By Mark Gutglueck
Ensen Mason’s unanticipated vanquishing of incumbent Oscar Valdez in the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector race on Tuesday has cast a pall over the upper echelon of San Bernardino County’s governmental structure, as officials consider the prospect of a host of irregularities which have remained buried during Valdez’s two-year tenure in the four posts as well as during the last six years of his predecessor/mentor Larry Walker’s time in office coming to light. Coupled with a changeover in the district attorney’s office where Mike Ramos has held office for the last fifteen-and-a-half years, word is circulating that already shredders are being activated in a number of county divisions, and preparations have begun to purge scores of computer hard drives.
Eight years ago, county officials enmeshed in a tangle of bribery, kickback and graft schemes, some of which had been exposed and others of which remained hidden, collectively acted to buy the silence of the key county official best situated to serve as a watchdog over their function and activities. Larry Walker, who had served three terms as Fourth District County Supervisor before running successfully for auditor-controller-recorder in 1998, on occasion had used his position to second guess the decision-making processes of other county officials, including the board of supervisors and other elected governmental officers such as the sheriff and the treasurer, in the late 1990s and first decade of the Third Millennium, particularly in those circumstances when there appeared to be an indication that those individuals had breached their fiduciary duty or engaged in activity in which conflicts of interest had compromised or appeared to have compromised their allegiance to the county’s residents and taxpayers. In the 12-year span between 1999 and 2011, no fewer than 16 mid-level or top ranking county officials were indicted, charged or found guilty, including four county supervisors, a former county sheriff, the elected county treasurer, the county’s investment officer, an assistant district attorney, two of the county’s chief administrative officers, and the county assessor along with three of his senior staff members.
As 2010 dawned, it had become known that the FBI was investigating two other supervisors and yet another senior administrator not included among those referenced above. In an effort to stem the investigations and the prospect of further indictments, the board of supervisors, the county’s senior administrators and the county’s in-house stable of attorneys moved to buy Walker’s silence. Representing that ploy as a cost-cutting reorganization, they proposed and then quickly approved a consolidation involving four of the county’s elected offices.
The position of treasurer-tax collector was merged with that of the auditor-controller. The county recorder function was taken away from the auditor-controller and moved under the authority of the county assessor’s office. Simultaneously, the duties of the public administrator relating to the administering of decedents’ estates, which had until that time resided with the county treasurer-tax collector, were handed off to the sheriff, who seven years before had absorbed the function of the coroner.
In presenting the reorganization to the public, county officials emphasized it as one that would increase efficiency and reduce costs. Incidental to the change was that Walker, who was then being paid $202,500 in salary annually together with $99,500 in benefits to serve as auditor-controller/recorder, was provided with an  $82,000 pay hike to take on the treasure-tax collector’s role, zooming his total annual compensation to $384,000. As the board of supervisors was preparing to make the merger, former assessor Don Williamson and Ensen Mason, a certified public accountant, went on record as opposing the consolidation.

Ensen Mason

For Willliamson, Mason and many others, the realignment was a curious one, particularly that involving the auditor-controller and the treasurer-tax collector. A little more than a decade before, in 1999, San Bernardino County’s highest ranking staff member, then-Chief Administrative Officer James Hlawek, elected then-Treasurer Thomas O’Donnell, then-County Investment Officer Sol Levin and Hlawek’s predecessor as chief administrative officer, Harry Mays, were indicted along with others, all of whom in rapid succession agreed to plead guilty. Among the indictment’s charges were those relating to O’Donnell, Levin, Hlawek and Mays having engaged in a series of kickback schemes. In one, in exchange for bribes and all-expenses-paid excursions to Costa Rica, Greece, France and Florida, from 1992 until 1998 Mays, Hlawek, O’Donnell and Levin provided Salomon Smith Barney and the New England Adjustable Rate Government Fund with contracts to invest more than $7.5 billion in public funds in financial instruments from which money was creatively spun off to brokers, resulting in an estimated loss or diversion of at least $20 million in taxpayer money over that six-year period.
The 2010 merger of the treasurer/tax collector’s office with that of the auditor-controller eliminated a crucial layer of independent scrutiny of the county treasurer’s function. In addition to having oversight and control of the funding for the county’s day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month and year-to-year operations, the treasurer and the investment officer, whom the treasurer appoints, oversee the county’s investment pool and handling of the county’s reserves, which total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
In the June 2010 election, Ensen Mason challenged Walker in the first race in which the auditor, controller, treasurer and tax collector functions were combined. As a creature of the establishment, with the endorsements of practically every county politician and the financial backing of a coterie of deep-pocketed donors with an interest in staying on the good side of government and maintaining access to the decision-making elite, Walker used conventional electioneering techniques to command the political stage while Mason, lacking name recognition, was unable to wield a powerful enough megaphone to broadcast his case that the offices he was seeking had been compromised by the conflicts of authority the merger had wrought. Walker convincingly defeated Mason, 128,033 votes or 70.94 percent to 52,445 or 29.06 percent.
The following year, with Walker safely ensconced in the office, the San Bernardino County Grand Jury echoed the concerns that Williamson and Mason had raised before the merger and during the 2010 campaign. In its 2010-2011 report, the grand jury stated, “It is notable that the grand jury found no county where as many important positions are held concurrently by one person as is the case with the San Bernardino County auditor-controller/treasurer/tax collector and county clerk. While the combination of offices is allowable under Government Code §24300, the grand jury finds, in practice, in San Bernardino County the controller’s office, not the auditor’s office, does the risk assessment that determines which departments are to be audited. This chain of authority may not have been anticipated when the consolidation was deemed to be beneficial to the county. San Bernardino County is not out of the norm in combining the controller/auditor function. However, we are not the first grand jury to point out the inherent problems in this and to recommend a separation of the auditor’s function from the controller’s function.” The grand jury said the arrangement was particularly problematic in the aftermath of those offices being merged with that of the county treasurer.
According to the grand jury, the merger created a potential conflict and compromised the autonomy and objectivity of the county’s auditing function.
In the early years of his tenure as auditor-controller-recorder, Walker had made an occasional point of examining in some degree of detail or otherwise questioning the actions by, or circumstances with regard to, the decisions or activity of other county elected officials, including the board of supervisors. Two such efforts included the 1999 audit of the sheriff’s department’s contract for psychological services with a company owned by a woman, Nancy Bohl, who was cohabiting with the sheriff and would later become his wife, and the vigorous questioning of the board of supervisors’ vote in 2006 conferring a $102 million settlement of a lawsuit on the Colonies Partners and the immediate disbursement of a $22 million payment to that company within 24 hours of the vote. After the 2010 merger by which he was given authority over the entirety of the county’s financial proceedings and was enshrined, even more than he had been previously, as a member of the county establishment and provided with a pay increase that took his yearly compensation very close to the $400,000 mark, Walker lost any appetite he may have once had to second guess or challenge those who had promoted him, and he pointedly dispensed with any examination of the decision-making process of other county officials impinging on issues of public policy or public import.
Mason once again emerged to challenge Walker in 2014, raising anew the conflict issue, seeking to illustrate that anyone arrogant enough or greedy enough to seek to serve in the capacity of treasurer while simultaneously serving in the role of auditor of the treasury did not have the integrity, and could not be trusted, to hold either position. But as was the case before, Walker held the power of incumbency, was able to confidently point to a long track record of running the offices he headed, had the support of his governmental peers and colleagues and possessed more than adequate cash in his political war chest to conduct a countywide electoral campaign. This time he buried Mason, 107,620 votes, or 74.32 percent, to 37,183 votes or 25.68 percent.
In the run-up to the election, Walker, then 63, was queried as to whether he was indeed determined to serve out the full term he was then seeking. Walker provided the voters with an assurance that he would remain in place throughout the entirety of the four years from 2014 to the end of 2018. Less than two years later, however, Walker in early 2016 abruptly resigned, recommending to the board of supervisors that they designate his assistant, Oscar Valdez, as his replacement. The board received applications from 17 individuals for the post, determining that nine, including Valdez and Mason, met the minimum qualifications for the office. Five of those nine, including Valdez, were interviewed. The board, concerned that Mason might make an issue of the consolidation of the auditor-controller’s office with that of the treasurer-tax collector, chose not to interview him.

Oscar Valdez

Ultimately, the board complied with Walker’s recommendation and elevated Valdez to the auditor-controller/treasurer-tax-collector position. In accepting the appointment, Valdez went from earning $134,386.56 in salary, $23,220.14 in what was designated “other pay,” and $79,811.54 in benefits yearly for a total annual compensation package of $237,418.24 as assistant auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector to a salary of $245,208.74, what was designated as “other pay” of $74,852.79, and $141,026.89 in benefits yearly for a total annual compensation of $461,088.42 as auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector.
Valdez, upon being appointed, said he was “honored and humbled” for the opportunity the board of supervisors had bestowed upon him. “I am also grateful to you for you taking me into consideration and acknowledging and basically having the confidence in me to take this responsibility,” he said. “As the auditor controller treasurer tax collector I will make sure that this department is run with integrity, with independent judgment, also making sure we run this department with clear transparency and efficiency. I will dedicate myself to make sure that I run this office tirelessly to make sure that we run this department to meet the services of all the various county departments, all of the constituents, all of the various taxing agencies throughout the County of San Bernardino.”
Valdez seamlessly transitioned into the multi-pronged position. Like Walker before him, he was beholden to the board of supervisors that had elevated him to the prestigious posts. For the next two years he carried out the functions of the combined office, pointedly avoiding raising any issues as auditor-controller that in any way might be construed as criticism or scrutiny of the board of supervisors or of other high-ranking county officials, or which might embarrass them.
With the calendar’s advance from 2017 to 2018, the time for Valdez to claim the office in his own electoral right was upon him. Mason came forward to oppose him. History had demonstrated that Mason had waged his campaigns on a shoestring budget. In 2010, Mason had collected $3,625.28 in contributions throughout the entire campaign and spent $4,048.80, making up the difference by shelling out cash from his own pocket. By contrast, in 2010, Walker started out the year with $119,503 in his electioneering fund and spent $63,954 over the course of the campaign. In 2014, Walker, who had a substantial political campaign fund going into the election year, collected $103,505 during the first six months of the year and spent $37,476.08 in the closing months of the campaign to engage in electioneering and outdistance Mason, who conducted only a token effort to promote his candidacy.
Valdez, who was relatively inexperienced in political campaigning, nevertheless approached the 2018 race optimistically, given the substantial backing he had inherited by virtue of being Walker’s handpicked successor and the darling of the current political establishment, as well as Mason’s past poor performance in raising campaign money and consequently at the ballot box. Valdez started the year with a beginning cash balance of $15,441.35. Between January 1 and April 21, the final day of the mid-spring reporting period, he took in $97,675 in contributions. Between April 22 and May 19, he received another $23,682.
An examination of his campaign financing statements shows that Valdez is beholden in the extreme to the San Bernardino County political and governmental establishment. Under the county’s campaign finance limitation law, a candidate is confined to receiving no more than $4,400 from any single donor during any given election cycle. Valdez received the maximum of $4,400 from the Safety Employees Benefit Association, which is the collective bargaining unit for the county’s sheriff’s deputies; $4,400 from friends of San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon; $4,400 from a group called Ever Onwards; $4,400 from Supervisor Josie Gonzales; $4,400 from the San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association, which is the collective bargaining unit for the prosecutors in the district attorney’s office and the lawyers in the public defender’s office; and $4,400 from ACH Mechanical Contractors. Valdez engaged in a crucial faux pas in accepting $4,400 from Supervisor James Ramos and another $4,400 from James Ramos’s household in the form of an identical $4,400 contribution from Ramos’s wife, Theresa Ramos. For those in the know, this had the appearance of Valdez laundering an illicit campaign contribution from a member of the board of supervisors. Immediately, the specter of the auditor/treasurer for the county having engaged in fund laundering settled over the campaign. That the money originated with a member of the board of supervisors exacerbated the perception that Valdez had put himself into a position of being unable to dispassionately carry out his function of serving as a watchdog over the county’s highest ranking officials, further adding to the impression that he was the establishment candidate looking to cover up current secrets and the wrongdoing of the past, worsened still when he received $1,000 from County Superintendent of Schools Ted Alejandre and $1,000 from Dennis Draeger, the former county assessor who was himself appointed to that position as the follow-on to one-time Supervisor and Assessor Bill Postmus, who imploded in scandal and was forced to resign in 2009.
In addition to the contributions he was receiving, Valdez made use of his position by converting a sizable portion of the money he was making as auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector into campaign cash, loaning himself $49,268.92. On May 18, less than 24 hours shy of the May 19 reporting deadline which falls two weeks and three days before the day of the election, Valdez received $1,932 from the San Bernardino Public Employees Association, the union for the county’s rank and file, strengthening the case against him that he was being bought by the elements within the government whom he is supposed to be monitoring.
Through May 19, Valdez paid Chris Jones Consulting and Troast and Associates LLC, firms that were directing and managing his campaign, a combined total of $28,892.99. He provided Tony Siciliani another $5,872.90 for literature.
Also on the expenditure side, Valdez shelled out $13,387.00 to have his name included on the Cops Voter Guide slate mailer; another $9,244 to be endorsed on the California Latino Voters’ Guide; $6,660.10 for inclusion on the Families First Education Voter Guide; and $5,058.60 to be recommended on the California Republican Taxpayers Association’s slate mailer. He also spent $5,197.20 to have the Latino Family Voter Guide list him among its chosen candidates, and he laid out $8,000 to buy his way onto the Educate Your Vote mailer sent out to the county’s voters. Valdez also carried out an energetic signage campaign.
Based on the calculations and advice provided to him by Chris Jones and Troast and Associates, Valdez was led to believe the steps he had taken to propound his name and engage with the voters would ensure he would easily outdistance Mason in the footrace for votes on June 5.
Lulled into complacency by Mason’s lackluster electoral efforts in 2010 and 2014, Valdez and his team did not anticipate the far more substantial campaign Mason waged this year. The major difference was the funding that was used to infuse the candidacy this time around.
From January 1 through May 19, Mason received $135,224.13 in contributions, $102,886.10 of which came as a loan he made to himself through his own company, Mason Financial Services. Through May 19, Mason spent $119,324.73 parsimoniously but efficiently. None of his money went toward campaign consultants, as Mason essentially acted as his own campaign manager. He invested $5,377.00 on the Democratic Voters Choice slate mailer, another $3,819.50 to get on the Citizens For Good Government slate mailer, and $1,245.90 to appear on the Californians For Quality Education slate mailer. He dropped $6,850.00 on a slate mailer from Landslide Communications, paid $3,075 for inclusion on a slate mailer from the Continuing the Republican Revolution outfit, expended $9,246.00 to get an endorsement in the Budget Watchdogs Newsletter and ventured $4,611.30 with the California Taxpayer Voter Guide publication. Another $4,265 outlay put him on a slate mailer called the Conservative Voter Guide; $7.100 berthed him in the simply-named Voter Newsletter; $6,074 won him an endorsement from Election Digest; for $5,667 the Cal Sal Voter Guide recommended him to those who received it; and $4,231 purchased him the California Voter Guide’s seal of approval. Mason also threw $1,000 into Facebook advertising.
After the voters went to the polls on Tuesday and those votes along with the early-arriving mail-in ballots had been tallied at the registrar of voters’ office, it appeared the third time had proven a charm for Mason. As of the vote count at midnight, four hours after the closing of the polls and with 840 of the county’s 1,856 precincts reporting, Mason had 62,190 votes, or 51.07 percent, to Valdez’s 59,577 votes, or 48.93 percent. At 2 a.m. on June 6, with all 1,856 precincts having reported, Mason had widened that lead to 79,747 votes, or 51.26 percent, to Valdez’s 75,841 votes, or 48.74 percent. As of today at 4 p.m., with the count of validated provisional votes as well as late-arriving mail-in ballots yet ongoing, the trend in favor of Mason was increasing and the unofficial results of the race stood with Mason having logged 98,295 votes, or 51.57 percent, to Valdez’s 92,309 votes, or 48.43 percent. At this point, between 57,000 and 58,000 yet uncounted ballots of all sorts, including late-arriving mail-ins, provisional votes cast at polling places and duplicate ballots from the polling places need to be verified and counted, representing, mathematically and theoretically, more than enough potential votes in Valdez’s favor to change the outcome. Nevertheless, given the pattern so far and the circumstances, the prospect that Valdez will pull ahead is remote and it appears that Mason will be declared the victor when the final official certification of the vote is to be made by the registrar of voters’ office no later than July 5.
Word reached the Sentinel on Wednesday that efforts were already under way within the auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector’s office to shred documents and purge computer files, including erasing certain hard drives. Efforts to reach Cynthia Presche, the deputy chief auditor-controller in charge of the auditor division’s information technology department, were unsuccessful. On Friday, the Sentinel was informed that Presche was on leave this week and will not return until Monday. The Sentinel then sought to speak with Presche’s top assistant, Don Lee, who was not available. A phone message for Lee was left in which questions were posed to him about the reports of data being erased, the office’s policy and specific protocol for the retention of the department’s information and data, the ease with which that data can be purged, as well as whether the department maintains off-site generational back up of that data which will allow all data entered into the department’s systems to be recovered, even if it is purged or changed, so that an analyst can return to any point in the registry of the data to reproduce and recover data in the order, or reverse order, in which it had been entered. Lee had not returned the call by press time.
On Thursday, Mason spoke with the Sentinel. An immediate topic of discussion was whether Mason will stand by his long-held and repeated past assertions that the merging of the treasurer’s function with that of the auditor-controller was ill-conceived and represented an inherent conflict-of-interest by which the mismanagement of the county’s assets could take place, such that giving one person ultimate authority over those overlapping functions was a practical invitation for the misuse of public money, and that such an arrangement within a public organization is unacceptable, particularly in one as large as the County of San Bernardino where hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.
Separating the office of treasurer from that of auditor, Mason said, “is a good idea. Certainly, from the outside, it appears that way. In the world of the private sector, analysts and bankers and investors work in separate roles. In the private sector, conflicts like that would not be tolerated.”
Mason said that in any event once he is in office overseeing the function of all four divisions, “There is going to be a functional separation and there is going to be a physical separation. You can’t have the people in the auditor’s office working side-by-side or even in the same building as those in the treasurer’s office. That takes away their objectivity. They can’t be buddies who are going to lunch together. As soon as that occurs, when the audits come in, everything is going to be coming up peaches.”
Mason noted that he has always been, and remains, an outsider with regard to the county auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector’s office. Though that will change, he said, he is not in a position at present to say exactly what changes he will institute because he is not fully knowledgeable about what the current polices and protocols are.
“There are so many steps that I think should be taken,” he said, “but I need to learn how things are being done, and see what procedures are there and see if they can be approved.”
Mason said he hoped that at some point over the next six months Valdez will bring him in to allow him to familiarize himself with all of the departments and operations. “But that’s up to him,” Mason said. “There are many steps that need to be taken, but I’m not in office until January.”
To the observation that he will soon transition from being the perennial outsider to the consummate insider and a member of the establishment who may then grow averse to challenging and grilling his fellow establishment insiders and will simultaneously shy away, as did Walker and is Valdez, from fully exercising the authority of his office and holding other elements of the governmental structure accountable, Mason pointed out that he had earned his way into office through a hard-fought election and not by appointment.
“When you are appointed you owe whoever appointed you, who gave you the opportunity,” Mason said. “That’s not what happened with me.”

In a concession to encroaching fiscal reality, the City of Twentynine Palms has dis-erected the firewall between the money in its reserve accounts and that in its general fund.
On May 22, following the presentation of a labyrinthine staff report detailing the city’s hand-to-mouth financial reality, the city council agreed to the somewhat unconventional strategy of utilizing $3.2 million of the city’s reserves to pay off 100 percent of its unfunded accrued former city employees pension liability, use available reserve money to augment $12 million in bond proceeds for the Project Phoenix undertaking already generated from the issuance and sale of tax allocation bonds in 2011, and use another $350,000 in reserve funding for road improvements at the intersection of Adobe Road and Twentynine Palms Highway.
Like virtually all of California’s 481 other municipalities, Twentynine Palms seeks to salt a certain percentage of its revenue collected on an annual basis into a reserve account for use during lean years or to deal with unanticipated issues that may manifest.
Because such unanticipated contingencies can emerge quickly, most cities have a policy of safeguarding the reserve money in a sequestered account or sequestered accounts in which roughly 25 percent of the money can be accessed relatively easily – utilizing the signatures of two of four city officials, including the mayor, city manager, finance director or city treasurer – at short notice. This leaves roughly 75 percent of a typical city’s reserves inaccessible for immediate use, such that gaining access to that funding commonly entails a detailed report by the city manager and finance director, the acquiescence of the city treasurer and a majority vote of the city council.
Though William C. Statler, the City of Twentynine Palm’s fiscal policy and financial planning analyst and advisor, stopped short of outright recommending that the city tap into its financial reserves at this time, he did deliver a report which contained language by which the council was able to justify following the advice of city manager Frank Luckino, who is charged with running the city on a day-to-day basis, and grant him authority to utilize 60-to-65 percent of the city’s reserve money on some pressing needs.
Statler identified eight risk factors, consisting of “vulnerability to extreme events and public safety concerns; revenue source stability; expenditure volatility; leverage, such as unfunded pensions and asset maintenance; liquidity; dependence of other funds on the general fund; revenue and expenditure imbalance; and unfunded high priority capital projects,” which he said represented needs pressing enough to tap into the city’s reserves.
Based upon standards set forth by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada, Statler suggested that a typical city should be able to tap into money equivalent to that needed for two months operations or 16.6 percent of its annual budget at the drop of a hat. If a city faces certain potential financial or cash flow challenges, Statler said, having access to an amount from its reserves equal to 35 percent of its annual budget might be warranted. And some cities, Statler related, might want quick access to more than that. “Based on the city’s circumstances, the Government Finance Officers Association’s structured methodology recommends a target higher than 35 percent,” according to Statler. “Based on the city’s need to maintain reserves at 25 percent just to meet cash flow needs during the year, the recommended policy is 55% to provide appropriate flexibility in addressing economic uncertainties, such as downturns in the economy and external revenue hits (like state takeaways); responding to local disasters; contingencies for unforeseen operating or capital needs; and strategic opportunities.”
According to Twentynine Palm’s most recent audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the city had an unassigned general fund balance of $11.3 million, which is 135.8 percent of actual expenditures. The 2017-18 Budget projects that the ending unassigned general fund balance will be $11.5 million, equivalent to 130.1 percent of expenditures.
While under ideal circumstances it is desirable to keep the city’s reserves fully intact, Statler addressed the anticipated future reality in which the city’s reserves will be less than the target amount, recommending that the city have a policy of striving to restore reserves to the policy minimum within five years. As revenues versus expenditures improve, the policy recommends that the city allocate at least half to reserve restoration, simultaneously recognizing that utilizing a portion of the city’s income to pay down certain debts and carry out certain maintenance and provide crucial services may be a more prudent use of the money than keeping it for undesignated purposes later. Statler said he deemed it acceptable to use up to half of the city’s revenue in excess of the cost of providing basic services for funding asset replacements, meeting unfunded liabilities, engaging in capital improvement projects, making service level restorations, and funding new operating programs. Statler said allowing the city’s reserves to dip below policy levels from time to time by making a portion of the reserve money immediately available for use would also be justified if the using those reserves is intended to meet cash flow needs during the fiscal year, close a projected short-term revenue-expenditure gap, respond to unexpected expenditure requirements or revenue shortfalls, make investments in unfunded liability reductions, economic development and/or revenue base improvements, effectuate productivity improvements or seize other strategic opportunities that will strengthen city revenues, reduce future costs or achieve high-priority city goals.
Statler further indicated a case for tapping into the city’s reserve funds could be made in circumstances where a fiscal forecast shows an ongoing structural gap, and utilizing available money might provide what he termed “a strategic bridge to the future.”
Simultaneously, Statler said, “The city should avoid using reserves to fund ongoing costs or projected systemic ‘gaps.’ Reserves can only be used once, so their use should be restricted to one-time (or short-term) uses.” Statler asserted that reserves should not be thought of as a normal stream of revenue in the city’s budget. “Non-spendable and externally restricted funds are not readily available to meet the risks that the reserve is intended to mitigate,” he stated.
Caught between a rock and a hard place, Twentynine Palms City Manager Frank Luckino last month asked for the council to divert money out of the city’s reserve accounts and allow him to utilize it for purposes that arguably fall within the rubric of what Statler’s policy pronouncement indicates the money could used for. Luckino reasoned that the city might safely do so. “The city has an unusually high reserve amount of 128 percent, whereas most cities are around 25 percent-to-50 percent,” Luckino told the Sentinel. Thus, Luckino suggested, use of the money in question is not likely to draw down the city’s reserves to the point that it will be left in a precarious position if a major fiscal emergency arises in the near term.
Still, the expenditures are going toward expenses and uses that financial conservatives might not find to be acceptable, and some have suggested that the move betrays a certain lack of fiscal discipline that they are not entirely happy with.
Complying with Luckino’s request, the city council voted to make 60 percent-to-65 percent of its reserves accessible for use in city operations. Of particular concern to some was that a significant portion of the city’s rainy day fund – $3.2 million – would go to payments into the retirement fund endowing the pensions of city employees no longer working for the city. Also questioned was how Luckino defined money he earmarked for use in the Project Phoenix effort as fitting within the rubric of acceptable uses of reserve money outlined by Statler.
Project Phoenix is an undertaking by the Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency aimed at constructing a community center, classrooms, a civic plaza, a park, a paseo, residential units, a wastewater treatment plant, and improvements to the downtown fire station. The undertaking was first conceived of in 2010 and initiated by the city’s former redevelopment agency in 2011. That project was threatened with shuttering by the advent of Assembly Bill XI 26 and Assembly Bill XI 27, which passed in 2011 and closed out redevelopment agencies in all of the state’s municipalities. Twentynine Palms, in a protracted legal effort quarterbacked by City Attorney A. Patrick Muñoz, challenged the state’s action and eventually obtained, more than four years later, clearance to proceed with Project Phoenix. More than three years have gone by since the city prevailed in that effort, and the project has yet to begin in earnest. Some question why Luckino is committing an unspecified amount of city reserve money toward the completion of the project while the city yet has in excess of $11 million of the bond money available to undertake it.
-Mark Gutglueck

In what is universally perceived as a significant political and practical victory for Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr, Planning Commissioner Joy Jeannette was elected to the city council this week in the special election coinciding with California’s June Primary. The election was held to replace former Councilman Jermaine Wright, who was removed from office in January after consistently missing all of the council’s regularly-scheduled meetings for two months following his November 7 arrest by the FBI on attempted arson and bribery charges.

Joy Jeannette

Jeannette’s ascendancy to the city council virtually assures that the ruling coalition that consisted of Kerr and Wright with the consistent backing of Councilman John Woodard and the less-reliable support of Councilman Charley Glasper will resurrect in a slightly different form. Moreover, it very likely that City Manager Gabriel Elliott, who has been on paid administrative leave since December, will be terminated almost immediately after Jeannette is sworn in.
Kerr, Woodard and Glasper were elected in November 2014 in what was a clean sweep that saw then-incumbent Mayor Cari Thomas and council members Charles Valvo and Steve Baisden displaced. Immediately upon the three taking office, Kerr, working with Woodard and Wright, spelled out to then-City Manager Jim Hart that the newly formed council was willing to depart with the conservative policies of past city councils and embrace the commercialization of marijuana as an economic engine to get the city, which was teetering on the abyss of bankruptcy and had declared itself to be in a state of fiscal emergency in June 2013, back on track financially. This approach engendered a degree of resistance among city staff, and the city burned through employees at an alarming rate, starting with Hart in February 2015. Hart was replaced by former City Engineer and Public Works Director Tom Thornton, but Thornton lasted only three months in the post, returning to his city engineer’s position when he became alarmed with the unbridled fashion in which those intent on growing or selling marijuana were being welcomed to town. Referring to Kerr, Wright and Woodard as “rogue council members,” Thornton eventually left the city altogether. Following Thornton’s tour as top city staffer, the council elevated City Clerk Cindy Herrera to the city manager’s post. She accommodated Kerr, Wright and Woodard for over a year, but began to balk when would-be marijuana industry entrepreneurs seeking permits began to regularly show up at City Hall with briefcases full of cash. Further casualties were city attorney Todd Litfin, who quit rather than facilitate the marijuanification of the city, and Litfin’s successor, City Attorney Julia Sylva, who was doing everything she could legally to make Adelanto marijuana-friendly, but was then obliged to leave when things grew too hot. Former senior planner Mark de Manincor, former public works superintendent Nan Moore, former senior management analyst Mike Borja, conservation specialist/administrator Belen Cordero, and even a public works maintenance worker, Jose Figueroa, were forced out of their positions because they were unwilling to move as quickly as Kerr, Wright and Woodard were demanding in getting as many cannabis-based concerns up and running within the city in as short of a time as possible. Cordero, in particular, was particularly outspoken in questioning the path the council was taking the city down, blasting Kerr, Wright and Woodard in public at city council meetings, suggesting that they resign and pointedly referring to Wright as a “fake” and a “phony.”
Land speculators poured into the city, alongside applicants for marijuana-involved businesses. In many cases, those purchasing property in the city appeared to be functioning on inside information about what properties would later be zoned to allow cannabis-related businesses. By late 2016, federal officials in the form of Securities and Exchange Commission investigators along with Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI agents were interesting themselves in the city’s goings-on. By October 2017, Wright was in regular contact with two undercover FBI agents, one of which held himself out to be an arsonist and the other who made a convincing show of being an applicant for a license for a marijuana distribution business in Adelanto. Wright had been introduced to the two agents by an FBI informant with a criminal background. Unsuspecting that those he was dealing with were actually law enforcement officers, Wright sought the assistance of one in helping him burn down his restaurant to collect on an insurance policy he had on it and agreed to take a bribe from the other in exchange for assisting him in getting his cannabis distribution enterprise on track. Eventually, the FBI agents would close the trap they had laid for Wright, and get his short-lived agreement to cooperate with them in gathering information about graft on the part of other Adelanto officials. Before that occurred, however, Wright and the rest of the city council had extended an offer to Gabriel Elliott, at that time the city’s development services director, to move up into the city manager’s post. Elliott in August 2017 accepted that assignment. Kerr, Wright and Woodard had hired Elliott with the expectation that he would assist them in fast tracking more and more cannabis-related operations in the city. He did so reluctantly and against his better judgment for two months. But upon Wright’s arrest in November, the on-again, off-again support that Glasper had provided to his three council colleagues in lending his approval to the aggressive development of marijuana-based businesses in Adelanto abruptly ended.

Gabriel Elliott

With Wright out of the picture, the city council was deadlocked 2-to-2 over permitting more such businesses licenses to operate, as Glasper had joined with Ed Camargo, who had consistently been opposed to allowing the city to become a haven for marijuana entrepreneurs. Kerr and Woodard pressured Elliott to continue as before, expediting the approval of marijuana cultivation operations, cannabis product processing factories, medical marijuana dispensaries and pot shops that would sell marijuana for recreational use a la liquor stores selling beer, wine, whiskey, tequila, gin and vodka. When Elliott refused, Kerr in December orchestrated the filing of sexual harassment charges against Elliott by two city employees and an intern. Using the investigation into Elliott as a pretext, the council put him on suspension. Meanwhile Elliott continued to collect his $18,000 per month salary. In March, the investigation concluded, with the examiner finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Elliott had engaged in behavior to sustain the charges of sexual harassment against him. Kerr and Woodard, however, refused to lift Elliott’s suspension, and pressed during the closed sessions held at virtually every city council meeting that took place throughout the winter and spring to terminate Elliott. Three votes were needed to cashier Elliott, however, and neither Glasper nor Camargo would support that.
In the face of the federal investigation into allegations that kickbacks to city officials from elements of the marijuana industry accelerated Adelanto’s headlong rush toward converting its economy to one that is in a major degree dependent upon the growing, processing and sale of marijuana, Kerr and Woodard have maintained that there is nothing venal about their advocacy of those seeking to establish such businesses in town. They assert that the economic shot in the arm that cannabis is giving to Adelanto is the sole reason they are behind the liberalization of the city’s policy and that they are in no way on the take or receiving any inducements from those who have applied to set up marijuana-involved operations that could make those businesses millions of dollars in profits. Kerr and Woodard have not been shaken from this stance, despite the FBI on May 8 raiding City Hall and Kerr’s home as well as the Jet Room marijuana dispensary in Adelanto and its corporate headquarters in San Bernardino.
Kerr and Woodard supported Jeannette in her run for the city council. As a planning commissioner, she consistently voted to uphold the city council’s pro-marijuana policy. Additionally, Jeanette was provided with hefty political contributions by marijuana industry figures active in the city such as Shad Boyd, Terry Delgado, David Serrano, Jerry Davis and Brad Eckenweiler, all of whom are likewise Kerr and Woodard supporters. Their contributions allowed Jeannette to run an energetic campaign, which included billboards, yard signs and paid “volunteers” going door-to-door on her behalf to encourage the city’s voters to support her.
That effort paid off. Of the 1,199 Adelanto voters who participated in the election by submitting mail ballots or going to the polls on Tuesday, 594, or 49.54 percent endorsed Jeannette on their ballots. Diana Esmeralda Holte-Cosato received 354 votes or 29.36 percent. Ronald Beard garnered 253 votes or 21.1 percent.
The first order of business for the new council majority after the panel is again up to full five-member strength will be to fire Elliott. It is expected that Jeannette will join with Kerr and Woodard in doing so. The next issue the council is likely to take up will be to vote to cut out the city’s top code enforcement officer, Steve Peltier, who has also been resistant to Kerr’s plans for the city. Peltier is considered to be a ringleader of several city code enforcement officers who have defied orders to stand down in making exacting inspections of new cannabis-related businesses in the city.
-Mark Gutglueck

Over the objection of Community Development Director Mark Persico, the San Bernardino City Council on a 6-to-1 vote Wednesday night approved the development of a convenience store lying at the confluence of a residential neighborhood on the city’s west end and the I-215 Freeway, and licensed it to sell hard liquor.
ACAA, LP and AHD, LP, two corporate entities associated with Alex Mucino, sought permission from the city to construct a gas station/car wash/convenience store on two parcels comprising roughly .75 acres at 841 South Inland Center Drive upon which a vacant liquor store was recently demolished. Approval of the project required a general plan amendment to change one of the parcels from single family residential zoning to commercial and the zoning district to be changed from residential suburban to commercial general for consistency across the project site. The project is to consist of a service station with six fuel pumps, an express drive-through car wash and a convenience store. The store is to be built using a retro-industrial architectural style scheme.
Mucino insisted on the city allowing the sale of all order of alcohol to take place at the store, as he has already obtained from the California Bureau of Alcohol and Beverage Control a Type 21 license, which allows for the sale of beer, wine and hard liquor at that location.
City staff, including Persico, Planning Division Manager Oliver Mujica and Associate Planner Chantal Power, took the position that granting the project proponent a Type 20 alcohol permit, which allows the sale of beer and wine, would give the gas station/convenience market the ability to be competitive in the market and would, Persico said, “address community concerns and those expressed by the planning commission over the concentration of alcohol beverage sales licenses in the city.” Persico called giving go-ahead to the project based upon a Type 20 permit “a balanced approach. A Type 21 license would allow the sale of not only beer and wine but distilled alcohol.” Persico said he and staff “felt that type of license should be limited to supermarkets and larger retailers.”
The proposal was considered by the planning commission, which is chartered as a nine-member panel but which currently boasts seven members. Only five members were at the hearing in which the project was considered. The planning commission cannot make a positive recommendation on a general plan amendment with fewer than five members endorsing it. The five commission members hearing the matter split 3-2 in favor of granting the general plan amendment and conditional use permit, with two dissenters in opposition because of the Type 21 license associated with the application. Staff in its recommendation to the city council called for approval of the project with a Type 20 alcohol permit and denial of the Type 21 license.
Councilman John Valdivia, in whose Third Ward the project is located said, “I will be supporting the Type 21 license,” remarking it had been “vetted through the Neighborhood Association Council in my ward.” He made a motion to reverse the recommendation from staff and approve the public convenience store project with the Type 21 license included. This was immediately seconded by Councilman Henry Nickel. Valdivia continued, saying “The local neighborhood association has been apprised of the situation. Many local neighbors have been informed. This is a fine establishment. I’ve been completely aware of the situation. And I’d like to move that before us tonight.”
Councilman Jim Mulivihill, however, was not sanguine about selling whiskey, vodka, tequila, gin, bourbon, scotch, schnapps and other hard distillations out of an off-the-freeway-and-then-back-on venue.
“As a general principle, having the sale of hard liquor, distilled beverages, in a gas station or a service station situation is generally frowned down upon,” said Mulvihill. “The idea of selling beer and wine makes you stop and think also, again being in a service station situation, but as a general rule having hard liquor sold in that kind of a situation is just…” his voice trailed off before he continued. “If you are going to allow it here in this situation, then you need to allow it in all situations. It may be that this individual carries on a good business and he’s got security guards and so forth, but the point is: in terms of equal protection, if you are going to allow it in this situation, it is very difficult to deny it in similar situations subsequent to this. Up to this point it has been regular just to deny the Type 21 license with distilled spirits, hard liquor, in situations where you have a service station with a convenience store. I would argue against what you are proposing to approve, the Type 21 license. I would prefer to stay with just the beer and wine.”
Nickel indicated that he saw the operation’s location next to a freeway in a positive rather than a negative light. “I understand and I respect councilman Mulvihill’s approach to this,” he said. “I take an opposite view. I think given the location of this particular facility adjacent to a freeway, one side bordered by a heavily-traveled freeway section – and getting to that idea of highest and best use; obviously there is sales tax to be generated here – I actually have the opposite view. I don’t know if this is a policy decision in terms of grocery stores versus convenience stores versus gas stations. Is this a staff decision?” he asked.
Persico said the city’s development code allows an applicant to apply for either a Type 20 or Type 21 license with such uses. “Whenever these projects come up, convenience stores are treated differently than full grocery stores, given the city’s history of overconcentration and problems with smaller liquor stores,” Persico said. “Given all of the concern we’ve heard from the planning commission as well as the community, I as the director have implemented the policy that we will not recommend to the planning commission approval of a Type 21. So, this is the third application that has come through in the four years that I have been here. The two previous applicants did revise their applications from a 21 to a 20. This applicant, like all applicants, has the ability to go to the planning commission and state their case. This applicant did do that. The planning commission couldn’t come to a consensus.”
Nickel said, “It is to some degree discretionary. There is sound basis on both sides, but I think given what we’re looking at with this facility, where it is located, given that fact if we are going to sell liquor in the city – we’re going to sell it at liquor stores – why not sell it in a location where it is going to have the least detrimental impact? Grocery stores tend to be located around homes and neighborhoods. I’ve seen the effect. I have one down the street from me. I know the effect that has on the immediate surrounding neighborhood. So part of me says I would prefer it be in a location like this, away from our residential areas so people aren’t engaging in consuming or purchasing in areas that are adjacent to homes potentially. I can see both sides.”
Nickel said the benefit of allowing hard liquor to be sold out of that location was it would produce sales tax revenue from those passing through the city on the freeway.
Councilman Fred Shorett noted that there was residential land to the west of the project site and there was a school, Urbita Elementary, located nearby. He brought up that an existing AM PM minimart across the street was limited to selling beer and wine. He inquired about how saturated the area was with liquor stores. Shorett said he wanted to know whether the project would go forward without a Type 21 license.
Associate Planner Chantal Power said that within the census tract in which the proposed project is located under city regulations two enterprises with off-sale liquor licenses are permitted, but at present there are 13 active liquor licenses, three of which are Type 21.
Alex Mucino, the applicant said he had obtained the Type 21 license approved specifically for the Inland Center Drive location as part of a lottery process from the California Bureau of Alcohol Control. Asked by Shorett if he would proceed with the project if the Type 21 license at that location were not given final approval by the city council, Mucino said. “I don’t think so. The reason we have applied for the Type 21 is we have to remain competitive in this competitive business environment.” He said “Supermarkets are also becoming gas stations. So we have to compete with them. We have to stay ahead of the curve. Before deciding on building this project we considered other options as to what to put there. Based on the location, we felt the three uses we are proposing here on one site – the car wash, gas station and a convenience market – are more appropriate, and we thought this was a better service and best use for the community and surrounding area. I don’t agree with staff indicating that this type of use or the sale of alcohol should only be kept in supermarkets. The nearest supermarket to this location is in Colton. Would you want your business to go to Colton? We offer convenience.”
Mucino said he and his partners were making an investment of $4 million in the project. He pointed out, “We are 525 feet from an elementary school. The State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control allows a Type 20 or Type 21 outside of 500 feet from a elementary school. The AM PM across the street is less than 400 feet from that elementary school. So, we’re further. They serve as a buffer to us, for our use.”
Police chief Jarrod Burguan told the city council that liquor stores in the city have proven “problematic,” some more than others.
At Councilman Valdivia’s suggestion, Mucino said he would be amenable to limiting the sale of alcohol from the store to those hours between 6 a.m. until midnight. At Councilman Shorett’s urging, Mucino committed to not marketing alcohol in any container smaller than a fifth, or one containing 25.6 fluid ounces or 750 milliliters. This practically means that the market proposed at 841 South Inland Center Drive will not be allowed to sell liquor in a European spirit bottle holding 23.7 fluid ounces or 700 milliliters; pints, holding variously 12.7 ounces or 375 milliliters; a shoulder, holding 11.8 ounces or 350 milliliters; a half pint, holding 6.8 ounces or 200 milliliters; nor a miniature, holding 1.7 ounces or 50 milliliters.
Amelia Lopez, the president of the city’s Neighborhood Association Council who rushed into the council chambers as discussion of the item was drawing toward a close, said she had been alerted to the pending approval of the project by members of the council who were watching the council meeting on television. She took issue with Valdivia’s assertion that the Neighborhood Association Council had endorsed the project. “The Neighborhood Association Council does not approve liquor licenses…” she said, at which point she was interrupted by Valdivia.
“That’s not what I said…” Valdivia intoned.
She immediately continued, “I don’t know if you were referencing San Bernardino…”
Again, Valdivia cut her off, “No.”
“Valley College…” the woman continued.
“What I suggested, Miss Lopez,” Valdivia said, speaking over her once more, “was the neighborhood association, my local neighborhood association council, of which I am a member…”
Lopez then interrupted him, asking, “Which is which one?”
“Well, it’s the joint one,” Valdivia said, “which would be the Valley College Association, along with the Amtrak Neighborhood Association Council. They’ve been apprised of it. They understand it.”
Lopez said, “I think you could say they are not in opposition, but I was told – I got a couple of calls – that it was stated Neighborhood Association Council, which is made up of all the presidents, [supported the project] and we don’t endorse alcohol and so forth. To have the NAC approving alcohol, that’s not us.”
Shortly thereafter there was a call for a vote on the matter and the project was approved, with the Type 21 license, 6-to-1, with Mulvihill in opposition.
–Mark Gutglueck

By Amanda Frye and Mark Gutglueck
Federal officials and conservation groups reached an agreement on June 6 that will potentially end the Nestlé Corporation’s drafting of 162 million gallons of water yearly from the San Bernardino National Forest. The Swiss corporation for 26 years has continued to utilize water taken from an environmentally sensitive area based on a permit that expired three decades ago.
Under the Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water brand, Nestlé bottles the forest groundwater, which it obtains from near the headwaters of Strawberry Creek at the 5,200-foot elevation level within Strawberry Canyon in the San Bernardino Mountains using a series of tunnels, boreholes and horizontal wells.
In 1992, Nestlé inherited what it maintains is the right to draft water from Strawberry Canyon from a series of predecessors-in-interest, including an expired permit for a pipeline right-of-way to transport water through the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains, based upon its buy-out of Perrier. Perrier had acquired the still-active permit when it purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, formerly called Arrowhead Puritas, in 1987. That permit, which expired in 1988, allowed a pipeline across the forest which transported water extracted from a significant below-ground source located in the San Bernardino Mountains. In 1978, Arrowhead Puritas, had renewed that permit for transporting the harvested water from Strawberry Canyon extracted through the boreholes and horizontal wells for ten years. Under that permit, Arrowhead Puritas was allowed to continue that activity, for which it paid the U.S. Government $524 per year, a standard fee for such uses in all National Forests. The Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, owned by Beatrice Foods, had assumed water drafting operations from a series of predecessors. Among those predecessors, Nestlé maintains, were B.F. Coulter, President of Arrowhead Hot Springs Hotel Company, who staked a claim on water as early as 1887; Arrowhead Springs Corporation; California Consolidated Water; the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, the. Arrowhead Cold Springs Company and Arrowhead Puritas. Several elements of Nestlé’s claims are open to challenge, however, as they are based upon a tangle of asserted water extraction rights, some of which are documented, others of which were presumed upon a dubitable basis, including some of which have no showing in the public record. Several of these water claims were for the hotel properties far below Nestlé’s mountain top drafting operations. The San Bernardino National Forest was formed in 1893. Federal surveys and public notices allowed owners to stake claim to rights within a 90-day filing period in 1894. Nestlé’s predecessor-in-interest did not stake claim for property or water rights on the newly formed San Bernardino forest lands.
In 1988, the water extraction permit expired and was not renewed. Pending a U.S. Forest Service review of the water drafting arrangement, Perrier was allowed to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon, and continued to pay the $524 per year fee. In 1992, when Nestlé acquired the Arrowhead brand from Perrier, it inherited the Strawberry Canyon operation and continued to pay the $524 annual fee without renewing the permit, which at that time existed under the name of “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co.,” which is not a legal entity. Nor is that name in the corporation chain of title, according to Nestlé’s attorney, Rita McGuire.
Nestlé’s activity was never favored by environmentalists, who for over two decades to no avail pushed the U.S. Forest Service to undertake an intensive review of Nestlé’s water extraction in Strawberry Canyon. As the statewide drought which first manifested in 2011 advanced, environmentalists became more insistent in their demands. In 2015, as environmental groups were gearing up to file a lawsuit claiming the U.S. Forest Service had violated protocols and harmed the ecology of the mountain by allowing Nestlé Waters North America and Perrier to continue operations in Strawberry Canyon for 27 years after the permit to do so expired, United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack, who oversaw the U.S. Forest Service, ordered a review of the expired permit through the National Environmental Policy Act process. In the meantime, Nestlé continued its water extraction, pumping in excess of 62 million gallons of water annually from the San Bernardino Mountains. Environmentalists, in the form of the Center for Biological Diversity, the SOS Project, and the Courage Campaign filed a federal lawsuit in 2015, seeking to have the Forest Service halt Nestlé’s use of wells and piping in the forest. The plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s continued diversion of water after the permit had expired was illegal and that the continued water pumping was wreaking ecological damage to Strawberry Canyon. In September 2016, U.S. Judge Jesus Bernal ruled that Nestlé’s water use should not be interrupted because its predecessor, Perrier, had made efforts to obtain a new permit from the Forest Service and had not gotten a response from the agency. In November 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity, the SOS Project, and the Courage Campaign appealed Bernal’s ruling.
Also in 2015, the environmentalist groups lodged protests with the water rights division of the California Water Resources Control Board, alleging Nestlé was diverting water without rights, making unreasonable use of the water it was taking, failing to monitor the amount drawn, making inaccurate reports of the water drafted, and wreaking environmental damage by its action.
On December 21, 2017, the California Water Resources Control Board issued its findings pertaining to the investigation the state had conducted with regard to Nestlé’s San Bernardino Mountain water use. The state board’s conclusion was Nestlé had asserted it had water rights and was able to marshal evidence that it had the right to divert up to 26 acre-feet of water (8.47 million gallons) per year, while it was actually drafting 192 acre-feet (62.56 million gallons). Thus, the California Water Resources Control Board determined, Nestlé is extracting on a yearly basis 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) of water it does not have a right to take.
“While Nestlé may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water in Strawberry Canyon, a significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right,” the California Water Resources Control Board stated, while further asserting that Nestlé’s use of water for Arrowhead bottling “could be unreasonable if it injures public trust resources, such as instream habitat for certain species, in such a way that it outweighs the beneficial use.” The California Water Resources Control Board’s water rights division recommended that Nestlé immediately end its 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) of unauthorized diversions.
The U.S. Forest Service review of the operation has yet to be completed, and Nestlé continues the water extraction in Strawberry Canyon under the expired permit. The appeal of Bernal’s ruling was yet ongoing when this week the Center for Biological Diversity, the Courage Campaign and the SOS Project agreed to dismiss their appeal of Judge Bernal’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals conditional upon the Forest Service making a decision with regard to the renewal or cancellation of Nestlé’s permit. In the settlement, the groups reserved the right to challenge any new Forest Service decision. Under the terms of the settlement, the U.S. Forest Service must decide within 30 days whether or not to issue a new permit for the pipeline and Nestlé’s associated activities in the San Bernardino National Forest.
“We are encouraged that the Forest Service is finally fulfilling its duty to the public by ending Nestlé’s more than 30 years of unpermitted water taking from the San Bernardino National Forest. Any objective, scientifically rigorous analysis will demonstrate what biologists have been saying for decades: the Nestlé operation is detrimental to the health and vibrancy of our public lands and should be discontinued,” said Miranda Fox, campaign manager at the SOS Project. “We want to ensure that Strawberry Creek and its ecosystem are properly managed for generations to come.”
Alix Dunn, Nestlé’s spokeswoman said, “We greatly appreciate the work of these organizations to ensure that, 31 years after validly submitting a permit renewal application for transmitting water across federal land, the USFS [United States Forest Service] will take action soon. As a federal court has determined, federal law states clearly that the prior permit remains in full force and effect, and so we vigorously dispute any inappropriate allegations made regarding our permit status. We appreciate the strong emotions on all sides of this issue, and have worked hard throughout this process to provide the USFS with all requested information for them to be able to make a fully informed decision in this matter, including conducting approximately 70 separate environmental studies and investing more than $1.5 million to fund a detailed environmental analysis. We have also submitted a voluntary adaptive management plan to the USFS. This plan provides transparent, science-based methods for managing water collection at Arrowhead Springs and adjusting our operations when conditions meet interim triggers. We look forward to collaborating with the USFS to develop the final adaptive management plan.”
Nestlé, the world’s largest water-bottling company, earned $8.3 billion in profits from its water business in 2016. U.S. Geological Survey reports from July 2017 show that, despite heavy winter precipitation across California, Strawberry Creek’s streamflow levels were the lowest since the agency began keeping track 96 years ago.
“This agreement stops Nestlé and the Forest Service from relying on a permit that expired 30-years ago, but Strawberry Creek still desperately needs protection,” said Ileene Anderson, a senior biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The real tragedy is that Nestlé is sucking the creek dry to bottle water for profit, dooming plants and wildlife that have relied on it for tens of thousands of years. We’ll keep fighting to protect Strawberry Creek and our forests from commercial exploitation.”
The environmental groups have called upon the Forest Service to deny Nestlé a new permit, the groups say, “in order to safeguard the public land, water, plants and animals of the San Bernardino National Forest.”
Eddie Kurtz, the executive director of the California-based Courage Campaign Institute, said, “While we are glad to have slayed Nestlé’s ‘zombie’ permit, we fear that the Forest Service’s action will ultimately do little to protect this national forest – owned collectively by all Americans – from continued exploitation by Nestlé, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world. If the Forest Service issues a new permit that again prioritizes Nestlé’s obscene profits over ensuring sufficient water remains to protect this fragile ecosystem, that will not be a viable solution. This fight will be far from over.”

A member of the Redlands Police Department’s Canine Corps, Duke, was bitten by a suspected impaired driver at the close of a pursuit on June 1.
Shortly before 8 p.m. Friday night, officers were summoned to respond to a white Honda Accord being driven erratically near Orange Street and Pearl Avenue. According to a phoned-in report, the driver collided with another vehicle and fled.
Officers spotted what they believed to be the car moving south on Orange Street. When they attempted to pull the vehicle over, the driver accelerated, hitting a curb in front of the police annex at Cajon and Vine streets. The driver then sped away, careening toward the outdoor patio of a nearby restaurant, obliging diners there to run from where they were sitting.
The car continued south, crossed into the oncoming lane, bashed into curbs and knocked the bead out of its tires, and hit another vehicle. It came to a stop near Cajon Street and Fern Avenue, all four of its tires flat, with its radiator smashed and the car overheating.
When the driver ignored repeated commands in both English and Spanish to show his hands and exit the car, the officers deployed Duke, a German shepherd. When the dog made contact with the driver, subsequently identified as Timothy Arnold Carlos of Grand Terrace, Carlos became combative and fur began to fly. At one point, according to the police, the five-foot eight-inch and 235 pound Carlos bit the 70-pound dog on the snout.
Shortly thereafter, Carlos was taken into custody. He was brought to a hospital for treatment of the injuries he sustained in the crash and the fracas with Duke prior to his being transported to West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, where he was booked on driving under the influence, hit-and-run, evading a police officer, disregarding the safety of the public, wrong way driving, possession of narcotics and assault on a police dog. Duke was taken to a local veterinarian, given rudimentary treatment, and released to his handler.
Carlos remains in custody in lieu of $105,000 bail.

After a year-and-a-half delay, Ling Ling Chang appeared poised to move into the California Senate, following one of the rarest of political renditions, which consisted of voters in the 29th Senatorial District removing Josh Newman from office on Tuesday. Tuesday’s denouement follows by 19 months Newman’s nearly-as-unlikely election to the position in the State Senate.

Ling Ling Chang

Chang, a Republican, former Diamond Bar councilwoman and then-incumbent one-term Assembly member representing the 55th District, opted in 2016 to leave the state’s lower legislative house before she was obliged to do so because of term limits to seek to replace Bob Huff, who had been termed out of the California Senate. She appeared to be the front-runner in the 2016 race. The 29th Assembly District, which overlays the southwestern tip of San Bernardino County, southeastern Los Angeles County and Northeastern Orange County is an historically Republican bastion. Nevertheless, the Democrats in 2016 were gunning to reestablish a two-thirds majority in the State Senate and spent heavily in an effort to get Newman elected. In the early returns following the November 8, 2016 election, Chang was ahead, but as provisional and late-arriving absentee ballots were counted, Newman overtook her and his victory was certified with 159,977 votes, or 50.4 percent, to Chang’s 157,509, or 49.6 percent.

Josh Newman

Newman made the misstep, however, of voting last year in support of Senate Bill 1, which increased gas and diesel taxes and raised DMV registration fees in California. Though he defended that vote by asserting the state’s transportation infrastructure has been underfunded for years and Senate Bill 1 would fund $52-billion worth of road, highway and bridge repairs and maintenance, he was attacked by Republicans, their operatives and media personalities for having raised taxes, which they likened to a high crime and misdemeanor, or a heretical betrayal of the values of the residents of the 29th District.
Once the recall effort was under way, six candidates – three Republicans and three Democrats – ran as alternatives to Newman should the recall succeed.
Yesterday, Thursday June 7, the California Secretary of State posted semiofficial results, showing 59.5% of those voting favored recalling Newman. Chang was the top finisher among the six replacement candidates, gathering 34.2% of the vote.
“None of this shakes my faith in California or in the fundamental capacity of politics to serve as a platform for doing good and serving the people,” Newman said.
“This ends the Democrats supermajority in the Senate, so I am pleased,” said Chang.
It is anticipated Chang will take her place on the Senate Floor upon the certification of the election in early July.

County & Local Contested Races
Results As Of 4 p.m. Friday, June 8

Superior Court Judge, Office 2
David Lopez 66,388 35.18%
Arthur A. Harrison 122,319 64.82%

Member, Board of Supervisors District 2
Marc Steinorth 20,580 47.06%
Janice Rutherford 23,156 52.94%

Member, Board of Supervisors District 4
Curt Hagman 20,501 54.64%
Gloria Negrete McLeod 17,020 45.36%

Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector
Oscar Valdez 92,309 48.43%
Ensen Mason 98,295 51.57%

District Attorney
Jason Anderson 103,311 52.65%
Michael Ramos 92,914 47.35%

City of Adelanto, City Council
Joy Jeannette 744 49.01%
Ronald Beard 317 20.88%
Diana Esmeralda Holte-Cosato 457 30.11%

City of Loma Linda, City Council
David Sanner 528 14.52%
Gabriel Uribe 672 18.48%
Ron Dailey 1,096 30.13%
Phillip Dupper 1,341 36.87%

City of San Bernardino, Mayor
John Valdivia 5,497 36.32%
Rick Avila 1,076 7.11%
Karmel Roe 549 3.63%
Danny Tillman 2,282 15.08%
Georgeann ”Gigi” Hanna 1,031 6.81%
R. Carey Davis 4,324 28.57%
Danny Malmuth 376 2.48%

City of San Bernardino, City Council Ward 1
Gil J. Botello 410 34.25%
Theodore ”Ted” Sanchez 408 34.09%
M. ”Magie Noir” Castaneda 122 10.19%
Miguel Rivera 257 21.47%

City of San Bernardino, City Council Ward 2
Benito Barrios 419 29.80%
Sandra Ibarra 435 30.94%
Cecilia Miranda-Dolan 552 39.26%
City of San Bernardino, City Council Ward 4
Alexandra ”Alex” Beltran 920 26.81%
Frederic E. Shorett 1,730 50.42%
Jesus Medina 781 22.76%

Candidates shown in the order on which they appeared on the ballot. Results unofficial & uncertified.

The broadleaf stonecrop, known by the scientific name sedum spathulifolium and the synonyms cotyledon anomala, gormania anomala, sedum anomalum and sedum woodii, is a plant within the crassulaceae family and sedoideae subfamily, sedeae tribe and sedum genus that grows locally. It is sometimes referred to as the Colorado stonecrop, the Pacific stonecrop or the spatula-leaved stonecrop.
A dicot, sedum spathulifolium is a perennial herb that is native to California and is also found outside of the Golden State, but is confined to western North America. A flowering plant in the stonecrop family, it can be found in many types of rocky habitat in coastal and inland hills and mountains.
A quite variable succulent plant divided into at least two subtaxa, it is up to 4 inches tall, producing mats of basal rosettes from a system of rhizomes. The sedum spathulifolium has basal leaves up to 0.8 inches long, which are sometimes coated in a waxy, powdery-looking exudate. The inflorescence is a short, erect array of many small flowers with yellow petals. The specific epithet “spathulifolium” refers to the spade-shaped leaves.
This plant will thrive in conditions that many other plants find suitable, but survives or even proliferates under and within less hospitable circumstances and areas. In spots where there is likely to be too much sun or too little water for most plants to grow, the Colorado stonecrop holds up. The name of stonecrop given to sedum reflects the observation that the plant needs little or no care and grows from stones.
The spatula-leaved stonecrop is cultivated as an ornamental groundcover. Sedum is easily planted. For shorter varieties, simply laying the plant on the ground will allow it to get started. The plant will send out roots from wherever the stem is touching the ground and root itself. Rooting can be assured by adding a very thin covering of soil over the plant. For taller sedum varieties, by breaking off one of the stems and pushing it into the ground will initiate a new growth as the stem will root. Numerous cultivars have been selected for garden use, of which ‘Cape Blanco’ has gained the Royal Horticultural Society’s Award of Garden Merit.
Appearing from British Columbia to Southern California, it is notable for sprouting from crevices or the edges of rocks and boulders. This succulent plant tolerates light shade and is tough and cold-hardy. While small, the Pacific stonecrop is a powerhouse, with evergreen foliage, wind and drought tolerance, and showy sprays of intense acid-yellow sprays of starry flowers atop short flower stems in May. The plentiful flowers, approximately four to five inches tall, are attractive to pollinating insects, as the blossoms provide insect nectar and pollen. It serves as a host plant for the San Bruno elfin butterfly, upon which the female after mating will deposit eggs.
From www.houzz.com, https://plants.usda.gov, https://worldofsucculents.com, calflora.org and Wikipedia

LeBron James, #23 of the Cleveland Cavaliers,  is the subject of the moment. No doubt he has style; he is daring and he wears it well. His style brings man out of the cage and definitely shows how men can be every bit the equal of the distaff side  when it comes to style.  I am so in love with how he carries himself and how his style evolved through the years that I’ve given LeBron James a new name: “Subject.” The guy has taste and when it comes to his wardrobe selection, he doesn’t repeat outfits. And, why should he? After all, he is one of the  highest  paid athletes.  When it comes to accessorizing, LeBron,  you always see him carrying a purse to the arena or anywhere else for that matter. What’s in it? Only he knows that, but we do know he knows what he likes and he has the confidence  to wear a big hat with a leather jacket or a suit with shorts and carry a Mr. Thom purse.  His team may have come up short in the first three NBA Finals games but Lebron came and went with style.  The question remains: Are the Lakers contemplating on adding  him to their roster? With that said, I cant wait to see how the rest of the men follow his style sense.

“I’m going to use all my tools, my God-given ability, and make the best life I can with it.” LeBron James