A minor furor has broken out in the City of Gracious Living over special viewing accommodations for Upland’s upcoming July 4 fireworks spectacular being given out at taxpayer expense to an unknown number of municipal, political and business insiders who are on good terms with the Upland City Council.
A letter, referenced in its subject line as an “Invitation to City of Upland Firework Spectacular private viewing,” from the city council and signed by Mayor Bill Velto dated June 1, 2021 was sent so a select group of residents, business people and individuals active as political supporters of the current city council.
The letter stated, “The City of Upland is proud to announce the return of our Firework Spectacular! This year’s event theme is “Light up the Night” and will be viewable from many locations within the city. While we cannot have a large-scale viewing event due to potential Covid restrictions, we have arranged a smaller private viewing event. We are excited to invite you and a guest to attend our “Light up the Night” Firework Spectacular private viewing event on Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 7 p.m. This private event will be held outdoors at the city’s public works facility, 1370 N. Benson Ave, Upland, 91786.”
The invitation said there “will be light refreshments… and activities for everyone to enjoy.”
Those invited were asked to RSVP to (909) 931-4281 by June 20.
“Upon your RSVP, you will be provided with details regarding parking,” the letter states, before concluding, “We look forward to seeing you there!”
The 931-4281 number connects with a desk in the city’s recreation department.
There has arisen a brouhaha over the matter on multiple grounds.
Some have objected to the exclusivity of the invitations and the suggestion that the city council is looking to hobnob with a select group on an occasion as iconic as the Fourth of July. The upshot is that if the council is going to engage itself in such a celebration, it should be open to the public.
A second objection is that if the city council is to extend private invitations to its members’ friends and political supporters, it should not be doing so at taxpayer expense but rather on the council members’ own dimes.
Third, there is the suggestion that the council was misusing the city-sponsored fireworks show improperly by exploiting it for political purposes and to ingratiate itself with possible campaign donors.
A fourth objection is that the circumstance is exacerbated by the consideration that the get-together between the council members and their friends and supporters is being hosted on city property.
Fifth, the event involving all five of the council members in the same place and at the same time may be a violation of California’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, which prohibits members of an elected public panel from coming together and discussing anything related to the agency they represent outside of a forum open to the public. The Brown Act also requires that such a panel’s actions and deliberations be open to public scrutiny, and that members of the public must be given an opportunity to comment on any action the panel might take before the action is taken. The Brown Act further requires that such a meeting have an agenda laying out the topics of discussion, and that the agenda be publicly posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
The private fireworks viewing event in Upand this coming Sunday summoned comparisons to an exclusive reception that San Bernardino Mayor John Valdivia held for his supporters last month after he delivered his state of the city address. The cost of that event, held at a restaurant owned by one of Valdivia’s campaign donors, was defrayed with city funds. While Valdivia maintained that it was intended as a celebration of the city’s progress and bounce back from the bankruptcy San Bernardino declared in 2012 which was meant to be attended by the city’s movers and shakers and community “stakeholders” and those likely to contribute to the city’s continuing economic recover, only those invited were allowed to attend. Valdivia failed to invite six of the city’s seven council members to the reception.
Meanwhile in Upland, City Councilwoman Janice Elliott insisted, “I was not involved with the guest list” for the fireworks viewing event in Upland.
Moreover, Elliott said, she did not believe that city staff was involved in sending the invitations out.
-M.G.

By Mark Gutglueck
Two Joshua Tree landowners, who relatively recently moved to Southern California from Oregon, have been fined $18,000 for the wholesale destruction of 36 of the trees that their new town is named after.
Jeffrey Walter and his wife, Jonetta Nordberg-Walter, are attempting to construct what is described as their dream house on a ten-acre property located right off Prescott Avenue in the town limits of Joshua Tree she inherited from her father. In the course of clearing land to accommodate the home they are building, the couple began uprooting Joshua trees.
In February, they had hired a backhoe operator to clear a swath of the property, activity which included uprooting chaparral and Joshua Trees.
A nearby landowner saw the mayhem.
Joshua trees, known by their scientific name yucca brevifolia, are a protected species in California. Their destruction on both private and public land is prohibited throughout the state.
Their neighbor called the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which dispatched one of its officers to the area.
That was on February 11.
Initially, the Department of Fish and Wildlife agent was thwarted in documenting what was going on because it took him three hours to find the subject property and the Walters had their contractor bury the trees on the property. This made it so that the destruction of the trees was not visually apparent when the agent arrived.
Nevertheless, he persisted in his investigation and continued to reconnoiter the Walter property.
The officer was provided with crucial assistance by the individual who had phoned in the report. The Department of Fish and Wildlife agent was able to get close enough to the Nordberg-Walter property because of the cooperation of the informant.
That individual, the Sentinel is informed, was motivated to make the call and render further assistance because he had previously been prevented from doing extensive construction on his property because doing so would have required taking out Joshua Trees. Permits for doing that are prohibitively expensive, and generally require that the trees not be destroyed but transplanted, which is an arduous and expensive undertaking.
Ultimately, the agent was able to catch the Walters red-handed in the act of destroying Joshua trees. This gave the Department of Fish and Wildlife probable cause to come onto the property and conduct a search. That search entailed bringing in a backhoe and unearthing at a spot where it was believed the Walters had buried several of the tree that had been uprooted. Ultimately, the agent found 36 trees that were destroyed.
Both Jeffrey Walter and Jonetta Nordberg-Walter maintained they were unaware of the California law protecting Joshua Trees. Department of Fish and Wildlife agents were skeptical of that claim, based on the way they had buried the trees that were uprooted almost immediately.
Nevertheless, once the investigation and action of the Department of Fish and Wildlife was under way, the Walters came across as being cooperative, officials said.
The investigative file on the matter, documentation, reports and evidence were turned over to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, which then initiated a prosecution of both Walter and Nordberg-Walter.
The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office filed 36 misdemeanor charges each against Walter and Nordberg-Walter, one for each tree, an overall total of 72 charges.
The case against the couple was adjudicated in the courtroom of Judge Shannon Faherty at the Joshua Tree Superior Court. Walter was assessed a fine of $9,000 and Nordberg-Walter a like fine of $9,000.
There is some variance in perspective with regard to the matter.
Some believe what Walter and Nordberg-Walter did was inadvertent, and reflected no ill intent or effort to evade the law. They are recent newcomers to California and, in addition, the law relating to the removal of Joshua trees is a new one. The “taking” of a western Joshua tree became a criminal act in September 2020, when the California Fish & Wildlife Commission made the tree a candidate for endangered or threatened species protections. That statute made it illegal to disturb, move, replant, remove or kill western Joshua trees. Such action is designated as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $4,100 fine and six months in jail.
To some, Walter and Nordberg-Walter got off easy. For $18,000 and a minor blemish on their records, they will now be able to proceed with developing their property, which they legally would not have been likely to be able to do. Moreover, what amounts to a $500 fine per tree is less than what would have been a far more extensive cost if they had applied for permits to transplant them and then executed upon actually transplanting them.
Based on fees determined and set by the state, a permit to relocate a Joshua tree 13.123 feet tall or smaller on developed property costs $175. To remove the same size tree from developed land will cost $525. To relocate a Joshua tree taller than 13.123 feet from developed property costs $700. A Joshua tree that is less than 13.123 feet high growing on undeveloped land can be relocated for $625 and removed for $1,050. Those are permit costs. In addition, the cost of actually relocating a Joshua tree in such a way that it will survive can be quite expensive, as much or more than $1,200 for mature trees. Younger and smaller trees are less expensive to transplant.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is on an irretrievable trajectory to designate Undersheriff Shannon Dicus as Sheriff John McMahon’s successor, according personages within the department and involved in the county’s governmental structure.

McMahon, who has been sheriff since he was appointed to that post in 2012 following the resignation of his predecessor Rod Hoops and then ran successfully for election in 2012 as an unelected incumbent against two challengers and was reelected without opposition in 2018, on June 18 abruptly announced his resignation effective July 16.

The intertwined interests of the county’s top governmental and law enforcement silos, the history of the department, tradition, precedent, the current board of supervisors’ interest in maintaining continuity and preserving the status quo and the dynamic of noninterference between the county’s ruling elite and its policing arm, taken together with Dicus’s declaration that he intends to seek election in 2022, as well as what is essentially or predominantly the outsider status of the field of three alternate candidates who like Dicus have applied to replace McMahon, makes an appointment of anyone other than Dicus inconceivable.

The board of supervisors is scheduled to interview the four candidates on Wednesday, July 7, with the possibility that a vote settling the succession question being taken before that convocation concludes.

Competing with Dicus for the appointment to the sheriff’s position, which carries with it the titles of coroner and public administrator while providing on average yearly salary and other pay of $280,000 and benefits of $248,000 for a total annual compensation of $528,000, are Phillip Dupper, Cliff Harris and William Loenhorst.

Dupper can arguably make a disputed claim to insider or establishment status with the department, as he is has acceded to the rank of lieutenant with the department, after 25 years with the department. After graduating from the academy in 1996, he worked in the jails, thereafter working patrol out of the Fontana Station. He promoted to detective, whereupon he was assigned to the Rancho Cucamonga Station, then subsequently working in the narcotics division. Upon being promoted to sergeant, he returned to the departments jails, then was assigned to Morongo Valley and was then brought back to Rancho Cucamonga. After his promotion to lieutenant, he worked out of the department’s headquarters on Third Street in San Bernardino, where he saw the department’ information technology, central communications and dispatch functions. He has since returned to the department’s corrections division, first at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga and currently at the Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center in Devore.

Dupper is currently Loma Linda’s mayor, and has served on the Loma Linda City Council for 11 years. Previously, he was a board member and eventual vice president of the Safety Employees Benefit Association, the union representing San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies.