A little more than a month after the changeover of a majority of the Barstow City Council, City Manager Nikki Salas has been placed on administrative leave.
No reason was provided for the abrupt move, which was taken on January 8, a day after the council held three separate agendized meetings on January 7, including one at which three items were discussed during a closed session. One of those items was shown as being “Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release (Government Code Section 54967).”
If public disclosure of the council’s action was made on January 8, the Sentinel was not included among those receiving the announcement. The local newspaper, the Barstow Dispatch, ceased the publication of its print version more than two years ago, and no local announcement of the action appears to have been made.
On Monday, January 11, the first actual indication of Salas’s departure was made, when a special closed session of the council was held, the agenda for which stated, “Public Employee Appointment Recommended Action: (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Interim City Manager.”
Indeed, at that meeting, held at 6 p.m., the city council appointed Barstow Police Chief Albert Ramirez as interim city manager, designating Ramirez what one city official referred to as “manager pro tem.”
Inquiries as to what grounds the city council had in suspending Salas were met with no response. The context of city statements with regard to the move was that Salas will not be returning as city manager.
Over the last 14 months, the political status quo in Barstow has shifted. In December 2019, City Councilman Rich Harpole resigned to move to Texas, and no effort to fill his position throughout the first ten months of 2020 was made, the council deciding to allow the voters to make that decision in November 2020, when the city’s District 3 council election was held. In November, incumbent Mayor Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre was chased from office by Paul Anthony Courtney and in District 4 incumbent Councilwoman Carmen Hernandez was edged by Marilyn Dyer Kruse. The District 3 contest was won by Barbara Mae Rose.
In their election posturings, the successful council candidates gave indication of their discontent with the way the city has been run over the last several years.
Salas was a relative newcomer to Barstow, but over the last 21 months became a part of Barstow’s establishment. She held the titles of director of human resources and risk management director with Apple Valley from 2009 until June 2016, at which point she promoted to to assistant town manager, before leaving Apple Valley in 2018 to become, for seven months, the director of human resources with Napa County. She was lured back to the Mojave Desert in early 2019, when she was brought in to replace Curt Mitchell as city manager in March of that year.
Salas was highly thought of both before and after her hiring by Barstow, at least in some circles. She reportedly competed with 72 others for the Barstow city manager position. Those applicants were evaluated by the firm Peckham & McKenney, which recommended a set of finalists to be interviewed by a selection panel which included the city council and city luminaries including former Mayor Lawrence Dale. Salas was given the nod over the other finalists.
Salas has at this point over two decades municipal experience and 20 years in advanced municipal administrative posts. She holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Cal State San Bernardino, a masters degree in business administration and management from Redlands University and a doctor of education degree in organizational management from Brandman University.
For nearly the entirety of her tenure in Barstow, she pleased, or seemed to please, the city council. That, apparently, proved to be a liability after Hackbarth-McIntyre and Hernandez departed.
Reading between the lines, it would appear that Salas was felled by the sentiment of a majority of the current city council holding against her, but that she was in favorable standing with Councilman Tim Silva, who at present is the longest serving member of the city council. It is recognized that Mayor Courtney and Councilwoman Rose represented two solid votes against Salas. They apparently were able to get support from either Councilwoman Kruse or Councilman James Noble or both to force the issue with regard to Salas. Noble has been on the council since 2018.
Noteworthy is that the city council did not turn to Assistant City Manager Cindy Prothro to replace Salas on an interim basis. Prothro, who has been with the city since 2011, instead retired on the same day Salas was put on leave.
Curiously, Prothro has been reluctant to assume the city manager’s post, having turned down the interim manager’s position on more than one occasion. In 2016, while she was the city’s finance director, she was promoted to assistant city manager by Mitchell. It appeared as if the city was investing heavily in her – providing her with $173,601 in annual salary and another $43,600 in annual add-ons and benefits – while attempting to groom her for the city manager’s position upon the eventual anticipated departure of Mitchell. When Mitchell in the fall of 2018 announced his retirement was to take place at the end of that year, both Mitchell and the city council attempted to induce her to take on the city management assignment. Prothro balked at that offer, however, and at one point this provoked a blistering attack on her from then-Councilman Harpole.
It is unclear whether the city council offered Prothro the management position either before or in the immediate aftermath of Salas’s suspension.
-Mark Gutglueck

The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is on the brink of filing felony Penal Code Section 452 reckless burning of private and public property charges against a Yucaipa couple and a family friend over their actions that led to the El Dorado Fire, which burned 22,744 acres.
Not yet determined is whether the prosecutor’s office will file Penal Code Section 451 arson charges against the trio, and whether prosecutors will also seek child endangerment convictions, as well.
The El Dorado Fire was sparked September 5, 2020 at approximately 10:23 a.m. when a couple used a pyrotechnic device, referred to as a “smoke cannon” intended to release either blue or pink smoke to reveal the gender of a baby the woman was carrying. The couple had invited a number of friends and extended family members to El Dorado Park in Yucaipa to the gender reveal party.
A surveillance video from a camera at the park depicts the couple with several people, a number of them children, walking onto the grass at the edge of the park. Another adult is seen in the video lighting the device. Shortly thereafter, the dry grass and vegetation near the device is seen to ignite, and the video shows individuals scurrying in a futile effort at dousing the flames with water from water bottles. At the time the fire initiated, the temperature in Yucaipa had already reached 90 degrees, and would attain 110 later that afternoon.
The fire spread from the park to the north onto Yucaipa Ridge that separates Mountain Home Village and Forest Falls from the City of Yucaipa. After initially burning northward early on Saturday, the fire circled back as it was pushed by inconsistently-directed winds, ultimately moving in four different directions, first pushing east, then northward, taking at one point a substantial westwardly shift on Saturday evening, and on Sunday, September 6 moving south. The fire thus spread in four different directions.
Over 23 days, the fire consumed 22,680 acres in the Oak Glen/Yucaipa Ridge area and within the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area of the San Bernardino National Forest. Firefighting efforts, directed from from a command post established at Yucaipa Regional Park and involving 1,351 personnel, did manage to prevent the fire from moving into populated areas. As such, the conflagration moved into the area’s rustic canyons and, ultimately, the heavily wooded National Forest. Twenty mostly isolated structures, five of them homes, were burnt to the ground. Another four residences were significantly damaged.
On the twelfth day of the effort to control the fire, September 17, Charles Morton, a specialized “hot shot” fire suppression team commander with 14 years experience as a firefighter, was killed. Another 13 firefighters were injured throughout the El Dorado Fire ordeal.
The fire, which required 60 miles of fire lines to suppress and ranged from a minimum elevation of 3,030 feet to a maximum of 10,640 feet, forced the evacuations of Oak Glen, north Yucaipa, Mountain Home Village, Forest Falls, and Angelus Oaks.
The firefighting effort was manpower intensive and extremely costly. The 1,351 firefighters involved included those functioning under two interagency incident management teams rotated into place throughout the operation, those being California Interagency Management Team 11, supervised by Commander Chris Fogle, and California Interagency Management Team 13, led by Incident Commander Mike Wakoski. There were 17 hand crews working the fire lines, 177 fire engines, 20 water tenders, 17 bulldozers, and 10 helicopters. Numerous fixed-wing tankers were brought to bear in the effort, including a DC-10, which engaged in aerial fire-retardant drops. Three Canadian Fire Bosses and a single-engine air tanker water scooper, operating from a base at Big Bear Airport & Lake, were also used for the first time in Southern California.
Though the major effort to bring the fire under control had been completed by September 29, smoldering continued within the interior of the burn scar perimeters in the mountain region of the San Bernardino National Forest and San Gorgonio Wilderness. Pockets therein still featured yet glowing, and reigniting, trees or vegetation. As of November 1, the fire was considered to be 95 percent contained, as there were yet uncontained perimeters of the blaze located in steep and inaccessible terrain. Evacuation warnings were lifted on Wednesday, November 11 by the San Bernardino County Sheriff for the areas or communities of Mountain Home Village, Forest Falls, Angelus Oaks, Seven Oaks, and Barton Flats. During the second week of November, after a winter storm brought several inches of snow, smoke continued to be seen in the area around Forest Falls. On November 16, 2020 San Bernardino National Forest officials announced that the El Dorado Fire had reached 100 percent containment, as the remnants of the fire in uncontained areas had reached natural features composed of granite and bare earth devoid of vegetation.
Between September 29, at which point the fire had ravaged 22,680 acres, and November 16, the fire charred an additional 64 acres through occasional one-, two-, three-, four- and five-acre flare-ups that were knocked down or brought under control relatively quickly, such that the total fire damage extended to 22,744 acres.
It was after the fire had run its course that investigators began their inquiry in earnest, involving a criminal focus, into what had led to the fire. This week, on January 14, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office announced, “Earlier this week, our office received the completed investigative reports from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department regarding the El Dorado Fire. Deputy district attorneys assigned to the case will begin reviewing these reports, as well as the investigative reports from the California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection, and a review of all other reports and evidence.”
The Sentinel has learned, based on the contents of those reports, that the district attorney’s office is constrained to five options. The first of those is to take no prosecutorial action, which, given the set of circumstances, does not appear likely.
Three of the remaining options confine themselves to Penal Code Section 452, which can be filed as variously a felony or a misdemeanor, and Penal Code Section 451, a felony. The fifth option open to the district attorney’s office is to layer onto the other charges a secondary Penal Code Section 273a child endangerment charge.
Penal Code 452 PC in California criminalizes a person recklessly setting fire to or burning any structure, forest land, or property. Penal Code 452 states, “A person is guilty of unlawfully causing a fire when he recklessly sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned, any structure, forest land or property.”
Penal Code Section 452 is considered, in prosecutorial parlance, a wobbler, meaning it can be tried as a misdemeanor or a felony. Under the law, recklessness is distinguished from negligence. Similarly, recklessness is distinguished from a wholly willful and intentionally malicious act.
The necessary element of a Penal Code Section 452 crime is for an individual to have created by his or her action a fire which results in the destruction of private property. If charged as a misdemeanor, a Penal Code 452 conviction can net the offender imprisonment in a county jail for up to six months, and/or a fine of up to $1,000.
In the case where reckless burning results in the burning of or substantial damage to a structure or forestland, or if it results in great bodily injury, then the crime can be prosecuted as a felony at the discretion of the prosecutor. A felony conviction on a Penal Code Section 452 offense mandates a state prison sentence of no less than sixteen months and potentially up to three years for the reckless burning of land, a state prison term of up to four years for the burning of an inhabited structure or inhabited property, and up to six years in state prison for any reckless fire setting that result in burning causing great bodily injury.
A person is deemed to have acted “recklessly” if he or she is aware that his or her actions could present a substantial and unjustifiable risk of causing a fire, he ignores that risk, and in doing so grossly deviates from how a reasonable person would act in the same situation.
While it is not uncommon for Penal Code Section 452 violations to be charged as misdemeanors, when a perpetrator of a Penal Code Section 452 offense can be shown to have acted with a complete disregard for or indifference to safety, this section of the penal code can be prosecuted as a felony.
Not yet determined is whether the prosecutor’s office will file Penal Code Section 451 arson charges against the trio.
So-called “accidental” fires are generally not prosecuted as arson. Crucial is the definition of “accidental.” Negligence or irresponsible disregard of safety procedures can obliviate the application of an accidental application to a circumstance. When a fire results from demonstrably gross negligence or a wanton or even casual disregard for the consequences of setting the fire, the fire can cease to be regarded as accidental, and may therefore be interpreted as arson.
Under Penal Code Section 451 “A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property. (a) Arson that causes great bodily injury is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years.”
The Penal Code Section 451 prosecution option would require a far more tortuous route to conviction of the three individuals in this case, as a guilty finding would normally require a demonstration of malicious intent. There is little to indicate the trio had an intent that what they did would cause a conflagration. Moreover, at least one of the three made a 911 call to report the fire, and all three from the outset of their contact with authorities just after the fire was set cooperated with the California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection. Nevertheless, the consideration that the fire they were responsible for led to Morton’s death, the injury of 13 other firefighters, wreaked so much damage to the forest and the wilderness, and destroyed or damaged 24 structures, coupled with the utter disregard the trio showed for the potential impact of their actions, elevates the matter to a level of seriousness that would allow prosecutors to allege they had to recognize the danger in the action they collectively engaged in, and proceeded anyway, which a jury could interpret as arson.
Relevant in this consideration is that there have been multiple examples of gender reveal events held in circumstances similar to those in Yucaipa on September 5 causing fires or injury. On April 23, 2017, a gender reveal event in the Santa Rita Mountains foothills southeast of Tucson, Arizona went awry and an explosion from a smoke producing device ignited the 47,000-acre Sawmill Fire. There was information extant about the unpredictability of smoke producing devices used at gender reveal parties. In Marion County in Iowa on October 19, 2019, a woman was killed when a smoke cannon exploded, resulting in a flying piece of debris striking the victim with fatal effect.
An arson conviction carries a maximum sentence of nine years. Because of the heavier sentence an arson conviction would involve, prosecutors may want to pursue it for the leverage it would provide in pretrial maneuvering to induce the three to take a Penal Code Section 452 plea in exchange for the dropping of the arson charge.
While the cooperation the three have have evinced throughout what has nearly been four-and-a-half months has greatly reduced the likelihood that they will be tried for arson, their statements and the El Dorado Park security video virtually establish that they violated Penal Code Section 452 and engaged in Penal Code Section 273a, child endangerment. Several children were present in the vicinity of the smoke cannon, which was placed on ground beset with dry grass that has been likened to tinder.
Penalties for misdemeanor child endangerment range to confinement for up to one year in county jail, and/or a fine of up to $1,000. Where it can be established that the minor is at risk of death or great bodily harm, child endangerment becomes a wobbler offense, which can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the prosecutor’s discretion. Upon a demonstration of a risk of death or great bodily harm to a child, conviction can be met with a sentence of two, four, or six years in California state prison, and/or a fine of up to $10,000. In the case of what occurred on September 5, prosecutors would have the option of seeking a separate endangerment conviction for each child that was present.
Arson convictions carry with them a restitution order, but in the case of the El Dorado Fire, the damage is so excessive it would be impossible for the three alleged perpetrators to meet that burden.
“While we know our community wants answers, we have to be diligent and thorough in understanding every aspect of this case so that we can render the appropriate filing decision, which we anticipate issuing no later than March 1, 2021,” said District Attorney’s Office Spokesman Mike Bires. “We thank you in advance for your trust in our office and for understanding the complexity and importance of this fire which impacted so many in our community.”
-Mark Gutglueck

With some degree of fanfare, Southern California’s metropolitan planning organization last week made formal recognition of the climate change crisis, and committed to a series of steps intended to mitigate or otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions regionally.
Paradoxically though, even as the Southern California Association of Governments’ regional council moved to adopt a resolution to promote climate adaptation, mitigation and resilience across a six-county region, it made no mention of, and did nothing to extract itself from involvement in, the State of California’s mandate for the creation of more than a million new dwelling units throughout the region, which will increase considerably Southern California’s 19 million population and exacerbate the existing crisis with regard to the generation of greenhouse gasses.
“We’ve seen, just in the past year, very real manifestations of climate change, from raging wildfires to extreme weather. This has exacted a heavy price to our health, to our economy, to the air we breathe, to a quality of life that has never faced a more serious threat,” said Southern California Association of Governments President Rex Richardson, who is Long Beach’s mayor pro tem. “Today’s action signals to our region that the time to act is now.”
The vote, taken on January 7, signals the initiation of a regional climate planning network and partnerships that will provide technical assistance and additional support to local jurisdictions for their climate action initiatives.
To counter threats to the region’s environment, which ultimately will have a devastating impact on Southern California’s economic security, public health and quality of life, the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments envisions the development of a framework “to help the region plan and prepare for a changing climate as well as potential near- and long-term disruptions to Southern California, such as earthquakes, extreme weather, drought wildfires, pandemics and economic shocks.”
In 2020, California experienced a record number of dry heat days and more than 9,000 fires that burned millions of acres. It was the largest wildfire season in the state’s modern history, linked to more than 1,200 preventable deaths due to respiratory health impacts and with damages in excess of $10 billion, according to the Southern California Association of Governments, which is also referred to by its acronym SCAG.
Part of the solution is to involve a so-called accelerated electrification strategy intended to provide a “holistic and coordinated approach” to decarbonizing or electrifying passenger transit and freight vehicles to go beyond the benefits achieved through state mandates alone, the Southern California Association of Governments maintains. The plan also calls for incorporating the economic and job-creation benefits of climate action as part of an inclusive recovery strategy for Southern California.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti lauded the leadership of the Southern California Association of Governments and its commitment to address climate change, and urged the region’s political leaders to participate in a collaborative effort known as Cities Race to Zero, a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “I hope today we’ll collectively build on the great work the Southern California Association of Governments and its cities have done to commit to taking action,” Garcetti said.
Southern California Association of Governments’ executive director, Kome Ajise, said, “Climate-change mitigation and adaptation planning have become more pressing with each passing year as the Southern California Association of Governments region experiences extreme climate-related health, safety and economic impacts from intensified wildfires, flooding and mudslides from torrential rainstorms and sea level rise, and unusually high temperatures. The sustainable and adaptive solutions we’re committing to will help safeguard our region and the more than 19 million people we represent, now and into the future.”
No mention, however, was made of the Southern California Association of Governments crucial participation in facilitating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of each jurisdiction’s general plan.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development reviews every local government’s housing element to determine whether it complies with state law and then submits written findings back to each local government. Those findings provide the basis for a mandate to local governments to facilitate the development of a fixed number of dwelling units within their respective jurisdictions over an eight-year planning cycle.
On August 22, 2019, within the context of the planning toward the sixth cycle of the regional housing needs assessment, the California Department of Housing and Community Development submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments its mandate that San Bernardino County absorb the construction of slightly more than 12 percent of the 1,341,827 units the state is calling upon the six counties the Southern California Association of Governments oversees – those of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.
Under California law, the determination of regional housing needs is conducted by a council of governments, in the case applicable to San Bernardino County, by the Southern California Association of Governments, every eight years.
Between 2021 and 2029, according to the Southern California Association of Government Board, San Bernardino County is to accommodate 162,145 more dwelling units, with Adelanto accounting for 7,198 units; Apple Valley a total of 7,523 units; Barstow 2,735; Big Bear Lake 426; Chino 8,361; Chino Hills 4,039 units overall; Colton 5,415; Fontana 22,101; Grand Terrace 808; Hesperia 5,793; Highland, 4,087; Loma Linda 2,280; Montclair 1,688; Needles 160; Ontario 24,478; Rancho Cucamonga 10,501; Redlands 4,487; Rialto 8,251; San Bernardino 8,104; Twentynine Palms a total of 2,066; Upland 6,456; Victorville 16,216; Yucaipa 4,681; and Yucca Valley, a total of 1,489.
Observers said that with 1,341,827 dwelling units in which an average of at least four people will live coming into Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, including the 162,145 slated for San Bernardino County, the efforts to reduce global warming in Southern California will prove futile.
One individual, someone intricately involved with a local San Bernardino County government, the Southern California Association of Governments and land use processes, said the Southern California Association of Government’s involvement in the effort to reduce global warming while pushing the mandate for the construction of 1,341,827 more dwelling units so another 5,367,308 people can live in Southern California is “out and out schizophrenic.”
As if to punctuate that sentiment, the Southern California Association of Governments on Monday, January 11, denied an appeal by Pasadena of its regional housing needs allocation by the state, which mandates that the city build 9,400 units of new housing by October 2029.
The State of California maintains the millions of new homes the California Department of Housing and Community Development is requiring the states’ cities to build are necessitated by the Golden State’s housing crisis.
-Mark Gutglueck

A San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department helicopter rescue crew on Sunday, January 10 plucked an injured mountain biker out of danger in an area of the Loma Linda South Hills that is inaccessible to ground vehicles.
Ronnie Santos, 57, of Highland was biking on the rugged trails of the wilderness between Loma Linda and the north Riverside County border when a mishap occurred.
At approximately 10 a.m., the San Bernardino County Fire Department dispatch center received a call about an injured mountain biker in the Loma Linda Hills. That call did not by name reference Santos, who was reportedly unconscious and suffering from a concussion, but made clear he was seriously injured.
In short order, Sheriff’s Air Rescue Helicopter 308, with air medics P. Peng and G. Yee aboard, was dispatched from the sheriff’s air facility at San Bernardino International Airport.
Once the helicopter reached the South Hills, with the craft hovering above the accident site, both Peng and Yee were lowered to the ground, where they did a speedy assessment of Santos and his condition. They then secured him in a basket, which was hoisted to the helicopter.
Santos was transported to Loma Linda University Medical Center, less than two-minutes away. There he was admitted into the hospital, whereupon his injuries were determined to be non-life-threatening.

San Bernardino County’s lawsuit to eradicate Governor Gavin Newsom’s mandates issued in November and December intended to slow the progression in the rate of coronavirus infection, a legal effort that appeared moribund from the outset, was officially pronounced dead by the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, January 13.
On November 16, 2020, Governor Newsom ordered a large number of the state’s counties, including San Bernardino County, into the most restrictive tier of regulations relating to the functioning of businesses, effective November 17. On December 3, Newsom ordered residents of the state’s counties experiencing the sharpest increase in the virus’s infection rates to “stay home or at their place of residence except as necessary to conduct activities associated with the operation, maintenance, or usage of critical infrastructure” and that “all retailers may operate indoors at no more than 20 percent capacity and must follow the guidance for retailers. All access to retail must be strictly metered to ensure compliance with the limit on capacity. The sale of food, beverages, and alcohol for instore consumption is prohibited.” The mandate also ended outdoor dining at restaurants.
In announcing the stay-at-home order, Governor Newsom said the restrictions were necessary because in those areas where they went into effect, regional hospitals had intensive care unit capacity which had dwindled to less than 15 percent of available beds. The preventative measures he was calling for, Newsom said, were intended to slow the spread of the virus.
After that order went into effect in San Bernardino County on December 7, San Bernardino County’s governmental structure, represented by attorney Robert Tyler, drew up legal papers and on December 14 lodged a lawsuit filed directly with the California Supreme Court, asserting that Governor Newsom did not possess the authority to ban all gatherings except protests and religious services, close businesses he deemed to be nonessential, end in-person dining at restaurants or cap a restaurant’s occupancy at 20 percent.
The county contended that the forced closures lacked a legal basis and that they were wreaking substantial economic harm to the county’s residents and businesses. Moreover, according to the county, the state was usurping the authority that better would have been exercised by the county and its department of public health. A consequence of the governor’s mandates, the county suggested, was that the restrictions were forcing people indoors, where there was a concentration of people that increased the likelihood of contagion.
The timing of the county’s legal action was execrable. At the time the county was before the Supreme Court arguing that it should not be subject to the precautions Newsom had put in place, San Bernardino County was experiencing the highest level of COVID-19 infection rates among all counties in the state. Between the day Tyler made the filing with the California Supreme Court, December 14, and December 21 inclusive, 134 deaths of San Bernardino County residents were attributed to the disease. That included 52 deaths over a 48-hour period on December 19 and 20. Deaths wholly or partially attributable to COVID-19 in San Bernardino County reached their apex on December 16, when 63 people died.
Three of the county’s cities – Yucaipa, Chino Hills and Rancho Cucamonga – filed amicus curiae – friend of the court – briefs in support of the county’s legal action.
On December 29, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, representing Newsom, submitted a response to San Bernardino County’s filing with the Supreme Court, stating, “Amid an unprecedented surge in the COVID-19 pandemic, petitioners ask this court to exercise its original jurisdiction to strike down public health orders seeking to contain that pandemic.”
The deaths and a burgeoning infection rate demonstrated the need for public safeguards, Becerra maintained, and he said Newsom was acting within the scope of his authority as governor, and responsibly meeting his duty as the state’s highest elected official.
“The challenged public health orders are authorized not only by the Emergency Services Act, but also by additional, unchallenged provisions of the Health and Safety Code,” Becerra propounded.
This week, five of the California Supreme Court’s members – Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and associate justices Carol Corrigan, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Leondra Kruger and Joshua Groban – after evaluating the county’s filing and its supporting documents, entered a ruling denying the county’s petition to overturn the state’s current stay-at-home order and other precautionary restrictions. Associate justices Goodwin H. Liu and Martin J. Jenkins recused themselves with regard to the decision, begging off because of an undisclosed conflict-of-interest with regard to the issue.
-Mark Gutglueck