Assemblyman James Ramos is the target of an ethics complaint after he used his authority as a California state legislator to push the United States Forest Service to take action that a number of San Bernardino County residents, including a cross section of Ramos’s own constituents, believe will benefit him financially.
On January 24, 2023, Ramos sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service in support of a proposed land swap between the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and the United States Forest Service involving 1,533.92 acres now owned by the tribe at various altitudes ranging from approximately 5,200 feet to 7,000 feet in the San Bernardino Mountains for two parcels of federal land consisting of 1,475.90 acres located near the Arrowhead Springs Hotel at the approximate 2,000 foot elevation in the San Bernardino Mountain foothills.If that land trade goes through, it will provide the Yuhaaviatam Nation with land across which and under which a substantial amount of water that originates in the San Bernardino Mountains flows into the Bunker Hill Basin water table, which supplies water to the East Valley Water District, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department and more than 600,000 downstream users in the Sana Ana River watershed. By taking control of the land in question, the tribe, which is considered a sovereign nation that is not subject to overriding U.S. law, California law and California water law, could dam or otherwise divert water with a future value running into the hundreds of millions of dollars and use it for its own purposes, while simultaneously denying those downstream users in the watershed access to that water.
Ramos is a member of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and was formerly, before he embarked on his political career first as a member of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and now as an assemblyman, the San Manuel tribal leader.
Under Government Code Section 1090, an elected official is prohibited from taking any action in his or her elected capacity in which he or she has a personal financial interest.
On February 28, a complaint in the form of a letter to the Special Committee on Legislative Ethics and its chief counsel, Adam Silver, took issue with Assemblyman Ramos having written his January 24 letter. The complaint alleged ethics violations pursuant to California Government Code Sections 87100 and 87103, specifically that Assemblyman Ramos used his position as a California Assemblyman and official letterhead paper to support the U.S. Forest Service land exchange proposal with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation while Mr. Ramos is a member of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, which will profit by the trade. In this way, according to the complaint, James Ramos and his family “will directly and indirectly gain valuable property, water resources, and more financial benefit with the potential to greatly expand the tribe reservation in this land exchange, far exceeding $2,000.”
$2,000 is the threshold amount of personal profit that a California official must exceed to be considered in violation of ethical constraints.
The complaint further references an active State Water Resource Control Board case involving a draft Cease and Desist Order of BlueTriton Brands, Inc. which, in the words of the complaint, “is intertwined with the lands in the proposed forest land exchange and the tribe.”
Section 87103 of the California Government Code holds that “A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of the official’s immediate family.”
The Fair Political Practices Commission’s regulations state that the “basic rule” guiding conflicts of interest is that “A public official at any level of state or local government has a prohibited conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use the official’s position to influence a governmental decision when the official knows or has reason to know the official has a disqualifying financial interest. A public official has a disqualifying financial interest if the decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable from the effect on the public generally, directly on the official or the official’s immediate family.”
It is the contention of the complainants that Ramos crossed a legal and ethical line when he utilized his position and State of California Assembly stationary to write a letter of recommendation that, if followed, will reap for him personal financial gain.
The Sentinel, through Ramos’s Assembly office communications director, Maria Lopez, asked Assemblyman Ramos for a cogent refutation of what is being alleged in the complaint.
The Sentinel asked if Assemblyman Ramos believed that he had crossed any sort of ethical barrier in authoring the January 24 letter and whether the land trade as proposed between the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the United States Forest Service in any fashion benefit him financially.
The Sentinel further inquired if there was any order of side arrangements between the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and Assemblyman Ramos that would make it so that even if the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation benefits financially, Assemblyman Ramos will not partake in that benefit.
The Sentinel asked for Assemblyman Ramos to provide his explanation of how what is to be achieved by all parties from the proposed land trade between the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the United States Forest Service will be of such overriding benefit that it justified the contents of his January 23 letter.
As of press time, neither Lopez nor Ramos had responded.
–Mark Gutglueck