(September 28)  The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting on Monday at 10 a.m. consisting of a public hearing to be followed by deliberation on action to either endorse or reject an Orange County Water District’s approval of a private company’s plan to extract massive amounts of water from the East Mojave Desert for ultimate use in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside Counties.
On July 31, Orange County-based Santa Margarita Water District  certified the environmental impact report for the Cadiz Water project, clearing the way for Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. to extract an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water per year for the next century from the eastern Mojave Desert and send it via pipeline westward to Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties.
The controversial plan was given go-ahead over the strident objections of desert residents and landowners, who said they viewed the project as an unprincipled theft of the desert’s water resource by Cadiz, Inc. and the water district, the second largest water district in Orange County serving the affluent communities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, Coto de Caza, Las Flores, Ladera Ranch and Talega.
The Santa Margarita Water District’s assumption of lead agency status on the project, officially known as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation and Recovery Project,  raised hackles in several quarters within San Bernardino County. The Santa Margarita Water District  lies 217 miles from the Cadiz Valley across the county line from San Bernardino County. Moreover, the district has an interest in the project in that some 20 percent of the water to be mined by Cadiz, Inc. will be sold to Santa Margarita.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, which would have normally been the lead agency responsible for approving the project and granting it environmental certification, initially contemplated filing an appeal with the California Office of Planning and Research to wrest from Santa Margarita authority over the project and its application for approval. The county, however, did not file such an appeal and acceded to the Santa Margarita Water District’s assumption of lead agency authority over the project application and environmental certification. Earlier this year, the county upon a vote by the board of supervisors entered into a memorandum of understanding with Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District that gave the county limited power to second-guess the district’s decision on the environmental certification and compliance with its own ground water management ordinance as well as requiring that Cadiz, Inc. defray the cost of any legal action taken by parties against the project or in reaction to its impacts.
The project has garnered considerable opposition, particularly in San Bernardino County and the East Mojave Desert, where the Cadiz Valley is located.
A brine mining operation in the desert, Tetra Technologies, has already filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino County over the memorandum of understanding. Tetra alleges the monopolization of water in the area will harm its operation.
Four environmental groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Parks Conservation Association, the San Gorgonio chapter of the Sierra Club and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society – filed a suit in San Bernardino County Superior Court, naming both the county of  San Bernardino and the Santa Margarita Water District. That suit asserts the county should not have allowed the environmental review of the project to be carried out by the Mission Viejo-based Santa Margarita Water District. The suit challenges the county for allowing Santa Margarita to commandeer lead agency status and calls into question as well the water district’s approval of the environmental impact report.
The Colorado River branch of the Archaeological Heritage Association filed suit in federal court against Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and San Bernardino County, further naming the Santa Margarita Water District, project proponent Cadiz, Inc. and a Cadiz, Inc. corporate offshoot, the FennerValley Mutual Water Company, as real parties in interest. That suit cited the failure of Salazar and the Department of the Interior to invoke the protocols and requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the National Environmental Protection Act, which the association maintains should have been done because part of the project will involve a 42-mile right-of-way for the aqueduct on federal land. The suit further alleges the county failed  to live up to its obligation to comply with federal law in reviewing the impact a permitted project might have on federal public resources in transferring the authority for environmental certification of the project to the Santa Margarita Water District.
A group of Orange County residents calling themselves Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense have sued the Santa Margarita Water District over its approval of the environmental impact report and the water purchase agreement it entered into with Cadiz, Inc.
John Goss, a former assistant administrative officer with San Bernardino County who had worked for 18 months drafting the county’s desert groundwater management ordinance before it was adopted in 2002, said he was concerned that the memorandum of understanding between the county, Cadiz, Inc. and Santa Margarita Water District had been entered into before a groundwater management plan for the Cadiz project was adopted. He said this violated the terms of the 2002 ordinance.
On October 1, the board of supervisors will consider the proposed Groundwater Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation Plan for the project and determine whether it will accept the Santa Margarita Water District’s certification of the project’s Environmental Impact Report. The board of supervisors will also consider a finding that it has acted properly with regard to its responsibility under the  California Environmental Quality Act.
Documents to be considered by the board during the hearing are now available for public review at http://cms.sbcounty.gov/lus/Planning/CadizValleyWater.aspx.

(September 28)  A complaint to the  State Fair Political Practices Commission is being drafted which will detail accusations that the Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce has favored one set of candidates by providing them with a forum to promote their town council candidacies while excluding others. The complaint alleges the chambers action ran afoul of the Political Reform Act in that the chamber is a recipient of town funds, and is thus prohibited from sponsoring a political forum that favors any candidates over others.
The chamber’s executive director, Janice Moore, said no promotion of candidates took place and that all candidates who were in attendance at the September 19 convocation of chamber members were offered the opportunity to address those assembled and  introduce themselves and their campaign platforms. Moore insisted that the chamber was not receiving town subsidization, as had been alleged.
The chamber, which routinely holds a gathering of its members on the third Wednesday of every month, met on September 19. That meeting featured a presentation by Burrtec, the city’s franchised trash hauler, relating to its service and arrangement with the town to enforce recycling by the imposition of liens against homeowners who fall into arrears on their trash service bills. During the gathering, Moore invited all political candidates present, including those for Congress, the board of supervisors, town council and the school board to introduce themselves and expound on their current political effort.
While former Apple Valley fire chief Art Bishop and Apple Valley Fire District board member and Apple Valley planning commissioner  Larry Cusack made a pitch to their fellow chamber members, council hopefuls, Iver Bye, Jackie Moore (no relation to Janice  Moore), Christina Burton, David Phillips, Tom Piper and Robert Seifert were not in attendance.
Bye, Burton and Jackie Moore told the Sentinel they had been snubbed by the chamber, having not been invited to participate and having not been informed that the opportunity to address the chamber membership about their respective candidacies was being provided.
The chamber receives money from the town of Apple Valley. In February, the town council approved a business retention services agreement with the chamber for a six-month term at a cost of $18,820. This week, on Tuesday September 25, six days after the chamber’s September meeting,  the town council approved an extension of the agreement with the chamber for the nine-and-a-half month remainder of fiscal year 2012-13 in the amount of $29,400.
The chamber’s financial ties to the city prohibit it from engaging in any type of selective candidate promotion, several of the challenging town council candidates and their supporters maintain. At press time, they were preparing a complaint to the FPPC, citing state law, the chamber’s receipt of town taxpayer money and last week’s forum.
Chamber executive director Janice Moore said the complaint was based on a misreading of the facts, state law, the chamber’s policy and routine and the circumstance.
“The chamber of commerce is a membership-driven organization for business people and people in Apple Valley interested in developments in  local business circles,” Janice Moore said. “Every third Wednesday of the month we have a speaker of relevance to the business community. Last week we had a presentation on the town’s mandatory recycling program. After the speech I asked if those running for office wanted to speak. We had a congressional candidate, one for the board of supervisors, two running for town council and two running for school board. I told them I thought it was courageous of them to be stepping up to run for office and wanted to give them the opportunity to introduce themselves. Those that were there came forward.”
Janice Moore said that there was no favoritism shown to anyone and no one was purposefully excluded. “Everyone who was there was allowed to speak. If they (Bye, Jackie Moore and Burton) had attended I would not have said, ‘You can’t stand up, too. We are pretty inclusive, but I’m not going to chase them down. If you are a member of an organization and you are running for office, I do not think that it is odd that your fellow members want to hear about your election effort. I am sorry if people feel they missed out. It is too bad they felt slighted.”
Turning the matter around, Janice Moore said that those who were not at the meeting to take advantage of the forum it offered were to blame. “They say they want to be on the town council but are not interested in joining the chamber?” she intoned. “If they are not interested in the chamber, then they are not interested in the local business climate. It only costs $250 per year to join. I do not have leverage on people. You have to be present to play. I sent out over 500 emails. I announced this at the town council meeting. They are not members of the chamber and they don’t subscribe to our newsletter. Even if you are not a member of the chamber of commerce, you can still come to the meetings to see our culture, to see what we are like. They had the chance to be there. I have heard of Iver Bye. I don’t know either of those other people [Jackie Moore and Burton]. I do not know why they would choose not to be a member of the chamber.  I don’t have an understanding of why someone who wants to lead the city would not want to be a member of the chamber. It sounds to me like someone doesn’t know how to organize a campaign.”
As to those who suggested that the chamber is bound by the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices regulations because the town is subsidizing the chamber, Janice Moore said those people are “misinformed. We have a contract with the town for services. Read it and tell me if that reads like a subsidy.”
The chamber contract with the town calls for the chamber to host a recognition event for top sales tax producers and long-standing businesses; develop a shop local program; create a business start up guide; develop a YuccaLomaBridge.com website for promotion and information of local services; survey and promote home-based businesses; and continue the ongoing radio media and marketing campaign. In the previous six months, the chamber had conducted grand opening celebrations; served as a member of the Local Preference Ad-Hoc Committee; conducted computer skills training workshops; conducted a job preparation and job skills training workshop, facilitated a social media campaign for Apple Valley Village, served as a marketing consultant to Apple Valley Village PBID Association; and attended the International Council of Shopping Centers tradeshow.
“I am a professional person,” Janice Moore said. “This sounds like there is jealousy in people who do not want to be a member. I and the chamber do work under contract for the town. I am contracted to provide specific things, specific services. My skills and services and my knowledge are valuable. The town happens to be one of my clients. They seek my service. I write contracts for services. I am pretty doggone talented to provide these services. Not everyone can do that.  Look at the contract.”
Janice Moore said the chamber provides to the public on its premises electioneering material prepared by current office candidates who are chamber members and does not feature electioneering material by candidates who are not chamber members. She said that policy is not out of compliance with the law or FPPC regulations.
Bye told the Sentinel, “I was not invited to the chamber’s function. I received no notice that it was going to take place.”
Jackie Moore said, “I heard there were several candidates at the luncheon, all invited. I was not invited. They were given time to promote their elections. But it was only the chosen few. This was for the powers that be. The little people were not invited. The town pays the chamber $29,000. I think the FPPC will have something to say about that.”
Burton told the Sentinel, “I heard that the chamber CEO mentioned that she had invited everybody and that all the candidates were expected to be there. Those that were there were allowed to speak and campaign. I was not invited. At least four of us were not invited. I think the chamber is in collusion with the good old guys, [incumbent councilmen]Curt Emick and Scott Nassiff and their supporters and hand-picked candidates all together. That is what I think.”

(September 28)  CHINO HILLS—The timing of councilman Wilburn “Bill” Kruger’s resignation, combined with other factors, has necessitated a special election that will cost Chino Hills taxpayers $135,000.
Had Kruger delayed his resignation by another 40 days, the council would have had the option of appointing his replacement. Because he tendered his letter of resignation on September 4, however, and because two of the currently serving members of the council are serving in an appointed rather than an elected capacity, an election to replace him must be held.
Under California’s election code and the municipal regulations for general law cities throughout the state, following the resignation of a council member a city council normally has three options: appoint a replacement for the remainder of the official’s term, hold a special election, or appoint an interim replacement to serve until a special election is held. The law specifies a 60-day deadline for the council to commit to one of those options.
Another law, however, prohibits a governing panel such as a city council from being composed of a majority of appointed rather than elected members. In the run-up to the 2008 election Art Bennett and Gwenn Norton-Perry were the only candidates who had qualified to compete in the November election. The council cancelled the election and appointed them both to the council that August. Thus, for the council to now appoint Kruger’s replacement would result in three members being appointed.
The city does not have the option of waiting until after the November election to make the appointment because Kruger resigned on September 4, necessitating that the appointment be made by November 3. The winners of the upcoming November race, in which Bennett is running and Norton-Perry is not, will not be sworn into office until December.
The city council on September 25 voted to hold a mail ballot special election in March involving all 36,512 of the city’s voters, the estimated cost of which is $135,000.
At press time, Chino Hills city attorney Mark Hensley had not responded to a Sentinel inquiry as to whether the council will have the option of cancelling the election in December and making an appointment at that time.

(September 28)  The sheriff’s department in short order will acquire a device of its own that will allow the department to track firearms used in crimes or otherwise obtained by its officers. According to captain Steve Higgins, the department has requested and the board of supervisors has approved the expenditure of $206,427 to purchase an Integrated Ballistics Identification and Forensic Technology System manufactured by WAI, Inc. as an unbudgeted fixed asset.
The device “will allow the department’s scientific investigation division to track guns used by and found on criminals,” Higgins said. “This purchase will allow the scientific investigations division to retain access to the system while providing enhanced three dimensional imaging and reduced processing time. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms spearheads a National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Program to track about 100,000 guns used in crimes and facilitate the sharing of information between different law enforcement agencies. The rapid dissemination of ballistics information allows for tracking of gun-specific information and connection of a particular firearm to multiple crimes irrespective of geographic location. Historically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has allowed local laboratories to access the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network to search cartridge cases for possible case-to-case or case-to-gun matches by utilizing equipment provided and maintained by The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Due to budgetary issues at the federal level, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is removing its workstations from a number of local law enforcement laboratories, including the sheriff’s department’s scientific investigations division crime lab.”
The purchase was made without a competitive bid, Higgins said.
“This is a sole source purchase, as it is the only new system approved by Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,” he said.

(September28)  Gloria Garcia said she is running for Victorville City Council “because I have passion for this city and am dedicated to honesty, accountability and fiscal responsibility.”
A lifelong resident of Victorville, Garcia attended Victor Valley High, married at the age of 16 and obtained her high school diploma after completing high school coursework at Victor Valley College. She graduated from Skadron College in San Bernardino, where she studied business management and accounting. Since 1975, she has operated her own business, Garcia Bookkeeping & Income Tax Service.
The major challenge facing the city, Garcia said, “is that four of our five council members are there just for self-recognition, self-promotion and self-gain. Councilwoman Judith Valles is the only one in office at this time who is there for the people. The biggest issue is our need for more law enforcement. We need to increase our law enforcement resources so we can have a safer community. I have lived here all of my life. I can remember when this was a joyful place to live. People were happy to come live here with their families. Now that has changed. People who live here commute down the hill to go to work and many want to leave. No one wants to live here with the bad situation in our city.
“The reason that law enforcement is my priority is that eight years ago, my granddaughter, my son’s only child, was brutally murdered,” Garcia said. “She was stabbed, shot, set on fire and dumped in the desert. We had called the sheriff’s department to tell them she was missing and to ask for help. They did not have the manpower to carry out a search. Three days later they found her in the desert. When I heard they had found a dead woman, I felt in my heart it was her. We knew someone with the sheriff’s department and reported her missing again. They did an examination and it was her. I am coming forward to do something about this. One of the reasons I am running is I strongly urge more law enforcement. Eight years later, supposedly because of the cutbacks and the lack of funding, she is still a cold case. No one has been prosecuted. We have had to live with this for eight years.”
Garcia continued, “Being that I was born and raised in Victorville and was living here even before the city incorporated, I know that this was once a very safe community where families felt safe,” she said. “All that has changed. We once had reliable council members who were taking the city forward. There was progress and businesses coming in, families coming in from other areas. People knew this was a good area to raise families. All that changed. Now, we have city council members for way too long, decades. Mike Rothschild has been a council member for 28 years. The existing council has misspent money to the point that the city is on the brink of bankruptcy. There is a lot of corruption. Four of our  council members are there for self gain. The grand jury found a lot of mismanagement of funds. The grand jury was very critical of the power plants they [the city council] invested in. The grand jury did not look at the whole picture. The city’s books were altered. Millions and millions of dollars were lost that will never be recovered. They use the excuse that the city’s redevelopment agency has been discontinued. Well, what happened to the money? The golf course continues to lose $1.2 million per year. There was $13 million lost from Southern California Logistics Airport. The power plants lost close to $200 million. On the books we have lost $450 million, but the books have been altered. Councilwoman Valles says it is closer to twice that. How can all of that money have disappeared and no one knows where it went? The grand jury says there has been fraud and corruption and mismanagement but so far no one has been prosecuted. They are in denial. They still feel the city is fine and there is progress. There is not enough money to maintain roads and parks. I am very concerned about our community, our infrastructure, our roads and parks. When people have failed like they have, it is time to bring in someone with a better vision before they spend more and lose more money. That is why I am running.”
Garcia said she will work to solve the law enforcement problem by “Getting on the council and working with the other council members. They eliminated five sheriff’s department positions that were already in place but unfilled. It was because of the lack of funds that those jobs were eliminated. We have to get funding to bring in more law enforcement. We have to go through the channels. We need the support of our district supervisor.”
Garcia said she is qualified to serve on the city council because of her professional acumen. “I am not a certified public accountant and not trying to pass myself off as one,” she said. “I do have experience in accounting. As part of my bookkeeping service, I prepare everything from payroll to balance sheets. I am registered with the state and Internal Revenue to prepare tax filings. With that experience I am able to look at budgets and look out for the taxpayers. The current council is not doing that. They say they have a balanced budget but how can you have a balanced budget with all that debt? There is money coming into the city. The city does generate money through property tax and sales tax, but property tax is down. I can look into the books to control spending and waste. I can achieve savings and I can push to have additional officers on the streets and push to have the city return to what it was like when I was born, with sound management. I feel I can contribute in that way.
“I was born and raised here,” Garcia said. “My family has been here over 100 years. We were a pioneering family of Hispanics who settled into this area. I grew up here and have a passion for the community.”
Garcia was the treasurer for the High Desert Chamber of Commerce for five years. She is a member of the National Association of Notaries. She was the compliance officer for the Oro Grande Credit Union.
With her husband, Garcia has two children.

(September 28)  Gino Filippi has garnered the endorsement of both the Upland Police Officers Association and the Upland Professional Firefighters in his run for Upland mayor.
Filippi, who was elected to the Upland Council in 2010, is challenging incumbent mayor Ray Musser.
Musser, who has been on the city council since 1998, emerged early on as the sole political opposition to former mayor John Pomierski. Pomierski served on the city council for slightly over ten years. He was first elected in the November 2000 election. In 2004, Musser challenged Pomierski in that year’s mayoral contest, but narrowly lost.
That electoral effort earned Musser the enmity of Pomierski and his political machine. Supported by the members of his political team – councilmen Brendan Brandt, councilman Ken Willis and then councilman Tom Thomas – Pomierski sought to politically neuter Musser and stripped him of his committee and external joint powers agency assignments. Musser again opposed Pomierski in the 2008 election, but was again unable to derail the Pomierski political juggernaut, as Pomierski retained the endorsements of an array of entities, including all of the city employee unions, including the Upland Police Officers Association and the Upland Professional Firefighters.
As early as 2004, Pomierski was using his position as mayor to shake down local businessman and others with permit applications at Upland City Hall. Using a number of intermediaries such as his appointee to the Upland Housing Appeals Board, John Hennes, or his business associates Jason Crebs and Anthony Sanchez, Pomierski would obtain money from project applicants who were told that they could secure Pomierski’s support at City Hall by hiring Hennes, Crebs or Sanchez as a consultant. In June 2010, FBI agents served search warrants at Upland City Hall and the homes and businesses of Pomierski, Hennes, Crebs and Sanchez. In January 2011, Crebs and Sanchez were indicted by a federal grand jury and in March 2011, one week after Pomierski resigned as mayor, Pomierski and Hennes were indicted by a federal grand jury. All four of the defendants were charged with conspiracy and involvement in a bribery and extortion scheme. All four have since entered guilty pleas.
Musser, who in the aftermath of Pomierski’s resignation was appointed to the mayor’s post by the same council that ostracized him when he opposed Pomierski, is now being challenged by Filippi and councilwoman Debbie Stone, who was elected to the city council in a special election last year.

(September 21)  A second officer named in the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department training scandal indictment last year is on the brink of being exonerated by the prosecuting agency that leveled the charges against him, the Sentinel has learned.
An indictment unsealed in March 2011 charged seven current and former sheriff’s department employees in a conspiracy to falsify their own and/or others’ training certification. The case against one of those officers was dismissed in July.

Russell Wilke

Now, sheriff’s lieutenant Russell Wilke is slated to join retired sheriff’s lieutenant William Maddox as a former defendant who has been cleared in the matter, despite the highly detailed indictments that were returned against them and five of their department colleagues, individuals knowledgeable about the matter say.
According to informed entities conversant with the case, key portions of the information and material pertaining to Wilke contained in the indictment cannot be substantiated or has now been determined to be erroneous or non-existent, such that the prosecutor’s office has internally acknowledged it does not have sufficient evidence to ensure Wilke’s conviction.
Wilke, unlike other unretired defendants in the case, has not been suspended from the department and has remained on active duty, having been transferred to the West Valley Detention Center.
In September 2009, insinuations of fraud, theft by false pretenses and unjust enrichment cropped up against Hobart Gray, more commonly known as Bart Gray, who was the commander of the Yucaipa sheriff’s station, as well as Gray’s wife, and approximately 25 other members of the department.
Allegations were that Gray had submitted to the bureau in Sacramento that handles Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification documents that were false in information and content. His wife, Angela Fair Gray, allegedly obtained or prepared the false documentation in question.
Mrs. Gray, who worked at the department’s Glen Helen North Training Facility, in conjunction with Sally Ann  Christian, was said to have facilitated a situation in which sheriff’s personnel would sign up for POST classes but never attend them. Mrs. Gray would sign them off as having attended a particular class, usually held at San Bernardino Valley College, then submit the paperwork through the required channels and obtain certificates of completion. Those who signed up for class would either get overtime for attending or were allowed to attend classes on workdays, receiving in turn regular or overtime pay. Many of those who signed up attended only a single class, or in other cases, no classes whatsoever, according to the district attorney’s office.
The never-completed coursework included instruction on verbal judo, advanced subjects contact, officer survival, child abuse, hate and bias crimes, basic dispatch, advanced dispatch, supervisory skills, basic traffic collision, gang awareness, driving under the influence, and civil liabilities. Sworn officers with the department were either required to get periodic retraining in law enforcement skills or were eligible to receive pay increases with the completion of further training. The coursework was supposed to be done in compliance with the state’s POST criteria, that is, Police Officers Standard and Training guidelines, which are set by the state.
More than a year after word leaked out that some of the department’s officers were cutting corners on training and retraining requirements, a special criminal grand jury was impaneled in November 2010 to hear testimony in the case. It was that grand jury, which is separate from the civil grand jury that traditionally monitors the function of San Bernardino County government, that heard testimony from witnesses.
None of those who were eventually charged were taken before the criminal grand jury and the indictment was based entirely upon the testimony of witnesses who were not charged.
Those named in the March 2011 indictment were Wilke; retired lieutenant William Maddox; retired assistant sheriff Michael Stodelle; detective David Pichotta; Hobart Gray, who had recently before retired at the rank of captain; Angela Gray, an unsworn custody specialist; and Christian, an unsworn training specialist..
All were accused of falsifying training documents. All but Angela Gray and Christian were accused of having benefited directly from the falsifications. As sworn officers, Pichotta, Maddox, Wilke, Stodelle, and Hobart Gray had received salary enhancements upon certification of the completion of the POST classes.
Nevertheless, in July, deputy district attorney Dan Silverman, who was prosecuting all seven POST scandal defendants, abruptly dismissed all charges against Maddox, acknowledging that information that had been made available to the prosecutor’s office created a situation in which he would no longer be able to prove Maddox had engaged in the actions previously alleged and that his office could not establish criminal intent on Maddox’s part. Maddox had been charged with having falsely claimed credit for  completing advanced dispatch training. Maddox’s attorney, Michael Scafiddi, proffered documentation and information to the district attorney’s office demonstrating Maddox completed all of the training certification courses he was credited with completing when Maddox applied for dispatch certification based upon his work opening a dispatch center in the desert. Doing that required him speaking with other agencies throughout the state and researching both technical and procedural issues. Scafiddi established that Maddox was told by the sheriff’s academy staff that the research and work he did in setting up the dispatch center qualified him to audit the dispatch class, and that he was instructed by his captain to apply for the advanced certificate ten months later.
Wilke and Maddox are two of four command level officers who were implicated in the training completion falsifications. Though Silverman maintained that the case against both Grays, Stodelle, Christian, Pichotta and Wilke remains active, the Sentinel has been provided with information suggesting the district attorney’s office has put the case against Wilke on hold and is waiting for an opportune occasion to dismiss the charges against him. A factor in the delay is the consideration that ending the prosecution of Wilke would bring to a total of two the number of cases dismissed in the high-profile matter and erode the prosecution’s credibility in proceeding against the other five defendants.
Though sheriff Rod Hoops publicly appeared with district attorney Mike Ramos in announcing the indictments in March 2011 in an effort to display a united front with regard to the case, there were sharp divisions between the sheriff’s department and the prosecutor’s office with regard to the case from the outset, as was evidenced in the decisions to allow Wilke, Pichotta and Christian to remain in their work assignments with the department. Pichotta and Christian are currently on leave from the department. The case against Wilke was never considered to be overwhelming. A follow-up examination of Wilke’s actions by the sheriff’s department concluded there was neither probable cause to arrest him nor grounds to criminally charge him. By demanding that the internal sheriff’s department report be entered into evidence, Chuck Nacsin, Wilke’s attorney, can virtually assure that the district attorney’s office will not proceed with the case, sources indicate.
Nacsin said,  “The oddity about this case is the sheriff’s department brought the case against all seven, including my client, to the grand jury. Internal  affairs brought him in and they cleared him to go back to work. But at this point the criminal case is still going forward. It is true internal affairs cleared him. Charges are still pending. We haven’t gotten there [vindication] yet.”
This morning, September 21, a discovery hearing for Wilke is to be held in Judge Michael A. Smith’s courtroom. Both sheriff’s department and prosecutor’s office employees and former employees have indicated the case against Wilke will soon be dropped.
Silverman did not return a call seeking clarification.

(September 21)  The Victorville City Council has denied a claim by the firm that marketed its bonds demanding the city cover the company’s expenses in responding to questions put to it by a series of investigators looking into the city’s financial transactions.
Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios, a Carlsbad, California–based firm which provides investment banking, advisory and underwriting services to municipal entities, handled Victorville’s bond transactions throughout the 2000s. When the FBI, Securities & Exchange Commission and the San Bernardino County Grand Jury interested themselves in a number of issues pertaining to city finances, including representations made to investors and how the proceeds from issued and sold bonds were actually spent, employees with Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios were interviewed, indeed interrogated, and subpoenaed to provide backup documentation with regard to those bond sales and expenditures.
Among the issues explored in those inquiries were financing arrangement for four hangars built at Southern California Logistics Airport, two city-sponsored power plant projects – the  Victorville 2 and Foxborough electricity generating stations – which ate up well over $150 million in development costs but ultimately were never completed, and the rerouting of bond money from projects that money was originally intended for to other undertakings.
In a letter to the city on behalf of Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios, attorney Kenneth Lounsbery states “Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios’s costs have steadily mounted as it continues to defend its own and the city’s interests” and that the firm had saved city officials’ bacon by stopping hard charging officials and prosecutors dead in their tracks. “After many months of document production and communication with regulatory agencies, Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios believes all issues have been addressed and adequate proof provided to such agencies that all rules, regulations and requirements were satisfied,” Lounsbery wrote.
Moreover,  Lounsbery asserted that  Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios’s work on behalf of the city had been crucial to the city’s efforts to develop four hangars at the airport, having “undertaken an extraordinary set of responsibilities” in doing so. “These are assets for which the city has Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios to thank,” Lounsbery said. “The city’s legal interests have been defended and protected against challenges launched by the original developer who brought the hangar construction project to a calamitous halt. Despite the recession, the downturn in the city’s fortunes and the associated stress, Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios has previously held a good professional relationship with the city.”
In his letter, which was dated August 23, Lounsbery did not delineate a specific amount owed by the city to Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios for responding to the investigative inquiry, but he did reference a request for indemnification previously provided to the city.  He implied that Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios had been treated shabbily by the city’s attorney, Andre DeBortnowski. He further suggested that De Bortnowski’s action, or lack thereof, with regard to the bond sales had created problems for the city.
“The heart of   Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios’s response to the [Securities & Exchange Commission] inquiry is its ‘due diligence’ that all material information was disclosed – which due diligence is curative of any perceived flaw in the bond proceedings,” Lounsbery wrote. “Your city attorney served as co-disclosure counsel with respect to the issuance of the bonds relevant to this inquiry. Thus, it was the attorney’s duty to formally document those facts disclosed by Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios. The extent to which such facts may not have been disclosed, or incompletely disclosed by counsel at the time will become a factor in the analysis of the propriety of all events related to the completion of the hangar projects. As the city analyzes this claim, it must consider the potential for a conflict between the duty owed to the city by the disclosure counsel, and the role the same counsel could or should play in the claims process.”
“The preliminary claim previously filed by Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios was forwarded to your city attorney, who responded with a rationale for recommending denial. Communication has been made to the city attorney concerning this indemnity. We and Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios have been frustrated by the delays and lack of response from that office,”  Lounsbery wrote. Calling for the city to respond with what he termed “appropriate dispatch,” Lounsbery said he would initiate a lawsuit on Kinsell, Newcomb and De Dios’ behalf if the city did not indemnify the city within 45 days of the date of the letter.
Despite the prospect of that lawsuit, the city council denied the claim.
The city council’s decision to make that denial, the Sentinel has learned, was influenced by the suggestion that Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios in some measure invited the Securities & Exchange Commission’s scrutiny of Victorville through its own action.
One issue investigators latched onto was alleged efforts by Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios’s executive vice-president, J. Jeffery Kinsell, to filter, i.e., launder, campaign contributions to Victorville city officials.
Another area of concern for the Securities & Exchange Commission was that Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios had a potential conflict of interest with regard to some of the work it did on the city’s behalf.  An element of the Securities & Exchange Commission’s investigation pertains to the existence of a relationship between Tom Barnett, one of the principals in Inland Energy Group, and J. Jeffery Kinsell. Inland Energy Group was centrally involved in the Victorville 2 Power Plant project and provided consulting services with regard to the Foxborough power plant project. Regulators are seeking to determine if the city’s contractual relationship with either Kinsell, Newcomb & De Dios or Inland Energy and Barnett resulted in kickbacks between those parties, the misdirection or redirection of any investment capital, the loss thereof or incomplete disclosure to investors.

(September 21)  The opponents of Measure R, an initiative to reduce the compensation of San Bernardino County supervisors by 72.6 percent, are seeking to discredit the measure by associating it with former supervisor and assessor Bill Postmus.
Last year, Wrightwood resident and former grand jury member Kieran “Red” Brennan launched what seemed a Quixotic effort to gather the 43,250 signatures needed on a petition to put before the voters a countywide initiative that would reduce San Bernardino County supervisors’ annual $151,971 salaries and $67,500 in benefits to $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in benefits annually, a drop in total compensation from $219,471 per year to $60,000. Brennan’s seemingly impossible undertaking was furthered when he coordinated with Eric Steinmann, a wealthy entrepreneur who bankrolled, and thereby significantly advanced,  Brennan’s signature gathering effort.
In the same time frame, the board of supervisors raised the ire of the county’s two largest unions – the San Bernardino Public Employees Association and the Safety Employees Benefit Association – by proposing that those unions make salary and benefit concessions with regard to their existing labor contracts or otherwise face layoffs of substantial numbers of their members. When the board followed that request up with an open discussion of a ballot initiative putting future pension increases for county employees up to a public vote, the unions joined in with Steinmann and Brennan in their petition effort. By March, their collective efforts resulted in the gathering of 73,672 signatures, qualifying the supervisors’ pay reduction measure for the November ballot. The county registrar of voters later designated that initiative “Measure R.”
Alarmed at this development, a majority of the board of supervisors in July invoked their privilege as elected officials and placed a measure on the November ballot designed to counteract the Brennan/Steinmann/public employee union-sponsored measure, one that would reduce the supervisors’ salaries by a more moderate amount  – a $5,269 trimming to $146,702.per year, while allowing their $67,500 annual benefits to remain in place.  That initiative has since been designated “Measure Q.”
The proponents of Measure R insist that Measure Q is a cynical attempt at sleight-of-hand to fool the voters and have them accept a bogus version of reform. Four of the current supervisors and the other proponents of Measure Q insist that the impetus behind the qualification of Measure R for the ballot was the unions’ animus at the board for seeking to reduce spending in a context of dwindling revenue availability for local governments.
Recently, Measure R opponents have seized upon information they have come across to indicate that Bill Postmus played what they consider to be a crucial role in drafting Measure R’s language and then qualifying it for the ballot.
Postmus less than a decade ago was the most powerful political entity in San Bernardino County. In 2000, at the age of 29, he was elected First District supervisor, having launched himself into that position from the post of president of the High Desert Young Republicans. In 2004, he was reelected supervisor and acceded to the position of chairman of the board of supervisors. Moreover, he was elected chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee. He was widely viewed as a likely future candidate for California Assembly, state Senate or Congress. In 2006, he was elected county assessor. By 2008, however, Postmus’ political career began to unravel, as he was beset with widening reports of drug use and in January 2009 he was arrested for drug possession when investigators looking into reports of abuses of authority at the assessor’s office serving a search warrant at his condominium found methamphetamine, the drug extacy and drug paraphernalia. He resigned a year later. In 2010 he was indicted on political corruption, bribery, extortion, perjury and conspiracy charges. In 2011, he pleaded guilty to a total of 14 counts contained in that indictment.
According to information provided to the Sentinel, those campaigning against Measure R are now resolved to utilize Postmus’s fall from grace and the disrepute he suffered in that fall in making a case against the initiative to radically curtail supervisors’ pay and benefits.
Postmus, opponents of Measure R are set to allege, was the go-between who put Brennan in contact with Steinmann at that crucial moment last year when the flickering flame of the signature-gathering  effort for the supervisor compensation reduction initiative was about to blow out.  By tying Postmus to the Measure R effort, opponents believe voters can be convinced to reject the initiative as one of questionable pedigree or dishonorable provenance.
Brennan, however, told the Sentinel “That’s not the case. I know them both [Steinmann and Postmus].  I don’t know Bill Postmus as well as Eric. Eric’s a neighbor.”
Brennan said he did not believe Postmus had any involvement in the effort to gather petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot or to promote the measure now that it is headed to a vote.
“I can only speak from what I have experienced, but I have not seen Bill at all,” Brennan said.
He said his motive in creating the initiative and pushing to get it before the county’s voters was simply that “I believe the county supervisors are overpaid for what they do. It may be a full time job, but from what little I’ve seen, they are not working full time. Even if it were a full time job, that is a lot of money to get paid. They are paid more than some CEOs get in the private sector.”
Measure Q, which was put forth by the supervisors, was requested by supervisor Gary Ovitt, a onetime Posmus ally, who asked the county counsel’s office to draft it. Measure Q makes no provision for a reduction in the supervisors’ staffs. Steinmann and Brennan’s measure calls for their combined staff budgets to be reduced from $6 million to $1.5 million a year.
In putting their measure on the November ballot, the supervisors referenced this year’s grand jury report, which was critical of Steinmann and Brennan’s proposed reduction in supervisor pay.
The San Bernardino Public Employees Association and San Bernardino Safety Employees Benefit Association spent roughly $100,000 in the effort to qualify Steinmann and Brennan’s measure for the ballot.

(September 21)  Los Angeles World Airports, the entity created by the city of Los Angeles to run three airports that city owns, has released a 60-page consultant’s report that offers an inexact estimate of the retail value of Ontario International Airport.
The consultant, the firm of Leigh Fisher, pegs the airport as being worth at least $243 million and as much as $605 million. The calculations are based on cash flow expectations over the next half century, the report states.
Los Angeles took over management of Ontario Airport in 1967 as part of a strategy to increase flights out of the aerodrome. That ploy worked, as Los Angeles was able to use its control of gate positions and other considerations at Los Angeles International Airport to induce airlines to fly into and out of Ontario. Just under 200,000 passengers enplaned at Ontario Airport in 1966. Under Los Angeles’s management, over $550 million in improvements were made to the facility. In 1985, Ontario deeded the airport to Los Angeles for no consideration. In 2007, usage of the airport peaked, with 7.2 million passengers moving through the airport’s gates.
Since that time, passenger traffic through Ontario International has dropped dramatically, with 4.2 million passengers using the airport in 2011, and further declines registering this year.
Ontario city officials have repeatedly asserted that Los Angeles World Airports is purposefully mismanaging Ontario Airport’s operations to increase passenger traffic at Los Angeles International Airport, which has undergone significant renovations in recent years.
Los Angeles World Airport officials reject those claims, maintaining that the drop in passenger traffic through Ontario is a function of the sputtering economy and the doldrums in the airline industry generally.
Ontario officials have pushed ever more strenuously – including seeking legislation in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. and conducting an intense public relations campaign – to have Los Angeles return ownership and management of the airport to Ontario.
At one point, Ontario city officials, led by councilman Alan Wapner, were suggesting that  Los Angeles should simply deed the airport back to Ontario as a public benefit transfer, propounding that the airport had no value as marketable real estate. Quietly, however, the city of Ontario made a confidential offer to purchase the airport for $50 million and an assumption of all debt related to financing for improvements that had been made to the airport.
Los Angeles officials have indicated they are not prepared to simply surrender their autonomy over the airport and they believe the aerodrome and its assets to be worth in excess of $450 million.  Last year they floated the idea of privatizing the airport and selling it and its assets to an investor or firm specializing in airport operations. They sought parties interested in just such an arrangement, eliciting responses from ten  domestic and international entities, including American Airports Corporation, a California-based airport operator; Airport Property Ventures, a California-based airport operator; AMP Capital Investors, an Australian infrastructure fund manager; Aviation Facilities Company, a Virginia-based airport manager and developer; Carlyle Group, a Washington DC-based private equity firm; Fraport, a German airport investor, owner and manager; GMR Airports, an Indian airport operator; Goldman Sachs Infrastructure Partners, a New York-based infrastructure fund; Incheon International Airport Corporation, a Korea-based airport operator; and Munich Airport Consulting, a German airport operator.
Los Angeles World Airport’s hiring of Leigh Fisher and the contents of the report drove home the very real possibility that Los Angeles could simply sell the airport to the highest bidder, leaving Ontario in the position of having to accommodate a private company’s primacy with regard to the airport’s operation. The Leigh Fisher report provides Los Angeles with a sufficient basis to reject Ontario’s assertion that the airport has no monetary value. That monetary value potentially exceeds the roughly $50 million in cash and assumption of roughly $75 million in debt Ontario has referenced.
The Leigh Fisher document points out that there have been varying valuations for mid-size hub airports such as Ontario over the last several years, at ranges below and well above the price Ontario officials envision for Ontario Airport.  According to the report, “The Port Authority of New York bought Stewart Airport for $78.5 million in 2000.” The report further notes, “In Chicago, the city conducted a competitive bid process for a 99-year lease of  Midway Airport. A consortium offered $2.52 billion. The timing of the bid coincided with 2008 financial crisis and the transaction was not completed, with the investors forfeiting a $126 deposit  in the process.” The report also referenced “Luis Munoz Airport serving San Juan, Puerto Rico, [which is] classified as a medium hub airport by the FAA. In July 2012, the government announced the award of a 40-year lease to a consortium consisting of a Mexican airport operator and an investment firm for $615 million, annual lease payments and agreements to make specified improvements.” That deal is currently undergoing FAA review.
Nevertheless, Leigh Fisher indicated there were factors that inhibited Ontario Airport’s value.  “Compared to other medium hub airports with comparable numbers of enplaned passengers, Ontario has high airline charges as reflected in its per enplaned passenger charges, somewhat lower non-airline revenue in comparison to its peers, considerably higher maintenance and operating expenses due to high staffing levels and particularly high costs for security, law enforcement, airport rescue and firefighting,” the Leigh Fisher report states. “Based on Ontario Airport’s role as an airport in the Los Angeles basin and industry trends, it is likely that in the near term the increased focus of mainline airlines and low cost carriers such as Southwest on service development at large hubs and international gateways such as Los Angeles International Airport may continue to limit Ontario Airport’s airline service development.”