,000 at Mission Crest Elementary School, $30,858,000 at the Topaz Preparatory Academy, $7,290,000 at the Cedar Middle School, $50,120,000 at Hesperia Junior High School, $22,828,000 at Ranchero Middle School, $5,883,000 at Canyon Ridge High School, $113,797 at Hesperia High School, $12,138,000 at Mojave High School, $16,618,000 at Oak Hills High School, $36,567,000 at Sultana High School, $246,000 at Shadow Ridge Independent Study, $1,509,000 at Community Day and Adult School and $3,385,000 at Hesperia Alternative and Adult Education.
Historically, additional funds have been made available for school construction by the State of California. However, during this year’s budget process, Governor Brown did not provide  any monies for the purpose of school construction.
In past bond measures presented by the Hesperia Unified School District, the results have been varied. Voters approved a $2.75 million issuance by 94.1 percent in June of 2013 to pay for public school facilities; in June 2001 the district asked the voters to approve $35,000,000 in bond indebtedness,  with the measure failing to meet the 55 percent vote requirement and only 35.8 percent of the voters endorsing it; in April 1992 the voters approved $32,000,000 in bond indebtedness to construct a new high school; and in June of 1991 the Hesperia Unified School District asked the voters to approve bond indebtedness of $32,000,000 for construction improvements, which failed to pass when only 58 percent of voters voted to approve, with a 66.7 percent requirement to pass the measure.

(October 1) Prosecutors withheld key exculpatory evidence pertaining to the central figure in the Colonies Lawsuit Settlement Public Corruption Prosecution, his attorney has set forth in the most recent filings with the Fourth District Court of Appeal relating to the case.
The case, which revolves around charges of conspiracy, bribery, extortion and the corruption of public officials, involves the activity leading up to the November 26, 2006 vote by the board of supervisors to confer a $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners to bring to an end litigation brought against the county of San Bernardino and its flood control division over drainage issues at the company’s Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions in northeast Upland.
In 2010, prosecutors told a grand jury that Jeff Burum, one of the managing principals in the Colonies Partners, with the assistance of one-time sheriff’s deputies union president Jim Erwin, first threatened and coerced then-supervisors Bill Postmus and Paul Biane into supporting the lawsuit settlement along with their board colleague Gary Ovitt. Prosecutors further alleged that after the vote was made Burum provided separate $100,000 bribes to Postmus and Biane as well as Ovitt’s chief of staff, Mark Kirk, in the form of donations to political action committees the three set up and controlled. In February 2010, that grand jury indicted Postmus and Erwin on a variety of political corruption, bribery, perjury and conspiracy charges. They pleaded not guilty to those charges but the following year Postmus pleaded guilty to 14 charges against him and turned state’s evidence. He then testified before a second grand jury, which handed down a superseding 29-count indictment that renamed Erwin and indicted Burum, Biane and Kirk.
All four have pleaded not guilty and are seeking to clear their names.
After the 29-count indictment was handed down on May 9, 2011, defense attorneys filed demurrers challenging the sufficiency of the case on a host of legal, factual and technical grounds. In August 2011, Judge Brian McCarville granted several of those demurrers, throwing out a number of the charges. The prosecution appealed McCarville’s ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, a move which was matched by defense attorneys, who asserted that McCarville should have dispensed with even more of the charges than he actually did. The Fourth District Court upheld McCarville on all but one of his rulings favoring the defense and, in addition, threw out even more of the charges. Prosecutors then filed a last-minute appeal of the Fourth District Court’s ruling with the California Supreme Court.
After a year-long delay, the Supreme Court reinstated the charges and sent the matter back to the trial court, where it is being heard by Superior Court Jude Michael  A. Smith.  Defense attorneys filed a series of five motions with Smith seeking the dismissal of the entirety of the case, based on a number of grounds, including statute of limitations,  lack of probable cause, jury misinstruction, prosecutorial misconduct in having raided the defense camp and seizing privileged materials crucial to the defense, along with prosecutorial and investigator misconduct. In his first ruling on those motions, Smith granted the dismissal of the  issue at the heart of the case, a single conspiracy charge against each of the defendants, upon which the primary narrative of the case was hinged, including 43 overt acts. Smith granted that motion on his interpretation of the law that held conspiracy charges are subject to a strict three-year statute of limitations rather than the four years alleged by the prosecution. Because the last overt act of the conspiracy, that is, the final delivery of the alleged bribe money in the form of the contributions to the political action committees, occurred in June and July of 2007 and the indictment did not come until May 2011, Smith concurred with the pleadings of Burum’s attorney, former federal judge Stephen Larson, that the  statute of limitations had been exceeded.
Larson and the defense camp seemed to be making headway with Smith’s next ruling, which likewise was based on statute of limitations grounds, that sought the dismissal of twelve other charges in the case. Larson cogently argued that the stature of limitations on those charges had likewise been exceeded in that the victim, i.e., the county and its officials, knew of or had strong grounds to suspect as early as 2006 that the illegal activity described in the indictment had taken place, thus making the May 2011 indictment too late given the three-year statute of limitations. Smith granted that motion but  then attenuated that defense victory by granting  the prosecution the opportunity to amend the complaint to clarify that both law enforcement officers and county officials had no substantial indication that the alleged crimes had occurred until November 2008. Prosecutors in August availed themselves of that option by filing an amended indictment with that clarification, preserving those charges.
When Smith turned to the motions  for dismissal based on lack of probable cause, jury misinstruction, prosecutorial misconduct and investigator misconduct, he uniformly denied those motions,  allowing that portion of the case relating to  misappropriation of public funds – Penal Code Section 424 – to proceed,  as well as sustaining the charges of  tax and perjury against Erwin that were based upon his not having properly reported having received gifts from Burum. Smith did dismiss another set of perjury and tax fraud charges against Erwin, Biane and Kirk relating to the contributions to the political action committees they controlled, ruling such political donations cannot be considered income to the founders of the political action committees (PACS) or those in control of them. Smith  also dismissed conflict-of-interest charges against Burum and Erwin, reasoning that Burum was never a public official and Erwin was not one at the time of the events in question.
In all, Smith threw out eleven of the 29 charges, but left nearly two thirds of the case, consisting of 18 of the counts, intact.
In response, both the prosecution and defense again sought to second guess the trial court, appealing Smith’s decisions to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. For its part the prosecutors, consisting of Supervising Deputy California Attorney General Melissa Mandel and San Bernardino County deputy district attorneys Michael Abney, Lewis Cope and Reza Sadeghi, have indicated they want the single conspiracy charge against each defendant thrown out by Smith reinstated.  In his first filing with the appellate court, Larson on September 16 filed a writ of prohibition, challenging every ruling Smith made in favor of the prosecution relating to the motions to dismiss the charges against Burum. On September 26, Larson followed the writ for prohibition with a writ of mandate.
In the first part of the writ of mandate, Larson asserted Smith erred in allowing the prosecution to amend the indictment to, “circumvent” the statute of limitations. Larson further maintains Smith compounded that error by allowing the prosecution to amend the dates of the alleged bribery counts. This part of the writ of mandate touched on several highly technical and arcane provinces of law, including assertions that “The trial court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating whether the evidence presented to the grand jury supported the proposed amendment,” that the “trial court’s error was prejudicial because the People utterly failed to meet their burden to show that sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury to support the amended tolling allegation,” that a  “payment made after an official act is not bribery under California law,” that an “after-the-fact payment is not part of a ‘continuing crime’ involving an already completed bribery,” that the “trial court improperly disregarded California law in favor of a century-old case from New York,” and that the “trial court’s error was prejudicial because the People failed to meet their burden to show sufficient evidence supporting the amended bribery dates.”
In the second half of the writ of mandate, Larson changes gears, moving away from more esoteric areas of the law to focus on the more accessible and easily understood concept of the prosecution either misrepresenting or withholding evidence to and from the grand jury. The writ asks the Fourth Court of Appeal to examine Smith’s rejection of the so-called so-called Johnson motion,  named in reference to the precedent-setting case Johnson v. Superior Court, Larson’s  request that the charges against Burum be thrown out, citing allegations prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.
The explication of the basis for Larson’s request that the appellate court make a finding that the charges be thrown out on these grounds makes the most compelling argument for Burum’s innocence contained in the document.
“A grand jury’s purpose is to stand ‘solidly between the ordinary citizen and an overzealous prosecutor,’” Larson and his co-counsel, Dennis Fischer, state in the writ. “It must not act as a prosecutor’s ‘rubber stamp,’ but instead should be ‘an independent bulwark’ of justice.”
But because of the way in which prosecutors selectively presented information to the grand jury, according to Larson and Fischer,  the grand jury failed to act independently and ultimately rubber stamped the prosecutions version of events.. “[A]s Mr. Burum established in his Johnson Motion, the People withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury that would have eviscerated their circumstantial case against him,” the writ states. “At its core, the People’s case is founded on the testimony and guilty plea of former Supervisor Postmus. The People repeatedly told the grand jury that Mr. Postmus had pled guilty to the crimes of receiving bribes, misappropriating public moneys, and violating California’s conflict of interest laws. They also heard Mr. Postmus testify that Mr. Burum had allegedly promised to support him in the future either in politics or future business ventures if he voted for the settlement. But the grand jury was not told the rest of the story: That within the two months prior to this testimony, Mr.Postmus repeatedly and unequivocally denied to district attorney investigators that there was any bribery or other wrongdoing relating to the settlement. What the record shows but what the grand jury was never told—is that Mr. Postmus initially resisted those efforts, continuing to maintain that no bribery or wrongdoing occurred.”
To back up this assertion, Larson and Fischer provide the following transcript of an interrogation of Postmus by district attorney’s office investigators Hollis “Bud” Randles and Robert Schreiber.
“Bob Schreiber: Okay. There are discussions about taking care of you politically. Let’s hear about that.
Bill Postmus: Well, Yeah. No. He — he had said that that they would support me in the future, that he would personally support me in the future.
Schreiber: If —
Postmus: He didn’t say if the settlement was done. He said he would support me in the future.
Schreiber: If — if what?
Postmus: Well, I mean Jeff and I were good friends. You know.
Schreiber: Okay. Come on, Bill —
Postmus: No. I’m not. You want me to tell you the truth and [inaudible] that’s what I’m doing.
Postmus: [Mr. Burum] never crossed the line with me with regards to the Colonies.
Bud Randles: What about incentives that, uh, he proposed, uh, for you to approval the Colonies settlement?
Postmus: Like, with respect to what, Bud?
Randles: Like, I will support your candidacy for the assessor.
Postmus: No, well, he – he never did that. Because, I mean, he never did — he never said that. He never – never said that. He was very clear — he was very, very clear, Jeff was, that he wasn’t going to support or give anybody or do anything during the Colonies settlement.
Randles: There was a $100,000 that was contributed to you and others that, uh, approved the lawsuit and Jim Erwin, who facilitated it. This $100,000 was discussed with you prior to the lawsuit being settled. The $100,000 contribution to you in some form.
Postmus: No. No. That was not discussed. As I stated earlier that was discussed after I was sworn in as Assessor. It was never discussed prior.
Randles: The $100,000 contributions to others that were involved in the approving of this lawsuit was discussed with you prior to the lawsuit . . .
Postmus: No.
Randles: . . . being settled.
Postmus: No. It was discussed after. Money – money was never — money was never discussed.
Randles: Characterize the $100,000, uh, that went to you from Colonies Partners, uh, that was for what purpose?
Postmus: Well, it was a campaign contribution after the fact.
Randles: For what purpose?
Postmus: Well, I’m not gonna, you know, I’m not going to say because I do not, you know, I’m not going to say because I don’t . . . Ya know, I know what you want me to say, but, I-I, you know.”
According to Larson and Fischer, “The People also hid from the Grand Jury similarly exculpatory statements.”
Supervising Deputy California Attorney General Mellissa Mandel indicated through her secretary she would have no comment on the matter outside of court filings and the courtroom until the case concludes.

(October 1) TWENTYNINE PALMS — Twenynine Palms city officials remain optimistic that the proceeds from the bond sales made by the city’s redevelopment agency more than three years ago will be available to complete Project Phoenix, despite pending court appeals by two state agencies.
Project Phoenix was an undertaking by the Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency that aimed to construct a community center, a 250-seat theater, classrooms, a civic plaza, a park, a paseo, residential units, a wastewater treatment plant, and improvements to the downtown fire station. The project was put in jeopardy in 2011, however, when the legislature passed AB X1 26 and AB X1 27, which shuttered more than 400 municipal and county redevelopment agencies up and down the state. The state sought to reroute redevelopment money to law enforcement and education efforts in that closure.
Twentynine Palms, however, intrepidly pushed ahead with the project, based upon Twentynine Palms City Attorney A. Patrick Muñoz’s assertion that the project had been initiated prior to AB XI 26 and AB XI 27 going into effect. According to Muñoz, the state law ending redevelopment function is trumped by federal securities regulations, meaning the money the Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency bonded for in 2011 must be utilized only for the purpose that bondholders were told the money would be applied toward.
Muñoz asserted in filings with the Sacramento Superior Court that the non-taxable bonds issued in 2011 created specific obligations between the city, as the issuer, and the bond purchasers, and as such are enforceable obligations. If the city allows the state  to use the money for a purpose other than what the city had specified in marketing the bonds to the bond buyers, that would constitute fraud, according to Munoz.
The city filed its paperwork in Sacramento Superior Court because AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 contained language requiring any legal challenges to the law take place there. In is petition, the city asked that the court overturn the Department of Finance’s finding that the city was prohibited from proceeding with Project Phoenix and that the bond proceeds be spent in accordance with the state’s dictates.
The state Department of Finance, the entity against whom the city filed its suit, last December told Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny that the Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency, like several others, “rushed to encumber future tax increment revenues” ahead of their legislated demise in December 2011. The department alleged that in March 2011, Twentynine Palms “conceived, authorized, issued and sold” $12 million in tax allocation bonds for the Project Phoenix downtown development and an affordable housing plan without contracts to build or a definite plan for spending the proceeds.”
Ultimately, however, Kenny ruled against the Department of Finance in April and granted the petition for a writ of mandate on behalf for the city of Twentynine Palms as successor agency, allowing the city to utilize the bond money for the fulfillment of Project Phoenix.
In June, the Department of Finance filed an appeal of Kenny’s ruling. The department now faces an October 20 deadline for the department to file a brief in which it must lay out its reasoning as why the city should not be entitled to proceed with Project Phoenix. The State Controller has joined with the Department of Finance in asserting that Kenny erred in his April ruling and the city should not be allowed to utilize the bond funding for the project. Specifically, the controller took issue with the city having transferred into the former redevelopment agency’s account $2.1 million to pay for the acquisition of four properties on Donnell Hill related to the Project Phoenix effort.
That matter may have been complicated by the consideration that a member of the bond funding oversight board, Owen Gillick, had profited in the sale of two of those properties, which he owned. Gillick’s functioning as an oversight board member came after the fact, leaving the controller with no issue to exploit.
According to a consultant working for the city in the capacity of community development director, Matt McCleary, Twentynine Palms has been audited several times by the state since the dissolution of the redevelopment agency. The State Controller has taken issue with redevelopment agencies repaying loans they may have received from their cities prior to the redevelopment agency dissolutions. Some municipalities have contested those restrictions, however.
McCleary provided the city council with an update of the situation with regard to the Project Phoenix funds on September 21. McCleary said the city may be assisted in its effort to recoup the redevelopment money by Assembly Bill 2493, which allows proceeds from bonds issued between January and June 2011 to be used if the successor agency can prove that there were some specific projects in place prior to 2011 to use the proceeds. Assembly Bill 2493 is awaiting the signature of the governor.
The city has grounds to establish that it had tentative plans to use the bond money, since Project Phoenix had been on the drawing boards in one form or another since 2009. Nevertheless, according to deputy attorney general Michael Witmer, the $12 million of the tax allocation bonds issued by the city – offered to bondholders in March 2011 – while earmarked for Project Phoenix, contained no concomitant contracts to build anything or a defined plan of how the bond proceeds were to be expended.

(October 1) The operator of the United States’ only rare earth mine has made a major improvement to its operation that is anticipated to return it to the forefront of worldwide lanthanide production.
Until 1948, most of the world’s rare earth minerals were mined in India and Brazil. In the 1950s, South Africa became the leading supplier of rare earth metals.
In 1949, the Mountain Pass Mine, which lies in the extreme northeast portion of San Bernardino County roughly 15 miles from the California-Nevada state line, was discovered by a uranium prospector.  The Molybdenum Corporation of America bought the mining claims, and small-scale production began in 1952. Production expanded greatly in the 1960s, with the Mountain Pass facility becoming the world’s dominant producer of rare earth elements, also known as lanthanides. From 1965 until 1995 it was an almost exclusive supplier of europium, which is used in color television screens. The Molybdenum Corporation of America changed its name to Molycorp in 1974 and was acquired by Union Oil in 1977.
After the company was acquired by Unocal, ruptures in a pipeline conveying wastewater from the mining operation to evaporation ponds at Ivanpah Dry Lake resulted in thorium and radium leaking into the desert floor and the mine was shut down in 2002. As a consequence of the closure, China eclipsed the United States as the leading supplier of rare earth metals. After Unocal in 2004 obtained a new operating permit for the mine, it was acquired the following year by the Chevron Corporation.
By 2005, 96 percent of the world’s rare earth elements were mined in China. In 2007, China restricted exports of rare earth elements and imposed export tariffs. In 2008, Chevron sold the Mountain Pass Mine to privately-held Molycorp Minerals LLC, based in Greenwood Village, Colorado, a company formed to revive the Mountain Pass mine. After redressing all of the environmental issues at the operation to the government’s satisfaction, on July 29, 2010, Molycorp, Inc. became a publicly-traded firm by selling 28,125,000 shares at $14 in its initial public offering of stock.  On September 22, 2010 China enacted a ban on exports of rare earths to Japan. That fall, Congress passed legislation to subsidize the revival of the American rare earths industry, including the reopening of the Mountain Pass mine.
Molycorp acquired processing facilities in Arizona and Estonia and Canada.
At Mountain Pass, the company has built an on-site combined heat and power plant, which is now providing  low-cost, high-efficiency electrical power and steam for the company’s extraction of heavy rare earth concentrate ore.
This week the company announced it has significantly expanded the leach system at the mine, including its retention capacity. While operations of the new leach system are expected to be limited in the near term due to constraints in onsite production and market availability of hydrochloric acid, company officials said that the system expansion addresses one of the major production bottlenecks at Mountain Pass and is expected to boost rare earth production and lower operating costs once it is fully operational and sufficient supplies of hydrochloric acid are available.
While onsite production and market availability of hydrochloric acid are expected to improve in the fourth quarter of 2014 and beyond, company officials said that third quarter rare earth production at Mountain Pass is not expected to exceed first quarter 2014 levels.
Company officials also announced that the onsite chlor-alkali facility at Mountain Pass, which uses process waste water to produce hydrochloric acid and other chemical reagents used in rare earth production, is operational and that its output is expected to increase as facility engineers continue to make equipment repairs and address quality issues related to the brine feedstock that have been impacting the plant’s operations.
“Expanding our leach system is a significant step in our efforts to increase rare earth production over the coming months at Mountain Pass and to continue to reduce our operating costs,” said Geoff Bedford, Molycorp President and Chief Executive Officer.  “We remain committed to meeting our customers’ needs by building a global, vertically integrated company that produces rare earth materials in an environmentally superior way and at a cost that is competitive with any other producer in the world.”

(September 29) Erick Jimenez, a delivery driver who vied unsuccessfully for the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in 2010 and 2012, is running again, emphasizing the same issues he had latched onto previously. Perhaps, he said, events have evolved to the point where what he is saying will resonate with the electorate and he will achieve success.
“I am still saying the same thing, really,” Jimenez told the Sentinel. “Many members of our community are not being represented. We need a younger person representing young families in this city. I want to make sure that a whole segment of the population has a voice.”
Jimenez, who recently became a father, pointed out that the average age of the members of the city council is 64. While he said he respects the older generation and values its perspective, wisdom and experience, the geriatric set’s domination of the politics and decision making apparatus is confining and limiting and does not reflect the more dynamic demographics of the city of 165,269.
Jimenez said he valued the sound guidance of the council with regard to fiscal matters.
“We are lucky in Rancho Cucamonga that we don’t have the same overwhelming financial issues that are a problem in other cities,” he said.
At the same time that the city is husbanding its monetary resources, it is imposing an onerous burden on many of its residents who are struggling, he said.
“We have problems with our landscaping districts,” he said. “The city stuck the residents with the cost of these improvements that the developers did not pay They are now asking the residents to vote a higher assessment on themselves to make up for their generosity to the developers who gave them money to get elected. People do not want to pay the higher assessment. They see right through this. They see how it is that their elected leadership was doing favors for their political donors at the expense of the residents of the city.  This reflects poorly on our current leadership.”
If elected, Jimenez said, he would hold those who are profiting from development accountable, insisting they pay their fair share up front so that the residents don’t end up defraying the cost of the improvements that benefited those developers.
“I think we should be more environmentally responsible so we don’t see the problems we have now,” he said.
Along the same lines, Jimenez said the city must reduce the intensity of any future residential development.
“We are seeing a movement in Rancho Cucamonga that I do not support,” he said. “They are building more and more high density housing, a lot of apartments and townhomes. We don’t have the public transportation to go along with it. I live near Baseline and Archibald. There was always a problem with traffic, but with what we are doing now and the density of development that is coming in, it is getting worse. What are we doing in the city to promote better transportation? We have to give public transportation options to our residents.”
The city should give serious consideration, Jimenez said, to “building light rail along Foothill and Baseline, which would be perfect for that. We could definitely do that along those corridors. If it was planned out, we could make the commitment and it could eventually connect with the Gold Line, when it comes this far. Right now the Gold Line is scheduled to stop in Montclair. If we neglect planning for it, it will never get here.”
He decried the current council’s decision to impose a parking fee at the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station parking lot. “We are the only city in the county with a parking fee,” he said. “That five dollars is in addition to the fare. One of the first things I would do is work to eliminate that fee. How do you encourage people to use public transportation if you are charging them for parking? They might just as well drive.”
Jimenez railed against “special interests” which he said exercise inordinate influence at City Hall. “We have three former firefighters on the city council. Everything gets cut but the fire department. Something needs to be done. A handful of special interests are running our city. We need to vote the people who are backed by the special interests out. The special interests put up a lot of money to get what they want out of government. That has to be done away with. Everyone should have a voice and not just one group. It is hard to get elected nowadays without a lot of money. I am knocking on a lot of doors and trying to introduce myself. I can’t knock on every door in the city. It’s too big. I think we should go to districts so we can have adequate representation. Without districts, it’s hard for a little guy to get elected in this city.  I would also definitely push for term limits. We have council members who have been on there for over 20 years.”
Jimenez said he merits the consideration of the city’s voters because “I’ve been very committed. I am now running for the third time. Running after losing twice shows how committed I am. I make an effort to study the issues. I attend the city council meetings. I do my homework. If an issue comes up, I will look into it. When there was protest about the animal shelter I contacted the director of the facility and got the facts for myself. I have been studying the issues for long enough that I will be ready to serve from the time I am elected.”
Jimenez continued, “I am one of the working people of the community. It is the working people I want to represent. I am in touch with what the constituents want. I am doing this for good reasons. I am a father now, so the answers and decisions I would put in place will not be for the short term but for the long run. Whatever solution we come up with now are going to have to work 20 or 30 years down the line. I would be a dedicated public servant.”

By Mark Gutglueck
George Eugene Butler was a self-made tycoon who served for slightly more than six years as San Bernardino County supervisor in the First District. His fiefdom, as it were, was in the area around Needles, which in his day was one of the county’s primary cities, given its status as a railroad town as well as its location on California’s East Coast, better known as the west bank of the Colorado River.
George Butler was born on November 9, 1876 in Downey, the son of George Emery and Julia (Moores) Butler. George Butler the elder was a minister with a family of six children. As such, he was hard-pressed to keep his family in comfortable circumstances.
At the age of eleven, young George set out on his own, intent on leaving the deprivations in his father’s household behind him. With the pocket change he had, he purchased a train ticket, which took him as far as Needles.
Filled with hard-living miners and railroad men, Needles was a somewhat rougher place than Downey in those days. The youngster was undaunted by the denizens of his newly adopted home, where he was determined to stay. He quickly found employment as a stock boy and helper at the Monaghan and Murphy Mercantile Company. By dint of determination and perseverance, he educated himself. In a few years, he was promoted to bookkeeper with Monaghan and Murphy, a position he retained for the remainder of his stay with that company.
Around 1900, when he was 23 years old, George Butler established his own general store in Needles, the Needles Mercantile Company. This enterprise, like nearly all others he associated himself with during his lifetime, proved eminently successful. With the advance of his prosperity, he incorporated the Bank of Needles in 1907.  He was the president and manager of both establishments for many years.
He then interested himself in real estate endeavors, buying and selling a large number of properties around Needles, and branched out into acquiring mining property. He learned the language of the Mojave Indians, in so doing earning the trust of the indigenous population around Needles, which furthered the degree of success he enjoyed around Needles.
In 1904, he married Worth Hervey of Santa Ana.  His wife had been born in 1882 and was the daughter of William Blount and Joanna (Rhodes) Hervey of Santa Ana. George and Worth had three children: a son, Worth Hervey; and two daughters, Joanna Rhodes and Georgia Eugene.
In 1908 Butler served on the county grand jury.
On December 9, 1910, Judge James West resigned from the board of supervisors for health reasons.
George was immediately appointed to succeed West by lieutenant governor Warren Porter, who at that point was serving in the capacity of acting governor.  In 1912 he was elected to the board by the residents of the First District and he served on the board until January 8, 1917, when he was succeeded by Austin B. Mulvane of Amboy.  During his stint as supervisor, Butler travelled by train to San Bernardino to attend board meetings.
He and his wife purchased some property at Big Bear Lake in 1911, and with his family George Butler vacationed there during the summer.  While on the board of supervisors, he successfully advocated for a road to be built from the desert to Big Bear. This was named “Johnson Grade” in reference to a man who lived halfway up the mountain, but is now known as “Cushenberry Grade.”
Shortly after leaving the board of supervisors in 1917, Butler handed off management of the Bank of Needles to his brother, J. Henry Butler, who had served as bookkeeper and cashier. He then moved to Los Angeles. He remained on the bank’s board of directors, and, from 1920 to 1929, sold off many of his interests and investments in and around Needles. The Bank of Needles was sold to San Bernardino Valley Bank in 1924. It closed in 1931, a casualty of the Great Depression.
For family reasons, Butler had moved from Needles. But the departure from the place where he had spent the most rewarding years of his young life saddened him. In Los Angeles, he bought some apartments, and in 1938 he invested in property at Cardiff-by-the –Sea in San Diego County. During the next few years, he owned a hotel, shop and several small homes there. This was all sold during World War II, when travel restrictions made it difficult to properly oversee his holdings.
George Eugene Butler, then residing in Los Angeles, died on November 18, 1947 at the age of 71.

(October 1) Tom Piper said he is running for town council in Apple Valley “to make the town better.”
Piper said “The number one plank in my platform is I want us to create our own municipal water company. It can be done by setting aside ten percent of our $100 million municipal budget toward  creating a city controlled water division. We should pattern what I want to do with on the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. We should do it just the way William Mulholland did it back in 1905. He wrote the primer for the job.
“Secondly,” Piper continued, “We are losing between five and nine million dollars per year at the golf course. The situation is not getting better. We should sell the land and use it to buy water rights. We need to take care of more than just the golf course nuts. The golf course is green and they want the rest of us to grow rocks. It’s hard to grow rocks and when you do grow them they are still rocks. The town has raised taxes to cover the cost of the golf course. This is being done for the wealthiest people in Apple Valley. The town council is having the rest of us subsidize the richest among us. The council is not serving the people. It is serving the people who have them in their pocket.”
Piper went on to his third cause. “I want to put cameras on our sheriff’s officers,” he said. “I was talking with Captain [Lana] Tomlin about it and there are going to be some technical difficulties in getting it worked out, but this should be happening very soon. I think we should try to have a better relationship between the sheriff’s department and the community and that will contribute toward that.”
His fourth priority, Piper said, is to provide free internet service to everyone in Apple Valley. “I want to WiFi the entire town,” he said. “I’ve researched it. Its ballpark cost will be $1 million per year. The payback to the community is so great it is a must do. People would have no bill for their access. It would be completely free, like using the streets. The information highway should be considered a public utility.”
Piper, who ran for town council unsuccessfully in 2012, saw his campaign given a boost when city officials, in particular code enforcement director Jim Andersen and one of his crews, overstepped their authority and on September 22 took it upon themselves to remove a series of Piper’s campaign signs that he and his supporters had erected on the hilly landscape to the side of Highway 18 in its approach to the Mojave Narrows.
Piper had studied the town’s ordinance regulating political signage. He designed the signs to comply with the 18 square foot limitation contained in the ordinance. But rather than fitting the message “Tom Piper for Town Council” within the 18 square foot dimension, he allotted one sign for each letter in all of the words, with the exception of “for, which he fit on one sign. Owing to the heat on September 22, Piper and his band of electoral confederates knocked off after they had erected the first eleven of the signs, intending to return the following morning when it was cooler to finish the job.
Anderson, using his own authority and without checking first to see if the signs were, as posted, in fact a violation of the city’s code, had the signs dismantled.
Piper learned of the town’s action shortly thereafter. He called town manager Frank Robinson, who defended Andersen’s illegal action as legally justified and referred Piper to town attorney John Brown. Brown, after some initial hesitation, closely examined the town code and discovered that Piper’s signs were in fact in compliance Communication from Brown to Robinson followed and the signs were released from the town’s impound yard. They were re-erected.
The incident instantaneously elevated Piper among the candidates in the race, which include incumbents Scott Nassiff, Curt Emick and Barb Stanton, all of whom were viewed, by some in the community, as being ultimately responsible for Robinson’s and Andersen’s faux pas. There were disparate calls from throughout the community for Andersen’s firing and Robinson’s suspension.
Councilman Scott Nassiff said of the signs, “Personally, I thought he did something that was a little bit different, creative,” Nassiff said. “I thought it was great. It turned out they were not over the square foot limit.” Nassiff did not quite concede that code enforcement had done anything wrong in removing the signs. “I think they were looking at them holistically,” Nassiff said. “They looked at them all as one complete sign and not separate. In my opinion they didn’t violate any laws. They interpreted it as they normally would as overall square footage on a business sign, which is subject to our code. There is nothing about political signs being used that way, nothing that spells it out. In the interest of fairness we are letting them stay up. They were  back up in 24 hours.”
Emick said he was not in favor of disciplining Andersen or Robinson for their violation of Piper’s rights. He said code enforcement should be given a pass for its transgression because “the signs were so unusual. It was a misunderstanding. It’s not every day that a candidate puts a campaign sign up that is like the Hollywood sign in several pieces. It was very unusual.”
“They tore my signs down,” Piper told the Sentinel. “I called code enforcement and they said they were illegal because of their size.  I said they weren’t illegal and they just hung up on me. I called the town manager. They were basically being a bunch of tyrants. The signs weren’t illegal. They’re not supposed to tear anyone’s signs down. That was illegal. The next day after I confronted them and didn’t back down, the city attorney made them release them. They were caught breaking the law. They have to clean house in the code enforcement department and this is a good start. I might as well say it like it is. They are control freaks, doing the bidding of the ultra-rich. I just might pull off getting elected. There are a few other decent people running. If we can get in, we can change this town.”
Piper said his posting of the signs was not an act of defiance but an assertion of his rights. He dwelled on the fact that “I am a Libertarian. I am a member of the San Bernardino County Libertarian Party. I am a stickler for human rights, Constitutional Rights. I will make more noise about that stuff than any other elected officials I have seen. I am pro-marijuana. It should never have been illegal to begin with. I am an old hippy and I have been smoking it for 40 years. I haven’t seen a problem yet. The people of California voted for it to be legal 18 years ago and the state has now given us a way to have it legally. I have a prescription and I grow my own. A few years ago no one running for office would expound on this but the political atmosphere has changed. I am the furthest thing from a politician there is.”
Piper graduated from Edgewood High School in West Covina and attended Mt. San Antonio College in Pomona, where he got his degree in liberal arts. He served in the United States Air Force from 1966 to 1970. He is a structural composite engineer. He is on the faculty of the Art Center College of Design. He was a member of the Apple Valley Wind Turbine Working Committee. Married, he is separated with three stepchildren.