By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the September 4 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 09-04-20

By Mark Gutglueck
More than a half decade after their collective efforts resulted in 14 of San Bernardino County’s cities and towns transitioning from the at-large model they historically used in conducting their municipal elections to by-district voting, three of the four attorneys who forced that change are reluctant to address the negative aspects that alteration has had overall on the electoral process.
This election season, with eleven city or town council incumbents throughout San Bernardino County facing no opposition, only one of those four lawyers was willing to go on the record with regard to that circumstance and address whether the move to create subdivisions within several of San Bernardino County’s municipal jurisdictions had damaged rather than enhanced the democratic process.
All four of those attorneys – R. Rex Parris, Milton Grimes, Kevin Shenkman and Matthew Barragan – used a provision of the California Voters Rights Act to ensure, they maintained, that so-called protected minorities were not disenfranchised in the political process. That provision allowed them to allege that what is referred to as racially or ethnically polarized voting had occurred in certain cities or towns, and to then request that the city or town in question revamp its voting system such that wards or voting districts were created in which the residents of that ward or district would have exclusive voting rights to elect from within that ward or district a representative to the city council. If a city without resistance simply conformed with the request and adopted a by-district voting system, the attorney making the request was then entitled to recover from the city a $45,000 fee for having brought the city into what was characterized as compliance with the goals of the California Voting Rights Act.
If any of those towns or cities resisted the request, the attorney or attorneys representing an individual of standing challenging that particular municipal entity could then file suit under the terms of the California Voting Rights Act, and upon prevailing in demonstrating racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting in the city or town had occurred, be eligible to recover the entirely of their legal fees.
In 2001, the California Legislature enacted the California Voting Rights Act, under which a plaintiff or plaintiffs can file legal action against a governmental jurisdiction alleging polarized voting has taken place in its past elections and seek the remedy of having that jurisdiction switch from at-large elections to ones involving ward or district systems. The theoretical justification for having a city or governmental jurisdiction form such districts is the perceived likelihood that it will create political subdivisions in which the election of a member of an ethnic or racial minority is more likely to take place than in an at-large election. Upon proof being presented that such polarized voting exists, the courts will then require that the governmental entity in question adopt the ward/district system and require that the governmental entity pay the legal fees for the attorney or attorneys representing the plaintiff[s].
Polarized voting can be defined as a circumstance in which the number of registered voters belonging to a protected ethnic or racial minority within a specific jurisdiction exceeds, in comparison to the total number of registered voters in that jurisdiction, the ratio represented by a single member of that city’s or town’s council to the total number of members of that particular panel, when no members of that protected minority are counted among that council’s members. Protected minorities include African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and Asians. Thus, if any one of those protected minorities make up more than 20 percent of that municipality’s population but that city’s or town’s five-member council does not feature a member of that minority, then racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting is said to have occurred in that jurisdiction.
The California Voting Rights Act conferred upon the plaintiffs in such cases an overwhelming advantage in that though the plaintiff[s] stood to gain all money expended or owed in the matter to pay for the plaintiff’s or plaintiffs’ attorney’s efforts, the cities or towns sued under the voting rights act were not eligible to recover their fees if they prevailed in the litigation by succeeding in demonstrating that racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting had not occurred in their jurisdictions. Thus, the plaintiff[s] and the lawyers representing them in these legal actions brought under the California Voting Rights Act run no risk. On the other side of the plaintiff/defendant divide, the cities challenged in this way had to defray their own legal expenses if they chose to put on a defense at trial. Thus, even if a city prevailed, it sustained unrecoverable legal costs, and if it lost, it stood to suffer costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps beyond a million dollars in legal fees to be paid to the prevailing party. By the time opportunistic attorneys seeking a major payday through threatened or actual lawsuits under the California Voters Rights Act filed to ostensibly counteract racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting turned their attention to San Bernardino County, a handful of California cities elsewhere that resisted challenges made to their election systems under the California Voting Rights Act had already been unsuccessful in their legal defenses and were forced by the law and the courts to pay substantial amounts to cover those legal fees. In a number of San Bernardino County’s municipalities, city officials and residents where racially polarized voting had been alleged expressed umbrage at that suggestion and denied the assertions that there was a systemic or institutionalized racial or ethnic bias built into their political establishments. Nevertheless, a trio of lawyers – Lancaster-based R. Rex Parris, Malibu-based Kevin Shenkman and Los Angeles-based Milton C. Grimes – surveyed the San Bernardino County landscape and selected what what they considered to be the county’s most vulnerable jurisdiction among a handful of cities perceived to have foreclosed minority rights because of the relative scarcity of elected Hispanic office holders, despite a substantial Latino population.
Thus, Parris, Shenkman and Grimes settled upon the City of Highland, where despite more than 39 percent of the residents of that city being Latino, no Hispanics were serving on the city council. Highland thus became the first San Bernardino County city served with a demand that it alter the way it elects its council members. That lawsuit was filed July 18, 2014 in San Bernardino Superior Court by Parris, in conjunction with the Malibu-based law firm Shenkman & Hughes and the Los Angeles-based Law Office of Milton C. Grimes, on behalf of Lisa Garrett, a Latino resident of Highland. In response, the city put an initiative on the November 2014 ballot, Measure T, asking if the city’s residents were in favor of a ward system. Measure T went down to defeat, with 2,862 votes or 43.01 percent in favor and 3,793, or 56.99 percent opposed. The lawsuit proceeded and the city sought to assuage the demand by proposing to allow cumulative voting, in which each voter is given one vote for each contested position and is allowed to cast any or all of those votes for any one candidate, or spread the votes among the candidates. When the matter went to trial, despite making a finding that the socio-economic-based rationale presented by the plaintiff’s attorneys to support the need for ward elections was irrelevant and that the plaintiff’s assertion that district voting was the only way to cure the alleged violation of the Voting Rights Act was false, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn mandated that Highland adopt a ward system.
Thereafter, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Matthew Barragan, who was then the staff attorney representing the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund known by the acronym MALDEF, threatened lawsuits under the California Voter Rights Act against the cities of Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino Hills, Chino, Fontana, Hesperia, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Twentynine Palms, Upland and Yucaipa, as well as the towns Apple Valley and Yucca Valley. Despite the consideration that Barstow, Chino Hills, Chino and Redlands historically had fielded or at that point included Hispanic members on their city councils and that Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana historically or at that point had both Latino and African-American members of their city councils, all of those cities and all of those towns complied with the demands for shifts to ward systems, with those municipalities in many cases paying the lawyers the $45,000 cost those attorneys were entitled to under the California Voters Rights Act and which those attorneys sought for forcing those cities and towns into compliance.
At that point, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan checked out of the process, whereupon the cities or towns used consultants such as the National Demographics Corporation to draw up district or ward lines. Chino Hills, after consulting with the National Demographics Corporation, opted to utilize a different map, one drawn by two of that city’s residents, Brian Johsz and Richard Austin.
In case after case, the cities and towns adopted district voting or ward maps that were gerrymandered to provide the incumbent councilmembers an advantage by placing them into districts that did not include other incumbents, and by timing the elections in such a way that their districts held elections at the end of the electoral cycle terminating with the elapsing of the close of the term the incumbents held as a result of their most recent at-large elections. One exception to this was in Chino Hills, where the Johsz/Austin map put three of the incumbents in separate districts and created two other districts, including one in which none of the then-current council members resided and one in which two members were living.
In none of those cases where the gerrymandering took place did Parris, Shenkman, Hughes, Grimes or Barragan raise any objections to how those district lines were drawn, even when they appeared to perpetuate the racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting that their threatened lawsuits were ostensibly aimed at curing.
Many of those observing that element of what occurred in those 13 cities that were forced into by-district elections after the lawsuit between Garrett and Highland concluded have independently remarked that it appears that Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan were not truly committed to redressing so-called polarized voting but rather shaking cities down in looking for a lucrative payday on the cheap by threatening a lawsuit and then accepting the $45,000 payment the cities were obliged to make to them upon the adoption of a by-district voting policy.
This year, the degree to which the mass move toward ward/district electoral systems in San Bernardino County has undercut the democratic process that change was ostensibly intended to boost was evinced in eleven separate elections in Colton, Highland, Apple Valley, Chino Hills, Hesperia, Redlands and Twentynine Palms where eleven incumbent councilmembers up for election in those races are not being challenged. In the cases of Highland, Apple Valley, Chino Hills, Hesperia, Redlands and Twentynine Palms, those cities and town are holding their first or second by-district election. For decades, Colton has had a by-district election system.
Highland Councilman Jesse Chavez, who was first elected to the council in 2016 when the city transitioned to by-district elections, is unopposed this year in his pursuit of reelection in Highland’s District 1. Highland Councilwoman Penny Lilburn, who has been on the council since 2004 and has served stints as mayor as well as mayor pro tem in the past, will serve four more years representing District 3 automatically, as no one has come forward to challenge her. Larry McCallon, who is currently serving as Highland’s appointed mayor and has formerly held that post as well as that of mayor pro tem, drew no opposition in District 5.
Apple Valley Councilman Art Bishop will accede to another term on the town council, this time representing Apple Valley’s residents in the newly-formed Second District. This is the first year that Apple Valley has held by-district elections. No one in the Second District emerged to challenge Bishop, who previously served as Apple Valley mayor and is retired as the fire chief of the Apple Valley Fire Protection District, which serves as Apple Valley’s fire department. Similarly, Larry Cusack, who was chairman of Apple Valley’s planning commission before he was elected to the city council and subsequently served a term as mayor, was given a free pass in this year’s contest, in which he was due to stand for election in Apple Valley’s First District.
In Chino Hills, Cynthia Moran, who has previously served as mayor, has no opposition in that city’s District 5. In Hesperia, no one is challenging Brigit Bennington, who was appointed to the District 4 council position last year after the city council cited what it said were residency violations to forcefully remove Jeremiah Brosowske, who had eked out a narrow victory over Bennington in the November 2018 election. In Colton, neither Kenneth Koperski, the appointed incumbent in the city’s Third District, nor Isaac Suchil, the elected incumbent in the Sixth District, have opponents. In Redlands, which experimented with district elections in the 1990s and returned to at-large elections only to reinitiate by-district elections in 2018, incumbent Eddie Tejeda attracted no one to contest him for the city’s northside District 2 seat on the council. In Twentynine Palms, incumbent Steve Bilderain, who was most recently elected at-large in 2016, in 2019 served as mayor and is now seeking election representing District 1, has no opponent.
Beginning three weeks ago, the Sentinel undertook a consistent effort to engage with Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan by telephone and through email or in person to ascertain from them their interpretations of the meaning and implication of the rash of uncontested elections in this year’s council races in San Bernardino County by which the incumbents are returning to office for four more years unopposed.
In emails sent to all four of the attorneys, the Sentinel asked if they believed a commonly expressed belief throughout San Bernardino County that the uncontested elections are an outgrowth of the mass move toward by-district or by-ward elections that took place across San Bernardino County over the last five years is accurate. Noting that Parris, Shenkman and Grimes had consistently maintained that the intention of their action in San Bernardino County, beginning with the Garrett lawsuit and moving forward, was to end racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting, the Sentinel inquired how it was that each of those attorneys as well as Barragan, who became involved in the election reform effort in San Bernardino County shortly after the other three attorneys took up that cause, then failed to act to prevent the cities and towns in question from gerrymandering the districts in a way that conferred an advantage on the incumbents then in office. The Sentinel sought from Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan whether they believed this gerrymandering, as some have asserted, undercut the reformist goal they were pursuing in pressing these municipalities to adopt by-district elections, and whether that gerrymandering is compromising the democratic process in that the drawing of the districts in a way that is favorable to the incumbents has resulted in nine uncontested elections this year alone in those cities and one of the towns where by-district elections previously did not take place. The Sentinel further inquired directly of the four lawyers why they had not acted, either individually or collectively, to prevent the gerrymandering.
The Sentinel sought from the four whether they believed that the proliferation of gerrymandered districts that followed in the aftermath of their election reform efforts rendered the election of protected minority candidates less likely rather than more likely. The Sentinel tried to elicit from Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan what their response would be to those who assert that in some cases what the by-district changeover did is actually make the election of protected minority candidates less likely.
The Sentinel asked each of the four attorneys whether, with the benefit of hindsight, they now wish that they had acted to prevent the gerrymandering that occurred in virtually every case where a San Bernardino County city or town adopted the by-district election model.
Additionally, the Sentinel asked if they had anticipated that moving to by-district elections would result in a significant number of elections that would go uncontested, and whether they believed a situation in which 11 council races throughout the county are going uncontested represents a diminution of the democratic process.
Each of the attorneys was queried as to whether he believed that a greater frequency of uncontested elections is a legitimate price that needs to be paid by the community to create the widespread regime of by-district voting and its hopefully consequent reduction in racially-polarized and ethnically-polarized voting.
The Sentinel asked each of the attorneys to cogently refute the assertion made by some that their intent in pursuing the change to by-district elections was mercenary in nature that was aimed more at ensuring they and in the case of Parris, Shenkman and Grimes their law firms and in the case of Barrigan his organization received remuneration for their efforts rather than achieving the ostensible goal of election reform, and that their individual and collective failures to prevent the gerrymandering that occurred as a consequence of the change to by-district elections in San Bernardino County is an indicator of that mercenary intent.
Neither Parris, Grimes nor Barragan, who is no longer affiliated with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and is now working as an assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, deigned to respond.
Shenkman told the Sentinel that he agreed that “Gerrymandering is bad. It is also unlawful in California – at the city level, it is contrary to Elections Code sections 21601 (general law cities) and 21620 (charter cities). You mention seven Inland Empire jurisdictions, of which we were involved in some but not all. We only had input into the district boundaries in one – Highland. The Highland districts were not gerrymandered. They also resulted in the first Latinos elected to the Highland City Council in the city’s entire history. I would say that is an unmitigated success. With respect to the other jurisdictions, even the ones in which we were involved in convincing the jurisdiction to adopt district elections, we were not involved in the drawing of the districts because nobody came to us with a credible and attractive case that the jurisdiction(s) violated those Elections Code sections; I’m not saying that the maps don’t violate those sections, I just don’t know.”
Shenkman elaborated, “As a more general matter, I would also agree that gerrymandering is a significant problem in California, and elsewhere. Thus far, the legislature has failed to give us the tools necessary to combat gerrymandering by local governments. They seem to have tried, but they have failed because they do not communicate with the people who will ultimately be responsible for enforcing the laws they pass. I would encourage the legislature to enact laws that actually have some teeth, so that we are in a position to combat gerrymandering when it occurs, and I’d be happy to help the legislature accomplish that.”
Shenkman said, “You mention that some unidentified people ‘point out that in some of the cases, the switch to by-district elections has made the election of protected minority candidates less likely rather than more likely.’ I don’t know who those people are, or what specific jurisdictions they think have made the election of minority candidates more difficult. What I do know is that all empirical studies demonstrate that district elections result in the election of more minority candidates. UC Riverside recently completed the largest and most comprehensive study of precisely this issue in California, and confirmed that district elections increase minority representation. (See Collingwood, L. & Long, S., Can States Promote Minority Representation? Assessing the Effects of the California Voting Rights Act. (Dec. 31, 2019) Urban Affairs Review). The paper is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419896854. I find this scientific empirical study to be far more credible than cherry-picked anecdotes by unidentified individuals who likely have an interest in maintaining the status quo.”
Moreover, Shenkman suggested, the phenomenon of candidates or incumbents running unopposed is nothing new.
“I think it is also disingenuous to suggest that elections in these jurisdictions were competitive before a switch to district elections,” he said. “They most certainly were not. Will the presidential election between [Donald] Trump and [Joseph] Biden be competitive in California in November? Of course not – everyone knows Biden will win by a large margin; the fact that the Republicans insist on having someone on the ballot does not make the election competitive in any substantive way.”
There is imperfection in the Democratic process, Shenkman said, because that is the nature of the beast.
“I would point out that social change does not happen overnight; and, while lawyers and judges can prompt that change and even accelerate that change, it takes a lot of effort ‘on the ground,’” he said. “We are proud to have given the people the tools to make change happen, and we look forward to continuing to see that change come to fruition.”

Hoping to defer until well into the future the increasingly hefty burden the City of Upland’s pension debt entails, city officials there are on the verge of issuing pension obligation bonds.
Upland, which is a mid-range city population-wise in San Bernardino County, in the 2001/2002 timeframe substantially increased the pension benefits of its employees after prognosticators predicted that the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment pool would function magnificently on a consistent basis going into the future. The State of California, cities and other governmental entities participating in that system continually endow it with contributions on behalf of their employees. The system, based on the input from its financial advisors, places that money in a host of diversified financial instruments, including stocks, bonds, treasury notes and real estate. The constant influx of money from its agency contributors and the returns on those investments provide California Public Employees Retirement System with a never-ending revenue stream to provide those governmental retirees involved in the system with their pensions.
A presumption in the California Public Employees Retirement System’s charter is that the investment pool will experience on a yearly basis a 7.5 percent return or greater on those investments. When the 7.5 percent return is achieved and the payments from the governmental entities that employ or employed the system’s participants continue to flow in, the system is self-sufficient and self-sustaining. When the 7.5 percent earning goal is not reached, those governmental entities must increase their contributions into the system. With the massive downturn in the U.S. economy that began in 2007 and the seven straight years of sluggishness that ensued, known in some circles as “The Great Recession,” the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment returns diminished, igniting a public pension crisis in California that has continued ever since, as the individual governmental entities saw their pension debt, referred to as an “unfunded pension liability,” mount.
In Upland, the pension debt crisis was exacerbated by the action of John Pomierski, who was mayor for more than a decade, from December 2000 until March 2011, at which point he was indicted by a federal grand jury on political corruption charges, including bribetaking, for which he was eventually convicted and imprisoned. To keep a lid on his depredations, Pomierski arranged to buy the silence of the handful of city employees who recognized what he was up to and the larger circle of city employees who had suspicions by increasing their salaries and benefits. Doing so without making it obvious that a cabal of city employees, including members of the police department, were in on the graft entailed increasing the salary and benefits for virtually all of the city’s employees, including fattening their pensions. As a consequence, as of June 30, 2012, the City of Upland’s unfunded pension liability, calculated on an actuarial basis, had reached $88,994,066. It steadily grew thereafter, reaching $99,976,917 as of June 30, 2018, and then climbing ever more steeply thereafter, hitting $112,039,675 as of June 30, 2019 and $120,920,721 as of June 30, 2020.
With the California Public Employees Retirement System’s investment performance still failing to reach the 7.5 percent goal, as in the case of achieving 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2019-20, not only is Upland’s unfunded pension liability escalating, but the amount of money being diverted from the city’s general fund to simply stay current on its pension obligations is increasing as well. This year, fiscal 2020-21, $9.1 million of the city’s $43.6 million general fund is being devoted to making payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System. Next year, 2021-22, that payment is anticipated to jump to $9.6 million.
Taking stock of the consideration that in recent years the cities of Ontario, La Verne, Baldwin Park and Carson have availed themselves of the long-term financing strategy of issuing pension obligation bonds to reduce the amount of money being paid annually to the California Public Employees Retirement System, city officials have conferred with Suzanne Harrell of the firm Harrell & Company, a municipal financial advisor, with regard to potentially issuing pension obligation bonds of its own. According to Harrell, Upland should be able to reduce its annual pension costs and in time reduce its unfunded pension liability through a strategy by which the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the pension obligation bonds will then be invested in higher yielding securities that will bring in a rate of return greater than the interest to be paid on the bonds.
That strategy involves a gamble that the stocks and other securities that Upland will invest the proceeds of the pension obligation bonds in will perform well and provide the investment returns hoped for.
On Thursday, September 10, the Upland City Council is slated to hold a workshop at which the potential of the city issuing pension obligation bonds is to be discussed. The staff member to preview that option is Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker. Much of what he is to present is based upon the contents of a 26-page report put together by Harrell & Company. It is not known outside of City Hall whether Suzanne Harrell will participate in the workshop. Her report states that the California League of Cities has identified pension obligation bonds as “an approach to address unfunded pension liabilities.” Harrell’s report further states that the “city may issue pension obligation bonds at lower interest rates to pay off the unfunded actuarial liability.” This can be done, she said, by “refinanc[ing] 7% payments at a lower fixed rate of 3.3%, including the cost of issuance” and the “savings realized can add to reserves and/or be used for other city priorities.”
Harrell sought to blunt criticism of the use of pension obligation bonds by entities such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Government Finance Officers Association. Those naysayers maintain that pension obligation bonds are credit negative. Harrell countered that pension obligation debts can actually be credit positive by means of a higher debt funding ratio. The critics say that pension obligation bonds extend the maturity of the financing mechanism and thereby commit the city to a longer debt service period. That is not necessarily so, according to Harrell, who maintains that the maturity of the bonds can be matched to the existing maturity, life or sunset dates of the city’s other debts or investments. Another disadvantage of pension obligation bonds is that they do not provide an opportunity for early prepayment, their detractors claim. According to Harrell, the bonds can be refinanced after ten years. Pension obligation bonds impact the city’s debt capacity, those advising against their use say. That does not matter, Harrell says, since the unfunded actuarial liability is already a debt. Pension obligation bonds entail a complex structure, those who find fault with them suggest. Harrell insists that a traditional structure can be used in formulating pension bond issuances. Pension obligation bonds are an investment vehicle subject to the vicissitudes of the market, entailing considerable risk, the doomsters warn. Harrell characterizes the bonds not as an investment but rather as a debt management tool.
In touting the pension obligation bonds, Harrell said they had the advantage of not requiring voter approval and their issuance could be subject to a judicial validation proceeding. There is existing law pertaining to debt refunding allowing pension obligation bonds to be, she said, “treated as refinancing an existing obligation.”
Challenges by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to the validation process used for the issuance of the bonds by other cities, she said, are “unlikely to prevail.”
Harrell said her “recommendation is to adopt a pension liability funding policy to address further unfunded actuarial liabilities.”
It is not clear whether Harrell stands to gain anything beyond what she is being paid for her basic advice as an advisor if the city elects to issue the bonds, such as being party to an arrangement by which she obtains a commission on the issuance.
The precise value of the bonds proposed for issuance is not specified in Harrell’s report.
Conservative financial advisors are less than enthusiastic about pension obligation bonds, pointing out that they are intended to fund the unfunded public pension debt by creating further debt. This has been likened to paying off the money owed on one credit card with another credit card.
The Government Finance Officers Association is an association of officials employed by government entities. In a warning to governmental entities, the association stated, “The Government Finance Officers Association recommends that state and local governments do not issue pension obligation bonds for the following reasons: The invested pension obligation bonds’ proceeds might fail to earn more than the interest rate owed over the term of the bonds, leading to increased overall liabilities for the government. Pension obligation bonds are complex instruments that carry considerable risk. Pension obligation bonds structures may incorporate the use of guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, or derivatives, which must be intensively scrutinized as these embedded products can introduce counterparty risk, credit risk and interest rate risk. Issuing taxable debt to fund the pension liability increases the jurisdiction’s bonded debt burden and potentially uses up debt capacity that could be used for other purposes  In addition, taxable debt is typically issued without call options or with ‘make-whole’ calls, which can make it more difficult and costly to refund or restructure than traditional tax-exempt debt. Pension obligation bonds are frequently structured in a manner that defers the principal payments or extends repayment over a period longer than the actuarial amortization period, thereby increasing the sponsor’s overall costs. Rating agencies may not view the proposed issuance of pension obligation bonds as credit positive, particularly if the issuance is not part of a more comprehensive plan to address pension funding shortfalls.”
-Mark Gutglueck

On a 6-to-2 vote, San Bernardino’s mayor and city council Wednesday night hired Rob Field, the former economic development agency director for Riverside County who was abruptly fired by Riverside County Chief Executive Officer George Johnson last February, to serve as San Bernardino’s city manager, effective September 21.
While the majority of the city council’s members were impressed with Field’s credentials, expressing confidence that the challenge of righting the City of San Bernardino’s listing economic ship lies right in Field’s wheelhouse, questions exist as to whether he embodies the talent, ability and willingness to sacrifice his own personal interest in an assignment which requires on one hand, parsimony and financial austerity on the part of the city’s workforce, and on the other, aggressive expansion of the city’s revenue in an environment where businesses are abandoning the city.
The range of Field’s experience with regard to governmental operations is impressive.
He graduated from the University of California, Riverside in 1989 with a bachelor’s degree in history. Two years later, he went to work as an environmental and development specialist with the Krieger & Stewart civil engineering firm in Riverside. After seven-and-a-half years with Krieger & Stewart, in 1999 he went to work for Riverside County as a mid-level employee in the economic development agency. He found himself on the fast track there, due in large measure to his patron, Supervisor John Tavaglione, who also employed Field’s brother, John, as his chief of staff. After three advancements over the course of six years, the last one into the position of assistant director, Field in 2006 was given a promotion out of the economic development agency into the position of director of Riverside County’s facilities management division. In that capacity, Field led a staff of 600 who variously oversaw design and construction of county projects, managed the county’s real property, and provided county properties with maintenance and custodial services. He was responsible for an $80 million operations budget and a $220 million capital budget.
In March 2009, Field’s career made a huge bound when Tavaglione, in conjunction with then-Riverside County Chief Executive Officer Bill Luna, in reaction to the planned retirement of then-Assistant County Executive Officer and Economic Development Agency Director Robin Zimfer, elected to merge the positions of county facilities management director with that of economic development agency director, thereby transforming Field into an assistant county executive officer.
Thereafter, Field expanded his educational credentials, earning his master’s degree from California Baptist University in leadership and organization, and obtaining extension certificates in both economic development management and land use and environmental planning from UC Riverside.
Under Luna, and the chief county executive officer who ultimately replaced Luna, Jay Orr, Field thrived in his career as a top level public administrator. In his capacity as assistant Riverside County executive officer/economic development agency director, he oversaw 24 divisions, a staff of 840, an annual operating budget of $650 million and a $1.5 billion capital improvement budget. Among his responsibilities were directly or indirectly managing, overseeing or supervising those department directors managing and operating the county’s workforce investment and development programs, the community services division, various housing programs, the county’s 36-branch library system, all of the county’s real estate, the county’s airports, the registrar of voters office, the county parks district, animal services, the agricultural commissioner and the annual Riverside County Fair & National Date Festival.
A Riverside native, he simultaneously involved himself in a number of social, educational and cultural activities. He was the chairman of both the Dean’s Advisory Council for the UCR School of Business and the UCR Highlander Athletics Association Board of Directors, a member the March Field Air Museum Board of Directors and the advisory council for UCR’s Economic Development and Innovation Center, as well as a board member of the Unforgettables Foundation.
At the end of his tenure with Riverside County, Field was one of seven assistant chief executive officers answerable to both County Chief Executive Officer George Johnson and Chief Operating Officer Lisa Brandl. He was earning an annual salary of $294,328.64 that was augmented with $28,402.12 in other pay along with benefits of $41,543.88, which provided him with a total annual compensation package of $364,274.64.
Johnson’s succession of Orr as the county’s chief executive officer in 2017 and Tavaglione’s departure as supervisor in 2018, however, would have a profound impact on Field.
Johnson had an eight year head start on Field, having begun with Riverside County in 1991. Both had progressed up the county chain of command in relatively rapid fashion, with Johnson’s key top management postings being that of director of the county’s Transportation and Land Management Agency and director of the Transportation Department. Johnson acceded in 2012 to the third highest position in the county, that of county chief assistant executive officer under Orr.
Ultimately, Johnson at some point lost faith in Field. Because of the strict policy in California of maintaining strict confidentiality with regard to the performance of public employees, what transgressions Field engaged in that put him on the wrong side of Johnson have not been disclosed. What can be pieced together is that Johnson came to have doubts in Field’s integrity, basic competence and honesty.
Problems with the county’s capital improvement projects manifested in which Field exercised less fiscal discipline in his management role than was expected of him. This was exacerbated by Field’s tolerance of contractors whose performance was less than satisfactory and whose financial and material wherewithal to complete the projects they had successfully bid on came under question. There were, in particular, problems with regard to the construction of the John J. Benoit Detention Center in Indio, intended to be a major holding facility for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in the central-east portion of the county. Originally approved as a $330.4 million project, it has been subject to no fewer than 29 change orders and amendments to the construction contract, which have boosted the price tag on the undertaking to at least $367 million. There have been reports of shoddy workmanship on certain phases of the project. Work on a critical element of the project ground to a halt when one of the subcontractors on the project fell into bankruptcy, requiring a receivership arrangement. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors indulged the facilities management division and Field in the delays and cost increases, at least for a time, increasing the overall budget on the project by $10.2 million to $340.6 million in February 2018.
Field provided assurances to the supervisors, the sheriff and the public that the project would reach completion by the end of summer 2019, and then missed that target date. By that point his credibility had begun to erode. Sheriff Chad Bianco, in addition to being disappointed over the missed completion date for the jail, also began questioning the need for funds in his budget to be diverted to other ongoing capital projects involving his department for which the facilities management division had already received funding. That led to questions about Field’s stewardship of funds relating to the county’s construction projects. Field getting crosswise of Bianco did not endear him to Johnson.
Field’s misrepresentations with regard to meeting the jail completion date dovetailed with concerns about Field’s overall reliability and the strength of his word. While it was recognized that in his role as economic development director Field was given wide latitude in promoting Riverside County to potential investors and corporations contemplating locating operations into the county such that he was allowed to engage in exaggerations that might result in additions to the county’s roster of commercial and manufacturing enterprises, it was understood that Field’s talent for puffery exceeded that of most other government officials. Field had simultaneously developed a reputation for advocating not just on behalf of the county but in favor of his own faculties, abilities and talent as well. For some, indeed, it has been difficult to say where Field’s promotion of the county left off and the promotion of himself started.
On February 4, Johnson gave Field his walking papers, the same day that Riverside County Public Social Services Director Sarah Mack was terminated. Some have suggested that it might not be technically correct to say that Field was sacked, but that rather he resigned when he was given that option in the face of being fired. The policy of maintaining confidence with regard to the performance and work history of public employees in California clouds the issue.
It appears that the silver-tongued Field was either able to divert the majority of the San Bernardino City Council’s attention from his firing by Johnson or was somehow able to convince the council as a whole that his termination and the grounds for it are immaterial.
The council’s primary focus is on finding a manager who can map the city out of the financial doldrums it has been unable to escape. In August 2012, the city was obliged to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. It remained in that state for four years and 10 months, emerging in June 2017. During that nearly five-year interlude, the city stiffed its creditors for slightly more than $350 million, while paying the law firm which guided it through the bankruptcy process $25 million. Under the umbrella of the bankruptcy, the city, which in 2012 had an annual operating deficit of $49 million, was able to save more than it was spending over the nearly five years it was in bankruptcy, establishing reserves of just under $40 million. Once the bankruptcy crutch was no longer in place, however, the city took in some $7 million less than it spent in 2017-18, ran an $11.2 million deficit in 2018-19, and saw that annual deficit jump to $16 million by the end of 2019-20. It is thus on a trajectory to burn through the reserves it was able to husband during the bankruptcy by December of this year or January of next year. In November, San Bernardino’s voters are to vote on a one-cent sales tax measure which city officials say is needed to keep the city from slipping into bankruptcy again, to be followed, quite possibly, by being placed into a receivership and then, perhaps, by the disincorporation of the City of San Bernardino, the county seat, altogether. City officials are less than confident the city’s voters will approve the tax initiative, which is designated as Measure S on the ballot.
Mayor John Valdivia and five-sevenths of the city council this week expressed hope that Field will have the ability to miraculously rejuvenate the city financially, primarily by luring businesses of all order to the city. If indeed Field can do so, he will earn all of the $356,000 in total compensation the city council has conferred upon him, consisting of $285,000 in salary, $25,000 in other pay and $46,000 in benefits.
Nevertheless, there is widespread concern that the city council, in the generosity it displayed toward Field, has fated him and the city to failure. There is skepticism that San Bernardino, long in a death spiral in which business after business has closed or moved from the city, can overnight reverse that course or even, in the interim of a few years or even a half-decade, effectuate that turnaround. Analysts have for some time noted that a major factor in the City of San Bernardino’s economic faltering consists less of the dearth of money that it is bringing in and more in the money it is spending. At the basis of this are the exorbitant salaries and benefits the city is paying its employees.
In neighboring Colton, a decade ago at the height of the recession that began in 2007, then-City Manager Rod Foster, facing economic reality head on, recognized that the city could not sustain its continuing municipal salary and benefit outlays. He initiated negotiations with the city’s unions, informing the employees’ labor representatives that the city was on the brink of engaging in massive layoffs of its workforce unless concessions on already in-place labor contracts were made. When the union balked, Foster imposed on himself a ten percent salary reduction, setting the tone for the needed austerity at the top. He repeated the warning that layoffs were imminent, at which point the unions consented to allowing that austerity to work its way downward.
In San Bernardino, the situation is far more dire today than it was in Colton ten years ago. Nevertheless, San Bernardino’s leadership appears to be more determined to protect its own financial position than to take the action necessary to prevent the city from plunging into the financial abyss it is rapidly moving toward.
In 2012, Andrea Travis-Miller was serving in the position of a high level assistant to then-San Bernardino City Manager Charles McNeely. Nearly a decade of deficit spending had pushed San Bernardino to the brink and McNeely to distraction. Travis-Miller was promoted to assistant city manager, and she and then-Finance Director Jason Simpson worked day and night to plug the city’s overwhelming budget gaps. When McNeely, concerned about what being at the helm of San Bernardino when it declared bankruptcy would do to his career and reputation, resigned, Travis-Miller gamely stepped forward and accepted the interim city manager’s post. In tandem with Simpson, Travis-Miller made a comprehensive review of the city’s financial books, the conclusions of which were so startling that the city council in July 2012 resolved to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection on the basis of a 45-page report from Travis-Miller recommending the city do just that. The city did so the following month. Travis-Miller bravely remained in place, soldiering on as acting city manager, disregarding the negative associations that attended her continuing association with a city in bankruptcy. She remained with the city until February 2013, at which point she took on the position of the executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Economic Development Authority. Moving into the city manager’s post after her departure was Allen Parker, who was then succeeded in 2016 by Mark Scott. Scott at that point sought to convince Travis-Miller to return to San Bernardino to serve in the capacity of assistant city manager during the final phase of the city’s exit from bankruptcy. Travis-Miller, who had gone on to become the city manager of Covina after a stint as the executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Economic Development Authority, acceded to Scott’s call. When Scott left the city in August 2017, convinced that Travis-Miller’s standing as a law school graduate, a member of the California Bar, her practice with the law firm of Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trestor from 2008 until 2011, her previous term as the city manager of La Mirada and her work as acting city manager in guiding San Bernardino through its financial immolation in 2012 to the safe shore of the Chapter 9 filing stood her in good stead to manage the city, Mayor Carey Davis and the city council unanimously hired her to do just that, conferring on her a three-year contract as city manager. Fifteen months later, however, John Valdivia, who had been the city’s Third Ward Councilman, was elected mayor. Upon Valdivia being sworn in on December 19, 2018, a personality conflict between the domineering Valdivia and Travis-Miller was at once obvious, with Valdivia trying but failing on that very day to convince a majority of the council to fire Travis-Miller. Over the next four months, Valdivia took one run after another in his effort to cashier Travis-Miller, continually falling short. When at last in April 2019 the council deadlocked 3-to-3 in a vote to suspend Travis-Miller, Valdivia used his tie-breaking authority as mayor to decide the issue. Travis-Miller remained on administrative leave until the following month, at which point a special election to select Valdivia’s successor as Third Ward Councilman was held. Upon Valdivia’s ally Juan Figueroa prevailing in that race and his being seated on the council, Travis-Miller was fired. The council soon thereafter replaced her with Teri Ledoux, whose previous municipal experience had consisted of work as a relatively low-level analyst in San Bernardino and then as an executive assistant to the city managers in Huntington Beach and La Verne before she was recruited by Travis-Miller to return to San Bernardino as her assistant city manager in late 2017.
Travis-Miller sued the city for wrongful termination. That suit was settled earlier this year with the city agreeing to pay her $750,000.
Ledoux, who had eclipsed the age of 60 at the time she was moved into the city manager’s position, was intent on retiring upon reaching the age of 62. By serving in the city manager’s post for the 16 months she has held that position, she has enhanced her standing in the California Public Employees Retirement System so that the $114,000 pension she was eligible to receive in 2019 has escalated to $181,275. She is set to begin receiving that annual pension upon her retirement next week. Given the thin nature of her skill set, Ledoux was overmatched throughout her tenure as city manager. She was unable to stanch the city’s hemorrhaging of red ink, such that San Bernardino spent some $18.67 million more on city operations while she was managing the city than the revenue it brought in during the same 16 months. Her inability to impose on the city the fiscal discipline it needed to end that deficit spending proved a factor in the city council’s decision to hire Field, who is expected to spur economic development that will result in revenue increases to erase, or at least substantially reduce, that deficit.
In the meantime, Travis-Miller, whose $750,000 settlement with the city included a clause calling for both sides to refrain from any negative or derogatory comments about one another, has again filed suit against the city and is seeking another $750,000, claiming that a Facebook posting by Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra in which Ibarra said she stood by the decision to terminate Travis-Miller has irreparably damaged the former city manager’s reputation.
Thus, Field is coming to San Bernardino as the sixth city manager since 2012 – or the seventh if Travis-Miller who had two tours in that capacity is counted twice. In each case, the city councils as they were then or are currently composed saw each successive holder of the position as the city’s savior.
Unless, however, Field can accomplish what each of his five predecessors failed to carry off – transforming the city economically – he is bound to be no more successful than any of them. Moreover, his acceptance of the highest salary ever conferred upon a San Bernardino city manager makes it unlikely he will be able to claim the moral authority he will need to convince the employees at City Hall to accept the drastic pay cuts that would allow the city to balance its budget and stave off what is looking like an inevitable second bankruptcy. Mayor John Valdivia and his two rivals on the council – Councilman Fred Shorett and Councilman Jim Mulvihill – were in unusual accord and came across as equally enthusiastic about Field. They were joined in that enthusiasm by Valdivia’s two council allies, Councilwoman Bessine Richard and Councilman Juan Figueroa, as well as Councilman Ted Sanchez.
Wednesday night, in the 6-to-2 vote to hire Field and confer upon him the $285,000 salary/$356,000 total annual compensation contract, Councilwoman Ibarra and Councilman Henry Nickel dissented.
Ibarra’s objection appeared to be based upon the amount of money contained in Field’s contract.
Nickel’s rationale for not supporting Field’s appointment to the city manager’s position was more opaque. Nickel indicated that he was going to “respectfully vote against” hiring Field.
Nickel, who is currently an analyst employed by San Bernardino County, was formerly employed as a staff analyst with the Riverside County Transportation Commission. That assignment put Nickel into communication with Johnson, who terminated Field in February. What, precisely, Nickel is privy to as a consequence of his Riverside County connections was not disclosed at Wednesday evening’s city council meeting. Nor is it known what information Nickel may have conveyed to his colleagues in private or during discussions, closed to the public, relating to the selection of San Bernardino’s newest city manager from among the 47 applicants who applied for the job.
–Mark Gutglueck

Saying, “I believe that an individual elected must be a strong person, with true commitment, and willing to put in the time to listen and learn,” Virginia Brown said she is running for Barstow mayor because “As a resident of Barstow for over 50 years, I have been an advocate for various causes in our community. I am working for the people to be an ear that listens, a heart that cares, and a voice that will speak out against corruption at all levels.”
She said she is committed “to bring fair, firm consistent leadership back to our city seat, to bring accountability and transparency to the city, to reconnect the people and those in the council seats together, and open a dialogue that will provide for growth, better jobs, as well as family and elderly programs. Allowing the people to be involved in building a future for themselves, their children and grandchildren that will be something that they are a part of.” She looks toward, Brown said, to “a future for the people, of the people, by the people by being a person responsible to the people.”
She is, Brown said, “someone who will work hard for those who have elected me. As a working wife and mother, I understand balancing my commitment to a job and my family. The same commitment, dedication, love and hard work is a must in any relationship you have. A mayor must see this office as a relationship, not a job. Having been an advocate for others within our city, I’ve seen and heard firsthand the struggles of resolving issues and finding solutions when it seemed impossible. I’ve been actively attending city council meetings where concerns were brought up and never resolved. Meeting with city officials and continually seeking solutions and advocating for the people to fix issues has given me the desire to continue, because I’ve seen with proper communication and hard work anything is possible. I’m qualified to do just that. I’ve been a strong advocate for those who needed a voice. I’ve met privately with city managers and other staff to discuss and resolve issues for the people. I’ve been one of the people working, living and surviving in our community. As a worker within the community I have been out every day, right alongside the citizens of Barstow, hearing their concerns and their issues and feeling their pain. I’ve seen them stand. I’ve seen them fall. I’ve been there helping them back up and offering them hope and support. As a sergeant in a men’s prison who worked my way up from yard officer to control officer and then sergeant, I’ve had the opportunity to fine-tune the art of listening, working through the facts, problem-solving. I have communication skills. As a sergeant I had to be willing to sacrifice my life for the safety, security and well-being of everyone that I was responsible to and for. I had to be firm, fair and consistent. I had to keep an open mind and look at every situation as it came up to allow for complete transparency in every decision made and every action taken. Being fair, firm and consistent I believe are key requirement for success. Holding myself, my officers and yard staff accountable was not an option but a priority if the inmate, staff, officers and those above me were to respect who I was and that I was doing my job properly. I was not going to vary from what was right. No matter what, I stood by it and still do today. Through this time I was nicknamed by everyone on the yard ‘By the Book Brown,’ for being open-minded and remembering that I do not know everything and I must verify all the facts, making sure everything was presented, which kept me from being seen as unfair. Transparency in my decisions and every action taken kept me honest along with all my officers and staff. These are qualities our people need in the council seat to allow them to trust and have confidence that their futures are in safe hands and that they can engage without any partiality.”
She is distinguished from her opponents in the mayoral race, Brown said, by how down to earth she is.
“I am truly one of the people,” she said. “When I say one of the people, I mean ‘by the people, of the people, for the people.’ I am truly one of those people who struggled to feed her family, clothe her children, had tough times paying bills, having to prioritize a want from a need.” She was, she said, “a parent who often had to choose as my child grew which bills to pay and which ones could wait because the job was part time.” She worked, she said “several part time jobs to keep my family above water. As one of four candidates, I know that at least two did not struggle with these issues, and they had the financial means to live above the level the majority of the people have to deal with. This allows me to look at the responsibilities to the people differently. Growing up, my brother and I cleaned yards, climbed on roofs to help those who couldn’t get their swamp coolers ready for summer and weatherproofed for winter. As the daughter of a minister, I spent a summer living with an elderly female amputee, cleaning, cooking and assisting her. In my senior year I lived with an elderly woman, being her caregiver. I did not come from the background and lifestyle afforded to others, but I am richer today for being taught a servant’s heart. I was privileged to be a part of this community, a community that worked together, assisted neighbors, looked after and cared for our seniors.”
Saying that she speaks for the city’s residents she has heard from, Brown said the major issues facing the city include fire department and police department operations and the proper expenditure of the funds from Measure Q, a public safety and city services measure placed on the November 2018 ballot which passed with 59.22 percent of the vote and imposed a one-cent sales tax calculated to generate up to $7 million per year. She also said the city is struggling with creating higher paying small and industrial-type jobs, housing and employment growth, youth and senior citizen services, family programs, dealing with the drug addiction of some city residents, redressing the spate of local homelessness, assisting families and the elderly and medical shut-ins, and education.
She said steps need to be taken to ensure Measure Q money goes to public safety.
“Good businesses are the backbone of the community,” she said. “A smaller population has a hard time supporting a broad range of goods and service. The key to success in building a healthy business community in a small town is to create an economic development plan that maximizes the community strengths and minimizes its weaknesses. It is vital that the bulk of the populace is included in planning and execution. We need to bring our community together to form a vision and set goals for local economic improvement. We need to include as many community members as we can to ensure that our goals are shared and supported by the majority. I have found that leaders who ignore the community in favor of their own agenda only hurt the efforts of growth. We can offer incentives to new businesses such as property tax breaks, micro-loans, discounted fees and permits.”
She said the city should emulate larger cities in their operation of youth programs, programs for seniors and programs for families.
“Unfortunately when it comes to the homeless situation and the need for drug rehabilitation, our city leaders have faltered,” she opined. She advocated working with outside entities or agencies that have a demonstrated record of successfully dealing with such challenges.
She said the city needed more entertainment venues than the one theater, its sports park with its several types of fields subject to limited use, a single outdoor pool, and a second park that offers very few amenities currently. She decried the skate park at the second park referenced having “unfortunately turned into more of a drug area than an actual skate park. We need to offer our families more types of entertainment. We used to have a bowling alley and a skating rink. We need the type of activities that are offered to other communities. Activities don’t have to be expensive.”
Brown said, “As for the elderly, shut-ins and those with medical needs, we as a community can and should be watching out for them. We need more assistance programs and people that understand and can assist those with needs in receiving the help, from filling out paperwork, assisting in finding the proper programs and getting these citizens hooked up and plugged into these programs. We can set up a site and with the people working together actively set in place, with people willing to volunteer to work on the site or at a preset location or even going to those in need and making sure these citizens are able to return to an active lifestyle that has been denied for so long. Everyone who has a talent or skill that can add to building these programs in our community should be contributing. No one should be left out, no one excluded.”
In promoting education, Brown said the city should undertake the sponsorship of training programs to redress “the lack of job skills” among a major segment of the Barstow population. “Not everyone has had the opportunity to experience the same training as others,” she said. “Setting up programs to teach these skills for learning and growth can expand our work force, allowing those who may not have previously been able to apply for certain careers the opportunity to learn things, such as hands-on computer workshops and technical and mechanical trades. Teaching them these skills is a great avenue to assist in their chances of finding and securing that job that will bring them and their family to the next level. While I was working in the men’s prison, we had classes that afforded the inmates the chance to learn everything from budgets to financial planning, seeking for jobs, filling out applications, and much more. These same types of programs with local volunteers who understand and are willing to reach others can offer a much needed resource in our community.”
Brown confidently stated, “The issues I’ve covered are for the most part already funded. Those that are not can easily be paid for with grants and by those who are able to with donations.”
She has a familiarity with government, Brown said.
“My experience with government truly began as an officer in the men’s prison,” she said. “While history, law and government have always been a passion for me, I grew my knowledge of how the government works, the proper channels and avenues of dealing with the law while employed there. It taught me the appropriate course of action necessary while allowing me a broader view of the everyday things that either bring about success or failure when seeking solutions.”
She said, “I have been in Barstow since I was 7. We moved here around 1970. My father accepted a position as a pastor. He worked as a teacher in our local schools, as he was not taking a salary from the church. He valued education and taught me the value of it.”
Brown graduated from Barstow High in 1981. She attended Barstow Community College, where she studied history and criminal justice. She subsequently returned later to complete courses in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, and received training and certification as an emergency medical technician. She also steeped herself in classes dealing with emergency preparedness and response to emergency situations, including earthquakes and disease.
Brown is now employed at the Barstow Home Depot, where, she said, “I’ve been privileged to interact with so many of our local citizens.”
Brown said, “I’m married to a wonderful man, Jimmy Brown, for over 35 years now. I have four children, and eight grandchildren.
-M.G.

Jon Hamilton says he is the best candidate in the race to represent District 1 on the Rancho Cucamonga City Council because of both his long-term familiarity with the district and city as well as his immersion in municipal and public agency operations.
“I have called Rancho Cucamonga, and more specifically Alta Loma, my home since 1978. I attended elementary school, junior high school and high school in Alta Loma,” Hamilton said. “I bought my first house in Rancho Cucamonga, southeast of the Baseline/Carnelian intersection. My parents still live in the home I grew up in, and my son attends/attended the same schools as I did. In fact, my son and I both had the same kindergarten teacher at Jasper Elementary, Mrs. Lee, and he is now a junior at Alta Loma High School. I participated in the Founder’s Day Parade when it used to go down Baseline, and I earned my Eagle Scout Badge from a Boy Scout Troop that met out of Alta Loma Elementary School. My father was the scoutmaster. I have watched the city change and grow over the last 40 plus years.”
Rancho Cucamonga some four years ago resolved to move to district elections, and held its first district elections in Districts 2 and 3 in 2018, which resulted in political newcomers Kristine Scott and Ryan Hutchison respectively acceding to the council, displacing two of the city’s longtime politicians, Bill Alexander and Diane Williams, who opted not to return to the council.
Hamilton is now vying against incumbent councilman Sam Spagnolo and another candidate, Mark Rush, in what is the first election cycle in the city’s newly established District 1. While Spagnolo currently holds an at-large council post and California Elections Code section 13107 spells out that no one can claim incumbency for the newly-created District 1 position, the common perception is that Spagnolo is the incumbent seeking to stave off two challengers.
Hamilton insisted, “No one should suggest he should be ‘reelected,’” in reference to Spagnolo. “To do so would be dishonest and unethical. This is an open seat.”
Hamilton said, “The city has developed rapidly. In some cases, that development has improved the city and, in other cases, has gone against its character and identity. For example, the city authorized high-density housing at the northeast corner of Foothill/Hermosa, which sadly departs from the Route 66 charm the city at one time embraced. While this is not in District 1, it is a matter of time before the city begins to allow such intrusions in District 1, not to mention State Senator [Scott] Wiener bringing a housing bill forward that will remove the ability of local government to control density and allow developers to up-zone single family parcels to build multi-unit housing. District 1 is in need of some attention and beautification. The parks need new equipment, the playgrounds need resurfacing, and the ball fields and soccer fields need updated lighting and facilities. The city claims that this is the result of residents not wishing to increase the amount they pay for the parks. Measure A failed miserably with 77 percent voting ‘no.’”
Hamilton pointed out that in literature put out by the city, Rancho Cucamonga officials attributed reductions in park maintenance efforts to rising maintenance costs and property tax rates in the city that have remained static since 1993. “Clearly, this is a veiled way of saying ‘until you agree to raise your taxes, the city will not put any money into your parks,’” Hamilton said. Hamilton said he finds the city taking that position to be unacceptable. “The city is responsible for the parks, streets, lighting, maintenance, etc.,” he said.
“Most of the city’s accomplishments over the past two decades should be appreciated and honored because the city has come a long way, as appears to be captured by the recent ‘All American City’ award bestowed by the National Civic League,” Hamilton said. “This award is about civic engagement, which the city highlighted with its Los Amigos Park in the southwest quadrant in District 2, the community engagement over the Etiwanda Heights Annexation in District 4, and HealthyRC’s approach to mental health. Sadly, however, there was not a mention regarding engagement with the Alta Loma, Red Hill or District 1 Cucamonga communities.”
It is time to look forward, Hamilton said.
“An election is not about what has been done; instead, it is about the future, and there comes a time when the older generation must pass the proverbial baton to the younger generation, as Bill Alexander and Diane Williams did just two years ago,” Hamilton said. “This is the perfect time for a transition from a tenured at-large council member to a new district-elected council member. This district is my home and the people who live in it are my family. It is time they have their voice heard by the city council, and that someone fights for them.”
Hamilton said, “I believe that my connection to the community, my education, and my experience make me the ideal candidate to take the baton for the next generation and to lead the city toward continued great accomplishments. First, I am the only candidate that grew up in the district. I have watched my friends grow up from children to adults. I have seen them have children and struggle raising their families. I have watched my friends’ parents grow old and retire. I have a connection with all age groups in this district: my kids and their friends, my friends and their parents, and my parents and their friends.
“Second, I am the only candidate with school-aged children and experiencing the struggles that families have today raising families,” Hamilton continued. “In fact and it should be noted, no one on the city council currently is raising a young family. Mayor [Dennis] Michael, Council Member Spagnolo, and Council Member [Lynne] Kennedy have already raised their children, and both Councilwoman Scott and Councilman Hutchison do not have children. There is no one on this council to represent working families. Perhaps this is a reason why the parks, ball fields, and outdoor recreation areas have fallen down the list of priorities.”
Hamilton said, “Third, my parents are still living in the home they bought in 1978 and where I grew up. The same is true of so many of my friends’ parents. I understand the unique struggles that our seniors go through in our district. I am compassionate about making sure they are honored and cared for. As their representative, I will make sure that our seniors’ voices and concerns are heard.
“Fourth,” Hamilton went on, “I have been involved in serving the public in some capacity or another my entire life. This is something I started when I was in Cub Scouts and later in the Boy Scouts. My brother and I planted the trees at the south end of Red Hill Park in the 1990 time frame for an Eagle Scout project. After graduating from Alta Loma High School, I attended The Citadel – the Military College of South Carolina, where I learned how to be a faithful servant and a humble leader. After graduating from The Citadel, I attended law school and, while in law school, I joined the Marine Corps. Between my second and third year of law school, I spent the summer at Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Virginia to become a commissioned officer. After law school, I served in the USMC and was eventually stationed at Camp Pendleton. I served a combat tour in Iraq with the First Marine Division as a logistics officer as part of the invasion force in 2003. I left the USMC as a captain in 2004 and for the next decade worked as an attorney representing police officers against allegations of unreasonable use of force and deadly force. I then worked for the State of California’s Office of the Inspector General as a special assistant inspector general, wherein I would audit and monitor certain prison activities to ensure they were in compliance with federal and state law as well as departmental regulations. In 2017, I began work at the City of Montclair as its director of administrative services & human resources. I am intimately involved and familiar with how municipal government works, its possibilities when it works for the people, its limitations, and its functions. I have forged relationships with governmental officials from around the region as a result.”
Hamilton said, “I believe my education has also prepared me. I enjoy listening to everyone’s story, concerns and solutions. While the nation may be politically divided, I want to help forge ways forward in the city to improve the quality of life, improve property values, and encourage a greater sense of community. Simply put, I love the people of District 1 and I truly believe I am best qualified to represent their interests and concerns.”
Stating, “I offer a different generational perspective to solving the city’s issues,” Hamilton pointed out, “I am 45, while candidate Spagnolo is 79 and candidate Rush is 69. While both of my opponents are veterans like me, I am the only one to have served in combat, as a USMC captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am the only candidate with a post-graduate education. I possess three post-graduate degrees: a law degree, a Master of Public Administration, and Master of Business Administration. I am the only candidate with actual executive management experience involved in the day-to-day management details of a city.”
He said that “One of the biggest issues facing Rancho Cucamonga is what is facing almost every city: public employee unfunded pension liability costs. While managing these costs during ordinary times has proven to be challenging, it will be compounded with the loss of revenue the city will experience as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the possibility of economic recession caused by the loss of jobs and unemployment. The city must meet its obligations, but the loss of revenue will certainly impact many programs that may have to operate on severely reduced funding or be eliminated altogether. While it is hopeful that the impacts of this pandemic are not deep and long, they are going to be felt. It is for this reason that there must be a reevaluation of the city’s spending to determine that it is truly meeting the priorities of the community. However, the city must live within its means, address those issues most important to the people who call Rancho Cucamonga their home, and not ‘fix’ obligations or spending decisions by implementing any form of additional taxation that will directly impact the residents of this city, such as a pension bond measure, an increase in the transaction and use tax, an increase in utility users fees, special parcel tax increases, etc.”
In explaining his policy orientation, Hamilton said, “Development must be intelligently designed and planned for the community to ensure that historical neighborhoods retain their charm and character, while high-density housing is planned in such a way to keep any congestion/parking issues geographically isolated to their location. With property crimes occurring, there may need to be an increased policing presence to make would-be opportunistic thieves look at District 1 as a hard target and not a place of criminal opportunity. There has also been a marked increase in homelessness in District 1, something that I never saw previously. Safety, standard of living, and community integrity must be supported.”
Those issues can be addressed or redressed, Hamilton said, by “re-prioritization. There must be a fresh look at the city’s priorities to determine if they are correctly aligned with the community’s interests. Has the city continued to prioritize certain items year-after-year that should now fall down the list to make way for new priorities? For example, the city has the responsibility to pay for its parks, streets, lighting, and landscaping, and it successfully shifted these costs through the establishment of special districts, involving Mello-Roos assessments during the construction phase of newer developments post-incorporation. Attempting to create special taxing districts on older communities to cover what is the city’s general fund responsibility is unfair to the residents of District 1 who formed the financial backbone to the City of Rancho Cucmamonga when it was first incorporated. Every item of spending and every program must be analyzed and prioritized pursuant to the desires of the community through actual engagement with the entire city.”
Defraying the cost of meeting the city’s evolving challenges can be done by judicious rerouting of available money within the city’s general fund and other operational, utility and enterprise accounts, Hamilton said.
“With re-prioritization comes an analysis of the budget to cut low priority programs or to reduce money to areas already saturated with money,” he said. “There must a transparency in an effort to determine where the money is spent and we need to then provide time for residents to engage the city to establish those priorities. Special interests should never be high on the list of priorities without the consent of the people and with full disclosure.”
His prior and current experience with or relating to government consists of his time in the United States Marine Corps, his work for a private law firm representing police officers who were sued in the course and scope of their duties for such allegations as wrongful death, unlawful seizure, unlawful search and false arrest, his legal representation of cities in preparing and litigating administrative disciplinary cases against officers and public employees, his interaction while in that capacity with city managers and police chiefs, his stint as a special assistant inspector general for the State of California’s Office of the Inspector General overseeing, monitoring, and auditing prison officials to ensure compliance with federal and state law as well as departmental regulations, and his present position as the director of administrative services and human resources for the City of Montclair, he said. That experience uniquely qualifies him for the city council, Hamilton asserted. He is also a board member for the California Insurance Pool Authority.
He is a 1993 graduate of Alta Loma High School, where he was an honors student and on the wrestling team. He obtained a bachelor of arts degree in German Literature from The Citadel in 1996, his law degree from Whittier Law School in 2000, his Master of Public Administration, from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona in 2015 and his Master of Business Administration from California State University, San Bernardino in 2020.
Hamilton and his wife, Adriane, who is a family nurse practitioner and an intensive care unit nurse at San Antonio Regional Hospital, together have seven children, three of his from a former marriage, including a son, 15, and two daughters, 10 and 8, and Adriane’s four children: a son, 12, and three daughters, 17, 15, and 9.
“I love District 1 and all the people living in it,” Hamilton said.
-M.G.

Lane Schneider, who is seeking election to the Redlands City Council representing that city’s newly formed District 4 this year, says she will be a mature presence on the council who embodies the values of the private sector.
“I’m running for city council to provide a fresh perspective to our council,” Schneider said. “I’ve lived in Redlands for more than 30 years, and want to serve my community in a different way than I have up to now.”
Saying “I’ve been interested in the city council for a number of years,” Schneider noted that “I actually ran for the council in 2012. I care a lot about the people of Redlands, and over the years I’ve lived here I’ve learned to listen and serve people’s interests and needs, primarily at a neighborhood level. I’m a creative thinker, lover of people and an inquisitive person, which I believe are important qualities for a servant leader, which is what I think a council member ought to be. The specific skills for the actual work the position requires can be learned, but character is shaped over a lifetime. People are looking for leaders of character, and I believe I’m qualified in this way.”
She represents a bulwark against a growing trend by which the holders of local elective office are increasingly creatures of government, meaning they are employed as government workers, primarily other local agencies or cities.
“I don’t know my opponents personally, but I think that two are currently employed with city or county government,” Schneider said. “The other candidate is a current graduate student. I’m a mature person with years of experience as a creative problem solver. I’ve led campaigns, and most recently have had the privilege of winning. I think I offer a different position from my opponents in many ways.”
In sizing up what she sees as the major challenges facing the city, Schneider drew a distinction between herself and the two of her opponents who are employed in government, specifically Ivan Rodriguez and Steven Frasher, both of whom support Measure T, Frasher more adamantly than Rodriguez, which would levy an additional 1 percent “transactions and use tax” on purchasers of goods and products in Redlands.
“As with most cities, dealing with the restrictions from COVID-19 and the struggle of businesses to survive is one issue,” she said. “Another issue in Redlands is the measure on the November ballot for a 1% city sales tax increase. The development of downtown, especially Redlands Mall, is another important issue.”
Schneider said, “Regarding COVID-19, anything the city can do to help businesses open and stay open helps us all. The outdoor dining that’s been instituted is a good start. As for the tax increase, it’s not a good time for a new tax, when so many are out of work, on limited income or have their businesses closed. Is there ever a good time for a new tax? The tax does not have any sunset provision, and would be applied to the general fund. I oppose it. As far as development in the downtown area, during the primary election in March, Redlands voters overwhelming, by a margin of 65 percent to 35 percent, rejected the city’s solution to ‘fix the mall,’ as presented in Measure G. But the mall problem still remains, and needs to be addressed. I believe this will be hard work, but I also believe there is a solution that the people of Redlands can support.”
As a political and City Hall outsider, Schneider said she does not have access to the city’s books or enough information to map out now how the city can fund new programs or manage its finances.
“I’m not making proposals about that at this time,” she said. “I think it would be arrogant of me to assume that I know everything there is to know about the issues right now. I want to listen, learn, research and study to find ideas and solutions that serve the people of Redlands. There is no cost to the city for new ideas. I’m mindful that I’m not on the council yet, and not privy to all information a council member has.”
Schneider acknowledged having no actual experience in government, either as an elected official, an appointed one or as a governmental employee. Her independence from government is as much of an argument in favor of her being entrusted with a position of authority as it is a reason for disallowing her to oversee Redlands government as a voting member of a panel of five. “I don’t really have experience serving in government, unless you count civilian employment with the Navy and the Coast Guard,” she said. “I’ve been involved in politics for many years of my life, but campaigning is not governing. Issues can be studied, and facts and procedures can be learned. I love learning and thinking, so I am confident that the lack of previous ‘experience’ is not really a handicap. I am ready to work to serve Redlands well.”
She is a 33-year Redlands resident. “I moved to Redlands in 1987,” she said.
Schneider graduated from Duncan U. Fletcher High School in Jacksonville Beach, Florida and has a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Florida, where she majored in Russian Studies & Slavic Languages. She spent her college senior year in Poland at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, and upon graduation taught English at that University for a year. After locating in Redlands, she has taken numerous art courses offered at Crafton Hills College and Cal State San Bernardino.
She is employed as a commercial artist. “My entire professional career has been in graphic design and illustration, solving problems of communication for people in a visual manner,” she said. “I’ve worked as an independent contractor in this field, but I’m not actively seeking clients now.”
She is married with one child. “In December I will celebrate my 40th anniversary with my husband Greg. He is a professional photographer and photojournalist. I’m his biggest fan. Our daughter Rae lives in Seattle and is a histology technician. We don’t have grandchildren.”
Schneider said, “I want people to know I’m available to them, especially the Sentinel’s Redlands readers. My phone number is 909-844-3179, my email is lane4redlands@laneschneider.com, my website is https://www.laneschneider.com. I will listen to the people of Redlands. This race is a district race, and only District 4 voters will be voting in it, but the council serves all of Redlands.”

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the August 28 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 08-28-20