Velvet really explodes during fall, and it pops up in different forms. There are striped velvet pieces, metallic, and ribbed velvet. And as it starts to cool down, velvet tops can keep you warm. A pair of velvet boots with jeans are a bonus to any outfit. From dresses to trousers, velvet is fun to wear,  even on your feet. Glamour and elegance are combined when you add velvet to your outfit. It’s splendid at parties and great as an accent day piece. Velvet is holiday perfect and can be worn through romantic  February.  So this season, whether you suit up or dress down, get your velvet on. The season is full of cozy, and with velvet in tow it is sure to be chic!

“I loved ‘Blue Velvet.”  Sheryl Lee

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the November 1 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 11-01-19

By Mark Gutglueck
In a mind-bending turn of events, former Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr is being sued by the lawyer who less than a month ago was representing him in a lawsuit.
The lawyer and the law firm of which he is a member bear a relationship to one of the principals involved in the political corruption and bribery scandal pervading the four-year-long and yet ongoing effort to transition Adelanto to a marijuana-based economy.  Precisely what bearing the falling out between Kerr and that law firm will have on the still-ongoing investigation into public corruption in Adelanto is yet unclear. An unverified report is that Kerr has crossed over to begin a dialogue with federal investigators, one in which he is revealing the depth of depredation that has bedeviled Adelanto for the last four years, in an effort to insulate himself from reprisals and gain for himself lenient treatment from prosecutors.
Kerr, a former Marine, in his maiden sojourn into politics in 2014 was successful in ousting incumbent then-Adelanto Mayor Cari Thomas, Accompanying Kerr’s victory were those of real estate agent John Woodard and Charley Glasper, who defeated then-incumbents Steve Baisden and Charles Valvo. That clean sweep came less than a year-and-a-half after the Adelanto City Council in June 2013 made a declaration of fiscal emergency, a move considered preparatory toward a declaration of municipal bankruptcy.
Shortly after the troika came into office, Kerr and Woodard, in cooperation with then-City councilman Jermaine Wright, embarked on an aggressive program of economic revitalization in Adelanto, the initial centerpiece of which was that the city would welcome cultivators of medical marijuana to set up operation within a circumscribed area in the city’s industrial zone. The city’s policy started out as one which limited marijuana-related businesses to indoor agricultural operations. With Councilman Ed Camargo in constant opposition and Glasper’s lukewarm support, the city council rationalized the approach as one that was on the cutting edge of accepting California’s manifesting liberalization of its cannabis-restriction laws toward the legalization of marijuana first for medicinal purposes and then subsequently, in 2016, for use as an intoxicant. By getting in on the floor of the marijuana revolution, Kerr, Woodard and Wright maintained, Adelanto could allow local businesses to get a corner on the marijuana market and simultaneously, through a taxing and permitting regime, create a revenue stream by which the city could eradicate its deficit.
Ultimately, the city amended its approach from permitting just indoor marijuana farms within city limits to licensing medical marijuana dispensaries, cannabis product derivation and manufacturing concerns, packaging and delivery operations, as well as pot shops where the end product is to be sold to consumers.
Very soon after the city reversed its long extant restrictions on any activity relating to marijuana availability, significant numbers of city staff made an exodus from City Hall, either voluntarily because they disapproved of the direction in which the city was headed and they felt the city was cutting corners in the manner in which it was undertaking the legalization process, or they were terminated outright because the ruling coalition of Kerr, Woodard and Wright considered them to be obstructing the city’s new polices.
Accompanying the shift were suspicions that some among the influx of marijuana and cannabis entrepreneurs into the city were paying certain city officials for favorable positions and treatment within the incipient Adelanto marijuana marketplace. In 2017, Wright, after he accepted $10,000 in cash from an undercover FBI agent holding himself out to be a marijuana distribution business applicant and in return offered an assurance he would assist in warding off the city’s regulators, was arrested and charge by the U.S. Attorney’s Office with bribetaking.
Suspicions dogged Kerr and Woodard, as well. Those suspicions were steeped in circumstances that suggested quid pro quo arrangements existed by which some of the city’s elected leaders were being given money in exchange for approving cannabis-related business license applications or for rezoning property owned or tied up by those applicants to allow businesses involving the cultivation or sale of marijuana to legally operate there.
Among these were the circumstances involving Kerr and David Serrano.
At the April 27, 2016 council meeting, Kerr  signaled that the city might allow an alteration of its policy to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to set up operations in Adelanto in the future. Present at that meeting was Manny Serrano, who was the spokesman for the High Desert Cannabis Association and the brother of David Serrano, an attorney affiliated, variously, with the Law Offices of David Serrano and the Professional Lawyers Group, San Bernardino.
On September 22, 2016, David R. Serrano and his wife, Julia Orama-Serrano, initiated the purchase of the Jet Room property, consisting of a 2.23 acre lot and an existing structure at 17499 Adelanto Road, the northeast corner of Adelanto Road and Joshua Avenue. The Jet Room had formerly been a bar that catered to airmen stationed at nearby George Air Force Base prior to the base being shuttered by the Department of Defense in December 1992. The Jet Room had struggled thereafter and went out of business in the late 1990s, laying fallow for nearly two decades. On October 3, 2016 David and Julia Serrano entered into escrow with the owner, Dmitri Manucharyan, paying $450,000 for the property. Their declared intention at the time was to convert the building into a law office.
On October 26, 2016, the Adelanto City Council gave initial approval to Ordinance 553, which allowed medical marijuana dispensaries into the City of Adelanto. A series of delays kept Ordinance 555 from coming up for the second confirming vote it needed to go into effect until May 2017. Prior to that second reading of the ordinance, on November 29, 2016, the city council held a public discussion relating to the pending passage of Ordinance 553 allowing the sale of medical marijuana in Adelanto, in particular the boundaries of the city’s marijuana dispensary overlay zones, which were to govern where dispensaries could be located. As a result of that discussion, the council articulated the intent to expand the marijuana dispensary overlay zone to include the  property at 17499 Adelanto Road. The same day, November 29, 2016, David Serrano’s wife, Julia Orama-Serrano, cut Kerr a $5,000 check drawn against the Law Offices of David Serrano Real Estate Trust Account, with the designation “Adv Xmas Fund” in the memo line. Kerr deposited the check into one of his accounts and did not report receiving the money on his campaign fund reporting documents filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission.
On January 14, 2017, the Adelanto Grand Prix was staged at and around Stater Bros. Stadium in Adelanto. The promotional event involved a number of local entrepreneurs and had as four of its sponsors Malcolm Smith Racing, American Motorcycle Association, Grand Prix Series and So. Cal. M.C. Many local personages and officials took part in the festivities, including Kerr. That afternoon, Kerr, who was reportedly intoxicated, was riding his own dirt bike outside Stater Bros. Stadium in Adelanto and was being trailed by his children and grandchildren within the Grand Prix area when his front wheel hit a soft spot in the dirt and he was thrown from the cycle. He broke his left collarbone, cracked several ribs and suffered a partially collapsed lung. Kerr was laid up for several days thereafter, but was able to go to City Hall and function out of his office there within ten days of the mishap.
On February 16, 2017, David Serrano submitted $1,000 in fees to the City of Adelanto, in conjunction with a “comprehensive plan” for the Jet Room at 17499 Adelanto Road which envisioned the premises to be used as a marijuana dispensary.
On February 27, 2017, a check for $10,000 was made out to Kerr against the Professional Lawyers Group, San Bernardino account bearing the indication “Plaintiff Advance” in the memo line. Kerr deposited the check into one of his bank accounts on February 28, 2017. Kerr did not disclose the $10,000 from the Professional Lawyers Group on any of his campaign disclosure filings for 2017.
On March 31, 2017, another check drawn against the Law Offices of David Serrano Real Estate Trust Fund, this one for $1,348, was written to the City of Adelanto with the phrase “Jet Law 17499 Adelanto Road Adelanto” in the memo line.
On May 17, 2017, a revised version of Ordinance 553 relating to allowing marijuana sales to take place in Adelanto, which updated the version of the ordinance first voted upon on October 26. 2016, was given its first reading, passing by a vote of 3-to-1, with Kerr voting in support of the ordinance. That version of the ordinance included a general plan amendment, which expanded the marijuana dispensary overlay zone to include the Jet Room property in the district where the operation of marijuana dispensaries is permitted. Kerr did not disclose having received, at that point, $15,000 from David Serrano and his wife or the entities with which David Serrano is affiliated. Nor did he make an effort to recuse himself from the vote which had benefited David Serrano and the entities with which Serrano was affiliated.
On May 24, 2017, the second and final reading of and the vote on the revised version of Ordinance 553 took place at that evening’s city council meeting, passing 3-to-1, with Councilman John Woodard abstaining and Councilman Ed Camargo voting no.  That vote included the acceptance of the dispensary overlay zones in which the Jet Room property was included. Kerr again supported the ordinance allowing the operation of marijuana dispensaries in the city and ratifying the marijuana dispensary overlay zones, benefiting David Serrano.
At the same May 24 meeting, the city council passed Resolution 17-12 on a unanimous 5-to-0 vote, establishing the Adelanto Cannabis Dispensary Permit Committee to be charged with determining which applicants for medical marijuana dispensary permits would be granted any of what was then supposed to be a limit of four such permits.
On June 16, 2017, another check for $10,000 written against the Professional Lawyers Group, San Bernardino account was made out to Kerr, bearing “Advance” in the memo line. Kerr deposited the check into one of his bank accounts on June 21, 2017. Kerr did not disclose the $10,000 from the Professional Lawyers Group on any of his campaign disclosure filings for 2017.
On August 23, 2017, then-City Manager Gabriel Elliott publicly announced how the Adelanto Cannabis Dispensary Permit Committee was too be fleshed out. The committee, Elliott said, would consist of the mayor and the mayor pro tem, the city planner and two members of the public to be chosen by the city manager. That same day, August 23, 2017, a check was written for $10,000 against the Professional Lawyers Group, San Bernardino account to Kerr, bearing the memo “Advance”  and was deposited into one of Kerr’s bank accounts. Kerr did not disclose the $10,000 as a campaign contribution on any of his Fair Political Practices forms for 2017.
Less than three months later, Councilman Wright was arrested by the FBI. The following year, on May 8, 2018, FBI and IRS agents armed with search warrants descended upon Adelanto City Hall, the Jet Room medical marijuana dispensary, Kerr’s Adelanto home and the San Bernardino Offices of the Professional Lawyers Group, in which a portion of David Serrano’s legal practice is based. Though Kerr was handcuffed while the search of his home was ongoing, he was not arrested.
While Kerr, Woodard, and the woman they succeeded in installing as Wright’s replacement on the council in a special election held in conjunction with June 2018 California Primary Election, Joy Jeannette, continued to dominate municipal function in Adelanto in the summer and most of the fall of 2018, on November 6, 2018, Kerr and Woodard, both of whom had sustained considerable adverse publicity over the fallout from Wright’s arrest and reports of irregularities attending the marijuanification of Adelanto, failed to gain reelection and were turned out of office. Glasper, who at that point was in the throes of senility, did not seek reelction. Three newcomers, Gabriel Reyes Stevevonna Evans and Gerardo Hernandez, were elected in their stead, the second time in four years that there was a clean sweep in the Adelanto City Council race.
The FBI probe into issues of public corruption was yet ongoing. Difficulties for Adelanto officials were manifesting, in no small measure because the tax revenue that Kerr, Woodard, Wright and subsequently Jeannette vowed would accompany the start up of dozens of marijuana-based and cannabis-related businesses had not manifested, with indications that the payment of permit and licensing fees had been waived for many of those businesses at the direction of the city’s politicians.
There was intense scrutiny of David Serrano. When he and his wife had made the purchase of the Jet Room, Woodard had served as the broker on the sale, picking up a substantial commission. Woodard had then participated in the discussions and council decisions that expanded the city’s zoning for marijuana-based businesses to include the Jet Room property. Many saw this as an open-and-shut-case of a violation of California Government Code Section 1090, which prohibits an elected official from participating in a governmental decision in which he or she has a financial interest. There were other questionable city actions during Kerr’s tenure as mayor which had a beneficial impact on Serrano’s business prospects.
The MJRX Corporation is a creature of David Serrano. MJRX owns the building at 1300 N. Mountain View Avenue in San Bernardino where Professional Lawyers Group is located. David Serrano is, or at least was, the general counsel of Professional Lawyers Group. MJRX is also the parent company of the Jet Room Dispensary. In addition to the application for operating the dispensary at the Jet Room, David Serrano through the Professional Lawyers Group incorporated six corporate entities with the California Secretary of State’s Office on June 12, 2017, each with the general stated purpose of medical marijuana cultivation or manufacturing. Those six corporations are Beaver Farms East Inc., Beaver Extraction East Inc., Beaver Farms South Inc., Beaver Extraction South Inc., Beaver Farms North Inc. and Beaver Extraction North Inc. All six corporations used the address of Professional Lawyers Group, 1300 N. Mountain View Avenue in San Bernardino as a mailing address and used addresses at 16175 Beaver Road, 16179 Beaver Road and 16173 Beaver Road in Adelanto as their operational addresses. On September 26, 2016, David Serrano and Julia Orama-Serrano purchased the property located at 16177 Beaver Road in Adelanto for $1,825,000, with the sale recorded at the San Bernardino County recorder’s office on October 4, 2016. On November 20, 2017, several gift deeds were filed to reallocate ownership of the land to David Serrano and three individuals, Lisa Marie Guerro, Marcella Christine Castaneda and Jennifer Nicole Serrano. Guerro, Castaneda and Jennifer Serrano are believed to be David Serrano’s daughters. Fifty percent of the ownership remained with David Serrano and 16.6666 ownership was allocated to Guerro, Castaneda and Jennifer Serrano. The six corporations created and registered with the California Secretary of State’s Office on June 12, 2017 have as their incorporating agents and officers Philip Rios, who is an attorney with the Professional Lawyers Group; Manuel Serrano; Julia Orama-Serrano, also known as Julia Serrano; Jennifer Serrano; Lisa Guerra, also known as Lisa Galvan, and also known as Lisa Serrano; Marcella Castaneda; Hector Orama; Luis Orama; and Miguel Orama. Philip Rios has consistently represented the Jet Room as its legal counsel.
On January 14, 2019, the last day before the two-year statute of limitations following Kerr’s motorcycle accident at the 2017 Adelanto Grand Prix elapsed, Kerr, represented by Philip E. Rios and Keith A. Adesko of the Professional Lawyers Group, sued the Adelanto Grand Prix organizers with regard to the injuries he had sustained on January 14, 2017. According to that suit, “As a promotional gimmick, defendants encouraged plaintiff, the then-Adelanto mayor, to participate in the event and promoted his participation. Plaintiff, though an avid and experienced motorcycle rider, at 60 years of age is not physically capable of participating in a dangerous and physically demanding activity like motocross racing. Defendants knew, or should have known, of the demanding nature of the activity and should not have allowed plaintiff to compete in a race, much less promote and exploit the plaintiff’s participation for monetary gain. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence in allowing plaintiff to compete in a race, plaintiff crashed during the race and suffered serious injuries, including a fractured clavicle, for which plaintiff spent 10 days in the hospital.”
The suit was roundly perceived as a means of offsetting the FBI’s working theory that the $35,000 in payments made to Kerr by the Law Offices of David Serrano and the Professional Lawyers Group, San Bernardino were bribes. In the sworn affidavit in support of the petition for the search warrants that were served at Adelanto City Hall, Kerr’s home, the Jet Room and at the San Bernardino office of the Professional Lawyers Group on May 8, 2018, FBI Agent Kevin Boles referenced the $35,000 received by Kerr from the two law firms associated with David Serrano, and stated, “I believe the payments originating from David Serrano were, in fact, bribe payments to Kerr in return for his official acts of voting on ordinances that directly benefitted the Jet Room. I believe it is likely Kerr maintained his communication with Manny Serrano who, in turn, used David Serrano’s law firm to make the bribe payments as advance payments associated with a fictitious lawsuit in which Kerr is a plaintiff.” The lawsuit filed by Rios and Adesko on Kerr’s behalf against the Adelanto Grand Prix sponsors thus appears to have been intended to establish, as the memo lines on some of the checks originating with David Serrano that went to Kerr indicated, that those payments were advances on the settlement to be obtained from Malcolm Smith Racing, American Motorcycle Association, Grand Prix Series, So. Cal. M.C. and Adelanto Grand Prix with regard to the injuries Kerr sustained in the crash.
The difficulty with that defense strategy in the face of any criminal charges pertaining to bribery that might be filed is that the first $5,000 of the $35,000 paid to Kerr by the Law Offices of David Serrano on November 29, 2016 came two-and-a-half months before the motorcycle accident. Nevertheless, the lawsuit was filed and remained in play, without going to trial, for more than eight months.
On October 10, 2019, Philip Rios filed with the San Bernardino County Superior Court to have Kerr’s case against Malcolm Smith Racing and the other defendants dismissed with prejudice, the same day he filed suit against Kerr for breach of contract.
It is not not known what precipitated the sudden show of hostility against Kerr by Serrano’s law firm. Precisely what the falling out between Kerr and his lawyers will mean in terms of the former mayor’s willingness to expose the nature of the illicit dealings between the proponents of marijuana-based and cannabis-related businesses and Adelanto city officials is at this point an open question. One unsubstantiated report was that Kerr, now out of office and without the protection of the Adelanto city attorney or the general machinery of government extended to public officials, has made a practical and tactical decision to cooperate with the FBI, prompting Serrano and his affiliated entities to end their relationship with him.
Efforts to obtain input from the entities involved – Kerr, David Serrano or any of those involved with him in his entrepreneurial undertakings, or the FBI – were unsuccessful.

Tim Donnelly, who in 2014, gave up what was considered to be a safe seat in the California Assembly to make a quixotic but surprisingly strong effort to capture the  Republican nomination for governor, is now making yet another foray to capitalize on his right wing bona fides by again seeking election to Congress in the 8th Congressional District.
Donnelly’s entrance into the race perpetuates his role as an outcast among the sometimes loosely-knit and sometimes more closely-tied alliance of GOP officeholders in San Bernardino County, one of the last bastions of Republicanism in the Golden State.
Donnelly’s appeal to a contingent of the GOP that is more strident in the propounding of his party’s basic values and core beliefs while resisting in principle and practice the policies and approaches favored by the Democrats is seen as a threat to the element of the Republican Party now in control in San Bernardino County and its ability to remain on top politically in this region because of the danger that he might awaken and galvanize the Democrats, who have in the past been unable to drive a sufficient percentage of their superior numbers to the polls to offset the greater force the Republicans can muster in terms of energetic turnout of their party faithful.
In the March 3 California Primary Election, Donnelly will be going head-to-head against Jay Obernolte, the incumbent in the 33rd Assembly District who filled that void when Donnelly made his unsuccessful 2014 gubernatorial bid. This will be the first time Donnelly and Obernolte have vied against one another, as they have steered clear of a direct confrontation until now. How contentious the race between them will get is not yet clear. Two years ago, Donnelly challenged the incumbent 8th District Congressman, Paul Cook, provoking a bitter and what many considered to be an underhanded internecine attack from Cook’s political operatives. Obernolte, who covets the Congressional office Cook holds, showed greater respect and patience in maintaining the Republican order, such as it is, then did Donnelly. Obernolte was willing to remain in the California Assembly until such time that Cook willingly departed, rather than seeking to wrest the prestigious office from him in a revolt against that order.
Since the 1990s, all state legislators in California have been constrained by term limits. Previously, Assembly members were held to three-two year terms in the lower house and California state senators were restricted to two four-year terms in Sacramento’s upper legislative house. Beginning with state legislators first elected in 2014, California reduced its mixed 14-year limitation to a blanket limitation of 12 years, meaning an individual could serve three senatorial terms and renounce ever being a member of the Assembly, or could serve two senatorial terms and two Assembly terms or four Assembly terms and one senatorial term, or six Assembly terms. Under the previous rules, Obernolte would have been obliged to leave the Assembly after his current term, but coming into the Assembly for the first time in 2014, he had the luxury of remaining in the Assembly, if he wished and could succeed in getting reelected therein, until 2026. Thus, Obernolte was considering running again for the Assembly in the 33rd District next year. In September, however, Cook, a former Marine colonel who had served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and had entered local politics as a member of the Yucca Valley City council and then went on to become mayor there before achieving election as a member of the Assembly in the 65th District, announced he would not seek reelection to Congress, to which he had first been elected in the 8th Congressional District in 2012, essentially replacing longtime Congressman Jerry Lewis, who had retired just as reapportionment following the 2010 Census redrew California’s Congressional districts, creating the 8th District from most of what had been Lewis’s 41st District. Cook made that decision following an announcement by First District County Supervisor Robert Lovingood that he would not seek reelection as supervisor, whereupon Cook resolved to forego constant travel between Washington, D.C. and Southern California in favor of remaining at home, and run to replace Lovingood as supervisor. Obernolte immediately declared his intent to replace Cook as Congressman.
While there was a belief that Lovingood would then run to claim Obernolte’s Assembly seat, that did not occur. Rather, Lovingood endorsed former Hesperia Councilman and Mayor Thurston Smith in his run for the 33rd Assembly District post.
When campaigning among an exclusively Republican crowd, San Bernardino County’s establishment Republicans do not hesitate in lambasting the Democrats as lily-livered unChristian coddlers of criminals who advocate open borders, tolerance of illegal immigration, taking guns away from law abiding citizens and profligate spending of hard-earned tax dollars, who never miss an opportunity to raise taxes or create new ones that did not previously exist. In mixed crowds, however, they seek to tone that criticism down, as the number of registered Democrats in San Bernardino County eclipsed the number of registered Republicans in 2009, and the Democrats have widened that registration gap in their favor ever since. Thus, Republicans have cultivated the art of highly selective campaign targeting, appealing to voters in isolation,  based upon factors known about them, including political affiliation, area of residence, ethnicity, responses to survey inquiries, and any further information that can be gleaned.
As a Marine veteran and Republican state legislator before he  moved on to Congress, Cook had established himself as a solid Republican with so-called conservative leanings. In 2018, Donnelly challenged Cook in the primary election, as did three others, all of whom were Democrats – Ron O’Donnell, Marge Doyle and Rita Ramirez-Dean. When the dust of the June 5, 2018 balloting had cleared, Cook had prevailed by what appeared to be a comfortable margin – 41,585 votes out of 100,116 cast for 41.54 percent. The Democrats together managed to get 35.28 percent of the vote, with Doyle finishing in the top spot among them with 20,153 votes for 20.13 percent. Donnelly brought in 23,214 voter endorsements, or 23.19 percent, for second place. Under California’s open primary rule, the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, move on to the November general election. Thus, Cook found himself in a showdown against Donnelly in a district that leaned heavily in favor of the Republican Party.
That circumstance represented some difficulty for Cook, however. In a literal shootout against another Republican, without the interference of a candidate appealing to the so-called liberal vote, the issues were very likely to boil down to hardcore right wing elements. In this respect, Donnelly had Cook at a disadvantage. Donnelly had taken a diamond-hard stance against illegal immigration, going so far as founding the California Chapter of the Minuteman to patrol the border with Mexico. A die-hard Second Amendment advocate, Donnelly had lived up the principle he espoused, such that while he was yet a member of the California Assembly he would routinely carry a concealed gun onto the floor of the statehouse while the legislature was in session. He took an aggressive stand against a 2011 bill restricting the open carrying of handguns in California by labeling the measure “a form of tyranny.”
Donnelly topped that when, on the way back to Sacramento after the Christmas and New Year holidays for the first state legislative session in 2012, he was stopped by Transportation Security Administration officers at Ontario Airport for having a Colt .45 handgun loaded with four rounds of ammunition and five addition rounds in his carry on baggage.
The gun was taken from him and he was cited for possession of a loaded firearm. It turned out that Donnelly, who had purchased the gun roughly five years before the incident, had never registered it in his name. He was not charged with failing to purchase the gun through a licensed dealer, which is prosecutable as misdemeanor under California’s gun laws. Ultimately, Donnelly pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of carrying a loaded firearm in public without a concealed weapons permit and possessing a gun in an airport. He was fined $2,125 and placed on three years’ probation, but was not prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon thereafter, as long as, under the terms of his probation he did not “use, own or possess any firearm that is not registered to him.” Donnelly maintained he had done nothing wrong, going on record as saying, “I didn’t do anything other than exercise my 2nd Amendment rights as a free American.”
His action did not hamper him politically, as he was seen by gun owners as having stood up to unreasonable liberal efforts to curtail gun ownership. He prevailed against two opponents in the June 2012 California Primary election with 52.06 percent of the vote, and then convincingly defeating his Democratic opponent in the November 2012 General Election, John Coffey, 73,836 votes or 59.04 percent to 51,215 vote or 40.96 percent.
Cook, his backers, his allies and the employees in his office saw Donnelly as a formidable opponent, one who might very well end the incumbent Congressman’s political career by his appeal to the so-called conservative base of their party.  Donnelly’s political persona, anchored to his identification as the most conservative politician in California and one who is unrelentingly faithful to bedrock ultra-right principles, matched perfectly with a solid plurality if not an outright majority of the voters in the overwhelmingly right wing 8th Congressional District. Of particular concern to the Cook political machine was that there are large numbers of gun-toting constituents in the 8th District, which covers a large swath of the Mojave Desert and the San Bernardino Mountains, where gun ownership is a way of life for a majority of those living in isolated rural areas.
Two of Cook’s political operatives, Dillon Lesovsky, who had previously been employed in Cook’s Congressional office, and Matt Knox, who was yet employed by Cook as the 8th District director and was also functioning as Cook’s 2018 campaign manager, earnestly set about untracking Donnelly’s candidacy. They formulated what was called the “Dirty Donnelly” attack. Consisting of a website and signs to promote the website, dirtydonnelly.com utilized doctored photos to paint Donnelly in the most negative of light, and dwelt at length on a number of derogatories relating to the former assemblyman, including that he had a criminal record, which was an unspecified reference to his gun-carrying conviction; accusations that he was scamming senior citizens; that he had deserted his family; that he had engaged in “political fraud,” which was again unspecified; that he stole from his own wife; and that he was unemployed. In violation of state law, neither the website nor the signs directing voters’ attention to the website had any identifying California Fair Political Practices registration number nor the indicia required under California law for campaign signs and materials to show what entity, organization, committee or campaign paid for the materials. The campaign on behalf of Cook directed by Knox and the hit perpetrated by Knox and Lesovsky proved highly effective, as Cook trounced Donnelly in the November 6, 2018 election, 108,414 votes or just under 61.33 percent to 68,370 votes or 38.67 percent.
Knox and Lesovsky have gone to work for Dawn Rowe, another former Cook staffer, who was appointed in December 2018 by the board of supervisors to serve the final two years of James Ramos’s term as Third District San Bernardino County supervisor following Ramos’s election to the California Assembly in the 40th District in the same November 2018 election in which Cook defeated Donnelly. There have been indications given that Knox, in his capacity as Rowe’s chief of staff, and Lesovsky, as Rowe’s policy advisor, are running multiple 2020 election campaigns from inside of Rowe’s office, including Rowe’s electoral effort for Third District supervisor, Cook’s campaign for First District supervisor, Obernolte’s campaign for Congress and now Thurston Smith’s effort to capture the 33rd Assembly District position that Obernolte is abandoning in vying for the House of Representatives.
In deciding to run once more for Congress this year, Donnelly was looking past his defeat by Cook last year and an unsuccessful bid in 2016 when Rita Ramirez-Dean, with 23,959 votes or 21.48 percent in the primary captured second place and nosed out Donnelly, who finished in third place with 23,671 votes or 21.22 percent, before Ramirez-Dean went on to be defeated by Cook that November. In the upcoming election season Donnelly could have run instead for the 33rd Assembly District position Obernolte is giving up to run for Congress and which Donnelly himself forsook to run for governor. A question attends as to whether Donnelly, if he were to regain election to the Assembly, would be able to remain in California’s lower legislative house for more than a single term under the term limit rule that was in place when he was originally elected to the Assembly in 2010, which limited him to three terms in the Assembly, or whether the term limitation structure in place since 2014 would apply to him, allowing him to run for another three terms beyond that to serve a total of 12 years as Assemblyman. Based on the consideration that he might be limited to just one more term in the Assembly, Donnelly resolved to run for Congress now, calculating that his name recognition and conservative reputation will stand him in good stead against Obernolte, who has the power of incumbency in the California legislature, a fair share of name recognition himself, and the support of the Cook/Rowe/Knox/Lesovsky political machinery.
Whether Donnelly’s calculation is an astute one will prove out with the upcoming primary election and the general election. In California, races for state office cannot be decided in the primary, even if a candidate manages to capture more than 50 percent of the vote. In those races for state office, the November election is a runoff between the first and second place finishers in the primary, irrespective of the party or parties of the candidates and the margin of victory and defeat between the top two vote-getters.
Even before the primary, which is to be held in March in 2020, the Cook/Rowe/Knox/Lesovsky political machine, and by extension the Obernolte campaign, have sustained setbacks. In September, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Janet Frangie ruled that the board of supervisors in selecting Rowe as Third District supervisor last December violated the State of California’s open public meeting law, the Brown Act. Frangie ordered that Rowe’s appointment be rescinded. That ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic Party activists, challenging the Republican Rowe’s appointment. The county board of supervisors then ordered the county’s stable of in-house lawyers, known as county counsel, to appeal Frangie’s ruling. The appeal stayed the rescission of Rowe’s appointment, so she yet remains in the capacity of Third District supervisor. Unless the appellate court reviews Frangie’s ruling before the March 3 Primary Election, Rowe will be able to run for election as an incumbent. Nevertheless, the ruling has compromised Rowe’s authority to a certain degree, and it has galvanized Democratic voters in the Third District, which has historically, with a few notable exceptions, leaned in favor of Republican candidates.
Moreover, there has been considerable attention focused on the political activity emanating out of Rowe’s office involving Knox and Lesovsksy, as well as another political operative Rowe hired as part of her Third Supervisorial District staff, Suzette Swallow. Such political activity being run out of governmental offices is technically illegal under California law, though largely ignored as a privilege and perquisite of holding political office. Still smarting from what Cook, Knox and Lesovsky did to him last year, Donnelly is sensitive to what they are now trying to pull off in 2020 in favor of Cook, Rowe and the select group of political hopefuls with whom they are associated, including Obernolte. Donnelly is not without resources of his own, and the opportunity will present itself over the next several months and then perhaps again in the run-up to the November election to make a major issue out of Obernolte’s participation in and association with an illegal effort to utilize public facilities, equipment and employees for partisan purposes, a manifestation of the abuse of  governmental power and authority that Donnelly has a long history of advocating against.
At this point five candidates, including Obernolte and Donnelly, have declared they are running in the 8th Congressional District race in March. The others include Democrat Chris Bubser, an engineer and former biotech executive; Peter Mathisen, who has no political affiliation and is the proprietor of Law’s Oak Glen Coffee Shop; and Republican Jeremy Staat, an Iraq war veteran and former NFL player.
In announcing his bid, Donnelly essentially ignored Bubser, Mathisen and Statt, taking aim at Obernolte by implying the five years he has spent in Democratic-dominated Sacramento has rendered him into a typical tax-and-spend politician, incapable of exercising fiscal discipline.
“It’s time we stop electing the same losers who got us into this mess and expecting them to bail us out,” Donnelly said. “At the rate we’re spending, we’re sentencing the next generation to financial Armageddon. The only solution the politicians come up with is raising our taxes. We’re being taxed to death.”
-Mark Gutglueck

The State of California is on the verge of mandating that San Bernardino County’s 24 cities must moderate their zoning and development codes to allow the construction industry to build 162,145 housing units within their collective confines over the eight years beginning in 2021. The majority of those new dwellings are to be priced at what is defined as “affordable” rates, that is, within the buying power of those with very low, low and moderate incomes. The balance of the units to be built are intended for purchase or rent by those with “above moderate income.”
The dictates from Sacramento mean that local governments throughout San Bernardino County and the larger area of Southern California as a whole will lose a significant degree of their traditional purview over land use policy.
There has been a trend toward an overarching regional and statewide control of development regulation, in particular residential development regulation, for some time. The regional housing needs assessment, known by its acronym RHNA, is a requirement of California housing law and is a process that determines projected and existing housing need for all jurisdictions, including cities and unincorporated county land, in California. The process to determine a regional housing needs assessment allocation is conducted by a council of governments, such as the Southern California Association of Governments, every eight years. Every jurisdiction must plan for its regional housing needs assessment allocation in the housing element of its general plan by ensuring there are enough sites together with zoning to accommodate its regional housing needs assessment allocation. Many jurisdictions use the housing element as an opportunity to complement their economic development, open space, and sustainability goals with its housing goals. Once updated, housing elements are reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and must be adopted by the jurisdiction. The most recent regional housing needs assessment allocation for the Southern California Association of Governments region, its fifth cycle regional housing needs assessment, was adopted in October 2012 and covers the housing element planning period October 2013 to October 2021. The sixth cycle allocation, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029, will be adopted in October 2020.
In January, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to create an inventory of surplus state lands where affordable housing might be built.
On August 22, 2019, within the context of the planning toward the sixth cycle of the regional housing needs assessment, the California Department of Housing and Community Development submitted to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) its mandate that in the six of Southern California’s counties for which SCAG is the regional planning authority –  Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura – 1,341,827 housing units must be built over the eight-year period between 2021 and 2029.
In a letter of protest dated September 18, 2019 to Doug McCauley, the acting director of the California Department of Housing & Community Development, Kome Ajise, the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments, put on record his association’s “formal objection to the California Department of Housing & Community Development’s regional housing need determination.”
Ajise noted that the Southern California Association of Governments “is fully aware that the State of California is in the midst of a housing crisis and that resolving this crisis requires strong partnerships with state, regional and local entities in addition to private and non-profit sectors. As such, SCAG (the Southern California Association of Governments) desires to be an active and constructive partner with the State and HCD (the Department of Housing & Community Development) on solving our current housing crisis, and this objection should not suggest otherwise. We are in fact currently setting up a housing program that will assist our local jurisdictions on activities and policies that will lead to actual housing unit construction.”
Nevertheless, Ajise wrote, “One of our major concerns is that HCD did not base its determination on the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Growth Forecast, which was inconsistent with Government Code 65584.01(c)(2)(A).  Another major concern is that pursuant to Government Code 65584.01(c) (2) (B), the Department of Housing & Community Development’s determination of housing need in the Southern California Association of Governments region is not a reasonable application of the methodology and assumptions described in statute. Specifically, the Department of Housing & Community Development compared household overcrowding and cost burden rates in the Southern California Association of Governments region to national averages rather than to rates in comparable regions as statutorily required. The Department of Housing & Community Development seemingly uses unrealistic comparison points to evaluate healthy market vacancy, which is also an unreasonable application of the methodology and assumptions.”
While the Southern California Association of Governments disputed the methodology the state used in deriving its numbers, it pointedly did not contest the state’s authority to override the local agencies’ autonomy in setting their own development regulations, zoning standards and population saturation levels. Nor did the association contradict the overarching need to make the population increase provisions set forth by the state.
“I would like to note that SCAG’s objection focuses on the process and adherence to state housing law requirements and not necessarily to the regional housing need determination number,” Ajise wrote. “The ultimate aim of this objection, as discussed at length by the regional council, is to ensure the most technically and legally credible basis for a regional determination so that the 197 local jurisdictions in the Southern California Association of Governments region can approach the difficult task of zoning to accommodate regional needs with the backing of the most robust and realistic target that is possible.”
On October 9, Governor Gavin Newsom signed 18 bills intended to deal with housing needs in California, including ones his office said were “designed to help jumpstart housing production.” The bills signed included Senate Bill 330, legislation aimed at removing local barriers to housing construction to speed up new development by simplifying permitting and approval processes, ensuring no net loss in zoning capacity and limiting fees after projects are approved, along with Assembly Bill 1763, which creates more affordable housing by giving 100 percent affordable housing developments an enhanced density bonus to encourage development, and Assembly Bill 1485, which further streamlines environmental law and encourages moderate-income housing production. The provisions contained within those several pieces of legislation eradicate limits on residential density; provide developers of affordable housing so-called “bonus units,” meaning they can exceed the number of units per acre many cities impose on housing projects; force cities to permit garages and carports to be converted, or demolished, to accommodate accessory dwelling units sometimes known as “granny flats”; and limiting the amount of parking spaces a city can require when approving residential developments.
In this way, the discretion that local jurisdictions formally had in controlling what is to be built within those communities has been in large measure compromised.
San Bernardino County’s cities have each been consigned to building a given number of housing units in their jurisdictions that are yet to be precisely determined, but for which tentative numbers have already been projected. Those final numbers are subject to the methodology by which they were derived being ratified by the SCAG Board, any forthcoming appeals and acceptance by the State of California.
In practical terms, based upon the tentative numbers that have been set forth, all of San Bernardino County is being mandated to absorb the construction of slightly more than 12 percent of the 1,341,827 units the state is calling upon the six counties the Southern California Association of Governments oversees to accommodate. The 162,145 units have been apportioned, under the tentative schedule yet to be approved by the Southern California Association of Government Board, as follows:
In Adelanto a total 7,198 units are to be built with 765 units for those of very low income, 1,093 for those of low income, 1,249 for those of moderate income, and 4,091 for those of above moderate income.
In Apple Valley, a total of 7,523 units are to be built, with 1,927 units built to house those of very low income, 1,058 to house those with low income, 1,309 for those with a moderate income, and 3,229 for those with above moderate income.
In Barstow, a total of 2,735 units are to be built, including 314 for those with very low income, 413 for those in the low income category, 540 for residents with moderate incomes and 1,468 units for those with above moderate income.
In Big Bear a total of 426 units are to be built, with 100 of those priced to be affordable for those with very low income, 66 for those qualifying as low income residents, 75 for those with moderate income, and 185 for those of above moderate income.
Chino is being called upon to build a total of 8,361 housing units, 2,560 for those within the very low income category, 1,545 for those cataloged as low income, 1,438 for those of moderate income, and 2,819 to house those of moderate income.
Chino Hills must build 4,039 units overall, including 1,516 for those of very low income, 890 for low income inhabitants, 850 for those of moderate income, and 783 for buyers having an above moderate income.
In Colton a total 5,415 units are to be built, 1,330 for those at a very low income level, 670 for those of low income, 903 for those able to boast a moderate income, and 2,512 to be sold to those at above moderate income.
Fontana is to allow the construction of 22,101 units, 6,522 affordable to those with a very low income, 3,738 to those of  low income, 3,822 to those of  moderate income and 8,019 for those of above moderate income.
Grand Terrace must see 808 units built within its 3.5 square mile, 12,700 population city, 244 for those of very low income, 118 for those of low income 136 for those with moderate income, and 310 for those with an above moderate income.
Hesperia is to allow a total of 15,793 units within its 73.21-square mile confines, with 3,769 for those of very low income, 2,389 for those of low income, 2,727 for those of moderate income and 6,899 for those with above moderate income.
In Highland, a total of 4,087 units are to be built, 1021 for those with very low income, 670 for those of   low income, 767 for those of moderate income, and 1,639 with above moderate income.
In Loma Linda 2,280 units are to be built, so that 588 will be affordable to those with very low income, 348 for those of low income, 391 for those of moderate income, and 953 for those of above moderate income.
In Montclair, a total 1,688 units are to be built, 460 for those of very low income, 251 for those of low income, 260 for those of moderate income, and 718 for those of above moderate income.
In Needles, a total of 160 units are mandated to be built, 17 reserved for those of very low income, 18 for those of low income, 30 for those with a moderate income, and 94 for those with an above moderate income.
In Ontario, a total of 24,478 units are to be built, 6,703 for those of very low income, 3,878 for those of low income, 3,903 for those of moderate income, and 9,994 for those of above moderate income.
In Rancho Cucamonga, the state is calling upon the city to allow 10,501 units to be built in that city from 2021 until 2029, 3,273 of them for those prospective residents with very low income, 1,923 units for those with low income, 2.073 for those with moderate income, and 3,278 for those with above moderate income.
In Redlands, a total 4,487 dwelling units are to be built, 1,248 for those with very low income, 789 for those with low income, 830 for those with moderate income, and 1,620 for those with above moderate income.
In Rialto, a total of 8,251 units are to be built, with 2,240 to house those with very low incomes, 1,209 for those with low income, 1,366 for those of moderate income, and 3,436 for those with above moderate income.
In San Bernardino, the county seat, a total of 8,104 homes of one type or another are to be built, so that 1,432 are affordable to those living on a very low income, 1,103 are within the means of those with a low income, 1,446 for those of  moderate income, and 4,123 for those with an above moderate income.
In Twentynine Palms, a total of 2,066 units are to be constructed, 460 for those of very low income, 252 for those of low income, 364 for moderate income homebuyers and 990 for those with an above moderate income.
In Upland, a total of 6,456 dwellings are to be built, with 1,820 for very low income buyers or renters, 1,093 for those of low income, 1,148 for those falling in the  moderate income category, and 2,395 for those with an above moderate income.
In Victorville, a total of 16,216 units are to be built, 3,493 of them for those with a very low income, 2,271 for those with a low income, 2,987 for those of a moderate income, and 7,465 of those with an above moderate income.
In Yucaipa, a total 4,681 units are to be constructed, of which 1,169 are to house those of very low income, 810 are to be for those with low income, 833 are for those in the moderate income bracket, and 1,869 are to be home to those of an above moderate income.
In Yucca Valley, a total of 1,489 units are to be built, 311 slated for those of very low income, 332 for those of low income, 288 for moderate income renters or buyers, and 658 for those of above moderate income.
While one of the planning principles the Southern California Association of Governments has sought to incorporate into its determination of where residential growth within its jurisdiction should occur is proximity to mass transit availability as well as employment opportunities, that standard did not consistently make its way into the mandates set down by the state. This is disconcerting to many advocates of planned and organized growth.
Many developmental interests, including members of the building and real estate industries, property owners, land speculators and financiers are applauding the recent passage of legislation intended to facilitate residential development, in no small measure because it deregulates development to a considerable degree and greatly decreases the limitations that local officials can impose on the proponents of residential development projects. Conversely, those long concerned about the ravages of unbridled development, leapfrog development, overcrowding and the strain on already overburdened infrastructure consider the new laws to be antithetical to the concept of ordered and controlled growth.
The Town of Apple Valley, for instance, has had for virtually all of its 31 years as an incorporated municipality a policy of permitting single family residential development to occur only on lots of one-half acre or larger. When three members of the town council, David Holman, Barbara Loux and Patrick Jacobo, all of whom had ties to the development community, in 1999 made a push to reduce the town’s standards to allow four residential units to the acre as a prelude to even further density concessions, a counterreaction among town residents resulted in a committee qualifying a recall election against the troika, which succeeded. Placed on the same ballot was Measure N, which mandated that until December 31, 2020 the “existing rural atmosphere and equestrian lifestyle” of Apple Valley would be respected by requiring a vote of the people on any amendment to the single-family residential element of the town’s general plan, thus safeguarding Apple Valley’s tradition of half-acre lots. Measure N also passed. The effort by the State of California to ensure affordable housing is available in Apple Valley led to the town, often reluctantly, approving multi-family developments, almost exclusively in an area on or surrounding California State Route 18 in the area of 34.5315°N 117.2235°W. This district has become crime-ridden, known locally as “felony flats.” As a consequence, there is a determination on the part of Apple Valley officials and a large segment of the town population to resist any further state or federal mandates intensifying land use and residential density in the town.
Precisely what will occur if local officials seek to contest, either legally or procedurally, the imposition of state mandates relating to what have been traditionally local purviews with regard to land use determinations is unknown at this time.
It appears that the State of California and the Southern California Association of Governments are taking a combined carrot and stick approach in seeking to have cities comply with their residential growth projections. Ajise in a report told city and county officials that if their jurisdictions begin to make headway toward achieving compliance with state housing law they will be eligible to receive between $65,000 and $1.5 million, based on population, directly from the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development, funds which can be used to prepare and adopt planning documents and facilitate the process of reaching full compliance with the state housing opportunity creation mandates. Some local officials have scoffed at that, indicating the money being offered is laughingly unequal to the costs complying with the mandates represent.
The 1,341,827 units the state is calling upon Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial County to accommodate between 2021 and 2029 is a tentative one, which the Southern California Association of Governments, as the  regional planning organization for six counties, will serve to finalize.
The Southern California Association of Government’s regional council will vote on a draft allocation methodology November 7, after which the state will undergo a 60-day review of the methodology, which is based on jobs and transit accessibility, growth, and socio-economic factors. After the full board of directors for the Southern California Association of Governments approves the penultimate draft, it will be submitted to the state, whereupon each city will receive an official mandate with regard to doing its part to redress the state housing shortage.
-Mark Gutglueck

The Monclair City Council next Monday, November 4, will set about filling the gap within its ranks brought on by the death of Councilwoman Trish Martinez on September 21.
At the meeting, the four remaining members of the council – Mayor John Dutrey, Councilwoman Carolyn Raft, Councilwoman Tenice Johnson and Councilman Bill Ruh – will consider the applicants for the position and determine which of them will be interviewed in a specially called meeting of the council on November 12. The general idea is that based on those interviews and the curriculum vitae that each council hopeful presents the council will be able to come to a consensus as to who is to replace Martinez. In the course of the meeting, the council is anticipated to give direction to City Clerk Andrea Phillips to randomly determine the order in which the applicants who pass muster on November 4 will be interviewed on November 12.
According to Councilwoman Raft, individuals who had indicated an interest in the appointment the council made earlier this year were contacted to see if they would again apply.  That earlier vacancy came about as a consequence of the November 2018 mayoral contest in which two incumbent council members, Raft and John Dutrey vied, along with Sousan Elias and Kelly Smith. Ultimately, Dutrey prevailed in that race, garnering 3,681 votes or 49.85 percent to Raft’s 2,623 votes or 35.59 percent and Elias’s and Smith’s combined total of 14.66 percent. Because Dutrey had been reelected to the city council in 2016, he yet had two years remaining on his council term. He resigned from that post to accept the mayoral gavel. Ultimately, the council chose Tenice Johnson, the chairwoman of the Montclair Planning Commission, to take up the place she now holds on the council dais.
The Sentinel is informed that potential candidates this year are Victor Mendez, Loren Robert Martens, Benjamin Lopez, Cinty Katherine Sanchez, Sousan D. Elias, Laura Page Milhiser, Juliet Orozco, Charles F. Krewina II, Sergio Sahagun, Sr, Josie Garcia, Virginia Eaton, Joseph A. Nicoara,  Edgar Gallegos and former Councilman Leonard Paulitz.
Laura Milhiser’s husband, Mike, was formerly Montclair’s city manager and is currently a member of the Monte Vista Water District Board of Directors.
Benjamin Lopez ran for the council in 2014, 2016 and 2018, finishing in third place each time. His father is Monte Vista Water District Board Member Tony Lopez. The younger Lopez is politically gregarious, and is on a first name basis with a dozen local municipal and county elected officials and familiar with a score of others.
Juliet Orozco ran for city council in 2016 and 2018.
Sousan Elias is the proprietor of three businesses in Montclair – Dragon’s Tale Brewery, Bourbon Squares Handcrafted Chocolates and Casual Closers Mobile Notary Service – as well as a former mayoral candidate who advocated that Montclair actively seek having a hotel or motel locate in the city.
Virginia Eaton is the widow of late Montclair Mayor Paul Eaton. She served on the council in an appointed capacity last year following her husband’s passing.
The appointee will serve until an election to fill the position is held next November, in conjunction with the November 2020 presidential election, with that victor serving out the last two years of the term Martinez was elected to in 2018. If the council fails to make a choice of Martinez’s successor, the city will then hold a special election which may or may not correspond with the March 3, 2020 California Primary.

The situation involving San Bernardino’s city manager and its police chief has complexified.
Teri Ledoux earlier this year made a mercurial rise to the top of the municipal management profession through an unforeseen series of events when a divided city council in April put former City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller on paid leave and then terminated her in May. Ledoux, who had previously worked in the capacities of an administrative analyst and assistant to the city manager in San Bernardino from 1995 until 2013 before she went on to administrative assistant positions with the cities of Huntington Beach and La Verne, was brought back to San Bernardino by Travis-Miller to serve as assistant city manager in 2017.
Few expected Ledoux’s promotion to the post of interim city manager in San Bernardino to be anything more than a temporary assignment, based on a number of factors. One of those was Ledoux’s relatively thin managerial experience. The second was her proximity to retirement. She was 61 when she was brought in as interim city manager. Her known intention was to retire at 63, leaving little prospect that she would remain in the city manager’s post for more than two years. Thus, Ledoux’s skill level and staying power appeared inadequate to the task of dealing with San Beranrdino’s myriad of challenges. The city in August of 2012 had filed for Chapter Nine bankruptcy protection, remaining in that status for just under five years, during which time it stiffed 209 creditors for more than $300 million owed them. In June 2017, the city exited bankruptcy but in the interim has failed to abide by all elements in its recovery plan. Prior to Travis-Miller’s ouster, the city’s finance director, Brent Mason, departed. Based upon a financial review of the city’s current revenue and spending trends, the budget surplus the city was able to accumulate while functioning under Chapter 9 protection will be exhausted by October or November 2020.
In July, however, the city council, again on a sharply divided vote, moved to elevate Ledoux to the status of full-fledged city manager. In doing so, the council approved a contract with Ledoux that initially provided her with an annual salary of $259,674 and benefits running to roughly $46,000 per year, retroactive to June. That was equal to 99 percent of the $262,542.50 annual salary plus $45,399.06 in annual benefits that was being paid to Travis-Miller at the time of her departure. On August 1, when McBride’s pay as acting police chief was upped by 3.5 percent to $255,324.46, the city simultaneously increased Ledoux’s remuneration by the same 3.5 percent, zooming her salary to $268,762.59.  such that she remained five percent ahead of McBride.
Layered into Ledoux’s contract was language that assured she would receive a salary that was higher than all of the municipal employees she supervised, spelled out in practical terms to guarantee she would make 5 percent more than the police chief, the city’s highest-paid department head.
As circumstances dictated, in 2019 there was an exodus of the city’s highest ranking employees, including Travis-Miller’s forced departure, that of Mason as well as Police Chief Jarrod Burguan.
Ultimately, indeed perhaps predictably, the city turned to Assistant Police Chief Eric McBride, who had been serving in the capacity of acting chief since February when Burguan had gone out on what was then anticipated to be a three-to-four month medical leave to undergo knee surgery. After that leave extended to more than six months, Burguan in August elected to retire.
McBride, whose résumé is bristling with experience and accomplishment, was considered the logical inheritor of the police chief’s position.
Rather than attend college out of high school, McBride enlisted in the Marine Corps at the age of 18, spending six-and-a-half years in the military, mostly as an anti-tank assault guided missileman in the infantry. He began with the San Bernardino Police Department as a patrol officer in 1991, with assignments as a member of the special weapons and assault team and as a field training officer. In 2002, he promoted to detective, working in the department’s narcotics division. He advanced to sergeant in 2004, in which rank he worked as a patrol supervisor, as a special weapons and assault team leader, and in internal affairs. He achieved the rank of lieutenant in 2011, overseeing the special events, emergency operations, records and dispatch divisions. He spent a mere five months as captain in 2014, at which point he was appointed assistant chief of police.
Along the way, McBride obtained a bachelor of science degree in political science from California Baptist University and a master of science degree in criminal justice from Troy University, augmented by a certificate in emergency management from Auburn University, as well as certification from the FBI National Academy and certification in executive leadership from the Naval Postgraduate School. He also graduated from the Police Officers and Standards Training Command College in its 56th class.
In addition, as a resident of the City of Hemet, McBride served a short time on that city’s planning commission in 2006, and later that year was elected to the Hemet City Council, subsequently serving a stint as mayor. While he was in his elected capacity with Hemet, McBride was appointed as a voting member of the Riverside Transit Agency as well as a member and later vice-chairman of the California League of Cities Public Safety Policy Committee.
In 2015, the City of El Monte hired McBride as its police chief, but after criticism regarding his participation in what was deemed aggressive anti-illegal immigration policies in Hemet, McBride opted not to take the job in that city in which roughly 69 percent, or 79,754 of its 115,586 population self-identifies as Latino.
For several reasons, McBride was heavily prized, not just for his advanced status within the San Bernardino Police Department but because the blend of his experience and education put him on a par with and conversant with issues that go into the complicated assignment of governing a municipal entity.
When the decision was made to promote Burguan as chief in 2013 upon former Police Chief Robert Handy’s departure, there were those who had advocated that McBride be given command of the department. After having filled in for Burguan in the interim capacity, McBride initially upon Burguan’s retirement was amenable to a salary of $255,324.46, augmented by $51,750 in benefits, for a total compensation package of $307,074.46.
At the age of 52, McBride is eligible to retire at any point and begin drawing a pension that is equal to 2.5 percent of his annual salary times the number of years he has been with the department, 28. Thus, McBride can at any point he chooses walk off into a comfortable retirement without the stress of running a police department functioning within what is statistically considered the 13th most dangerous city in the United States in terms of the frequency of violent crimes committed per 100,000 population. So, while McBride signaled he was willing to remain in place until he reaches the age of 55 or perhaps even 57, he wants the city to confer upon him a $10,000 raise retroactive to his assuming the police chief’s duties, and offer hims a $5,000 raise annually thereafter, in addition to the 3.5 percent raise currently granted to the police chief every August 1.
Ledoux agreed to inform the city council that if the council did not agree to the $265,324.46 annual salary figure McBride is seeking, he would retire. In doing so, Ledoux stood to gain as well, since the clause in her contract guaranteeing that she receive a salary that is at least five percent greater than any of her subordinates would be triggered if McBride’s remuneration is moved upward.
Reportedly, the city council, which is generally favorably disposed toward McBride, balked at immediately complying with his $10,000 salary enhancement request. That reluctance to grant him the raise was not based, the Sentinel is informed, because the council begrudges McBride what he feels he deserves. Rather, it has now set in on the council that the contractual arrangement it entered into with Ledoux has put the city at a disadvantage because granting McBride a salary enhancement will push Ledoux’s salary higher as well.
Ledoux’s performance over the last four months has proven inadequate on a number of fronts, members of the council now concede, and promoting her to the city manager’s post is regarded as a mistake.
From Ledoux’s perspective, remaining in place as city manager, preferably until her planned departure in January 31/February 1, 2021 or at least until the first week of August 2020 is imperative, as she must remain within her advanced salary bracket at least one full year to qualify for the enhanced pension she now believes she has an entitlement to.
The formula for calculating public pensions consists of three numbers: The highest salary achieved by the public employee for a sustained 12-month period; the number of years employed as a public employee; and the multiplicand percentage. The multiplicand for public employees generally is 2 percent. For some employees, such as some of those who delay their retirement date to 65 or beyond, some management echelon employees, and some public safety employees such as police officers or firefighters, their multiplicand can be higher – 2.25 percent, 2.5 percent, 2.75 percent or 3 percent – if the union or collective bargaining unit representing them has concluded a contract to that effect.
As a management employee, Ledoux has been provided with a multiplicand of 2.5 percent, such that she will be entitled to an annual pension of $174,695.68 [$268,762.59 X 26 (years) X 2.5 percent] if she remains in the position of city manager until January 2021.  If she departs at any time prior to July 2020, her pension formula will revert to one using her salary as assistant city manager, $191,763.51, and either 24 years or 25 years as a public employee rather than 26 years, reducing her annual pension to either $115,058.10 or $119,852.19.
While the city council wants to hang on to McBride as police chief, it would prefer to not have to do so by increasing the salary and potential pension benefit to a city manager who is considered to be both inadequate to the task given her and who who holds out little or no prospect of cultivating the requisite skill to be able to carry out her assignments in the near or extended future and who, in any case, does not offer the prospect of longterm continuity in the position were she to master her duties, as she is scheduled to remain no longer than February 2021. In the last month-and-a-half, Ledoux has come to recognize that her continued tenure as city manager is in danger. One assignment given her was to compile a list of candidates to succeed her as city manager. Knowing that once the council has at its disposal multiple options for her replacement, her fear is that the council will promptly dispense with her services and bring in her replacement, dashing her hopes of qualifying for the $174,695.68 per year pension she has now set her sights on. She has thus been dragging her feet with regard to enlisting interested qualified applicants for the city manager’s job.
Ledoux has further militated to refocus the city council’s attention away from the issue of McBride’s pay increase request, believing that if the council confronts the issue and elects to meet his demand, before doing so it will come to a collective decision to remove her as city manager and purge from the contract of her successor the language pertaining to guaranteeing the city manager pay greater than that provided to the police chief.
A City Hall insider told the Sentinel that “Teri is looking around for reason to not give Chief McBride the 10 percent increase he is asking for and all his other requests.”
Additionally the Sentinel was told, “Some staff members as well as some council members have been shaming the city manager to not take the10 percentage raise she is entitled to get in her contract when Eric McBride takes the police chief position. There is growing pushback on Teri’s claims that taking this short term position was never about the money, and that it was because ‘she cares.’ Well, now some want to have her prove it.”
Moreover, the Sentinel was told, “It is very likely that she will only remain until June when she has her full highest year in, rather than December of 2020. And because she has stalled the recruitment process for a permanent city manager, the city will be in a position with no one to easily take over. It takes about five or six months to conduct a recruitment and bring someone new on at this executive level. This is entirely contrary to what was said when she started, that she wanted to be the bridge until a new permanent city manager could be found. It is almost as if she wants to leave the city in a bind.”
There are further questions as to Ledoux’s commitment to the City of San Bernardino, even while she is in the capacity of city manager. Previously, the city required its city managers to live within the city. The city dispensed with that requirement when Mark Scott was city manager, though city leaders have continued to maintain that having a city manager who holds a personal stake in the city in terms of residence and who is also immediately available to address exigencies is desirable.
“There is also pushback from a number of people about her constant claim to having roots in the city,” the City Hall insider said of Ledoux. “She rents in Redlands. She could just as easily rent in San Bernardino. It is not as though she is tied to home ownership. She hasn’t lived in the city in over two decades. She can live wherever she wants. No one wants to make her move, but she keeps dragging out the ‘roots’ story.”
At the October 16 San Bernardino City Council meeting, the Sentinel asked Ledoux if she would be willing to cure the issue revolving around the potential of McBride’s departure as police chief by agreeing to waive that part of her contract requiring that her pay grade stand at a level 5 percent higher than the police chief. She responded, “I wouldn’t discuss that with you. I will discuss it with the elected body.[i.e., the city council].”
-Mark Gutglueck

The business formerly known as Immigrants Legal Options in Fontana has been shuttered through action by the State Bar of California. On Monday, October 28, the State Bar’s petition to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County for a permanent court order was granted, upon which the State Bar was given full access to the premises of Immigrants Legal Options, operated by Samaris Estrada.
The California Bar’s effort against Estrada and her business was led by State Bar of California Deputy Trial Counsel Veronica Trejo, acting on behalf of Melanie Lawrence, the bar’s interim chief trial counsel, based on evidence accumulated by California State Bar Investigator Michael Chavez.
According to Trejo, “Samaris Estrada is doing business as Immigrants Legal Options, Immigration Legal Options, and Imigration Legal Option, Inc. and maintains her principal office at 8456 Sierra Ave., Fontana, CA 92335. Estrada is not and never has been an active member of the California State Bar, and she has never been otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in California. Estrada has a history of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and has been subject to several investigations by the State Bar. In 2013 the State Bar found that Estrada had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by performing legal work and calling herself an ‘immigration specialist.’”
Under an interim order granted in early October, the State Bar seized more than 100 boxes of client files from Estrada, of which some 80 boxes were active files.
Estrada denied engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The California State Bar presented evidence showing she had received from her clients several thousand dollars per immigration case in return for her assurance that she could assist them in obtaining legal residency, often without salutary results.
The State Bar has established a bilingual dedicated phone number for clients of Estrada who wish to reclaim their files or documents: 213-765-1673.