Pierre Cardin 1922-2021

Hello everyone. I have been missing in action due to the pandemic. Unfortunately, I am not out and about much, which has kept me from exploring trends. Seems like lately we’re dressing our minds, and toPierre Cardin a certain that can be fun but nothing like getting out and seeing all the colors change with the weather, along with all the fun fashion trends people put together as they are out and about. It is my hope that soon we can all be out sharing our fashion get-ups as we get back to normalcy.

With that being said, we do have some sad news in the fashion industry regarding Pierre Cardin, who was born July 7, 1922, and died December 29, 2020. 98 years old, “Oh what a lucky man he was!” Pierre learned to tailor and went on to work for Christian Dior before he ventured out on his own. When Cardin plunged into the heart of the business, he first focused on men’s wear with an edge, creating styles labeled as “futuristic.” He designed the Beatles suits in 1963.Beatles Cardin Moving forward with trendy Mod Chic designs, he became the rage of Swinging London. His designs were amazing, futuristic, yet minimal. An entire museum could be dedicated to his post modrrn eye of fashion. When it came to the Space Age, he was the first man in the astronaut suit. Pierre designed NASA space suits. When it came to women’s fashion, he was known for the famous bubble dress. He went from couture to mass production and labeled his name even on Pierre Cardin pens. In his later years, Cardin showed his collections only to a selected few. There is a documentary out there called “House of Cardin,” and several books, one being “Cardin’ by Jean-Pascal Hesse. The last man standing, “Pierre Cardin,” continued to work at his advanced age, and no cause was given with regard to his death. Because Pierre was a working man and lived such a long life there is so much to learn about him and his work. He had an eye for the future and it would be neat for an opportunity to physically view his work in display. Stay safe out there and get ready for the future!

“The clothes I prefer are those I have created for a life that does not yet exist, the world of tomorrow.” -Pierre Cardin

Searles Valley Minerals Contesting Groundwater Authority’s H2O Use Fees

Trona-based Searles Valley Minerals has filed a lawsuit against the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, alleging the groundwater replenishment fee the joint powers agency is imposing as part of the ongoing effort by governmental entities in San Bernardino, Kern and Inyo counties to come into compliance with the State of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act will drive it out of business.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the contention that the joint powers authority formed under the auspices of state law is letting the federal government off the hook by ignoring federal agencies’ consumption of water at the furthest western extension of the Mojave Desert while forcing the onus of conservation efforts to be borne by the private sector.
In the face of a four-year running drought, California state officials in 2014 undertook efforts to head off the absolute depletion of the state’s regional water sources. In September 2014, then-California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which requires local agencies to draft plans to bring groundwater aquifers into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. That was followed in 2015 by Brown mandating water-saving measures throughout the state.
In response, pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority was formed with Kern County, San Bernardino County, Inyo County, the City of Ridgecrest and the Indian Wells Valley Water District as general members and the United States Navy and the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management as associate members, with each general member having one voting seat on the authority board and the federal associate members participating in all board discussions, but not having a vote.
The joint powers authority took as its mandate counteracting the overdraft of the aquifer underlying Indian Wells Valley, which lies at the extreme northeastern end of the Mojave Desert and the confluence of the northwestern corner of San Bernardino County, the southeastern end of Kern County and the southwestern extension of Inyo County.
Based upon a survey of water usage patterns undertaken by an engineering consultant, Carlsbad-based Stetson Engineers, the authority and the Indian Wells Valley Water District sought to derive a strategy for both reducing water use in the valley and increasing groundwater recharge to reach a balance of both that will end the overdraft. Several different plans, or models, were contemplated. Basically, the concept was to decrease the drafting of water from the regional aquifer through conservation, increased recycling of water and perhaps the minimization of evaporation, augmented by the importation of water from outside the valley to achieve, no later than 2040, a balance of water coming in with the amount of water usage, such that the depletion of the aquifer will end.
Stetson Engineers was designated the water resources manager for Indian Wells Valley, and the authority’s board in January 2020 passed a tentative proposed groundwater sustainability plan and voted to submit it to the state. Thereafter it made adjustments to the plan, which contained water use limitation elements and water replenishment measures. The plan incorporated a farmland fallowing option as well as an increase in the monthly assessment or fee that was imposed on the extraction of water by major pumpers. That fee had been previously collected to cover the costs associated with the administrative activity of the groundwater authority.
After a survey of water use by well owners both collectively and individually was made, the authority assigned water use allowances to the region’s well owners. Excess use fees, referred to as augmentation fees, were formulated for application to those well owners who pump above their allowances as well as on farmers who go beyond their respective share of the water supply set aside for agricultural usage. Money generated in this way will be used to purchase imported water and pay for the infrastructure needed to bring in the imported water.
One issue complicating the matter is that both the Bureau of Land Management and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, as federal entities, are exempt from the groundwater sustainability plan and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and therefore not subject to the restrictions that will be imposed in the groundwater sustainability plan. The China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station encompasses two ranges and totals over 1,100,000 acres or 1,719 square miles, much of that within Indian Wells Valley. While the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station has made strides in recent years in reducing its water use, it still drafts some 1,600 acre-feet of water from the aquifer annually.
In September, Searles Valley Minerals, represented by Eric Garner, Jeffrey Dunn and Maya Mouawad with the law firm of Best Best & Krieger, filed a lawsuit in Kern County Superior Court against the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority in an effort to protect what Garner, Dunn and Mouwad asserted are the company’s groundwater rights within the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin, and to stop the collection of what they characterized as an illegal and unfair groundwater replenishment fee and a tax disguised, they assert, as an “extraction fee.”
Searles Valley Minerals uses solution mining, which involves soaking portions of the company’s dry Searles Lake in San Bernardino County with water to precipitate brine which is then extracted and processed to produce boric acid, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, several specialty forms of borax, and salt.
The groundwater replenishment fee, Garner, Dunn and Mouawad maintain, is unprecedented and exorbitant, and will increase the company’s water costs by 7,000 percent or $6 million per year – pushing Searles Valley Minerals out of business after more than 140 years of operation, and threatening the livelihood of the company’s 700 employees. The groundwater replenishment fee ignores and violates Searles Valley Minerals’ adjudicated water rights, according to the lawsuit.
Searles Valley Minerals’ 90-year-old water rights are the most senior in the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin.
Garner, Dunn and Mouawad take issue with the fashion in which the China Lake Naval Air Station is not subject to the restrictions in the plan nor its fees.
“Searles Valley Minerals’ right to pump water in the basin for domestic uses is senior to any water right reserved to [the] Weapons Station, and because [the] water district’s groundwater pumping began no earlier than 1955, its appropriative right, if any, to basin water remains junior to Searles Valley Minerals’ right,” according to the lawsuit. “The authority falsely asserts in its groundwater sustainability plan that any pumping allocations under the groundwater sustainability plan will be ‘consistent with existing groundwater rights and priorities.’”
In a joint statement, Searles Valley Minerals and Garner, Dunn and Mouawad maintain the groundwater management plan that the authority is attempting to implement “represents an arbitrary and illegal taking of Searles Valley Minerals’ water rights,” and Searles Valley Minerals has been “singled out” by the authority.
The community of Trona presently has a population of 1,900 and has been piggybacking on Searles Valley Minerals for the provision of domestic water. The groundwater management plan will transform Trona into a ghost town, according to Garner, Dunn and Mouawad.
“Moreover, all domestic and municipal activities for the disadvantaged Trona communities are supplied by groundwater that Searles Valley Minerals pumps from the basin,” according to the statement. “The economic impacts of the authority’s new fee would devastate these communities.”
The authority’s decision to impose hefty new “replenishment fees” on the valley’s civilian water users while providing no check on other groundwater users in the basin such as the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station is indefensible, Garner, Dunn and Mouawad contend.
“Searles is a pillar of the Trona and Ridgecrest communities, providing jobs and economic benefits to these communities since we were founded in 1873,” said Burnell Blanchard, vice president of operations for Searles Valley Minerals. “We’ve maintained our workforce through natural disasters, a global pandemic and the subsequent economic crisis. Now, we face the threat of closing our doors and putting hundreds of people out of work because the authority has refused to recognize our long-established groundwater rights.”
According to the lawsuit, which exists in the form of a petition for a writ of mandate, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a takings claim under the California Constitution, “An actual controversy has arisen and now exists as to whether the authority’s adoption of the groundwater sustainability plan, sustainable yield report, engineer’s report, extraction fee and the replenishment fee constitute an unlawful taking of property for public use without just compensation.”
The suit calls upon the court to make a finding that the “authority attempted to determine Searles Valley Minerals’ water rights in a way that is inconsistent with applicable law.” If, the suit says, “the court finds that the authority’s actions did not deprive Searles Valley Minerals of all economically beneficial use of their groundwater rights as alleged, then Searles Valley Minerals alleges in the alternative that the authority committed an unlawful physical taking by erroneously deeming the entire basin’s sustainable yield to be reserved by the Weapons Station, and then putting that groundwater to public use without compensating Searles Valley Minerals. What the authority claims as a transfer of federal reserved rights is in reality an unlawful taking of Searles Valley Minerals’ groundwater rights. Because the basin groundwater given to the Weapons Station will be physically unavailable to Searles Valley Minerals due to [the] authority’s adopted groundwater sustainability plan, sustainable yield report, engineer’s report and replenishment fee, this claimed transfer and its related actions constitute a physical taking.”
According to the joint statement by Searles Valley Minerals and its lawyers, “The authority’s ‘sustainable’ groundwater management plan is anything but sustainable – it’s a significant new burden on a select few groundwater users that will push many entirely out of operation without any regard to existing water rights.”
“This litigation is about far more than one company and one groundwater agency,” said Garner. “Arbitrary taxes and fees that ignore historic water rights threaten to wreak havoc on businesses and industries. The outcome of this litigation will have far-reaching implications for every groundwater agency and every business that holds a water right in the State of California.”
The authority’s new fee will have impacts beyond Searles Valley Minerals. As of today, January 1, 2021, the fee is to apply to customers of the Indian Wells Valley Water District, who will see an increase of about $300 per year on their water bills. Searles Valley Minerals requested that the fees be enjoined by the court to prevent the economic hardship they would create for the company, and for thousands of businesses and local residents who live in the City of Ridgecrest and historically disadvantaged Trona communities.
The groundwater authority utilized a water conservation model unfairly favorable to the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and the Indian Wells Valley Water District, according to the suit, in a way by which the water allotments were “predetermined,” such that virtually all of the basin’s sustainable yield was ultimately allocated to the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and the water district. “This deficiency and bias are shown, in part, by the fact that the authority relied on a numerical groundwater model owned and controlled by the Weapons Station,” the lawsuit states. “[The] authority used [the] Weapons Station’s model to make erroneous calculations but has not made the numerical groundwater model available to stakeholders or the public despite repeated requests to do so.”
The lawsuit propounds, “Defendant authority further states in the groundwater sustainability plan that the remaining pumpers ‘can and should implement additional conservation measures,’ implying that Weapons Station and the water district do not need to conserve groundwater. This conclusion is contrary to [the] authority’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act obligation to manage the basin ‘consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.’”
The bias of the groundwater sustainability plan in favor of the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station is demonstrated, according to Garner, Dunn and Mouawad, by the fashion in which the Navy is being permitted to engage in a profligate use of the desert’s precious water resources, utilizing hundreds of acre-feet of water on functions that have nothing to do with the Navy’s mission. “Groundwater uses on the base that are not directly associated with essential Weapons Station activities, such as its golf course, are not ‘primary’ under water law,” the lawsuit states. “If the Weapons Station wants to use basin water for those secondary purposes, the Weapons Station may appropriate water pursuant to California law and pay for that water with federal funds. The cost of that groundwater should not be subsidized by Searles Valley Minerals.”
In response to the lawsuit, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority has accused Searles Valley Minerals of seeking to shirk its responsibility to act as a responsible water user and participate in the effort to fund the means of replenishing water taken out of the aquifer in excess of the region’s water recharge.
“At its core, Searles’ lawsuit is nothing more than a claim that its use of water for a commercial industrial purpose should be free of all costs and given a priority over and above all other uses in the basin,” Kern County Supervisor Mick Gleason, the chairman of the Indian Wells Groundwater Authority, said in the aftermath of the suit’s filing.
Gleason said Garner’s, Dunn’s and Mouawad’s suggestion that the authority and its members were ganging up on Searles Valley Minerals was self-servingly inaccurate. He said the contrary was the case, in that virtually all water users and water purveyors in the region understood the need to meet the state mandates and cooperate in managing the local availability of water. He cited examples of this cooperation and willingness to assist other entities functioning under the water-use limitation regime imposed by the authority.
“The City of Ridgecrest has even offered to provide recycled water to Searles in order to reduce Searles’ draw on the basin’s natural water supplies,” Gleason was quoted as saying in a press release from the authority.
Searles Valley Minerals is simply selfishly and self-centeredly reacting against reasonable steps being taken to balance the use of the valley’s water with its recharge rate, and is not offering any workable solution of its own, according to Gleason.
The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority will stand up to and hold up under the counterproductive weight Searles Valley Minerals is heaping upon the authority by the filing of the lawsuit, Gleason insisted.
The board for The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority consists of Chairman Gleason, whose district as Kern County supervisor includes Indian Wells Valley; Ridgecrest Councilman Scott Hayman; Indian Wells Water District Director Ron Kicinski; Inyo County Counsel John Vallejo; and San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Bob Page.
The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority will vigorously contest the lawsuit brought by Searles “and any other lawsuit which seeks to sidestep a reasonable allocation of costs required to maintain the basin as a viable water source,” the authority said in a press release.
Searles Valley Minerals is not the only entity that has taken issue with the groundwater management plan and bringing the matter before the court. Mojave Pistachios, LLC, in conjunction with Paul and Mary Nugent, lodged a lawsuit against the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, alleging the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is being misapplied in a way that will render agricultural production in the valley untenable. Those plaintiffs maintain, like Searles Valley Minerals, that the groundwater sustainability plan is biased in favor of the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station.
The lawsuit states that the groundwater sustainability plan is “flawed because its primary objective — to protect the Navy — was predetermined.”
Citing the consideration that the technical analysts that Mojave Pistachios had hired were banned from participating in the authority’s policy advisory committee and technical advisory committee meetings, the lawsuit maintains the framers of the groundwater sustainability plan did not consider the agricultural community’s input by “fail[ing] to incorporate and respond to stakeholder comments.”
According to the lawsuit, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority board openly acknowledged early last year that the Navy was “in the driver’s seat” in terms of formulating the plan. The authority’s water extraction allocations were, according to the Mojave Pistachios lawsuit, “determined internally by the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority staff, fed into the model developed by the Navy’s contractor, and cemented into the fabric of the groundwater sustainability plan without public comment and before the sustainable management criteria were even considered. The Navy model has not been peer-reviewed, and despite [the] plaintiffs’ requests, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority refused to release the model to stakeholders.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Six SB County City Councils Now Adjusting To Having Two Or More Newly Installed Members

Substantial or significant changes have been actuated in recent weeks on six of San Bernardino County’s 22 city councils.
Within San Bernardino County at present, there are 24 municipalities, including 22 cities – Chino Hills, Chino, Montclair, Ontario, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana Rialto, Colton, Grand Terrace, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Big Bear Lake, Hesperia, Victorville, Adelanto, Barstow, Yucaipa, Twentynine Palms and Needles. The county also boasts two incorporated towns, those being Apple Valley and Yucca Valley.
The political status quo remained the same or slightly changed in the 2020 election year, with either no or a single personnel shift on the decision-making panels that oversee 18 of those governmental entities, consisting of their respective city councils or town councils. But on four of those councils two members left or were voted out of office. On another, on which five members participate, a majority of three new members has taken office. In another, the county seat where the council is composed of a total of eight members, three new civic officials are in place.
In 21 of the county’s municipalities, the city or town councils are composed of five members, including either an elected or appointed mayor. In three cities – San Bernardino, Colton and Needles – the council comprises more than five members: eight in the case of San Bernardino and seven in Colton and Needles.
In Barstow, Paul Anthony Courtney has replaced Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre as mayor. Barbara Mae Rose was elected to represent the city’s District 3, filling the void on the council that existed beginning in December 2019, when Councilman Richard Harpole resigned to move to Texas. Marilyn Dyer Kruse in November defeated incumbent Councilwoman Carmen Hernandez in District 4.
In Chino, Mayor Eunice Ulloa handily turned back a challenge by Christopher Hutchinson, but Christopher Flores defeated incumbent Councilman Paul Rodriguez, turning him out of office as the city’s District 1 councilman. Karen Comstock was elected the city’s new District 4 councilwoman, replacing former Councilman Tom Haughey. That development, however, does not appear to presage any radical departure from the political norm, as Comstock, Chino’s former police chief, served in that capacity during Haughey’s incumbency on the council, and she did not seek the elected position until Haughey signaled his final decision to not run again earlier this year, indicating she would not have sought the position if Haughey had chosen to remain in office.
In San Bernardino, where the council is composed of a mayor elected at large by voters throughout the 59.65-square mile city and seven council members elected in seven geographically defined wards, 2021 is beginning with three different council members representing the city’s constituents than one year ago. Four of the council’s seven-member contingent were required to stand for reelection last year to remain in office, and all four competed. Juan Figueroa, representing the city’s Third Ward, was the only one who did so successfully, holding off a challenge by Luis Ojeda in the March 3 primary election. On March 3, Kimberly Calvin outdistanced Sixth Ward incumbent Bessine Richard in a narrow 1,446 votes or 50.31 percent-to-1,428 votes or 49.69 percent victory. The same day, incumbent Ward 5 Councilman Henry Nickel and incumbent Ward 7 Councilman Jim Mulvihill faced five and four challengers, respectively. Nickel was the top finisher in his contest, but did not garner the needed majority of votes to be elected outright, which put him into a November run-off against the second-place finisher, Ben Reynoso. Mulvihill finished in second place in the Ward 7 primary, and he found himself in a battle for political survival against Damon Alexander. Ultimately, in the November 3 races, the newcomers prevailed. Additionally, 2020 also saw the full implementation of the city charter change mandated by San Bernardino’s voters’ 2016 passage of Measure L, which did away with the city attorney and city clerk positions being elected offices. Accordingly, former City Attorney Gary Saenz and former City Clerk Gigi Hanna departed the city in March.
In Upland, former Mayor Debbie Stone was bounced from office by the voters in favor of incumbent City Councilman Bill Velto. Velto had held the last at-large elected position on the council, though he had not been elected but rather appointed to the post in 2019 after a vacancy on the council came about following the 2018 election. The position he held was transitioned into one representing the city’s First District with the just-concluded election cycle, and in November Shannan Maust was elected to replace him on the council. Also in November, the city held a special election to fill for the next two years the empty Third District council post which former Councilman Ricky Felix had vacated in May when he moved to Utah. Carlos Garcia won that four-candidate race.
In Victorville, incumbent Councilwoman Blanca Gomez was reelected in a race in which three council seats were in play and a total of 22 candidates competed. Councilwoman Gloria Garcia, who had served as Victorville’s appointed mayor for the last six years, also sought reelection. Jim Cox, a former Victorville city manager who ran for the council successfully in 2012 and then was reelected in 2016, chose not to seek reelection in 2020.
Garcia did not garner reelection. Nor did two other former Victorville councilmen, Eric Negrete, who held office from 2014 until 2018, and Ryan McEachron, who was on the council from 2008 until 2016. Rather, Elizabeth Becerra and Leslie Irving were the first and third place finishers in the race, respectively. Their elections have resulted in all five of the Victorville city council positions now being held by women.
In Yucaipa, incumbent Councilman Bobby Duncan emerged victorious in his effort to hold onto the post representing the city’s District 3. In Yucaipa’s District 4, however, Councilwoman/former Mayor Denise Hoyt, after sixteen years on the council, opted to not run. Justin Beaver was elected by his district peers to represent them, thus replacing Hoyt. In District 5, Dick Riddell, who had served in both council and mayoral capacities since 1995, was beaten in November by Jon Thorp.

Supervisor Baca Takes On WVWD’s Hawkins As Fifth District Special Assistant

By Mark Gutglueck
Recently-installed Fifth District Supervisor Joe Baca, Jr. has hired political up-and-comer Channing Hawkins to serves as his special assistant.
Hawkins is the current president of the West Valley Water District Board of Directors. A graduate of Howard University in Washington, D.C., from which he has both a bachelor of arts and a law degree, Hawkins has not yet taken up a career as a lawyer. He worked for a time as a field representative for Joe Baca, Jr.’s father, then-Congressman Joe Baca, Sr., and then did a stint as a lead representative with the Service Employees International Union. Subsequently, Hawkins went to work for the Barack Obama Administration in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Civil Rights. In that capacity, Hawkins enforced federal civil rights laws in programs funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as the food stamp program. After more than two years as a federal employee, he returned to the Service Employees International Union to work within its governmental relations division, leaving that position in 2016 to go to work at the Laborers’ International Union of America as a labor relations representative.
In 2019, Hawkins ran successfully for a position on the West Valley Water District Board of Directors representing that agency’s Division 4. In doing so, he supplanted the water board’s only Democratic member, Don Olinger. In that race, Hawkins, a Democrat, was supported by two of the board’s Republicans, Clifford Young and Greg Young. He was opposed in that race by the board’s two other Republicans, Michael Taylor and Kyle Crowther, both of whom supported Olinger.
On December 5, 2019, just 15 minutes after he had been installed as a member of the water district’s board, Taylor moved to build a bridge to Hawkins by nominating him to serve as the board president. This was an uncommon development, given that the role of president is normally reserved for those who have accrued seniority on a governmental ruling panel. Hawkins’ political ascendancy within the context of the West Valley Water District was seen as a potential precursor to his advancement to yet higher political office. Among a cross section of the community, it was widely assumed that Hawkins was being groomed first for a position on the Rialto City Council and thereafter for a position further up the political chain, such as county supervisor, state legislator or perhaps congressman. It was widely whispered that Hawkins would be a candidate for the Rialto City Council last year, in the November 2020 race. When he leapfrogged into the water board presidency position, there was speculation that his primary mentor and political patron, Rialto Mayor Deborah Robertson, would decline to seek reelection as mayor in 2020, perhaps seeking election to one the two city council seats also up for election, and thereby allowing Hawkins to seek the mayoralty. When Robertson last winter and into the spring found herself besieged by accusations that she had acted improperly when she voted along with the rest of the city council to pass through to a nonprofit headed by her daughter federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funding and to confer upon that same nonprofit entity free rent at a city-owned property, Robertson found it advisable to maintain her status as mayor to prevent her political rivals from capitalizing on the circumstance and claiming that she had been forced to leave office by the scandal. For whatever reason, Hawkins did not choose to seek election to the city council.
In the same election, Baca, who was Rialto city councilman elected most recently in 2018 to a four-year term, was elected supervisor in the county’s Fifth District. Baca’s acceding to the supervisorial position necessitated that he resign from the council, creating a vacancy. On December 8, the Rialto City Council took up the subject of how the position Baca had vacated would be filled. In a gambit that may have been an effort to test the extent of her political reach and simultaneously clear a path for Hawkins to achieve an appointment to the council upon the rejection of her first nomination, Robertson suggested that the council consider Stacy Augustine as Baca’s successor. Augustine had finished as the first runner-up in this year’s city council election which had seen council incumbents Rafael Trujillo and Andy Carrizales reelected. The four-fifths strength council, at that point consisting of Robertson, Trujillo, Carrizales and Councilman Ed Scott, did not evince sufficient support for Augustine. Before Robertson could redirect the council’s focus to a consideration of Hawkins as Baca’s replacement, the council instead floated the nomination of Karla Perez, the top vote-getter among the also-rans in the 2018 election when Baca and Scott were reelected. When a vote on Perez’s nomination was taken, she was approved by the council.
The county’s Fifth District stretches from Fontana in the west to San Bernardino in the east. In terms of voter registration numbers, the Fifth District is solidly Democratic. Nevertheless, four of five of the members of the West Valley Water District and four of the five members of the Fontana City Council are Republicans. Rialto like Colton has majority Democratic representation on its city council. The San Bernardino City Council, which prior to the November election was five-eighths Republican, has since gone Democratic. Rialto has been, and remains, solidly Democratic.
Baca, like his father a Democrat, intensified the Democratic hold on the machinery of county government in the Fifth District by hiring Hawkins. While neither the Democrats nor the Republicans celebrate the fact, competition between the two parties for sway over both county and municipal government in San Bernardino County is fierce, with the GOP consistently outgunning and outhustling the Democrats over the last five decades. Though the Democrats hold a voter registration advantage over the Republicans in the county in general and in all but the First Supervisorial District, four of the five members of the board of supervisors, with Baca as the lone exception, are Republicans. Among San Bernardino County’s 24 cities and incorporated towns, 17 of those before last year’s election counted more Republicans on their councils than Democrats. As a consequence of the November 2020 election, the Republican hold on the top decision-making panels of the county’s municipalities has slipped to 15. In this way, San Bernardino County, while remaining one of the last bastions of Republicanism in the Golden State, is seeing the Party of Lincoln’s primacy slowly erode. Viewed through that partisan prism, Baca’s elevation of Hawkins to the special assistant position in his office fits the overall circumstance.
Of note is that Baca’s appointment of Hawkins, which was effective December 14, eschewed the title chief-of-staff. It is not clear whether Hawkins, in the position of special assistant, will be serving in the de facto role of chief-of-staff. Hawkins’ basic remuneration is to consist of a salary of $115,086 with benefits of $72,185, for an estimated annual cost to the county of $187,271 prior to any pay add-ons. In this way, Hawkins’ beginning salary as Baca’s special assistant is close to the $119,870.42 that was paid to Phil Paule when he began as Supervisor Janice Rutherford’s chief-of-staff in 2017 after he had begun as then-Supervisor James Ramos’s chief-of-staff in 2015 at a salary of $119,612.04. Since that time, Paule’s annual salary has jumped to $131,686.89 per year. It is anticipated that Hawkins will be provided with other pay than his salary, as is the case of most of the supervisors’ senior assistants. For example, Paule in 2019 was provided with $17,000.10 in other pay. Thus, last year, Paule’s total annual compensation from the county, including $80,621.64 in benefits, stood at $229,308.63. Given Hawkins’ anticipated $187,271 in basic salary and benefits in 2021, if he were to receive another $15,000 in other pay in his role as special assistant, which would not be out of the ordinary, his total compensation this entire year will likely exceed $200,000.
Baca has also hired former San Bernardino City Councilwoman Virginia Marquez to serve as a community services liaison, effective January 5, 2021, for an estimated annual cost of $39,379,consisting of $36,000 in salary and benefits of $3,379. Marquez previously worked as a field representative for Joe Baca, Sr. when he was yet in Congress.
In the county’s First District, newly installed Supervisor Paul Cook, who had served in the U.S. Congress from 2013 until last month, as a California Assemblyman from 2006 until 2012 and as Yucca Valley mayor and councilman prior to that, hired Samuel Shoup, who had recently served on Cook’s Congressional staff, to provide support services to the First District Supervisor as a field representative, effective tomorrow, January 2, 2021. Shoup is to be paid $47,258 in salary with benefits of $37,591 for a total annual compensation of $84,849 before add-ons.
Shoup was a field representative for Cook for one year and 8 months from April 2019 until last month. Previous to that, he was on Cook’s campaign staff. Prior to his involvement with Cook, Shoup was from May 2017 until June 2018 resident services assistant with the University of Riverside’s housing office.

Children & Family Services Probing Injuries To Runaway

San Bernardino County’s Children and Family Services Division is investigating a troubling incident relating to the disappearance of an adolescent who went missing temporarily before turning up injured 90 miles from home.
The youth, whose age has not been disclosed, was reported as a runaway to the Barstow Police Department on December 26.
On Sunday, December 27, the California Highway Patrol dispatch center received a call reporting that a young man, who was apparently injured, was on foot walking along the shoulder of the eastbound 91 Freeway in Corona. When a California Highway Patrol officer, later accompanied by another unit arrived near the location indicated at 4:18 p.m., a juvenile male was seen walking on the right side of the eastbound 91, just west of the 71 Freeway. The subject had injuries to his head, neck and back. Medical personnel were dispatched to the location, and provided first aid to the young man at the scene. He was subsequently transported to Loma Linda University Medical Center for further medical attention.
Upon his identity being ascertained, the San Bernardino County Child Protection Services Department was notified. Two child protective services personnel retrieved the subject from the hospital.
The youth was in their protective custody as of earlier this week and the San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services was detailed to carry out a full investigation into the matter.

Hesperia Man & Woman Nabbed In Senseless Fatal Shooting Of Man At Liquor Store

Two Hesperia residents have been criminally charged in the December 23 murder of a Victorville man.
31-year old Christopher Brim was gunned down while sitting in his car in the parking lot of the Green Tree Liquor store at around 2:50 p.m. on Wednesday of last week.
Shortly after the shooting, deputies responded to the location at 14275 Hesperia Road in Victorville, where they found the victim, identified shortly thereafter as Brim, who had sustained several gunshot wounds, inside his parked vehicle. Brim was unresponsive. Medical personnel were summoned and Brim was pronounced dead at the scene.
Based upon evidence at the scene, further evidence and eyewitness accounts, sheriff’s deputies and detectives who became involved in the matter subsequently are alleging that Brim was killed by Antonio Mota, 21, of Hesperia. According to the sheriff’s department, a handgun was found in Brim’s vehicle.
The sheriff’s department determined Brim had purchased items inside the store and had returned to his vehicle when a car driven by Alicia Rivas, 22, came into the Green Tree Liquor Store parking lot. After Rivas parked next to Brim’s vehicle, according to investigators, Mota, a passenger in Rivas’ car, emerged and then shot into Brim’s vehicle several times.
Rivas and Mota fled the scene.
Based on a description of the vehicle, sheriff’s department detectives and deputies initiated a stake-out of an area in Hesperia where they believed Rivas would show up. Sheriff’s deputies, combing the area, spotted the couple in a different vehicle. After a short chase, they were apprehended.
“Several hours later, while conducting surveillance in Hesperia, deputies located Mota and Rivas, in a different vehicle,” according to a statement from the sheriff’s department. “Deputies conducted a traffic stop and a short pursuit ensued before Mota and Rivas were arrested without further incident. During the investigation, detectives located a handgun in Brim’s vehicle. When Mota was arrested, he was found to have a gunshot wound and detectives believe Brim returned fire during the shooting at the liquor store. Mota was transported to the hospital and released after medical personnel determined his wounds were not life threatening.”
Mota and Rivas were booked at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, Mota for Penal Code Section 187 – murder – and Rivas for Penal Codes Section 32 – accessory to murder.
Superior Court records show that on December 24, Mota by means of a video hook-up was arraigned by Judge David Driscoll on a case involving an incident that took place on December 7, 2020, 15 days before the Brim shooting. Mota at that point pleaded not guilty to Penal Code Section 245, assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm that was likely to cause great bodily injury, while simultaneously denying two enhancement allegations of Penal Code Section 12022(B)(1)-E, use of a deadly weapon and Penal Code Section 1186.22 (B)(1)-E, engaging in a serious felony. He was represented by Deputy Public Defender Mark Shoup in that matter, and was being prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Casey Cunningham.
On December 29, Mota was arraigned via video by Judge David Driscoll on a charge of Penal Code Section 187 murder, relating to the Brim shooting, subject to a Penal Code Section 186.22 (B)(1)(C)-E violent felony enhancement, together with a Penal Code Section 186.22 (B)(1)(C)-E requirement that upon conviction he be imprisoned without the possibility of parole; a Penal Code Section 12022.53(C)-E enhancement of discharging a firearm; a Penal Code Section 12022.53(D)-E enhancement of discharging a firearm and causing great bodily injury; a Penal Code Section 12022.53(B)-E enhancement of using a firearm in the commission of a crime; and violation of Penal Code 29800 (A)(1)-F, being a felon or drug addict in possession of a firearm. He was again represented by Deputy Public Defender Mark Shoup and the State of California was again represented by Deputy District Attorney Casey Cunningham. Judge Driscoll entered not guilty pleas for Mota on the murder and being a felon or addict in possession of a firearm charges and denied the enhancements enumerated against him.
On Tuesday December 39, Rivas was under quarantine in custody and not present in the courtroom of Judge Jay H. Robinson when the charges of Penal Code Section 32-F, Penal Code Section 186.22(B)(1)(A)-E and Vehicle Code Section 2800.2 (A)-F were read against her.
On December 31, Rivas was arraigned via video by Judge Driscoll on Penal Code Section 32-F, being an accessory to murder, subject to a sentencing enhancement upon conviction of Penal Code Section 186.22(B)(1)(A)-E street gang terrorism; and a charge of violating Vehicle Code Section 2800.2 (A)-F evading a peace officer with wanton disregard for the safety of others. Judge Driscoll entered for her not guilty pleas on the accessory and evasion charges and denied the enhancement allegation.