(October 10) The county board of supervisors has signed off on granting franchise extensions to eight separate entities operating water pipeline systems at various spots throughout the county.
In each case, the eight companies had previous consent to operate their respective systems to transport water in the county rights-of-way. In all of those cases, the franchise agreements were approved and entered into in 1998, and all are set to expire on November 20, 2013.
In September  the board of supervisors adopted resolutions declaring the board’s intent to grant  franchises to the Center Mutual Water Company, the Jubilee Mutual Water Company, the Terrace Mutual Water Company, the Bar-H Mutual Water company, the Sky Forest Mutual Water Company, the Crystal Lakes Property Owners Association, the Baseline Gardens Mutual Water Company and the Alpine Water Users Association to operate  pipeline systems to transport water in county of San Bernardino public rights-of-way for the period from December 19, 2013 through December 18, 2028.
Center operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Lucerne Valley. The pipeline system consists of approximately 4,374 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Lucerne Valley area.
Jubilee operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Lucerne Valley. The pipeline system consists of approximately 246 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Lucerne Valley area.
Terrace operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Colton. The pipeline system consists of approximately 28,286.74 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Colton area.
Bar-H operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Lucerne Valley. The pipeline system consists of approximately 6,600 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Lucerne Valley area.
Sky Forest Mutual Water Company operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated community of Sky Forest. The pipeline system consists of approximately 11,245 feet (2.13 miles) in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Sky Forest area.
The Crystal Lakes Property Owners Association operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of  Newberry Springs. The pipeline system consists of  approximately 500 feet in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Newberry Springs area.
Baseline Gardens Mutual Water Company operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area near the city of Highland. The pipeline system consists of approximately 11,880 feet (2.25 miles) in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the San Bernardino/Highland area.
The Alpine Water Users Association operates a pipeline system for the distribution of water in the unincorporated area of Twin Peaks. The pipeline system consists of approximately 52,246 feet (9.9 miles) in county road right-of-way and transports water to local residents in the Twin Peaks area.
In accordance with County Code Section 14.0701, the county is authorized to grant franchises along and over public roads and rights-of-way for all lawful purposes, upon such terms, conditions and restrictions as deemed necessary and proper. In general, a franchise is an agreement between a municipality and a utility or cable provider that outlines requirements that must be met in order for the utility or cable provider to use the municipality’s public right-of-way.
There will be a roughly one month delay between the expiration of the current franchises and the official continuation of the new ones. The delay in presenting a recommendation to the board to approve a new franchise agreement resulted from internal county administrative delays. The entities will continue to operate their pipelines in the county road rights-of-way and have made all franchise payments in full and on time.
The franchise fees made to the county by the separate entities correspond to some degree but not absolutely in rough proportion to the linear feet of public right-of-way used for the pipelines in question.
Jubillee will pay franchise fees of approximately $12 annually.
Terrace Mutual will pay franchise fees of approximately $6,800 annually.
Bar H will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $200 annually.
Sky Forest Mutual will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $700 annually.
Crystal Lakes will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $60 annually
Baseline Gardens Mutual will pay franchise fees to the county of approximately $7,000 annually

(October 10) The county will buy 450 bulletproof vests for the probation department at a total cost of $150,522.
In making the purchase upon the recommendation of chief probation officer Michelle Scray Brown and deputy chief probation administrator Scott Frymire, the board of supervisors agreed to go with the high bidder for the provision of the vests, based upon Brown and Frymires’ conclusion that the company’s product offered advantages other vests do not.
According to Frymire, “The department determined that due to an increase in equipment that probation officers are now carrying on their person, an additional load bearing device was needed. After extensive consultation, it was decided that a load-bearing ballistic vest cover would be the most effective and practical way of addressing this need. The vest covers being recommended for purchase will allow a probation officer to retain immediate access to his/her equipment and thereby enhance personal safety.”
In May, the department solicited bids from Lawndale-based The Vest Man, Prescott, Arizona-based ProForce Law Enforcement and BPS Tactical, Inc., which is based in Mentone, asking them to provide samples of their load bearing vests for testing and the accompanying costs for 450 of the items.
The Vest Man was the low bidder at $112,039. ProForce Law Enforcement bid $123,730. BPS Tactical, Inc.’s bid came in at $150,522
“After a department review group conducted an extensive review and field testing of the offered products, BPS Tactical, Inc. was selected as the preferred vendor due to the superiority of their product, excellent warranty, individualized fit, and the customer service offered,” Frymire told the board of supervisors. “While BPS Tactical, Inc. is the most expensive of the three vendors, its cost is a reflection of the superior quality of the product. These vest covers are expected to last for a minimum of five years.”
BPS also offers the advantage of being located within San Bernardino County.

(October 10) In an operation rife with far reaching implications, the Orange County District Attorney’s office, assisted by Orange County Sheriff’s Department detectives and officers, served a search warrant at the Upland law office of the now-dissolving law firm of Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir.
Investigators carted off scores of boxes full of documents and other materials after descending upon the Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir Building, located at 367 N 2nd Avenue in Upland.
Officers and district attorney’s office investigators and personnel were observed at the offices mid-morning on October 10. Despite the open display of law enforcement activity in San Bernardino County, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office was tight-lipped with regard to the operation.
“We are not confirming that activity took place or that we are involved in it,” said Susan Kang Schroeder, the chief of staff to Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir employed several attorneys who had formerly served as police officers and the firm specialized in representing police officers and their unions in labor related actions, contract negotiations, disciplinary actions, firings, reinstatements and criminal defense.
The firm had established a reputation for fierce representation of its clients, who often obtained favorable outcomes in their respective legal and procedural matters.
Last year, however, things began to unwind for the firm, culminating ultimately in a decision in August to disband it.
As tense contract negotiations were proceeding in 2012 between the city of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Police Association, the Lackie Dammeier firm, which represented the union, advised members to step up pressure on the city’s elected leadership. Shortly thereafter, a private investigator under retainer by Lackie Dammeier, Christopher Lanzillo, began tailing members of the Costa Mesa City Council. On August 22, 2012, Lanzillo followed Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer to a bar, Skosh Monahan’s, owned by another city councilman, Gary Monahan. Lanzillo followed Righeimer after he left Skosh Monahan’s as the mayor drove home, and en route called 911 to report Righeimer was drunk and driving erratically. When police came to Righeimer’s home, they found that he appeared sober but subjected him to a field sobriety test, which he passed. Righeimer subsequently produced a time and date-stamped credit card receipt for two Diet Cokes he had consumed while at Skosh Monahan’s. Information then emerged that the police association had also been seeking, at Lackie Dammeier’s suggestion, to entrap Monahan and another council member, Steve Mensinger.
Soon thereafter, the Costa Mesa Police Association ended its relationship with Lackie Dammeier but not before other Orange County municipal officials, including city council members from Buena Park, Fullerton and Irvine, came forward to tell how the Upland-based firm and its clients engaged in efforts to harass them as they headed into elections and contract negotiations with their cities’ police unions, which were represented by Lackie Dammeier.
So brazen was the law firm in its pro-police union strategies that it posted on its website a political activity playbook that advised police unions on how to intimidate and twist the arms of politicians and lobby the public in a way that associates police pay raises with higher levels of public safety. In the brouhaha that ensued, Lackie Dammeier removed that posting.
While the firm represented hundreds of associations and officers from around California, its major client was the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a statewide legal defense fund for law enforcement officers. Over the last several years, Lackie Dammeier had won several notable cases for the organization, known by its acronym PORAC, and was considered the organization’s most potent legal tool.
But in August of this year, PORAC, which has 99,000 members culled from the ranks of law enforcement agencies up and down the state, informed its members that improprieties were found in Lackie Dammeier’s billing practices. The firm, PORAC said, had  charged 4,200 hours in one year for a single attorney, averaging 11.5 hours per day for every day of the year.
Shortly thereafter, PORAC dropped Lackie Dammeier as one of its legal representatives. Within two weeks of that development, the firm announced that it was dissolving, although its attorneys continued to work on the cases it was handling. Several of the firm’s lawyers signed on to work with other firms. In the meantime, the firm remained active, and continued to function out of the 367 N 2nd Avenue location.
While no official explanation of the purpose of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office’s raid was forthcoming, it is widely believed the search was an outgrowth of the firm’s activity on behalf of the Costa Mesa Police Association and other police unions. The district attorney’s office has previously obtained search warrants and subpoenas to further its investigation into the tactics used against Costa Mesa politicians.
The raid of the Lackie Dammeier office by a law enforcement agency is of special sensitivity, given that attorney-client privilege extends to all range of legal documents and communications between lawyers and those who hire them and that many of the cases handled by the firm pertain to criminal charges, potential criminal charges or disputes between the firm’s clients and law enforcement agencies and their managements.
When she was reached by the Sentinel while investigators were still at the law office, law firm partner Sakunthala  Ethirveerasingam, who goes by the professional name of Saku Ethir, said, “We just don’t have any comment right now.”

(October 10) By Ruth Musser-Lopez
Our county is graced from east to west with old precious railroad gems in the form of magnificent historic structures financed by railroad corporations to serve as depots and service stops as well as destination points along its rail lines.  Here in San Bernardino County we know how to take to the extreme the Mediterranean romantic architectural splendor with parapets, arches, colonnades and red roof tiles, maximizing that exotic flair that one would expect on the Spanish Riviera or in a Moroccan oasis.   In Spain, castles exemplify the grandeur of romantic architectural style; in San Bernardino County it’s our railroad stations and depots that serve as the bulwark of our vintage romantic structural design knowhow.
In Spain, Moorish influence is found at its southern boundaries at the enchanting Alhambra Palace of Granada.  Here, our county seat holds the claim to one of the crown jewels of precious railroad gems near its western entry. This enchanting gateway, the 1918 San Bernardino County Station was designed in the Mission Revival Style with Moorish Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival features which add to its magnificence and complexity. The structure served as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad depot with additions of living quarters and a Harvey House added a few years later, replacing the 1886 two-and-a-half-story wooden structure that burnt down in a 1916 fire. Construction was made at the behest of San Bernardino local politicians to replace what preceded it on a much larger scale…and it came at greater expense.  Previous to 1886, a converted boxcar served as the depot so obviously, big strides had been made to return some railroad capital into San Bernardino County since the California Southern Railroad’s cross-continent route was bridged to the Pacific in 1884.
The new station designed by architect W. A. Mohr was built at a cost of $800,000, which adjusts to $12 million or so today, although it is doubtful such a triumphant edifice could be built for that sum now.   It was at the time the largest railway station west of the Mississippi River.   Including hollow clay blocks within its walls, a red tile roof and stucco exterior, the new depot was fashioned to withstand fire.  High beams, coffered ceilings and decorative column capitals all were handcrafted and a 330-foot arcade extended between the depot and the tracks. (http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/about/santa-fe_depot.html)
Unfortunately however, as is the case of any structure not properly maintained, the 1918 architectural centerpiece began to fall into decline.  Through a $15.1 million acquisition and rehabilitation effort shared by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the City of San Bernardino, the Santa Fe Depot was acquired by SANBAG in 1992, restoration began in 2004 and today the fine “county gate” has been restored to its former beauty.  Since June of 2004, SANBAG has been occupying and reusing offices upstairs in the depot located at 1170 W. 3rd Street, between Mt. Vernon Avenue and I Avenue, west of Interstate 215.
In 1908, ten years earlier than the new Harvey House in San Bernardino was built, a “Crown Jewel” had been constructed on the east gate of San Bernardino County; in Needles the “El Garces” named after the Spanish padre/explorer, had put the old wood structure depot in the county seat to shame.  Originally used as the Santa Fe Depot and Harvey House restaurant and hotel in historic downtown Needles, it was built by the Fred Harvey Company on contract with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.  The hotel was designed by architect Francis W. Wilson in an elegant Neoclassical and Beaux-Arts style and was considered to be the supreme “Crown Jewel” of the entire Fred Harvey chain.   After construction of Route 66 was completed in the 1920s, passenger traffic on the Santa Fe drastically declined and even though the traffic on Route 66 passed by the station, the restaurant and hotel were closed permanently by 1949.
Afterward, the original imported Italian tiles and chandeliers, along with other precious appurtenances, furnishings and fixtures “disappeared” over the years.  The structure fell into disrepair; rooms were trashed by squatters or given over to bats, rats and pigeons.  In 1988 Amtrak stopped using the station and the Santa Fe made plans to demolish it. The city of Needles, however, stepped in to purchase the property and building in the 1990s.  When restoration was considered, the only financially feasible alternative seemed to be initial gutting and cleanup.  As of 2002, it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Some restoration and reconstruction of the historic El Garces began in 2007, by the owners of another historic hotel, the La Posada, in Arizona.
Work seems to be intermittent as funding is available, though it is starting to “come around” in appearance with new paint and the prospects look promising for new glass window treatments soon.  An injection of new funds, perhaps a little more help from SANBAG, wouldn’t hurt.

(October 10) The Coyote (Canis latrans) is found throughout most of California, ranging from the low desert and valley areas to the highest mountain elevations. It proliferates in the foothills of San Bernardino County and often ventures into civilization, usually at night, seeking prey. The most common coyotes in San Bernardino County are  the C. l. clepticus, known as the San Pedro Martir coyote and the C. l. ochropus, known as the  California Valley coyote.
Referred to as the “little wolf,” coyotes resemble a medium sized shepherd type dog in many respects but feature large erect ears, a narrow muzzle and yellow eyes. The tail is round and bushy and is carried straight out below the back. Coyotes typically grow to 30–34 inches in length, not counting a tail of 12–16 inches, stand about 23–26 inches at the shoulder and weigh from 15–46 pounds.
Coyote coloration varies from grayish, tawny brown with a black tip on the tail in the low desert and valley areas to gray with white under parts in the highest elevations. Coyotes are intelligent and facile creatures with exceptional senses of smell, vision and hearing.
Coyotes are active at dusk, night and predawn and have a distinctive vocalization, which consists of various howls, high quivering cries and frenzied high pitched yapping. There are two howling seasons, January/February when breeding season starts and September/October when females are calling to their pups. Pups are ready to hunt on their own in the fall of the year of their birth and will relocate 5 to 10 miles from their parents’ range. The mortality rate for juvenile coyotes is 50% to 70% . Adults typically live 3-5 years. It is estimated 30% to 50% of the adult population dies each year. Coyotes compensate by breeding younger and having larger litters.
A coyote’s range varies  to 30 square miles. They become highly territorial and range far less as the local coyote population increases and there is fierce competition among them for food, water and shelter.
The absence of prey can factor into a smaller litter size. Fewer females will breed when there is a scarcity of food. Coyotes are opportunistic carnivores, feasting on whatever is available, including meat, fish, poultry, rodents, reptiles, insects, vegetables or fruit. They will kill to assuage their appetites but will feed on carrion, or domesticated pets when available. They will dig through trash and gorge on pet food.
A coyote’s sense of smell, vision and hearing allows it to live in rural areas and at the periphery of suburban area without being detected by humans.
Coyote can carry rabies and tularemia, diseases that can be transmitted to man and domestic pets. Specific canine diseases such as distemper and canine hepatitis can travel both ways, putting both coyotes and domestic pets at risk. Parasites that are carried by coyotes include mites, ticks, fleas, worms and flukes. Heartworm is the most important endoparasite in California’s coyote population and can be transmitted to domestic dogs by mosquitoes.
As Coyotes find urban areas a convenient place to find nourishment, they have lost their fear of humans and have become bolder. Efforts to control or exterminate the coyote by predator control agencies have produced an animal that is extremely alert and wary and well able to maintain itself.

(October 10) Orange and October are the perfect combination for the harvest season. The harvest is the prelude to the holiday season. The color orange is making a wave this month and with a punch. I am fascinated by the people wearing bright orange in the middle of fall. It’s a very interesting color that is going to stick around until about the end of the month. Color is a great way to create art, so make sure you take orange to the limits this October. California is very special and different because we really do dress for the weather and we always want things to look different every season. With that said, orange is here and it’s perfect for October. Fashion has reversed gears and the day of realism is here in the most imaginative and colorful way possible. It’s great to dress the body with many interesting things and the beginning of fall is a great time to recreate your style. It’s all about contagious enthusiasms when it comes to dressing in October. Have fun and be creative.

“The tones of gray, pale turquoise, and pink, will prevail.”    -Christian Dior

A SB County sheriff’s deputy who in the past two-and-a-half years  has  been involved in the deaths of three suspects finds his action under increasing scrutiny as the family of one of those who died at his hands has received a $4.25 million settlement and the families of the two others are  pressing forward with civil suits against him, the sheriff’s department and the county.
San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy Ismail Diaz was directly or indirectly involved in the officer-involved deaths of Allen Kephart in May 2011, Kenneth Munoz, Jr. in October 2011 and Merlin Factor in June 2013.
The 350-pound Kephart expired after suffering a heart attack when three officers, including Diaz, administered 16 taser gun jolts to him for his failure to comply with Diaz’s commands following a traffic stop. Diaz administered eight of those electrical shocks.
Munoz was shot twelve times by a sheriff’s sergeant and Diaz after deputies were summoned by Diaz’s father during a dispute over a pickup truck and the younger Munoz grappled with another officer after he was ordered to the ground. Diaz shot Munoz ten times.
Factor, who was allegedly combative and armed, was shot by two sheriff’s deputies after  a call reporting an act of vandalism at a mobile home park led to a confrontation with the deceased. The sheriff’s department has not confirmed that Diaz was one of the deputies involved in the Factor shooting.
The district attorney’s office has completed reviews of the deaths of Kephart and Munoz. A determination with regard to criminal issues in the Factor shooting has yet to be made but it is anticipated it will exonerate the involved deputies.
The district attorney’s office, while acknowledging that the ordeal Kephart was subjected to during the attempt to arrest him resulted in physical stress that was “a significant factor” in his death, concluded “there is insufficient evidence to establish criminal liability on the part of these deputies.”
Diaz maintained that on the afternoon of May 10, 2011, he had attempted pull Kephart over after Kephart failed to make a full stop at an intersection in the San Bernardino Mountains. Kephart, according to Diaz, drove nine-tenths of a mile before pulling over, at which time a confrontation ensued in which Kephart only partially complied with Diaz’s commands that Kephart get down on his knees and then lay prone on the ground. The district attorney’s office said the tactics used by Diaz and two other deputies and a sergeant that arrived on the scene to back up Diaz, “were not unreasonable.”
Kephart’s mother and father, Alfred and Carol Kephart, filed suit, naming the county of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, and the three sheriff’s officers who used their tasers on Kephart, deputy Diaz, deputy Michael Gardea and sergeant Bryan Lane.
The Kepharts were represented by attorneys Marc Goldstein, Brian Pannish and Thomas Schultz.
The lawsuit offered a different version of events than was put forth by the sheriff’s department and accepted by the district attorney’s office.
An examination of the roadway Diaz and Kephart traveled  while Diaz was using his lights and siren in an effort to pull Kephart over demonstrated there were no safe spots at which to pull over, given the relative narrowness of the highway. Kephart appeared to have stopped at what was the first safe place. Utilizing an audio recording made by Diaz as well as the communications between Diaz and the sheriff’s department’s dispatcher, the legal team countered Diaz’s claim that the encounter ensued after Kephart ran a stop sign. Rather they maintained the encounter began when Kephart honked at Diaz after Diaz pulled in front of Kephart at the intersection. A witness, Magda Haran, testified Kephart had indeed stopped at the stop sign.  The legal team used eyewitness accounts and data retrieved from the Taser devices to show that Kephart was ordered out of his car at gunpoint, shoved face first to the ground and Tasered repeatedly in the upper back, neck and head. In pressing to make the case that Kephart’s civil rights were violated and that he had been subjected to excessive force, the plaintiffs encountered resistance from the county, which deemed  information in  Diaz’s personnel file confidential and at one point obtained a stay of legal proceedings. But after the stay was set aside, Diaz’s videotaped deposition was taken, in which he repeatedly demonstrated an inability to recall specific details relating to the incident as well as other times he had used potentially deadly force in the field, including the shooting of Munoz and at least five other times he had used a Taser.
More than two months ago and less than a month after the Factor shooting, the county on  July 26 quietly moved to close out the litigation, conferring a $4.25 million settlement on Mr. and Mrs. Kephart.
In January 2013, the district attorney’s office entered a determination that Diaz and sergeant Michael O’Brien were legally justified in fatally shooting Kenneth Munoz Jr. on October 26, 2011. Sheriff’s deputies  had been summoned to the 35200 block of Avenue B in Yucaipa by Kenneth Paul Munoz Sr., who reported that his son was refusing to return to him his truck, which they used in common as a work vehicle in their family run business. After deputies arrived and attempted to persuade the younger Munoz to comply with his father’s request, he refused and ran away. The officers gave chase, utilizing a Taser, and a bean-bag shotgun before deputy Joseph Perea commanded him to lie face down on the ground in a neighbor’s yard. After Perea knelt upon Munoz’s back in an effort to handcuff him, Munoz became resistant and combative. In the ensuing struggle between Perea and Munoz, Perea’s gun, a 45-caliber Glock 21 pistol, fell out of its holster. The scuffle between Perea and Munoz continued and when Perea separted from Munoz, O’Brien opened fire, striking Munoz twice. Diaz then shot Munoz ten times as he lay on the ground. Munoz died at the scene.
In ruling the shooting  justified, the district attorney’s office noted that Munoz had numerous intoxicants in his system, including  methamphetamine, opiates and hydrocodone.
Paul Munoz, Jr’s estate, including his father and mother and two of his minor children, have filed a lawsuit against the county, the sheriff’s department, Diaz and O’Brien in U.S. Federal Court. They are represented by attorneys Antonio Rodriguez and Jorge Gonzalez.
In court papers, Rodriguez and Gonzales maintain “the actions of the deputies from start to finish were overly aggressive and drove the situation until lethal force was used. Their actions were independent and reckless uses of force, and have a direct causal relationship to the end result. The officers did not have probable cause to arrest Kenny.”
Rodriguez and Gonzales maintain that Munoz was in the midst of an emotional and psychological breakdown, but did not constitute a physical threat to his father, himself or the responding deputies. “The use of force and attempt to subdue Kenny when he was clearly experiencing a mental breakdown was very provocative, and exactly the opposite of what a well-trained officer would do in such a circumstance,” accoring to Rodriguez and Gonzalez.  They say Diaz arrived at the location at a latter stage of the confrontation with Munoz  and “acted without any knowledge of the prior events, or of Kenny’s mental disturbance… and displayed a severely aggressive attitude to apprehend Kenny regardless of the costs. Further, Diaz was the last of the deputies to fire his handgun, shooting 10 rounds at Kenny, five times that of Sergeant O’Brien.” Diaz, according to Rodriguez and Gonzales, “acted in a panic, and fired an excessive number of rounds for the situation. His conduct in this regard was clearly incompetent.”
Rodriguez and Gonzalez have taken depositions of several of the deputies involved, including Diaz; have made analyses of other materials relating to the case, including the audio recordings from the recorders carried by the officers; and obtained witness statements from civilians who watched the chase and shooting, including Robin Dyrland, in whose yard the shooting occurred.
“The shooting was not in response to an imminent threat of deadly force or great bodily injury, and the deputies later conspired to use this as the justification for the shooting, thus manufacturing the sequence of events,” according to Rodriguez and Gonzalez. “Furthermore the version of the deputies that a wrestling match between Perea and Munoz was underway, described by Perea as a ‘life and death struggle,’ was directly contradicted by Robin Dyrland, who was standing at her back door watching the events unfold, and did not see the deputies wrestling with anyone just before the shooting. She recalls the deputies were all standing erect and stepped back just before they started shooting.  Both the sound recording and the two percipient witness directly contradict the entire version of events as stated by the deputies “
The Munoz case will likely go to trial in 2014.
The case involving the shooting of Merlin Factor is somewhat nebulous, as is Diaz’s role in it.  The district attorney’s office has yet to make a finding with regard to whether the shooting death was a justifiable homicide, although such a finding is anticipated. And while several reliable sources have given indication that Diaz was one of the deputies involved in the shooting, there has been no confirmation of that at an official level.
Los Angeles-based attorney Dale Galipo is representing Factor’s sister, Cassandra Hudson, in a wrongful death complaint against the county, the sheriff’s department and the involved deputies. Galipo told the Sentinel that “We believe Ismail Diaz was one of the two deputies involved in the death of Merlin Factor based upon several statements we have and other information but I do not have confirmation. It has been pretty difficult to get information on this shooting. That may be because of this deputy’s involvement in these other deaths but I cannot say that definitively.”
The initial report of the Saturday, June 29, 2013 shooting, based upon the information provided in a sheriff’s department press release, maintained that deputies opened fire on the 26-year-old Factor after a series of events beginning with a call reporting vandalism to a mobile home in the 12900 block of Second Street in Yucaipa. Factor was identified as having vandalized the mobile home and that he had left the scene with the woman who lived there, possibly against her will. Shortly thereafter, the allegedly abducted woman placed a 911 call and deputies went to the location from which the call had been placed, near Yucaipa Boulevard and Third Street. At that point, deputies were advised  Factor was wanted on a felony warrant.
Deputies located Factor and the woman in a vehicle and pulled him over in the parking lot of the First Baptist church. “Factor got out of the vehicle and began fighting with the deputies,” according to the sheriff’s department statement. “Factor attempted to retrieve a weapon during the struggle, forcing a deputy to shoot him.”
The arrest warrants issued for Factor pertained to his failure to appear in court 23 days earlier on misdemeanor theft and providing a false name to a police officer.
The department seems to have backed off from the assertion that Factor had a gun, but has not clarified its position.
“Our information is that he had no gun when he was shot,” Gallipo told the Sentinel. “We do not know if there was a gun. If there was, where was it? Was it under the seat of the car? He did not have a weapon of any kind when he was shot. We have talked to several witnesses and no one saw a gun or said anything about him having a gun.”
Factor did have a criminal record. He  pleaded guilty to burglary in 2012 and was on probation at the time of his death.
Gallipo said that he and his legal staff have only undertaken a preliminary examination of the circumstances and facts, having been hampered by the sheriff’s department’s reluctance to release information on the shooting. He said it appeared the sheriff’s deputies acted out of anger and annoyance in their fatal confrontation with Factor. “He was known to the sheriff’s department,” Gallipo said. “They had been looking to arrest him on the outstanding warrants before this. They were looking forward to arresting him and he had run away from them before and had gotten away. They were frustrated. They caught him and then just lost it and overreacted.”
Gallipo said he did not expect the district attorney’s office to determine the shooting was an unlawful one. “In almost every case, the district attorney’s office finds officer involved shootings to be within policy and legally justifiable. But when you take these matters to trial and lay out all the facts, juries in many of these cases find the officers’ actions to have been excessive and unreasonable. In officer involved shooting cases, juries tend to disagree with the district attorney.”
While county officials and sheriff’s brass are publicly maintaining a stiff upper lip with regard to Diaz and his continuing tenure with the department, internally there is concern that he may represent a liability to both the department and the county governmental structure. Reportedly, Diaz  is a  foremost concern within the county’s risk management department with respect to current employees. Having been stung for $4.25 million on the Kephart case and with the Munoz and Factor  matters wending their ways through the court system, pressure is mounting to ease Diaz out of the department or transfer him into a role in which he will be unlikely to encounter a use of force situation. When queried about Diaz, county risk management director Hueston Whiteside said, “That is something you should discuss with the sheriff’s department because a reassignment is not something my department is likely to have a hand in.”
The sheriff’s department’s public affairs division, citing the lateness of the Sentinel’s inquiry about Diaz this week, was unable to offer input.
Deputy district attorney William Lee, who reviewed the Kephart matter for his office, maintained that during his encounter with Diaz, “Kephart was defiant and resistant. The force used by the deputies was limited to overcoming that resistance. Diaz is obligated to enforce the laws of the state. It was Kephart’s obligation to submit to legal authority, to follow all reasonable commands and to cease any active resistance. Kephart failed to meet these obligations.”
Chief deputy district attorney Karen Bell, who reviewed the Munoz matter for her office, concluded “The officers had cause to pursue Kenneth Jr. when he failed to cooperate and would not respond to questions.  They had a duty to investigate a possible auto theft but his conduct was out of the ordinary and he might have posed a danger to himelf or others. Despite repeated efforts to convince him to stop running he did not. When Kenneth Jr. finally stopped… the officers approached with great care, based on his earlier conduct to insure (sic) their safety, the public’s and his. Unfortunately, at that moment the circumstances changed radically In such circumstances officers are entitled to use deadly force in protection of themselves or others., Kenneth Jr left them little alternative but to use their last tool – deadly force.”

(October 4) Citing what he said was an unacceptable increase in serious crime throughout the county and a lackluster effort to prosecute its perpetrators, deputy district attorney Grover Merritt said this week he will challenge his boss, incumbent district attorney Mike Ramos, in the 2014 election.
Merritt, who was the head of the district attorney’s office’s appellate unit under former district attorney Dennis Stout and continued in that capacity under Ramos for two years, said office morale has plummeted during Ramos’ tenure as a consequence of his lack of aggressive leadership, inattentiveness and womanizing. Merritt charged his boss with having made decisions based on politics rather than the merit of the cases that come before the office. He further alleged that prosecutors under Ramos have become too dependent on plea bargaining as opposed to working cases toward trial.
Merritt referenced the latest FBI uniform crime report that pegged a 56 percent increase in the number of homicides in the city of San Bernardino, the county seat, in 2012 over 2011, accompanied by a 24 percent jump in property crimes. Crime in the county’s East Valley in particular is on the rise, he said. Merritt vowed to deal with criminals ruthlessly in court once they are caught.
He said he will either judiciously utilize or  eliminate entirely  specialized units that Ramos created for public relations purposes, such as the public integrity unit, the human trafficking unit and the crimes against peace officers unit. He will emphasize nuts and bolts prosecutions of everyday, garden variety criminals, he said, rather than make efforts to generate newspaper headlines.
He lambasted Ramos for carrying on with many of the office’s female employees, which he referred to as “beneath the dignity of this office. I will see to the elimination of the weekly recounting of the district attorney’s latest sexcapades as the center of attention among office employees. This alone will lift the esprit de corps. His nuclear strength womanizing is an inhibiting factor on the strong woman working in our office who are given to understand they have to give something to get a supervisory position in the office.”
He also tore into Ramos for a “distinct absence of leadership” with regard to the closing of the Needles, Barstow and Chino courthouses.
“There was not a peep of protest from him over the closing of the courthouses at the far reaches of the county. He did not speak up for the citizens there who now have to travel long distances to get justice.”
After Ramos defeated former district attorney Dennis Stout in 2002, rumors began to circulate that Merritt would challenge Ramos in 2006. Ramos precluded that, however, when he accused Merritt of leaking information relating to two criminal cases, one involving former Sheriff Floyd Tidwell’s retention of firearms from the sheriff’s department’s evidence lockers and another involving torture murders by career criminal Jimmy Kelley in Yucca Valley. Ramos fired Merritt, who contested the sacking, proving in a hearing before a civil service commissioner that it was Ramos’ political ally, assistant district attorney Mike Risley, who had actually leaked the information as part of a scheme to destroy Merritt’s status, credibility and political viability. Merritt was returned to the office with back pay and provided with a $297,500 settlement of his suit for wrongful termination.
Ramos, who was previously under consideration by the Republican Party as a possible replacement for now retired Congressman Jerry Lewis, more recently sought a judgeship appointment from Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, but was turned down. He announced last month he would run for district attorney once more and has picked up the endorsement of Congressman Paul Cook, state senator  Bill Emmerson, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon, assistant district attorney Michael Fermin and San Bernardino Police Chief Robert Handy,  as well as the Ontario and Upland police officer associations.

(October 4) The specter of the return of the FBI’s interest in Upland hangs over the City of Gracious Living as its city council finds itself being ushered toward making an extension of a no-bid contract with its franchised trash hauler for at least another 15 years.
Burrtec, a company founded in 1955, currently has exclusive trash hauling franchise contracts with the sixteen of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities – Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, San Bernardino, Twentynine Palms, Upland, Victorville, Yucca Valley and Yucaipa. Additionally, the company provides trash pick-up service to the  unincorporated San Bernardino County communities of Amboy, Angeles Oaks, Baker, Barton Flats, Bloomington, Cima, Crestline, Daggett, Del Rosa, Devore, Dumont Dunes, East Highlands, El Rancho Verde, Forest Falls, Fort Irwin, Halloran, Helendale, Hinkley, Kelso, Lake Arrowhead, Landers, Lenwood, Lucerne Valley, Ludlow, Mentone, Mountain Pass, Mt. Baldy, Newberry Springs, Nipton, Oak Glen, Running Springs, San Antonio Heights, Silver Lakes and Yermo.
For 12 years, from 2001 until July 1 of this year, Burrtec held the contract to run the county’s landfill system, a $17 million per year job that solidified its position as San Bernardino County’s major refuse handler and put it at or near the forefront of trash haulers in Southern California.
But in April, the company was dealt a blow when the county board of supervisors followed a recommendation by county public works director Gerry Newcombe to confer the contract for the operation of the county landfills for the next ten years on Los Angeles County-based Athens Services. As a consequence, Burrtec is now seeking to secure its future viability and profitability by locking the jurisdictions and service areas where it now has franchises into long term commitments.
The city of Upland represents one of the first tests of whether Burrtec’s new corporate strategy will succeed. Affluent but scandal plagued, Upland represents for Burrtec a particularly lustrous jewel in its crown. In addition to the $9.6 million the company currently collects annually in compensation for its refuse handling in Upland, the franchise contract it has had with the city since 2000 was amended in 2007 to involve a highly favorable seven-year “evergreen” clause. Under the terms of the current contract, the franchise renews for seven years every year. Upon the city’s notification to the company that it does not wish to renew the franchise, the franchise will then have seven years to run. Thus, at present, Upland is locked in to keeping Burrtec as its trash hauler at least until 2020. If the city does not give notice to Burrtec by July 1 of next year, the contract will run through 2021.
The seven-year evergreen clause was inserted into the contract in 2007, during the administration of then Upland Mayor John Pomierski and his hand-picked city manager Robb Quincey. For ten years Pomierski dominated the city politically, enjoying the unwavering support of three of his council colleagues and exercising near dictatorial power with regard to city commission and committee assignments and appointments. He ruled City Hall with an iron fist, going beyond the traditional role of working as a member of the city council to set general municipal policy. Instead Pomierski directly influenced day-to-day decisions, including those related to zoning, land use and contract issues. In 2011, Pomierski was indicted for having solicited and received bribes that involved backroom deals and City Hall-orchestrated favors to those who greased his palm. In 2012, he entered a guilty plea to those charges and is now in federal prison. Quincey, who at Pomierski’s direction amended the Burrtec contract with the seven-year evergreen clause, has been charged with three felony corruption charges, including unlawful misappropriation of public money, gaining personal benefit from an official contract, and giving false testimony under oath. The official contract in question did not involve Burrtec. The case against Quincey remains open. He has not been convicted.
Burrtec and several of its principals and employees were among Pomierski’s major political campaign donors. Burrtec and its employees and principals have also been among the largest of political contributors to other Upland city council members as well as the mayors and council members of other cities in San Bernardino County where it holds trash hauling contracts. The company’s largesse has extended to members of the county board of supervisors, who sign off on the trash hauling franchises in unincorporated county areas.
In May of this year, Burrtec executive vice president Michael Arreguin wrote a letter to Rosemary Hoerning, Upland’s public works director, proposing a revision of the existing franchise contract for Upland’s waste hauling.
Central to that proposal is increasing the terms of the evergreen clause by eight years, thus ensuring that Burrtec will remain Upland’s trash hauler for at least 15 years, until 2028. Burrtec is offering to add street sweeping to the trash hauling service it is currently providing and providing the city a pavement impact fee to compensate it for any damage done to city streets as a result of the weight of its trash trucks as part of the exclusive franchise arrangement being extended.
If Burrtec’s proposal advances and is accepted by the city, Upland will presumably be able to save money by eliminating its in-house cost of providing the street sweeping service. Burrtec would enjoy a triple-fold gain. It would extend its contract by eight years. It would eliminate the requirement that it engage in a bid process in another six or seven years to extend the contract, thereby avoiding the possibility that it would need to lower its rates to maintain the contract. And its proposal would increase the rate it charges Upland’s customers by 7.2 percent for the remainder of 2013-14; another 2.1 percent in July 2014; 2.1 percent in July 2015; 2.3 percent in July 2016; and 2.4 percent in 2017. Increases beyond that would be tied to the Consumer Price Index.
Moreover, the contract would adjust the arrangement between the city and Burrtec hashed out in 2007 under the Pomierski regime that demarked recycling and green waste disposal as the city’s “responsibility” but which involved the city paying Burrtec for those specialized handling and disposal services while sharing with the company any revenues generated from recycling. The revised contract proposal gives back to Burrtec direct responsibility of the recycling and green waste programs, with annual pass-throughs to the city of the actual cost of the service, based on any changes in landfill disposal fees.
Arreguin and others touted the contract revision as advantageous to the city. And while some city officials echoed Arreguin’s statements verbally, several of the city’s highest ranking officials have made a curious avoidance of stating in writing their personal endorsement of the new contract arrangement, even as they have been moving it toward the council for approval.
City manager Stephen Dunn designated Hoerning to oversee the matter. Hoerning, however, deftly moved out from under the weight of the issue, reportedly because demands on her time prevented her from taking the matter on. Nor did assistant public works director Aquanetta Warren evaluate the city’s options with regard to the proposal, Warren is the mayor of Fontana, where Burrtec is likewise that city’s franchised trash hauler. Burrtec has been one of Warren’s major campaign contributors.
Together, Dunn, Hoerning and Warren punted the issue to R3 Consulting, a Northern California-based firm that specializes in evaluating solid waste, trash hauling and refuse issues. Dunn used his authority as city manager to expend up to $50,000 on single projects without prior council approval to hire R3, at a cost of $35,000, to make the evaluation. R3 principal Richard Tagore-Erwin had previously made recommendations to other municipalities with regard to Burrtec, including ones favorable to the company.
R3 returned a recommendation to the city that highlighted the benefits of Burrtec’s     revised franchise contract proposal. R3’s endorsement of the concept was then cited by Hoerning in her staff recommendation that the council approve the revision and extension.
A close examination of the consultant’s report, however, betrays that R3 was provided with selective and incomplete information relating to the proposal, primarily information laid out by Burrtec. The report did not engage in an exacting analysis of the full implication of contractually binding the city to its current trash hauler for the extended period Burrtec’s proposal envisions.
In the face of a growing trend among municipalities to shy away from long term contracts that stipulate rates or pricing levels that cannot be adjusted downward, R3 accepted the increase of the automatic evergreen contract renewal to 15 years without substantial comment. Also left unexamined in the report is the no-bid implication of the contract extension and providing Burrtec with the advantage of specifying a fee and rate schedule that is arrived at outside of a public forum not subject to the downward pressure that naturally comes about during a competitive bid process.
Further unexplored in the report is the rapidly changing standard in the waste hauling industry with regard to the relative expense of the disposing of recyclables and how the committing of the city to a long term arrangement with regard to this element of the contract may be disadvantageous to the city and its ratepayers. Under the proposed contract renewal, city residents are to pay Burrtec to haul away not only their trash but recyclable discards as well. Burrtec would then be able to sell those separated recyclables at a profit, making money at both ends. In recent years, companies have come into existence which will haul away recyclable material for free, or in some cases, pay to do so, turning a profit entirely on the sale of the materials. While the city is committed until 2020 to remain with the arrangement it now has with Burrtec, beginning in 2021 city residents could see a significant decline in their trash rates if the city contracts with a company that is willing to haul recyclables at no charge or provide customers with a rebate. By remaining with Burrtec under the current terms, such a savings by Upland residents would not be realized.
Whether Burrtec will be able to wangle the contract revision and extension it is proposing is unknown at this point. A key vote in favor of Burrtec, that of councilman Brendan Brandt, does not appear to be forthcoming. From 2002 until Pomierski’s ignominious departure from the city council in 2011, Brandt was a rock steady member of the Pomierski political machine and one upon whom Pomierski counted for backing during council votes. Brandt supported the franchise contract change in 2007 that boosted the evergreen clause to seven years. Brandt is an attorney and his law firm has done work on behalf of Burrtec. Accordingly, he has recused himself from participating in votes or discussions of the proposed franchise contract revision.
Brandt, one of two regular members of the city’s treasury and finance committee, did not attend that panel’s meeting held this week on October 1, at which the Burrtec proposal was the main topic. In attendance was the other regular member of the committee, Glenn Bozar, and councilwoman Debbie Stone, the alternate who substituted for Brandt. Also at the meeting were Dunn, Hoerning, Warren and Arreguin. Present as an observer, but not participating as a voting member, was councilman Gino Filippi.
Stone was supportive of the staff recommendation to go along with Burrtec’s proposal. In contrast, Bozar was not. Bozar subjected Dunn and Hoerning to a series of questions relating to the length of the proposed evergreen clause, noting that if it were accepted, Burrtec, which has been the city’s trash hauler since 2000, will have been given what will be at least a 28-year long contract unchecked by any competitive bidding. While Dunn spoke somewhat guardedly in support of committing to the revised contract terms Burrtec has proposed, Hoerning was less reserved in backing Burrtec, based upon the recommendation from R3. Arreguin asserted that Upland would do well to commit to the terms his company is offering, given that they will provide long term rate stability to the city’s residents. Dunn was dismissive of suggestions that future recycling revenues will manifest to render the aspect of the proposed contract revision relating to Burrtec’s ability to utilize that recycling revenue as disadvantageous to the city or its residents. Warren unabashedly was supportive of Burrtec, asserting the company had been diligent and helpful in its provision of service so far.
Stone said the city “needs to move forward” by approving the franchise contract revision. Bozar said he wanted to explore removing the evergreen clause from the contract. Because Bozar and Stone were unable to agree, no vote from the committee recommending for or against the contract revision was forthcoming.
There are indications that councilman Filippi, who counts Burrtec principal Cole Burr among his major political supporters, will support Burrtec’s proposal. But Mayor Ray Musser by phone told the Sentinel he would not be in favor of extending the contract for 15 years. Thus, the proposal appears stalled at present. And without a vote to extend the contract on terms more favorable to Burrtec, further FBI action with regard to pay to play politics in Upland, at least with regard to the Burrtec contract, would be stalled as well, even if city residents have now begun to question why so many city officials have been pushing so hard to lock them into a marriage with their trash hauler, without competitive bids, until 2028.
R3 principal Tagore-Erwin responded to questions about the propriety of the contract extension proposal and his firm’s recommendation of it.
He disputed the assertion that cities are moving away from long term contracts.
“That is not true,” Tagore-Erwin said. “The trend is  actually away from shorter contracts to longer term ones that last five to seven years. Upland is already in a seven year rollover term with Burrtec. You have to look at the rates and the level of services Burrtec is offering, which is very favorable to the city. Overall, we normally do not recommend evergreen components to a contract, whether for five years, or seven years or 15 years. But given the benefits of the totality in this package, we feel it is in the city’s interest.”
He said changing the evergreen term to fifteen years was pretty much a “moot point,” given that the city is already committed to remain with Burrtec for seven years and “has not provided notice that it wants to go out to bid.”
Tagore-Erwin said it is “up to the city council as to going out to bid,” But, he noted, soliciting bids from a wide variety of providers would be no guarantee of better rates. In fact, he said, the Burrtec proposal provides for reasonable rates for an extended period. A new bid process could result in higher rates, he said. “This locks them into what is a very good deal for the city. With rising landfill disposal costs, higher fuel costs and rising insurance rates, you see bids coming in that are anywhere from  20 to 45 percent higher than  what the previous rates were.”
With regard to the changing standards relating to recyclable handling and profitability, Tagore-Erwin said the contract will not preclude other companies from handling Upland’s recyclables. “Under state law, any companies that want to come in to do that will still be able to do so,” he said. “They just will not be able to charge for that service, under state law. The city will still have the ability to decrease costs associated with its green waste processing.”
Tagore-Erwin defended the scope of the study R3 had performed.  “We looked at Burrtec’s proposal at face value from the city’s perspective,” he said. “The overall proposal is sound and good for ratepayers. They are carrying out a rate study that will verify and validate the rates going forward. It will provide an  increase in services, including  medical waste and  household hazardous waste handling.”
As to the suggestion that there was some untoward relationship between himself and Burrtec based upon prior recommendations he had made in the company’s favor and that R3’s report was preordained and intended to serve as justification for Upland accepting Burrtec’s proposed revision terms, Tagore-Erwin said “I don’t work for them. I have never worked for them and never will. Yes, I have made recommendations favorable to them. I also made a recommendation against them last year, in Hemet. I find that [the charge of collusion with Burrtec] to be an insulting insinuation.”

(October 4) The Rialto Unified School District embezzlement case is a far more serious, involved and complicated matter than was initially believed, investigators working the case have learned.
Judith Oakes, a school district accountant who had overseen the receipts from the district’s nutrition services division since 1997, was arrested on August 7 on suspicion of embezzlement. According to a Rialto Police Department search warrant, a video camera that had been installed at the district office where she worked caught  her stuffing school lunch money into her bra.
Police and district officials have been tight-lipped with regard to the case, which contains several troubling and even, to outsiders, baffling aspects.
Officials have not disclosed what led to the installation of the camera.
The district had apparently entrusted Oakes, for more than a dozen years, with virtually unrestricted, unmonitored, and unchecked control over not just the accounting of, but the actual physical custody of, the proceeds from the entirety of the district’s school lunch programs before that money was deposited into a district account. No independent audit of the account, or Oakes stewardship of it, had been undertaken until recently.
In addition to the Rialto Police Department, which took the lead in the initial investigation of the matter and arrested Oakes, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office and San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office have undertaken investigations into the matter. The Rialto Unified District, at the direction of the school board, launched an investigation of the matter in which district superintendent Harold Cebrun was entirely cut out of the loop, and an independent firm, Rancho Cucamonga-based Stewart Investigations Services, was brought in to do the gumshoeing. Jeff Stewart is the lead investigator for Stewart Investigations. More recently, as the fuller implication of what took place registered, the California Department of Education opened up its own probe of the matter.
Much of the case is shrouded in mystery, undisclosed information and outright confusion. Even the nature of the charges against Oakes are unclear. The Superior Court’s on-line record shows that a case – number 1308340790 – was opened against Oakes involving a single charge of PC 459 filed against her on August 12. While the court’s action page with regard to case 1308340790 shows that on August 12 a $50,000 bond was posted for Oakes, the action notation for the following day, August 13, reports that the district attorney was notified but that no case was filed, a seeming contradiction to the previous reference of a PC 459 charge. PC 459 refers to burglary. The record notes that Oakes’  arraignment is scheduled for October 10.
At the September 25 Rialto Unified School District Board meeting, a few tantalizing tidbits surfaced, as a few general and fewer specific preliminary findings from Stewart Investigations Services’ investigation were aired before the board. Indications were that Oakes’ depredations were not just relatively recent but may have been ongoing almost from the time she was hired by the district. The numbers in this regard were startling.
An audit completed in conjunction with the Stewart probe indicated Oakes appears to have made off with $1.8 million of the district’s money over the last eight years, and might have embezzled $3.1 million over the course of 14 years.
Board members were stunned by Stewart’s tentative conclusions. Upon the advice of the district’s legal counsel, Trevin Sims, only a vague outline of the ground covered by Stewart was disclosed publicly.
According to acting superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam “A forensic audit has documented a loss of  $1,811,244.26, but the loss could actually be as high as $3,169,677, taking into account discrepancies that at this time cannot be accounted for.”
The clear implication of Stewart’s findings thus far is that numerous others may have been involved in the embezzlement and law enforcement officials, including the Rialto Police and the district attorney’s office, are engaged in actions that could lead to further arrests and charges.
On both the school board and among various investigators there are sharp differences over Cebrun’s culpability. It is now a given that a close personal relationship had developed between Cebrun and Oakes. Some investigators believe that Cebrun could not have helped noticing that Oakes, the widow of Jack Oakes, a former principal of Ramona-Allesandro Elementary School in San Bernardino, had access to a considerable amount of money beyond what would be normal for someone holding her position with the district.
Cebrun, however, has publicly stated that he had no knowledge of the thefts. He pointedly did not deny having a relationship with Oakes, but said “This crime is an isolated incident of one person… not involving me.”
School board president Joseph Ayala has expressed confidence in Cebrun, who has been with the Rialto district since March 2009 and was superintendent before that in the Compton and Lynwood school districts. But the board last month voted 4-1 to place Cebrun and his second-in command, assistant superintendent of student services James Wallace, on paid administrative leave. On October 2, Ayala asked his board colleagues to reinstate Cebrun, but the board voted 4-1 to keep Cebrun suspended, albeit with pay.