State Senator Richard Roth and Assemblywoman Laura Friedman have reintroduced legislation that would significantly attenuate or perhaps event thwart Los Angeles-based Cadiz Inc.’s designs on diverting billions of gallons of east Mojave Desert groundwater to Orange and Los Angeles counties.
Senate Bill 307 is an amalgamation of the two legislators’ previous efforts to safeguard desert water, Friedman’s Assembly Bill 1000, introduced in July 2017, and Roth’s Senate Bill 120, introduced in August 2018. Both were met with stiff opposition by Cadiz, Inc. and lobbyists and politicians working on the company’s behalf. That opposition, and the consideration that both bills were introduced so late in the 2017 and 2018 legislative sessions, ultimately doomed those attempts.
Friedman and Roth have now combined their efforts in a coordinated approach, involving a bill introduced months ahead of the deadline by which legislation must be considered and voted upon, thus bypassing what had proven the fate of the earlier bills.
Senate Bill 307 would put in place measures requiring “that any future water transfers from groundwater basins underlying desert lands do not adversely affect the California desert’s natural or cultural resources,” according to an encapsulation of the bill.
Roth said, “Senate Bill 307 enhances protections to California’s deserts by ensuring any future water transfers from groundwater basins underlying desert lands do not adversely affect the desert’s natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or sensitive habitats. The issue at hand is the role the state will play in preserving the fragile ecosystem in the Mojave Desert. Proposals to extract water from aquifers historically receive the highest level of scrutiny. A long-debated proposal continues to generate concern due to a discrepancy in how much water can be sustainably pumped from an aquifer beneath the Mojave Desert. If we get this wrong we run the risk of destroying a precious national monument and fragile ecosystem. We must proceed with the utmost caution.”
While Senate Bill 307 does not mention Cadiz, Inc. or the company’s centerpiece undertaking, the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project, the proposed law represents a direct threat to the viability of the arrangement by which the company would extract 50,000 acre-feet of groundwater, an amount equal to 16.29 billion gallons, every year from the aquifers beneath the Cadiz and Fenner valleys in the eastern Mojave Desert. That water would be conveyed to Orange and Los Angeles counties.
The project evolved from what was originally the Cadiz Land Company’s plan to secure water rights in a remote locale in the Mojave Desert to then sell that water for use elsewhere. Using a 40-acre plot near Cadiz, the company, then led by Ted Dutton and Keith Brackpool, in 1987 began growing organic vegetables and fruits, including beans, melons and tomatoes. Thereafter, the company, based upon the irrigation of those crops at the Cadiz farm, made a claim to water rights from the Cadiz/Fenner aquifer. In 1997, the Metropolitan Water District bought into a proposal from the Cadiz Land Company to convey up to 1.5 million acre-feet of what was at that time referenced as “surplus” Colorado River water to the Cadiz Valley and “store” that water by pumping it into the water table there. In “dry years” the Cadiz Land Company proposed allowing the Metropolitan Water District to extract water from the aquifer and conduct it through a 35-mile pipeline that was to be constructed between the Cadiz Valley and the Metropolitan Water District’s existing Colorado River aqueduct.
After five years of environmental studies, in August 2002, the federal government gave approval to the project. In October 2002, however, the proposal was rejected by the Metropolitan Water District’s board of directors after conservationists raised concerns over possible environmental damage. The concept lay dormant for six years as an extensive round of litigation between the Cadiz Land Company and the Metropolitan Water District ensued. In 2008, the Cadiz Land Company, by then known as Cadiz, Inc., revived the plan in modified form, having eliminated the storage of water from the Colorado River in the desert’s water table and instead proposing to obtain the water from sources feeding the desert area’s dry lakes that the company maintained are subject to excessive evaporation. The revived project, to entail the sinking of 34 wells into the desert and construction of a 44-mile pipeline to meet up with the aqueduct carrying Colorado River water to the Los Angeles and Orange County metropolitan areas, was given a tentative budget of $536.25 million. Cadiz, Inc. first arranged to find potential buyers of the water, lining up the Santa Margarita Water District, in Orange County; the Three Valleys Water District, which provides water to the Pomona Valley, Walnut Valley, and Eastern San Gabriel Valley; the Golden State Water Company, which serves several communities in Southern California, including Claremont; Suburban Water Systems, which serves Covina, West Covina and La Mirada; and the Jurupa Community Services District, which serves Mira Loma in Riverside County. To obtain environmental certification of the project, Cadiz, Inc. turned not to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, but to the Santa Margarita Water District, which was to be the largest recipient of the water. The Santa Margarita Water District is the second largest water district in Orange County, serving the affluent communities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, Coto de Caza, Las Flores, Ladera Ranch and Talega.
Based on the consideration that the Santa Margrita Water District lies 217 miles from the Cadiz Valley across the county line from San Bernardino County, a contingent of San Bernardino County residents protested allowing a water district with a stake in the project assuming lead agency status on the project. Key to San Bernardino County lining up to contest that arrangement in court was then-San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, in whose First District the Cadiz and Fenner valleys and much of the East Mojave were located. With Mitzelfelt at that point attempting to leapfrog from his position as county supervisor to Congress, Cadiz, Inc. opportunistically took advantage of the circumstance, providing Mitzelfelt with $48,100 in political donations, in return for which Mitzelfelt prevailed upon his board colleagues to allow the Santa Margarita Water District to usurp project approval and environmental certification authority from them. Ironically, it was in some measure Mitzelfelt’s support of Cadiz, Inc.’s effort to commandeer the region’s water supply for use in Orange and Los Angeles counties that undercut his viability as a Congressional candidate. In the 2012 primary race in the 8th Congressional District, Mitzelfelt, even with the Cadiz, Inc. money infusing his campaign effort, placed a distant fifth among thirteen candidates. In reaching for the Congressional brass ring, Mitzelfelt had to forgo seeking reelection as supervisor, consigning himself to leave office later that year. He was still in office as a lame duck when on July 31, 2012, the Santa Margarita Water District’s Board of Directors certified the environmental impact report for the Cadiz Water project, clearing the way for Cadiz, Inc. to extract an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water per year – more than 16 billion gallons of groundwater annually – for the next century from the eastern Mojave Desert and send it via pipeline westward to Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties.
In this way, the Cadiz Water Project, officially called by its proponents the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project, became known as the Mitzelfelt’s lasting political legacy, the final product of his failed attempt to trade the trust of his constituents and his authority over the fate of their regional resources for cash he believed would be the key to vaulting him into national political office.
Over the next seven years, a succession of environmental challenges and lawsuits delayed the implementation of the project. Cadiz, Inc. succeeded in removing those to Orange County Superior Court and overcoming all of those lawsuits, and is now dealing with them at the appellate level.
With the advent of the Donald Trump administration, the prospects for the project brightened, as the president announced in the Spring of 2017 a policy prioritizing such undertakings and removing the requirement that they be subjected to extensive environmental review.
Later in 2017, Friedman, D-Glendale, in response to the federal administration’s policy, entered the fray, altering the language of pending legislation, AB 1000, which originally pertained to water meter standards, to halt significant water pumping until state land and wildlife officials review the proposed groundwater extractions to first certify they will not harm the desert’s ecology. “When the federal government refuses to undertake these environmental reviews, the state must step up and make sure they are done,” said Friedman.
Friedman’s move triggered objections and a counteraction from Cadiz, Inc. and its corporate officers, who characterized what she was engaged in as “flawed legislation.” They turned to three of their allies in the California Senate, State Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens; Kevin de León D-Los Angeles, who was from 2014 until March 2018 was the California Senate President Pro Tempore; and current California Senate Leader Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. Having already provided de León with $9,100 in political contributions up to that point, Cadiz, Inc. intensified its support for de León’s 2018 run for U.S. Senate. Cadiz, Inc. also sought to ensure it would obtain Atkins, the one-time California Assembly Speaker and who in 2018 succeeded de León as California Senate President Pro Tempore, contributing $15,550 to her either directly as a corporate contribution or from employees and those of its law firm, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, which also employs Cadiz, Inc.’s president, Scott Slater. With de León, Lara and Atkins militating for Cadiz behind the scenes, the release of AB 1000 was effectively blocked and kept from making it past the California Senate Appropriations Committee, where it lay dormant at the end of the 2017 legislative session.
Picking up in 2018 where Friedman had left off in 2017, California State Senator Senator Richard Roth formulated Senate Bill 120, the upshot of which was that the transfer of groundwater out of the desert would be prohibited unless the State Lands Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife conclude the water removal “will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources” of nearby state or federal lands. Roth said the bill was not intended to prohibit the use of desert water outside of the desert, but would prevent water removal if such pumping had the effect of removing more water from the desert on an annual basis or within any given time frame if the recharge of water into the desert during the time period considered did not equal or exceed the amount of water taken out.
Senate Bill 120 was introduced at a very late stage in the legislative process, greatly complicating its prospect for passage. The bill was presented to Roth’s fellow and sister legislators on Friday, August 24, one week prior to the August 31 end of the 2018 legislative session. Thus, from the outset, its passage was going to require nearly Herculean expediting across a normally grueling and methodical process that typically requires months. Remarkably, Senate Bill 120 was ratified by California Lower House in just five days, as the Assembly voted 45-20 to accept it. But that left less than three days for the Senate to consider it and vote upon it. Cadiz had sewn an outcome favorable to itself up, based not only on the then-presence of de León, Lara and Atkins in the California Senate, but its retention of the services of a formidable array of lobbyists, including a lobbying firm headed by Greg Campbell, Toni Atkins’ former chief of staff, another lobbying firm headed by Justin Fanslau, who was Atkins’ former legislative director, and Mercury Public Affairs, which employs former Assembly Speaker Fabián Nuñez.
Those lobbyists working on behalf of Cadiz, Inc. are pushing the narrative that the project has already been subject to a California Environmental Quality Act review and that the project’s opponents have unfairly loaded the dice against the project with legislation such as Senate Bill 120 and Assembly Bill 1000. They are further marshaling endorsement of the project by construction worker unions, as those union members stand to obtain employment in the construction of the pipeline.
California’s U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein (D-California), the author of the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act of 2015 and the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, said she was absolutely in support of SB 307.
“The Trump administration has rolled back key protections at the federal level, so we need the state legislature to step up and pass this critically important legislation to stop projects like Cadiz,” she said.
David Lamfrom, the California director of the National Parks Conservation Association, said, “Senator Roth is answering the calls of communities, water agencies, tribes and conservation organizations by defending California desert water. Generations of people who live in the desert and love the desert have fought this harmful proposal, which endangers one of our country’s most unique, precious and important places. With acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s long-time connections to the Cadiz proposal and the Trump administration’s actions to eliminate safeguards, the time for California to take action is now.”
In reaction to the introduction of SB 307, Cadiz, Inc. stated, “Last year, Senator Roth authored SB 120, with identical language as SB 307; SB 120 garnered strong opposition from nearly 80 organizations representing labor, business, community groups and local government, and ultimately failed to pass out of the Legislature at the end of session. Since that time, we have engaged in a dialogue with Senator Roth to address his questions about the long-term sustainability of the project and the state’s role in groundwater management in the vast Mojave Desert. We understand that Senator Roth intends to continue to engage with us and our opponents throughout the legislative session. We appreciate the senator’s willingness to engage with us and welcome a continued dialogue with the Legislature and the bill’s proponents.”
The statement continues, “Cadiz is and has always been committed to making reliable, clean drinking water available to Southern California in a safe, sustainable way. We have followed the law to develop a project that can be part of the solution to California’s long-term water challenges and are proud of our plan to manage groundwater at our private property in San Bernardino County so it can provide new water for 400,000 people across Southern California as well as new groundwater storage for our growing state.
“We agree with Senator Roth and his co-sponsor Assemblywoman Laura Friedman that thorough review of groundwater projects in desert ecosystems is important,” the statement continues. “Cadiz has worked with dozens of expert hydrologists and geologists from leading universities to evaluate the science behind this project and help design a project that will not harm the desert environment. Cadiz has followed California’s stringent environmental laws to permit the project and worked with the County of San Bernardino on a detailed groundwater management plan to limit the project to safe and sustainable levels of operation. We are also committed to providing Senator Roth the assurance he is seeking that our project is sustainable, but we disagree that SB 307 is the appropriate vehicle or solution given its laser focus on one specific project in one small section of the Mojave Desert instead of subjecting all groundwater use in the Mojave Desert to the same standards. Furthermore, as drafted, SB 307 proposes to subject court-approved decisions made under the California Environmental Quality Act, and in accordance with local groundwater law, to new, undefined reviews. Were the Legislature to enact such a policy, it would be establishing a troubling precedent for infrastructure development and groundwater management across California.”
The statement concluded, “Therefore, we will strongly oppose SB 307, unless amended to address our concerns, as we opposed its predecessors SB 120 and AB 1000.”
-Mark Gutglueck

A vandal virtually destroyed one of San Bernardino County’s most splendid examples of religious iconography early this week.
Two statues, representing Bernadette Soubirous and the Blessed Virgin Mary that have garnished the front of our Lady of Lourdes Church in Montclair for two generations were wrecked by a person at this time unknown by authorities.
It is not known whether sufficient detail can be gleaned from a video of the destruction that took place for authorities to determine who the perpetrator is.
Around 4:30 a.m. February 25, according to the Montclair Police Department, “An unknown suspect drove into a nearby parking lot in a sedan, emerged from the car and approached the statues with an unknown object in his hand. Using this object, he struck the two statues, causing significant damage to both. The suspect then left in the sedan.”
Our Lady of Lourdes Church was founded by Father Joseph Mackey, a Franciscan priest from Ireland, and was dedicated under the Diocese of San Diego on December 12, 1956, having been built by hardworking and dedicated parishioners during weekends and evenings over the course of 18 months. The parish moved into the Diocese of San Bernardino upon its creation in 1978.
The church celebrates the apparition of Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus Christ, to Bernadette Soubirous in a grotto near Lourdes, France in 1858.
The stone statues that were destroyed Monday were a representation of that apparition.
The monetary value of the statues, put at roughly $5,000, does not match the worth ascribed to them by those for whom Our Lady of Lourdes exists as the earthly portal toward divine aspiration.

You can never wear too much army green and the truth is it never goes out of style. This spring the militant color is coming in strong. The look is available in any form, pants, jacket, tops, sweater. You can easily pair a slouchy bomber jacket and a matching crop top in army green.
The olive color is and inspiring and it really makes an outfit look utilitarian. There’s also something about Military green coats they look great with denim, greys, and  black neutrals. And the green is subtle enough that there isn’t much of a strong statement. There are also camouflage   pants pair that with accessories and you have a chill outfit. I love the olive military green its bohemian chick and it settles well with any other neutral. Green is also a perfect color for spring which represents a refreshing change . Enjoy your utilitarian look and stay fresh!

“Green is the prime color of the world, and that from which its loveliness arises.” -Pedro Calderon de la Barca

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the February 22 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 02-22-19

Knowledgeable elements of the Adelanto community did not fail to miss a mysterious payment that was scheduled to be ratified by the Adelanto City Council on February 13, the same day that City Manager Jessie Flores was placed on administrative leave.
The $30,000 check, which was listed on the payment register for that evening’s city council meeting, was anomalous in multiple respects, and the scrutiny it has engendered has yet to result in any official explanation. This has provoked widespread suspicion that the check, and the story behind it, are at the root of Flores’s suspension.
One unconfirmed report is that the check, the payee on which is yet officially unspecified, represented an effort by Flores to deliver “hush money” to an individual or individuals with compromising, damaging or embarrassing information with relating to either current or past elected Adelanto officials, or Flores himself.
The payment register normally lists the check numbers, their invoice numbers or dates, the issuance dates, descriptions of what the payments are for, the source of the funds for the payments, the payees and the amounts of the checks issued or to be issued by the city. In this case, the referenced check, numbered 661, bears an invoice number corresponding to its date of 1/24/2019, which is typical and consistent with standard practice. In the description column, however, the notation is “Confidential.” Such designations are virtually unheard of, both in the context of City of Adelanto operations and those in any other municipality. The source of funding is not specified. Nor is the payee name provided. The amount is shown as $30,000.
Despite repeated attempts by the Sentinel to determine who the payee was, the city has not released that information. A recurrent report was that Flores had arranged the payment of $30,000 to a recently departed code enforcement officer, Derek Stevens, in an effort to dissuade him from speaking openly about orders and instructions he had received to “stand down” in his function, that is, to discontinue enforcement and inspection efforts of certain cannabis-related businesses in the city after the owners of those businesses had provided kickbacks to elected officials and high ranking city staffers.
City officials did not provide even a cursory description of what the payment was made for or whether it was intended as remuneration for goods or services.
The item relating to Flores’ suspension was not included in the agenda for The February 13 regular meeting of the city council, which by law is posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. That agenda included the payment register containing the reference to Check #661. In the case of the announcement of the action relating to Flores, it was represented as an “emergency walk-on” item, pertaining to an exigent circumstance that allows an elected body to proceed on a matter without the standard 72-hour notice to the public. After an executive closed session of the council carried out behind closed doors outside the view and beyond earshot of the public, the council adjourned into its public session on February 13, at which point City Attorney Victor Ponto announced that Flores had been placed on paid administrative leave. The council immediately, but only temporarily, elevated City Clerk Brenda Lopez into the position of acting city manager. The following day, Lopez returned to her position as city clerk, and Socorro Cisneros was selected to serve as acting city manager.
City officials, citing legal protections provided under state statute to public employees, were unwilling to provide a reason for Flores’s suspension. City Councilwoman Stevevonna Evans did say the suspension was intended to allow an independent investigator retained by the city to carry out an examination relating to Flores over issues she said she could not specify. She said Flores will remain suspended, pending the completion of the investigation, at which point his restoration as the city’s functioning city manager is possible.
Inquiries at City Hall were referred to the city’s communications advisor, Michelle Van Der Linden. Repeated queries to Van Der Linden, including an email and repeated phone calls to both her City Hall telephone and cell phone, went unanswered. Van Der Linden did not offer a clarification as to whether the $30,000 payment was a legitimate one, what it was for, whom it was made to and what services were rendered or materials, supplies or goods provided in exchange for the payment. Nor did Van Der Linden explain why the description of paid-for services or goods was listed as confidential and why the identity of the payee was withheld. She was not available to identify who the payee was. Van Der Linden did not say whether the reason for the secrecy around the payment was disclosed to the council and she did not say whether the council knew or was told who the payee was. To the more pointed question of whether the $30,000 payment was intended as a payoff or hush money, Van Der Linden was equally mum.
In November, the two incumbent members of the council seeking reelection, then-Mayor Rich Kerr and then-Councilman John Woodard, were turned out of office. The other incumbent, Charles Glasper, did not seek reelection. Those elected in November, Mayor Gilbert Reyes and council members Evans and Gerardo Hernandez, came into office in December as newcomers who were in some measure dependent upon Flores for guidance. Flores is widely perceived as a creature of the regime headed by Kerr. With Kerr no longer in power, there have been increasingly strident calls by members of the public for the council to dispense with Flores. A high school graduate with only limited training and education beyond that level, Flores had no governmental management experience when he was elevated to the city manager’s post from his role as the city’s contract economic development consultant in July 2018.
One city official remarked that the very likely illegal effort to issue a $30,000 check drawn on a municipal account to an unspecified individual for no identifiable purpose under the cover of confidentiality is an object demonstration of Flores’ lack of experience in the governmental administrative realm and an illustration of his unsuitability as city manager.
-Mark Gutglueck

John Valdivia’s progress toward political primacy in San Bernardino, which has already encountered a set of setbacks, was confronted with the most serious rebuff yet with indications earlier this month that his closest council ally over the last four years has defected to the other side of the city’s political divide.
Valdivia was elected to the city council in 2011, defeating then Third District Councilman Tobin Brinker, 826, votes or 69.24 percent to 367 votes or 30.76 percent, in an election in which only 7.7 percent of voters participated. San Bernardino was under the gun financially at that time. Led by then-Mayor Patrick Morris, municipal officials were seeking to come to grips with a circumstance in which personnel costs were consuming more than 91 percent of the city’s budget, and 68 percent by the police and fire departments. Brinker had endorsed Morris’s approach of reducing city staff salaries and benefits in an effort to right the city’s listing financial ship. But that approach had gotten crosswise of the city’s powerful public safety employees’ unions – the San Bernardino Police Officers Association and the San Bernardino Firefighters Association – which were alarmed at the call by Morris, Brinker, Councilman Fred Shorett and then-Councilman Rikke Van Johnson to freeze the pay of firefighters and police officers.
Valdivia was able to soundly defeat Brinker, principally as a consequence of the support he was provided by the police and firefighters’ unions. This left him disinclined to support the austerity measures favored by Morris. Unable to stem the city’s continued deficit spending because of the commitments to the city’s public safety unions, Morris and then-City Manager Charles McNeeley found themselves in the unenviable circumstance of having to seek Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. McNeeley, with the assistance of then-assistant city manager Andrea Travis-Miller prepared the filing, and then, in an effort to salvage his once-illustrious career as a public administrator and prevent his name from being associated with the debacle, resigned as city manager before the filing was actually made in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside in August 2012.
The following year, in April 2013, San Bernardino Residents For Responsible Government, claiming the city’s bankruptcy filing as motivation, launched an effort to qualify a recall vote against Morris, then-City Attorney Jim Penman and then-Councilwoman Wendy McCammack, Shorrett, Van Johnson, Valdivia, then-Councilwoman Virginia Marquez, Councilman Robert Jenkins, and Councilman Chas Kelley.
Eventually, the group called an end to its effort against Morris, who had announced he was not seeking reelection in that year’s November election. It also discontinued the campaigns against Jenkins, Marquez and Shorrett, who were scheduled to seek reelection in that November’s election. It dropped the campaign against Van Johnson as well. It did proceed with the call to let voters decide on removing Kelley, Valdivia, McCammack and Penman, but failed to collect sufficient signatures to continue with the recall effort against Kelley. Curiously, the group had not targeted San Bernardino Treasurer David Kennedy, despite the claim that the recall effort’s genesis stemmed from the city’s bankruptcy filing.
That November, the recall effort against Penman and McCammack succeeded. Valdivia, however, with the backing of the public safety unions, comfortably staved off the effort to remove him from office with 705 voters or 62.33 percent voting against his recall and 426 or 37.67 percent supporting his removal.
McCammack, despite having been recalled by the voters she represented in the city’s Seventh Ward, was the top vote-getter among ten candidates seeking the mayoralty, who included her council colleagues Van Johnson and Kelley, as well as a perennial candidate for local and state public office, Henry Nickel, qualifying her for a run-off early in 2014 against political newcomer Carey Davis, the runner-up. Kelley had withdrawn from the mayor’s race before it took place, having been felled by the filing of criminal charges against him relating to his misuse of campaign funds. Kelley resigned from his position on the council as well. Nevertheless, he still received 587 votes or 4.87 percent, which was more than two of the others in the ten-candidate race. Jenkins, who had been weakened by the filing of criminal charges against him relating to his efforts to hurt his estranged boyfriend, was voted out of office, replaced by one of Valdivia’s future allies, Benito Barrios. McCammack ultimately lost to Carey Davis, who had been endorsed by Morris.
In 2014, after some early contretemps involving incoming Mayor Davis’s choice of a chief of staff in which he found himself at odds with virtually all of the council, two factions on the council formed when Davis resigned himself to accepting that his choice as chief of staff, Michael McKinney, who had coordinated his mayoral campaign, just wasn’t going to fly. Davis, who was yet governing under the terms of the city’s 1905 municipal charter, was in charge, with the support of Shorett, Van Johnson, Marquez and Councilman Jim Mulvihill, who had been elected in 2013 as the replacement for McCammack following her recall. Valdivia, who found himself aligned with Nickel and Barrios, was overwhelmed by both the political muscle of the opposing faction and the structure of government.
Under San Bernardino’s municipal charter which was first put in place in 1905 and was yet in place 109 years later, the mayor held both political and administrative sway. The mayor presided over council meetings, wielding the gavel and controlled the ebb and flow of discussion and debate. The mayor had the authority to on his own initiative put any matter on the council agenda for discussion and action. And while the mayor did not have a vote under normal circumstances, he or she was eligible to vote to break a tie. Moreover, the mayor had veto power on any 4-to-3 votes or 3-to-2 votes. This meant, in actuality, that on any issues where the voting did not lopsidedly go against the position the mayor held, he or she actually possessed two votes. In addition to the mayor’s political reach, however, the position was an uncommonly strong one in terms of managerial authority. Indeed, the mayor and city manager were co-managerial regents, such that the mayor had the authority to hire and fire city personnel, or at least have final say-so in virtually all hiring or firing, including that of the city manager and department heads and lower city employees.
Davis, in some measure was being advised by Morris, and he was intent on pushing to fruition some of the reforms that Morris had outlined, including reducing the drain on city finances represented by the high salaries and benefits provided to the city’s public safety employees. A snag in this regard was a provision – known as Section 186 – put into the municipal charter by means of a citywide vote in 1939. Section 186 required that policemen and firemen be paid on a scale equal to the average pay of police officers and firefighters in ten similarly-sized California cities. Davis and the council majority, as well as their backers, wanted to dispense with Section 186. In 2014, they put a voter initiative, Measure Q, on the ballot. Measure Q would have erased the requirement that the pay scale be prorated to the pay scales offered to firefighters and police officers elsewhere and would have freed the city to adjust remuneration of the safety employees through the collective bargaining process. With Valdivia in strong opposition and the firefighters and police officers associations spending heavily to defeat it, Measure Q did not pass.
To offset the suggestions from Davis’s faction that Valdivia and his cohorts were not representing the citizens of the city but rather the city’s employees, Valdivia reinvented himself, fashioning his persona in the mold of Nickel, as a financial watchdog. Where he sensed he could do so, Valdivia at council meetings would insist on analyzing, often at length and in exacting detail, routine items that had come before the elected body, parsing the accompanying staff report, examining the expenditure or expenditures relating thereto, making staff justify each layout, as if he were determined to show that by being parsimonious on the elements of the city’s budget relating to the roughly 32 percent of the spending on non-safety related municipal operations, significant enough savings could be wrung to make up for maintaining the city’s generosity toward its police officers and firefighters, who returned the favor by endowing his campaign fund with enough money to ensure that he would ward off any serious competitors. At the same time, the police and fire unions assisted him in his efforts on their behalf by repeating the constant refrain that the city was not being generous enough in terms of police and firefighter salaries, to the point that the city was constantly losing talented and dedicated professionals to other departments. Meanwhile, Valdivia and Nickel were drawing ever closer together.
2015 and 2016 would be critical years for Valdivia in terms of his political advancement, involving four major and two minor developments. As it would turn out, four of those went his way. Two did not. Figuring there were at least two ways to skin the same cat, the council majority in the aftermath of the failure of Measure Q moved to simply close out its fire department and leave the firefighting and provision of emergency medical service to the county fire department. With Valdivia virtually howling in protest, Davis outmaneuvered him and had a majority of the city council vote to shutter the 137-year-old municipal fire department and annex the entire city into a county fire service zone, to include a $147 per year assessment on each parcel owner to defray costs, and have the county fire department move into the city’s firehouses and man them with its personnel and inherit the city’s existing firetrucks and ambulances. To anyone that protested, Davis and his faction offered the justification that the city could simply not sustain, nor would the bankruptcy court countenance, the continued expense of paying the city’s 40 top-ranking firefighters $197,000 a year, the next 40 $166,000 per year and the next 40 $130,000 per year. Despite Valdivia’s opposition, in one fell swoop, Davis had managed to deprive Valdivia of one of the most significant political donors that Valdivia possessed – the San Bernardino Firefighters Association – which ceased existence with the closure of the fire department.
With the November 2015 election, Valdivia did well for himself. He was elected outright, with no opposition. Nickel handily won reelection over a single opponent, Brian Davidson. And prior to the election, Van Johnson had opted out of running altogether. In his place, Bessine Littlefield Richard scratched her way to the top of a field of four, with Roxanne Williams capturing second place. Richard then beat Williams in the run-off in February 2016. Ultimately, Richard would emerge as a strong Valdivia ally on the council, providing him with a tenuous leadership hold on the elected body. When the council’s leadership rotation was considered that year, Nickel nominated Valdivia as mayor pro tem. With the backing of Richard and Barrios, Valdivia then acceded into the role of what is essentially vice-mayor.
Later that year, after preliminary discussions that had begun in 2015, the council brought forward a charter reform proposal. In addition to transitioning the city attorney and city clerk positions from elected to appointed ones, the centerpiece of the new charter as proposed was to drastically reduce the power of the mayor. In what manifested as a notable irony, Mayor Davis was the strongest advocate of reducing the mayor position’s sway and reach, while his rival, Valdivia, was the strongest advocate on the council of keeping the mayor’s position a strong one. Davis’s rationale ran along the same lines as everyone advocating for the change: a strong-mayor form of government was an anachronism, one that was counterproductive and antithetical to the modern conception of a council/city manager form of government where the council provides vision and decisions on policy, much like a board of directors, and the city manager executes that policy efficiently and with dispatch, much like a combined chief executive officer/chief operating officer. The arrangement under the 1905 charter provided an inefficient arrangement, critics of the charter maintained, whereby too many people were in charge with too much authority so that no one was in charge with the unfettered and clear mandate to act. According to Davis and his supporters, the 1905 charter was at least partially to blame for the malaise that had led to the city’s bankruptcy. Thus Davis was advocating that he personally give up much of the power he possessed, a rare attitude among politicians. Valdivia, on the other hand, wanted the overarching authority that had been vested in the mayor to remain in place because he coveted it for himself. His intent was to run for mayor in 2017, having reached an understanding with Nickel that Nickel would stand down and not repeat his 2013 mayoral candidacy that year. The full council sans Valdivia, however, including Nickel, had signed onto the charter reform effort and the matter was placed before voters in the 2016 election. Among a slew of minor and lesser changes, the new charter, greatly attenuating the mayor’s power and moving the city’s election cycle from odd-numbered to even-numbered years, was overwhelmingly passed by the voters, with 27,478 or 60.57 percent in favor and 17,890 or 39.43 percent opposed.
One practical effect of the charter’s passage was to effectively extend the terms of the mayor and all of the members of the council by roughly three-quarters of a year in making the odd-numbered year to even-numbered year transition. It 2018, Valdivia moved to challenge Davis, along with five others – City Clerk Georgeann Hanna, School Board Member Danny Tillman, Daniel Malmuth, Rick Avila, and Karmel Rowe. Simultaneously, Nickel tossed his hat in the ring, vying for higher office as well, seeking election to the California Assembly in the 40th District.
Though local offices in California are considered to be nonpartisan, in many places throughout the state, and in San Bernardino County in particular, party affiliation is a very strong factor in local races. At least since the 1960s, the Republican Party has been dominant in San Bernardino County. At the time of Ronald Reagan’s 1966 gubernatorial victory, the Republican Party enjoyed a significant voter registration advantage over the Democratic Party in San Bernardino County. That numerical supremacy would last until 2009, at which point the number of voters registered as Democrats eclipsed the number of voters registered as Republicans throughout the county, a reflection of the wider trend in California as a whole. Nevertheless, throughout San Bernardino County right up to the present, the number of Republican officeholders countywide is greater than elected officials affiliated with the Democrats. At present, in 17 of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities, a majority of the council members are Republican and on the county board of supervisors, four of five of the members are Republicans. Because of greater coordination and a more aggressive use of electioneering resources, the GOP has succeeded in the lion’s share of cases in driving its party members to the polls in greater numbers than the Democrats, and in far greater numbers than the proportion of voters the Republicans represent within the electorate overall in the county. This has been applicable in the City of San Bernardino despite the overwhelming registration numbers in favor of Democrats. At present, of the city’s 93,318 voters, 44,535 or 47.7 percent are registered Democrats. Those registered as Republicans in San Bernardino number 21,118 or 22.6 percent, fewer than half of those registered as Democrats. Indeed, in San Bernardino, those with no party affiliation, 22,955 or 24.6 percent, outnumber Republicans. Consequently, as the June 2018 primary election approached, both Hanna and Tillman, who were elected office holders registered as Democrats, appeared to enjoy an advantage over both Valdivia and Davis, who are both Republicans. Despite those partisan considerations, after the votes from all 178 of the city’s precincts were tallied, Valdivia and Davis claimed the more than half of the votes between them, with Valdivia capturing 6,747 votes or 35.75 percent and Davis polling 5,243 votes or 27.78 percent. Tillman brought in 2,964 votes or 15.71 percent, and Hanna finished in fifth with 1,324 votes or 7.02 percent, just behind Avila’s 1,414 votes or 7.49 percent.
Both Valdivia and Davis exhibited a greater degree of electioneering sophistication than any of their opponents. While both made no secret of their Republican affiliation when appealing to the city’s Republican voters, neither mentioned their party affiliation in the mailers sent, or handbills provided, to the city’s Democratic voters. And both were far more energetic in their campaign activity, enabled by the substantial donations to their respective campaign war chests. In the November runoff between the incumbent Davis and the upstart councilman challenger, Valdivia carried a substantial advantage in to the November 6 balloting, as 65 percent of the city’s population identifies itself as Latino or Hispanic. In the early returns on election night, Davis jumped out to a slight lead, but as more and more precincts reported, Valdivia pulled ahead and then widened his lead, ultimately capturing the mayoralty 19,155 votes or 52.51 percent to Davis’s 17,327 votes or 47.49 percent. In the same election, the Republican Nickel was roundly defeated by the independently wealthy Democrat James Ramos in the 40th Assembly District race, 77,585 or 59.53 percent to 52,746 or 40.47 percent.
Also elected in November was Valdivia ally Sandra Ibarra, to San Bernardino’s Second Ward council position, and Theodore Sanchez, Valdivia’s cousin, to San Bernardino’s First Ward council position. Reelected in November was Shorett in the city’s Fourth Ward.
Thus, when Valdivia and the remainder of those elected were sworn into office on December 19, Valdivia looked to be in clear command of the city politically, with the council populated by four members whose votes he could count on – Nickel, Richard, Ibarra and Sanchez – and his political opponents – Shorett and Jim Mulvihill – limited to two. Moreover, the prospect was good that his replacement in the city’s Third Ward would be someone, if not of his choosing, than of his liking.
But with the mayoral post now limited in its authority by the charter change, Valdivia began casting about for a way to reestablish both the reach and grasp of the office. In a deft wielding of what power he continues to possess, Valdivia induced City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller to present at the January 2 council meeting what was essentially his proposal to appropriate up to $242,000 from the general fund reserve into the current fiscal year budget to pay for establishing six new positions in the office of the mayor through June 30 in addition to the three existing full-time positions in the mayor’s office already budgeted at $305,692 annually. The six new posts were projected to carry with them an annual cost of $483,000 over the full course of 12 months, thus endowing the mayor with $747,692 to employ within his office a chief of staff, two mayoral assistants and six field representatives.
The council was on track that evening to confer upon Valdivia the staffing augmentation he had requested through Travis-Miller’s presentation, conditional upon the council retaining for its various members a staff of four to serve as field representatives, such that in the offices of the mayor and council there would be a combined staffing level of 13. Despite protests from Shorett and Mulvihill that a combined staff of 13 was excessive, a motion to do just that had been made by Nickel and seconded by Richard, which appeared to have sufficient votes – those of Ibarra, Sanchez, Nickel and Richard – to pass.
At that point, City Attorney Gary Saenz requested that before the vote was taken, the city’s contract deputy assistant city attorney, Sonia Carvalho, address whether infusing into the mayor’s office that level of support staff was consistent with the city charter. Carvalho said that the council might not have the authority to directly employ or supervise city staff members under the charter or in the city’s municipal code, though, she acknowledged, there was no explicit ban on doing so, either.
The delay before the vote on Nickel’s motion afforded Councilman Mulvihill time to formulate and then offer a substitute motion, which under Roberts Rules of Order takes precedence over a preceding, original motion. Mulvihill’s motion called for giving direction to the city manager to look into the creation of staff positions intended to give “more attention to the city council in terms of filling out their duties, as well as the mayor, in conjunction, not in the mayor’s office per se, but shared” as a legislative body and report back at the next council meeting with structures that could be implemented for the creation of a council/mayoral staff including field reps, a receptionist and a communications director within the parameters of the city charter and the law. That motion was seconded by Shorett. The council then voted 5-to-1 in favor of the motion, with Sanchez voting no.
At the council’s January 16 meeting, the concept of the mayoral staff was moved ahead to the February 6 council meeting. By that point, however, there appeared to have been a slight shift in Nickel’s stance. He more strongly emphasized the need for the staff to be added to be answerable to the mayor and council as a whole rather than exclusively to the mayor.
“I think at best our current staffing structure is outdated and at worst it is largely inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of our constituents,” Nickel said. “I think we have a rather significant caseload we have to deal with on a regular basis and I think to be fair to the constituents, to provide that level of service that they rightly deserve and demand, we need to ensure we have the most efficient operations possible within our legislative operations in the city. I also got a lot of feedback from my own constituents, other individuals, residents of the city that wanted to ensure that we stick within our budget, that we maintain fiscal discipline. The old architecture was one that separated the city council from the mayor’s office. The new charter, approved by the voters of the city, is one that looks at, actually uses, the term collaborate. Based on that, I incorporated a lot of those recommendations to create a collaborative structure now that would still retain staff within the mayor’s office. I think the mayor still needs his or her own staff. I think the duties and responsibilities of the mayor under the new charter are such that it’s a full-time job. The charter specifies that. The mayor certainly needs to ensure he or she still has that full-time staff, but then looking at the additional staff that can also serve the council, looking at a structure that is, in fact collaborative, that ensures the mayor and the council are truly working together to meet the needs of constituents in the city.”
At one point, Valdivia gave indication that he was willing to share the hiring of staff with the mayor pro tem and one selected member of the council.
Nickel proposed that the staff be restructured “in a way that retains two full-time staff and one part-time staff under the mayor – directly under the mayor – answerable to the mayor’s chief of staff, and then creates a new legislative director position that then oversees two additional full-time staff that are shared between the mayor and council, and we’re calling that the legislative staff. And then there would be up to four part-time entry level field representatives that would work within that legislative staff structure, as well. That really gives some of our young people an opportunity to get engaged in the city, start serving their community, and get paid for it. I think that’s really a system we should encourage. I think what this was about was coming to a compromise position that ensured we retained fiscal responsibility. We still gave the mayor the independence he or she needs to serve as the mayor and serve out those duties but then looked at the remainder of the staff that are currently separated, and literally sit only about fifty or so feet apart, how we can bring them together, create a collaborative model.” The legislative director would be selected, Nickel said, by the mayor, the mayor pro tem and a single member of the council at large. The council would steer clear of the selection of the chief of staff, Nickel said, such that the hiring of the chief of staff “would be solely at the discretion of the mayor. The mayor should and historically has had the ability to choose that person.”
Both Shorett and Mulvihill were ready to back Nickel’s proposal.
For Valdivia, what Nickel was seeking involved too much compromise.
Richard said she “sorely disagreed” with what Nickel was proposing because it entailed “too many chiefs and not enough Indians. What you’re creating is two chiefs and if we’re going to be one body we need one chief. Everybody needs to report to one person instead of this group reporting to this group, and this group reporting to this group. When you start creating too many chiefs, that’s where the confusion comes in. The legislative director and the chef of staff are going to eventually start butting heads.”
Richard then moved to approve a revamped version of the mayor’s original proposal which was reduced from four full-time benefited position to two part-time positions. That motion was seconded by Sanchez.
Discussion followed in which Mulvihill suggested that the entirety of the current staff essentially be terminated, including Valdivia’s hand-picked chief of staff, Bilal Essayli, and that those hirings be subject to scrutiny by the human resources division as opposed to the mayor.
When Richard said that her motion still stood, Nickel leapt to the fore and tried to make a substitute motion. Valdivia brought that up short, pointing out that Richard’s motion was actually a substitute motion to one earlier made by Shorett, insisting that the vote on Richard’s motion be taken. Nickel, however, apparently upset at Valdivia’s unwillingness to meet him halfway, insisted on proceeding with a substitute motion. At that point Nickel had reversed course, indicating he was unwilling to maintain the mayor’s historical autonomy in choosing the chief of staff. “I think the chief of staff position needs to be selected by the mayor and council collectively,” Nickel declared. “I would only make that modification to the motion as it exists, but I think my understanding is the chief of staff position is exclusively under the discretion of the mayor. That is not consistent with the charter. That is not consistent with the collaborative relationship between the council and mayor. I would be willing to entertain the motion on the floor, so long as the chief of staff is a position that is selected by the mayor and council, collectively. Would the mayor pro tem be amenable to that friendly amendment?”
“I am not supportive of the substitute motion by Councilman Nickel,” said Valdivia.
“Would the mayor pro tem be amenable to that friendly amendment,” Nickel persisted, “and be willing to entertain the selection of the chief of staff as a collaborative responsibility of the mayor and council together?”
Richard responded, “No, because I believe that the mayor is entitled to pick his own chief of staff.”
“I will be leaving the room,” said Nickel. “Thank you.”
As Nickel left, Shorett joined him. As Valdvia sought to move the remaining members of the council toward a vote on Richard’s motion, Mulvihill stood up and exited the room as well. At that point, with the council at only three-sevenths strength, it lacked a quorum and no vote could be taken.
After a brief recess, Valdivia returned to the meeting chambers and announced that the meeting was over due to a lack of a quorum and the remainder of the agenda was not dealt with.
To address that unfinished business, the council held a special meeting on Monday February 11. At that time, the council took up the mayoral and council staffing proposal. With Shorett dissenting, the entire council at that meeting agreed to augment the mayor’s office with two part-time field representatives and a full-time receptionist to the mayor’s office. The council’s action did not provide the mayor with the six more full time personnel he had sought, including a communications director.
From his body language and tone, it was clear that Valdivia is miffed with Nickel.
Last week, Nickel spoke with the Sentinel, denying that there was ever an alliance between him and the mayor.
“John and I have and will continue to have a good working relationship, as I have with all my colleagues,” said Nickel. “While I truly consider our mayor a personal friend, I have not and will never agree to an ‘alliance’ or voting as a ‘block,’ as has plagued our city government in the past. Where John and I tend to align is our zealous advocacy for our constituents. I will always listen to and put the interests of constituents first, as I believe John has largely done to his credit. Where John and I have deviated – as was the case with the assessment of alternative fire services, supporting a new city charter, the termination and severance of city managers and tow services contracts among other significant decisions – largely relates to the adherence to the charter and budget. Speaking only for myself, my decision-making process is fairly straightforward in order of importance: ‘Is it consistent with majority constituent support? Is it consistent with the charter and good governance? Is it consistent with the budget?’ If the answer is ‘no,’ I will not support.”
Nickel said, “I believe the mayor as chair of the council should aim for consensus as often as possible. It is my belief that failing to achieve at least five of seven council member votes constitutes failed deliberation, poor chairmanship and is likely bad policy. Furthermore, while it would be in some ways preferable to make my initial position on decisions known prior to a council meeting, the Brown Act prevents it.”
The Brown Act is California’s open public meeting law which restricts issues relating to public policy from being discussed by a quorum of the members of an elected board in anything other than a pre-noticed public hearing.
“Furthermore, if a mayor coordinates a decision with a majority of council members, the decision is likely unlawful,” said Nickel. “I would hope this has not happened. If so, the consequences could be severe for those involved. The only way to work through to compromise on contentious items is for the council to deliberate in open session to ideally achieve a minimum five vote consensus, as it should be. This is significantly hindered by limiting council discussion time which is why I also voted against the mayor’s five minute limit on council member time for deliberation at the February 6 city council meeting.
“All that said, I do respect the mayor’s role as stipulated in our city charter and will adhere to all decisions made in accordance with it, with or without a preferable five-vote consensus,” Nickel continued. “A good negotiator knows that a rushed non-consensus decision often indicates we may be careening toward bad policy. In that circumstance, it may be necessary to push away from the table and walk away to avoid a bad deal. There is nothing unlawful about this. At times it may indeed be warranted should a mayor as chair fail to seek consensus in favor of a quick, albeit potentially Pyrrhic, victory. Simply put, consistent 3-to-3 tie votes broken by the mayor are not healthy. They contribute to perceived if not actual instability.”
Nickel said, “I support the mayor and my fellow council members through stable consensus-driven local government. This is essential to attracting investment, new businesses and quality residents while providing essential world class city services. By ‘walking to the balcony’ and intentionally slowing down the decision, we permitted more time for deliberation and consideration of creative options on the mayor’s proposal. In the end I believe we achieved a better result, as the consensus 5-to-1 vote on the final modified compromise proposal at the February 11 special council meeting indicates.”
Nickel said, “In many ways therefore, my maneuver may have been as beneficial to John as mayor as it was to the process. Bottom line, I believe we have an opportunity for tremendous collective success through stable consensus based governance. I will remain committed to this objective.”
-Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
The prosecution in the Charles Merritt murder trial this week sought to fill in three more of the boxes on the checklist of its highly circumstantial case portraying the defendant as the only logical suspect in the horrific 2010 murder of the entire McStay family.
According to the prosecution, Merritt, who manufactured high-end decorative water fountains and artificial waterfalls which Joseph McStay was selling through his business, Earth Inspired Products, was pilfering thousands of dollars from Joseph’s company through fraud and embezzlement to feed his insatiable gambling addiction. When Joseph McStay learned of what Merritt was up to, either shortly before or perhaps even on February 4, 2010, Merritt sojourned from his Rancho Cucamonga home to the McStay residence in Fallbrook that evening, prosecutor’s maintain. There, according to the prosecution, Merritt slaughtered Joseph McStay, his wife Summer, their four-year-old son Gianni and three-year-old son Joseph, Jr., using a three-pound sledge hammer to bash their skulls in.
Merritt then secreted the bodies for two days, in the meantime fraudulently accessing Joseph McStay’s QuickBooks account for the decorative water features business they were involved in, the prosecution maintains, and on the following day, February 5, 2010, issued himself two checks, both backdated to February 4, as well as another check to himself on February 8, 2010, also backdated to February 4. After the murders, the prosecution alleges, Merritt embarked on a gambling binge at a number of casinos throughout Southern California. His gaming frenzy was punctuated only by his transporting of the corpses of the McStay family up into San Bernardino County’s High Desert, an area with which Merritt was familiar since having grown up in Hesperia and attended Apple Valley High School for three years in the 1970s, where he buried all four along with the hammer he had used to bludgeon his victims in shallow graves he dug in a wash off a rarely-traveled dirt road, according to his accusers. To throw authorities off his track, confuse the situation and delay a serious investigation into the matter, the prosecution maintains, Merritt drove the McStay family’s 1996 Isuzu Trooper, which yet contained the child seats for Gianni and Joseph, to San Ysidro, where he left the vehicle in a shopping center parking lot roughly a quarter of a mile from the Mexican border.
With the resumption of the trial this week following the President’s Day Holiday which kept the courtroom of Judge Michael A Smith darkened on Monday, the prosecution put on for the jury the testimony of a retired criminalist, a forensic financial accountant and an FBI agent. Those witnesses, respectively, placed Merritt inside the Trooper, gave the jury a glimpse of the intensity of Merritt’s gambling activity and the accompanying utter lack of the fiscal discipline that led to the financial desperation the prosecution alleges was the motive for his larceny and murder, and placed him at the High Desert gravesite where the family’s remains languished until their discovery in November 2013.
The prosecution initiated this week’s testimony by recalling Sergeant Ryan Smith, the sheriff’s lead investigator on the McStay family murder case who previously testified and has been recalled several times by prosecutors to introduce evidence and orient the jury as to the circumstance relating to follow-on testimony from several of the prosecution witnesses.
Smith testified with regard to checks that had been written on the Earth Inspired checking account. He said that the checks were both printed and handwritten. With regard to the checks the prosecution believes Merritt forged on Joseph McStay’s Earth Inspired Products account, Smith said the payee is in lower case, the memo was in lower case and the checks were backdated to February 4, 2010. He contrasted these with valid checks that McStay had previously written to Merritt, Merritt’s company, Idesign, and Catherine Jarvis, Merritt’s common law wife in the period from November 2008 through February 2010. In the handwritten checks McStay filled out, the first letters of the payee and memo were capitalized and the amount of money lowercased, said Smith. The printed checks known to have been drafted by Joseph McStay, Smith said, maintained the practice of using the uppercase in the first letter in the names of the payees as well as each word in the memo line describing what the check was being issued for. The printed checks drafted by Joseph McStay deviated from the format he used in his handwritten checks in that he capitalized the first word of the check amount, Smith said.
Smith said that with a single exception, all checks Joseph McStay wrote to Metro Sheet Metal, a company with a foundry in Azusa which participated in the fabrication of the water features sold by Earth Inspired Products and where Merritt engaged in much of his water fountain and artificial waterfall work, contained a description of the project or customer of the water feature for which the checks were written.
Supervising Deputy District Attorney Britt Imes then displayed on the courtroom’s overhead visual monitors a copy of a check written out to Metro Sheet Metal bearing the date of February 4, 2010, which prosecutors allege was forged by Merritt using McStay’s QuickBooks account and was actually written on February 5, 2010 and backdated to February 4 together with another check written out to Metro Sheet Metal one month earlier, on January 4, 2010 by Joseph McStay. Under questioning by Imes, Smith expounded upon how the earlier-issued check featured capitalization used for the payee and memo lines and the contrast with the check dated February 4, 2010, on which the payee and memo lines were composed entirely of lowercase letters.
Smith further testified that he had been in touch with San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Detective Troy DuGal, who in February 2010 had investigated the disappearance of the McStay family as a multiple missing persons case. Smith said that DuGal informed him that he had found no voice mail message from Merritt on Joseph MdStay’s cell phone.
According to Smith, “The last date Mr. Merritt called Joseph’s phone was on February 9,” which was five days after the family’s disappearance.
Following Smith onto the witness stand Tuesday morning was Donald Jones, a now retired criminalist who had been with the sheriff’s department in 2014 and completed an analysis of the DNA evidence collected in the course of the investigation carried out by San Bernardino County sheriff’s detectives.
Jones said he was provided with the DNA samples from Merritt, Summer McStay’s mother, Blanche Arande, and Summer McStay’s sister, Tracy Anne Russell, as well as samples taken from the remains of Joseph McStay, Summer McStay, Gianni McStay and Joseph McStay Jr., all of which were used by the California Department of Justice laboratory to generate DNA profiles. Jones also obtained DNA samples from Sean and Sandra O’Callahan, the current residents of the home on Avocado Vista Lane in Fallbrook where the McStay family lived at the time of the murders so that he could exclude them in doing his analysis of DNA evidence collected from the residence.
Jones said he had a comprehensive profile of all of the individuals, with the exception of Joseph McStay, Jr., whose remains were so scarce they did not offer sufficient material to allow for an across-the-board reading of the full range of his DNA attributes.
Jones was asked about his opinion about the futility of seeking to recover DNA from sweatpants believed to be those of Summer McStay which were found in the grave with her.
“The object of doing these examinations was part of a request from the investigative team,” said Jones. “They were interested in looking for what they called touch DNA, DNA that didn’t necessarily come from the victim, but came from someone else who may have touched articles that were recovered from the gravesites. In response to their requests, I took a look at these items and tried to evaluate if I thought the recovery of this trace DNA was possible. In my opinion, it is not possible in things that are buried for four years. I expressed that … to our investigative team along with representatives of our forensic biology unit and they were adamant about looking for samples of this trace DNA. I therefore decided I would concentrate on those areas that had the highest possibility, which was still extremely low, of recovering any DNA, and these sweatpants did not qualify for that. They were caked in dirt. In my opinion, there was no way. That would not only recover no DNA from anybody touching the garments, you would probably not recover any DNA from the person who was wearing the garments. The DNA is gone. My opinion was it would have been a futile effort.”
Jones said he took a stab at retrieving touch DNA from some of the fingernails of the victims. “Usually when you’re talking about fingernails, the idea is perhaps someone had a chance to scratch somebody else and there might be tissue underneath the fingernails. I went ahead and swabbed an area of the nail that I thought would have any tissue on it if there was some – and when I say tissue, I mean tissue foreign to the person it was.”
“And what were the results of your analysis,” asked Supervising Deputy District Attorney Sean Daugherty.
“There was no DNA detected,” Jones said, on the fingernails of either Summer McStay or Joseph McStay.
Similarly, Jones tried to extract some DNA from an electrical cord that was wrapped around Joseph McStay in the gravesite. He said he unknotted the cord and swabbed “looking to get some sort of touch or trace DNA. I attempted see if there was DNA present and there was no DNA present on any of the swabs.”
“Why did you pick the area of knotting to swab?” asked Daugherty.
“It was under the idea that perhaps if there were some sort of touch or trace DNA present, maybe the knot area would have protected it from the degradation I felt took place within the entire gravesite. For me it was not a very viable hope.”
He similarly tried to lift DNA from a piece of red strap in the grave that held Joseph McStay and a matching piece of the strap found outside the grave. He found no DNA on either one.
Jones said he tested two swabs from the sledgehammer found within the grave in which Summer McStay and Gianni McStay were buried, saying he did not detect blood on the swabs and that no DNA was recovered.
Jones said efforts to retrieve DNA that might have some evidentiary value from the home the McStays occupied on Avocado Vista Lane in Fallbrook in 2010 which in 2014 was inhabited by Sean and Sandra O’Callahan was unsuccessful. According to the prosecution, the slaughter of the McStays took place inside the residence.
Jones gave further testimony about efforts to extract meaningful DNA evidence from the inside of the Chevrolet truck that Merritt owned at the time of the murders. Inside the cab, Jones said, when he tested what was thought to perhaps be a blood stain on the backrest of the right side of the seat, it turned out not to be blood. “Blood was not detected,” he testified. A further analysis of the what had been picked up on the swab showed, Jones said, that the non-blood DNA collected represented a “mixture” of two people, the major contributor of whom was a female and a low level minor contributor. Those findings in no way furthered the prosecution’s case, however, as he said “I pretty much eliminated everybody as being potential contributors. By everybody I mean all of the reference samples I looked at as being contributors to this mixture with the exception of McStay child Number 1 [i.e., Joseph McStay, Jr.], of which I made no conclusion. I believe McStay Child Number 1 I had less reference profile for, so I couldn’t make a statement one way or the other.”
At that point, Daugherty turned to the issue which the prosecution team hoped Jones would be able to explicate to the jury in a way that would solidly advance the suggestion that it was Merritt who, shortly after the family’s murders, had driven their vehicle to within walking distance of the international border in San Ysidro to mislead authorities and virtually everyone else into believing the McStays had crossed into Mexico to go into hiding.
“With regard to the Isuzu Trooper,” Daugherty began, “did you receive two swabs from the driver’s interior door handle, power window and door lock control?”
“Yes, sir, I did,” said Jones. “All of the swabs from the Isuzu trooper were the first set of samples that I examined.”
“Can you tell us what the results of your analysis of that area was?” asked Daugherty.
“There was a low level of DNA recovered,” said Jones. “There was a mixture of at least three individuals. I felt that Joseph McStay was present as a major contributor and that Summer McStay was present as a trace, a very low-level contributor, and that there was another trace, low-level contributor, but it was not enough information for me to make any sort of conclusionary statements on that.”
“Were you able to conclude whether it was a male or female on the trace contributor?” queried Daugherty.
“No,” said Jones.
When Daugherty asked about his preliminary analysis of two swabs of the front interior passenger side door handle, power window and door locks, Jones said he “recovered human DNA. When I did the typing of the DNA, I got a mixture of at least three individuals and it was kind of a complex mixture and I decided not to make any sort of conclusions regarding contributors to this mixture.”
“Why?” asked Daugherty.
“Bottom line, I felt it was too complex to interpret,” said Jones. “There were too many variables going on. The only interpretation I could make is that there was at least one male contributor.”
Daugherty further asked Jones about his determination with regard to two swabs of the left rear interior door handle and power window control. Jones stated he extracted a mixture of human DNA and that “I felt that the results are consistent with a mixture of Joseph McStay, Sr. and McStay Child Number 2 [Gianni McStay]. I also felt I could eliminate Summer McStay, McStay Child Number 1, Tracey Ann Russell [Summer McStay’s sister], Blanche Arande [Summer McStay’s mother] and Charles Merritt as being contributors to this mixture.”
With regard to the right rear interior door handle and power window control, Jones stated, the low level results and combination of four contributors thwarted his making a reliable analysis.
“Because of the low level results and the fact it was a four-person mixture, I did not feel comfortable interpreting the results,” said Jones. “It was too complex for me to interpret.”
Daugherty asked about the results of a swab of the mouth of a metal coffee cup and the swab of a the neck of a water bottle in the Trooper.
“For both of these samples there was a single source male DNA profile that was obtained,” said Jones, “and that profile matched Joseph McStay, Sr.”
With his sixth query about the inside of the Trooper, Daugherty at last hit pay dirt.
Asking what results Jones had achieved in his analysis of two swabs taken of the gear shift, 4-wheel drive lever, radio controls and heater/air conditioning controls, the criminalist said, “Human DNA was recovered. It was a mixture of at least three individuals. Joseph McStay, Sr. was present as a major contributor and Summer McStay was present as a trace contributor. I felt the remaining alleles included Charles Merritt as a possible trace contributor.”
An allele is a gene form that is a subcomponent of DNA.
“With regard to the statistical analysis you performed, what were the numbers?” Daugherty asked.
“In this instance,” Jones said, “… if you went out and randomly picked an individual from the population to see if they would also be included in this particular sample, there’s one in 4,500 African Americans, one in 3,300 Caucasians, one in 12,000 Hispanics.
“Did you receive two swabs of the steering wheel of the Isuzu Trooper?” Daugherty next asked.
“Yes, sir,” said Jones. “I did.”
“What was the result of your analysis of those swabs,” Daugherty asked.
“Human DNA was recovered from those swabs,” stated Jones. “The results indicated a mixture of at least three individuals. If I assume the presence of three individuals with Joseph McStay, Sr. as the major contributor and Summer McStay as a trace contributor, I felt that there was a minor contributor and that Charles Merritt was included as a potential for this contributor.”
“When you say he was included as a potential, explain that further please,” said Daugherty.
“I then go on to do another population frequency estimate about how common it would be to randomly pick somebody who would be included, as in this case, as a minor contributor.”
“What was the result of that analysis?” Daugherty continued.
Jones indicated the odds were overwhelming that the DNA located on the steering wheel was Merritt’s.
“The probability was one in 4.3 billion African Americans, one in 850 million Caucasians, and one in 10,000,000 Hispanics,” Jones said in delivering what the prosecution hoped would be the coup de grâce.
“Can you tell, based on a DNA analysis, how long that DNA had been present on the steering wheel?” Daugherty asked.
“No,” said Jones.
During his cross examination of Jones, Merritt’s defense attorney James McGee asked, “Does the San Bernardino County Crime Lab own an M-VAC?”
Jones, who still does volunteer work at the lab, responded, “Yes sir, we do.”
An M-Vac is a wet vacuum system used in the collection of DNA evidence, which is touted as being five to 200 times more effective than other methods of DNA collection. In tests it has been verified to collect on the order of 36 percent to 189 percent more DNA from evidence items than is derived in the use of swabbing, cutting, or taping techniques, and is particularly more effective in extracting useful DNA from items that are resistant to traditional DNA collection practices.
“Was that M-VAC ever used on the items in this case?” McGee asked.
“No, sir,” Jones said.
McGee asked about concern within the community of forensic professionals regarding the “enhanced ability to analyze low level DNA,” such that “there must be respect or caution in the analysis on how that got there, based on transfer of DNA.”
“There should be caution with regard to the mechanism in which the DNA is present, became present there,” said Jones.
“They did studies, wherein they had 20 subjects who shook hands and handled an item and afterwards they checked to see whose DNA was on that item, correct?” asked McGee.
“Yes, sir,” said Jones.
“If I shook your hand, and then you picked up an item, in 85 percent of those items tested, my DNA was the major [contributor], even though I never handled the item.”
“That may have been the result,” said Jones. “My takeaway from that particular study was that there is, definitely, the potential for that type of transference to take place, and as such there should be caution when you take a look at these types of results, in terms of understanding the mechanism by which the DNA became present on the sample, and you should give some regard to the potential for secondary transfer. This is not a new concept. There were studies that were reported at some of our seminars and our meetings to indicate this is a potential. The DNA of someone who did not touch something may in fact be potentially detected on there through, the only possible explanation is, the potential for what is called secondary transfer. You have to give that potential scenario of secondary transference some credence. You have to be aware of it.”
McGee then referenced another study into, he said, “the persistency of DNA and how long it survives on a steering wheel, and in that study if you drove your vehicle every day and I drove your vehicle for five minutes, then in their results they saw – you would expect to see two majors equally distributed on the steering wheel. Would that be accurate?” McGee asked.
“I don’t remember the specifics of the individual samples,” said Jones.
McGee said the testing demonstrated that if someone who has never been in a particular vehicle previously drives it for even a short period of time, his DNA can register more prominently on the vehicle’s steering wheel than the owners if a sample is taken before the owner again drives the car.
“One thing they concluded from time,” McGee said, “if the user, the last driver, drives the vehicle for less than 90 minutes, you can expect to see his DNA equally as the primary driver of the vehicle. Is that fair?”
Jones responded, “I think the word concluded is not correct. I think they observed instances where that happened.”
“And if the driver drove for 90 minutes or more, then what they observed was the last driver’s DNA comprised 85 percent of the sample,” said McGee.
“That was part of their results, yes, sir,” said Jones.
“As an opinion after reading that study, if somebody drives a vehicle for 90 minutes, would you expect to see the last driver who drove in that 90 minutes to be a major contributor consistent with their DNA amount being in excess to the normal driver of that vehicle?” asked McGee.
“The direct answer to your question is, ‘No, I would not expect it,’” said Jones. “The more broad answer is ‘I have to accept that might be a possibility.’”
“My client’s DNA being potentially included in the sample, would it be consistent that based on the amount of DNA there and the interaction you understand with my client and the driver…” McGee began.
“Objection, lacks foundation, calls for speculation,” said Supervising Deputy District Attorney Sean Daugherty.
“Overruled,” said Judge Smith.
“Would it be reasonable to conclude that this could be secondary transfer DNA in the vehicle?” asked McGee.
“It is a possible explanation for that,” said Jones.
“Is it a reasonable one?” asked McGee.
“I believe it is reasonable, yes, sir,” said Jones.
McGee’s questions were aimed at two concepts. First, he intended to suggest that Merritt’s DNA made its way into the McStay family vehicle as a consequence of his having shaken hands with McStay at the conclusion of their meeting in Rancho Cucamonga on February 4, 2010 when McStay came there to discuss business issues with him on that day. The prosecution maintains the McStay family was murdered the night of February 4. Second, McGee was seeking to demonstrate that Merritt could not have driven the Isuzu to San Ysidro from Fallbrook as the prosecution maintains, as his DNA would be more abundantly present on the steering wheel than it was if he had made that 90 minute sojourn while gripping the wheel and was the last person to drive the car.
On redirect examination, Daugherty asked Jones if he knew how long it was that the subjects in the DNA transfer studies McGee had referenced had shaken hands for.
“I believe it was two minutes,” said Jones.
At one point, the otherwise earnest and intensely scientific Jones exhibited a flippant bent when, under redirect examination with regard to the consideration that the analysis of the sledgehammer had failed to turn up any DNA that could be usefully identified, Daugherty said, “You were asked several questions about how grip and gripping something tight versus gripping something loose could affect transfer of DNA onto an item.”
“That’s one of several factors, yes, sir,” said Jones.
“Would you say if you were to grab a sledgehammer and beat somebody about the head, let’s say four people about the head, that you’d have to hold onto that pretty tight?” asked Daugherty.
“I wouldn’t know that from personal experience, but it would seem like a logical assumption,” deadpanned Jones.
April Coronado, who in 2010 was a fraud investigator with Union Bank, testified on Wednesday. Coronoado said that in February 2010 she was provided with an alert by Mark Burnell of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department pertaining to possible fraud activity involving an account or accounts held by Joseph McStay and/or Summer McStay. She said she identified the accounts the couple had at the bank and then got into contact with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, and subsequently was contacted by Detective Troy DuGal.
She said in her cursory review of the account she noted three things “in particular. I remember a couple of checks that were payable to Charles Merritt and I remember some recurring transactions to what appeared at the time to be some type of storage facility, and a mortgage payment.”
“You indicated there were a couple of checks that appeared to be unusual,” said Deputy District Attorney Melissa Rodriquez. “What was it about those checks that appeared to be unusual to you?”
“From what I remember at the time, the checks appeared slightly different in appearance than other checks I had reviewed, and I noticed a slight variation in signature,” said Coronado.
Coronado said she reviewed other checks that Joseph McStay had written.
Coronado indicated that many of the checks written by Joseph McStay against his account for Earth Inspired Products were handwritten. Rodriguez presented her with a check dated February 4, 2010 issued on the Earth Inspired account to Charles Merritt in the amount of $4,500, displaying it for the jurors and courtroom observers on the courtroom’s overhead viewing monitors.
“What is it about the exhibit that you observed to be different?” Rodriguez asked.
“The check is printed,” said Coronado. “It doesn’t use the proper capitalization on either the payee name on in the memo. In my opinion at that time there was a variance in the signature line.”
Coronado said of a check dated February 2, 2010 payable to Charles Merritt for $2,495 similarly displayed on the courtroom monitors, “In this check also it appears different. The maker area is different. The payee line and the memo line don’t use proper capitalization, which is something we typically look for in looking for unusual transactions, and the signature line shows a variance to the customer’s signature.”
Coronoado said she was subsequently contacted by an investigator with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department with regard to the account.
Coronado testified that the check dated February 2, 2010 for $2,495 was cashed on February 5, 2010.
On cross examination, Merritt’s attorney, Raj Maline, asked about the discussion Coronado had with a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department investigator in 2014 relating to the $4,500 and $2,495 checks.
“Do you remember the purpose of the interview?” Maline asked. “Was the detective calling you regarding those two checks?”
“I don’t know if those two checks were the sole thing that we spoke about, but it was in relation to these accounts,” she said.
“Do you recall the detective talking to you about the two checks that you just identified?” asked Maline. “There was some confusion about where those two checks had been cashed.”
“Yes,” said Coronado.
“The detective that talked to you was calling because he thought they were cashed in the San Diego area,” he said. “Is that correct?”
“That’s right,” said Coronado.
“”There was a UTC location…” Maline began.
“Correct,” said Coronado.
“And what is UTC?” he asked.
“University Town Center,” said Coronado.
“And that’s in La Jolla,” said Maline.
“It’s in La Jolla,” she said.
To Maline’s following questions, Coronado indicated she had examined the number sequences printed on the back of the check when it was processed by the bank. “And by that number sequence, you actually caught it that it was not San Diego, correct? You said, ‘Wait a minute. This is Rancho Cucamonga.’ Correct?”
“That’s correct,” said Coronado.
Merritt’s whereabouts on the day of and immediately following the McStay family’s disappearance, which according to the prosecution occurred on February 4, 2010 and the defense believes occurred on February 5, is a critical issue in the case.
Scott Weitzman, a self-employed forensic accountant and certified fraud examiner who was retained by the district attorney’s office in December 2018 to scrutinize Merritt’s banking account activity testified on Wednesday and Thursday.
Weitzman said he had reviewed Merritt’s personal savings account with Union Bank, account number 0481309235, covering the span of January 20, 2009 though May 14, 2009, as well as Merritt’s checking account with Union Bank, account number 0480047966, relating to activity from January 20, 2009 through November 5, 2009. In addition, Weitzman reviewed an account Merritt had with Bank of America that was opened on February 3, 2010 and was closed, he said on “either May 10 or May 12 of 2010. The last four digits of the account are 2519.”
In having Weitzman analyze Merritt’s banking activity, Rodriguez succeeded in illustrating to the jury that Merritt had little in the way of fiscal discipline and that he appeared, extending from the inferences to be drawn with regard to where he was spending a considerable amount of his time, to have an insatiable affinity for gambling, as well.
Between January 20, 2009 and February 5, 2010, according to Weitzman, Merritt had not deposited but rather cashed 25 checks totaling $40,501.85 written to him on the Earth Inspired Products checking account. Displaying a spreadsheet showing the posting dates, the amounts and the memo line contained on the checks on the courtroom’s overhead monitors, Rodriguez asked Weitzman, “Are these all checks that were not deposited into those accounts?”
“Right,” said Weitzman. “None of these checks were deposited in any one of those three accounts.”
“So these were all checks where you walk into a bank and cash it and you get cash?” Rodriguez asked.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“And what’s the total amount for these particular transactions that were cash transactions or checks that were cashed?” she asked.
“I found 25 checks that were cashed and their total is $40,501.85,” he said.
Weitzman testified that Merritt was maintaining a negative balance in his checking account with Union Bank for much of the time it was opened. He further testified that in the time prior to the closing out of the account in November 2009, there were an increasing number of transactions with an entity called “Speedy Cash.”
“What is Speedy Cash?” Rodriguez asked.
“Speedy Cash is a short-term lender,” said Weitzman. “They make what’s known as “payday loans,” which is when people may need some money to carry them over to their next paycheck. They’re short-term loans, usually with a pretty high rate of interest.”
Weitzman said Merritt’s Bank of America account was opened on February 3, 2010 with the deposit of a $100 check from Earth Inspired Products, a handwritten one signed by Joseph McStay, and $100 in cash.
On February 19, 2010, Merritt’s Bank of America Account was infused with a $5,000 transfer from an account held by Daniel Kavanaugh at the Gaslight Branch of the Bank of America, Weitzman testified. “Since the balance before that was only $7.50, this brought the balance up to $5,007.50,” he said.
On May 12, 2010, Bank of America forced the account to close as a consequence of it having a negative balance, according to Weitzman.
“As you went through these bank accounts, did you notice there were a significant number of fees related with these transactions?” Rodriguez asked.
“Yes there were a lot of fees,” said Weitzman.
When you say there were a lot of fees, what can you tell us about that?” she asked. “What to you mean?”
“There are a lot of NSF [non-sufficient funds] check fees,” said Weitzman. “There were a lot of overdraft fees and what the bank calls continuous overdraft fees. There were a lot of ATM withdrawal fees. There were a lot of balance inquiry fees.”
Between January 2009 and April 2010, Merritt was hit with $209 in charges for 100 ATM cash withdrawals, Weitzman said. In addition, Weitzman said, he had used ATM machines 42 times to make an inquiry on his account balances at a cost of $84.
Moreover according to Weitzman, Merritt racked up continuing overdraft fees, having been penalized, he said, for having “a running negative balance over several days. These were charges above and beyond the fees he paid for having had non-sufficient funds to cover checks he had written or withdrawals from the account. There were 42 of them,” said Weitzman, “and they totaled $252.”
On multiple occasions, Weitzman said, Union Bank had paid out on checks that Merritt had written when he had insufficient money in his account to cover them. Union Bank then charged a fee for having advanced that money, according to Weitzman
“Can you tell us what the total is for those non-sufficient funds fees?” asked Rodriguez.
“There were 29 of them, and they totaled $2,226,” Weitzman said.
Weitzman said there were also checks that the bank refused to pay on. There were 26 times when the bank refused to make payment on a check. The total fees they charged were $898, he said.
The banks charged Merritt $3,669 in fees, most of which were penalties, in the more than 15 months he had the Union Bank and Bank of America accounts.
“Did you have an opportunity to go through the defendant’s bank records and highlight the transactions that would be consistent with cash withdrawals at casinos?” Rodriguez asked.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
Referencing the span between January 23, 2009 and April 12, 2010, Rodriguez asked, “Did you notate the number of transactions and dollar amounts?”
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“Can you tell us what that is?” asked Rodriguez.
“There were 66 cash withdraws and they totaled $15,769,” Weitzman said.
Weitzman said that in the same timeframe, Merritt had made 44 cash withdrawals from ATM machines at bank locations, withdrawing $35,513.56. Beyond that, Weitzman said, Merritt had made cash withdrawals from locations other than banks such as stores or businesses on 28 occasions in the amount of $5,861.12. Aside from all of those withdrawals, Merritt had withdrawn cash from his two banks on seven occasions, coming away with $12,680.
In the 12 months for which there were records available between January 2009 and May 2010, which excluded the time period between November 5, 2009 and February 2, 2010, Weitzman said Merritt had involved himself in 170 cash transactions entailing $110,325.53.
“Did you also have an opportunity to look through the defendant’s bank records to ascertain charges that may be associated with business activity?” asked Rodriguez.
“Yes,” said Weitzman. “I went through the defendant’s bank records for purchases that appeared to be or possibly were supply or tool type purchases.”
“And were you able to determine a dollar amount for those?” asked Rodriguez.
“I listed out each item I could find, and that totaled $2,678.49,” said Weitzman.
Weitzman said Merritt appeared to have spent two percent of the money that came his way on materials relating to his business activity.
Weitzman said that over the 15-month period, Merritt had received $147,188.85 into his bank accounts.
Under cross examination by Raj Maline, Weitzman testified he was not asked to do and had not performed an analysis of Joseph McStay’s PayPal accounts or that of Dan Kavanaugh, who was also involved in the Earth Inspired Products operation.
“What was your understanding of the structure of EIP [Earth Inspired Products]?” Maline asked. “Was it a corporation? Was it an individual? What was it?”
“I don’t know,” said Weitzman.
“Do you know who owned it?” asked Maline.
“I think it was Joseph McStay, but I’m not sure of the ownership characteristics,” said Weitzman.
“You indicated you are a certified fraud examiner, correct?” asked Maline.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“So, if somebody other than the owner of the company is going into the owner’s accounts and taking money out unauthorized, would that be a form of fraud?” Maline asked.
“That would be possible theft,” Weitzman said, nodding.
“Which is a form of fraud,” said Maline.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“If somebody’s doing a small business and they operate in cash, are you familiar with those types of businesses?” asked Maline.
“Sure,” said Weitzman.
“And in those types of businesses, you’re going to have a lot of cash transactions,” said Maline. “Do you agree?”
“What types of transactions are you referring to?” Weitzman asked.
“Withdrawals,” said Maline. “If the company uses, let’s say it’s a mom-and-pop, uses cash to conduct business, you will see that it will withdraw cash from banks to pay for goods, to pay for materials.”
“It’s possible,” Weitzman shrugged.
“Now, if they’re using cash to pay for goods or to pay materials, then you won’t necessarily have a record of the amount of cash they are spending on the cost of materials, would you?” Maline asked.
“And that’s why that’s a bad habit,” said Weitzman.
“It’s a bad habit, I agree, but many businesses still operate that way,” said Maline. “Is that true?”
Rodriguez objected. “Speculation,” she said.
“Overruled,” said Judge Smith. “He can answer, if he has an opinion.”
“I can’t say many businesses do that,” said Weitzman.
“Okay,” said Maline. “Even if it’s some small businesses that operate that way, it’s very difficult to determine cost of materials if the person is paying cash for many of his items. Would you agree?”
“If there’s no record or any kind of notations or no log of any kind, then yes, it would be difficult to track cash purchases,” Weitzman said.
Maline asked Weitzman how he had come to the conclusion that Merritt had spent only two percent of his income on tools and materials relating to the manufacturing of water features, including water fountains and artificial waterfalls.
“I listed out all those purchases that may have had something to do with the manufacturing of a waterfall-type business and they total $3,678.49, and then I had gone through the defendant’s bank accounts for income related receipts that he had and they totaled $147,188.85. And then I divided the supply purchases by the income, and that represented two percent.”
“So the message you conveyed to the jury was that Mr. Merritt spends two percent of his work receipts on cost of materials,” said Maline.
“Objection, misstates testimony,” said Rodriguez.
“Overruled,” said Judge Smith.
“During this time period, that’s the support that I had, yes” said Weitzman.
“Okay,” said Maline. “And you did this. You indicated, you were generally unfamiliar with the fountain business, correct?”
“I don’t know the details of it,” said Weitzman.
“And did you take into account all the checks that Mr. Merritt wrote to different suppliers when you did this analysis?” Maline inquired.
“I didn’t have checks,” said Weitzman.
“You had bank statements,” said Maline.
“Correct,” said Weitzman.
“So, did you see checks we’re written on the account?” Maline asked.
Yes,” said Weitzman.
“So, why didn’t you ask what those checks were for?” asked Maline.
“I never received the checks,” said Weitzman.
“Did you ask the district attorney’s office for the checks?” asked Maline.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“And they didn’t give them to you?” asked Maline.
“She said they didn’t have them,” said Weitzman. “The bank didn’t provide them.”
“Would you agree that two percent would change if you saw multiple checks written for materials and things of that nature?” asked Maline.
“Hypothetically, if there were purchases made by checks, that may change,” conceded Weitzman.
“And I don’t see an asterisk here that says you didn’t have the checks to look at,” said Maline with regard to the charts Weitzman had prepared relating to Merritt’s bank accounts. “That number could change, if you knew what those checks were written for.”
“Objection, argumentative,” said Rodriguez.
“Sustained,” said Judge Smith.
“Aren’t you as a forensic fraud examiner, a forensic CPA, supposed to notify the people you are conveying a message to that ‘I don’t have all the information here so it could be different if I had that information?’” asked Maline. “Aren’t you supposed to do that?”
“Objection, argumentative,” protested Rodriguez.
“Overruled,” said Judge Smith.
“I’ve worked on close to 300 cases,” said Weitzman, “and I’ve never had perfect information.”
“You saw a boatload of checks written on Mr. Merritt’s checking account,” said Maline. “The two that you testified about. You said you had the bank statements for Union bank. You had the bank statement for Bank of America.”
Yes,” said Weitzman.
“You saw in those statements that checks were written, right? asked Maline.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“As you pointed out to the jury, there were all those NSF fees, remember that?” said Maline.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“So obviously, checks were being written, correct?” said Maline.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“And you never wondered, as a forensic accountant, what those checks were for, that they could be cost of materials?” asked Maline.
“Objection, argumentative, asked and answered,” said Rodriguez.
“Sustained, as argumentative,” said Judge Smith.
“You never suspected in your review that those checks could be a part of cost of materials?” asked Maline.
“I could only speculate what those checks were for,” Weitzman responded. “I don’t know what they were for.”
“But you knew they were out there,” said Maline. “You knew that there was information that checks were written, correct?” Maline asked.
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“In your review, would it have been proper to give a complete picture to the jury, to factor in whether or not any of those checks were for the cost of materials?” Maline persisted.
“Objection, argumentative as phrased,” said Daugherty.
“Overruled,” said Judge Smith.
“I don’t know what those checks are for,” said Weitzman. “So, I can’t say one way or another about those checks.”
“When you don’t have information,” said Maline, “you can ask for it, correct? But you did.”
“Yes,” said Weitzman.
“When you asked for it, you must have thought it was important, correct?” asked Maline.
“I always like to have complete information, but as I said, I can rarely get that,” said Weitzman. “So I work with what I have and I do my analysis with the information I have. I can’t speculate about what’s out there…”
“Mr. Weitzman, my question is: ‘You thought it was important and you asked for it. Is that correct?” Maline asked. “Yes or no.”
“I would like to have that information,” Weitzman said.
Maline wrung from Weitzman an acknowledgment that Merritt had withdrawn only six percent of the money from his account at casinos in February 2010, the month the murders occurred, and that on seven of the 13 previous months Merritt had withdrawn a greater percentage of the money from his accounts at various casinos. In an effort to controvert the prosecution suggestion that Merritt had embarked on an unbridled gambling spree in the immediate aftermath of the McStay family’s disappearance, Maline elicited further testimony from Weitzman that in February 2010, Merritt’s withdrawals of money from casinos consisted of $1,040 withdrawn on February 9, $288 withdrawn on February 12, $488 withdrawn on February 17, $504 on February 22 and $304 on February 23.
Of the $15,769 in cash drawn at the casinos by Merritt in the roughly 14 months between January 2009 and April 2014, Maline asked Weitzman, “how much of that money was used to actually gamble?”
“I don’t know,” said Weitzman.
“What percentage of that money was taken by Mr. Merritt when he left the casino?” Maline asked.
“I don’t know,” said Weitzman.
Before prosecution objections that were sustained by Judge Smith foreclosed his avenue of inquiry, Maline was able to get Weitzman to admit that he had not brought his tools as a forensic examiner to bear on the transfers of money that Dan Kavanaugh had moved from the Earth Inspired Products business account to his PayPal account. “Those transactions don’t stick out in my mind,” said Weitzman. “I may have seen them. I may not have. There wasn’t anything significant that stuck in my mind to make me believe I focused on these transactions.”
It is the defense’s theory that Dan Kavanaugh, another business associate of Joseph McStay who was engaged in selling the water fixtures Merritt was constructing for Earth Inspired Products, was the murderer of the McStay family.
On her redirect examination of Weitzman, Rodriguez asked him to “hypothetically” consider the possibility that some of the withdrawals from Merritt’s account done at ATM machines which Weitzman had not previously identified as occurring at casinos could in fact have actually been money used at the casinos if it could be demonstrated that the cash dispensing machines were ones operated by companies ostensibly unaffiliated with the casinos themselves but which were located on the casino premises. Weitzman said he would have increased the tally of the money that Merritt withdrew from casinos if he had information to that effect.
“Did you ever review a ledger between Mr. Merritt and Mr. McStay that would incorporate the cost of goods, the cost of materials?” Maline asked on recross examination. “Was that ever given to you to review?”
“I don’t recall ever seeing a ledger,” Weitzman said.
After Maline provided him with a document, Weitzman said, “Well, the formula looks a little familiar with an email that I was given. This was an attachment, but I can’t say anything about the truthfulness of this.”
“Do you know who sent this to who?” asked Maline. “Meaning did Joseph send it to Mr. Merritt or did Mr. Merritt send it to Joseph? Do you know?”
“I don’t recall right now,” said Weitzman.
“What was your understanding of what this was?” Maline asked.
“I didn’t know what it was,” said Weitzman.
“Did you ask?” Maline pressed, and as Weitzman shook his head to indicate no, the defense attorney continued, “Did you make any inquiry of Ms. Rodriguez or anyone from the district attorney’s office, what this was?” Objections prevented an answer from being given.
After Weitzman’s dismissal subject to recall, he was followed to the witness stand by Sergeant Ryan Smith in his second appearance this week.
In response to questions by Supervising Deputy District Attorney Britt Imes, Smith delineated how he had cross-referenced Merritt’s cell phone records in most of 2009 and well into 2010 with information he had about the location of cell phone towers both proximate and most proximate to the casinos in Southern California Merritt was known to frequent. Smith’s testimony was clearly intended to suggest that Merritt was frequenting those casinos at the times indicated. In a disclaimer, of sorts, Imes asked Smith, “In all candor, this is what the records show correct?” asked Imes.
“Yes, sir,” said Smith.
“This does not tell you where specifically the defendant’s body was or the phone was in relation to that tower at that time, correct?” Imes asked.
“Absolutely correct,” said Smith. “This is just the towers and his contact when he was either receiving or making telephone calls.”
The implication was nevertheless clear as Smith testified that the prosecution intended the jurors to infer that what Smith was presenting was a history of Merritt’s visits to those casinos.
Smith’s testimony was intended to augment Weitzman’s statement that the amount of money which he said Merritt had withdrawn from his account at casinos would be revised upward if he had information to suggest that some of the ATMs from which Merritt had withdrawn money that Weitzman previously did not connect to casinos could be demonstrated to be located on the premises of those various casinos.
Using charts that had been prepared to show the number of times and the dates when there had been connections registered between Merritt’s cell phone and cell phone towers proximate to the casinos which where displayed on the courtroom’s visual monitors, Smith implied that Merritt had been to the casino in the City of Commerce on 18 days between March 16, 2009 and January 15, 2010, including March 16, March 17, May 9, May 10, May 11, July 19, July 25, July 27, July 28, August 1, August 10, October 3, November 1, November 18 and November 19, all in 2008; and January 12, January 14 and January 15 in 2010. Smith testified that Merritt had been at the Pechanga Casino near Temecula on 11 days during the same time period, including on November 20, November 21, December 5, December 15, December 16 and December 31 in 2009; and January 1, January 2, January 22, February 9 and February 22 in 2010. Smith said that Merritt had been at the San Manuel Casino in Highland on 44 occasions between early 2009 and early 2010, including on February 5, February 8, February 9, March 21, March 23, March 25, March 26, April 3, April 10, April 14, April 21, April 25, May 4, May 8, May 14, May 15, June 11, June 24, July 7, July 13, July 20, August 14, August 18, August 19, August 22, September 1, September 2, September 4, September 29, October 14, October 24, October 26, October 27, November 6, November 16, December 8, December 21 in 2009; and January 19, January 20, February 11 and February 12 in 2010.
Kevin Boles, an FBI agent who in 2014 was a coordinator with one of the agency’s regional apprehension teams in Southern California, was the last witness to testify on Thursday. Among his specializations is cellular device analysis, which he said the bureau uses to locate missing persons as well as to track the whereabouts and activity of suspects and to capture fugitives. The analysis of records kept by cell phone companies and ongoing cell phone activity, Boles said, allows for a determination of the “general location of where somebody has been, and can identify where they might be currently.”
Boles said his role with the FBI’s cellular analysis team had required that he receive education and training to be able to understand how cell phones communicate with cell phone towers and to understand cell phone records in detail.
In making connections, Boles said, cell phones in general seek out the strongest signal from a tower to connect with, and as a user who is traveling passes closer to a tower with a stronger signal a phone’s connection will be “handed off” to the stronger tower. Cell phone companies record these interactions, Boles said. Thereby, he said, the movements of a cell phone, and presumably its owner, can be tracked. Terrain, its contours, unevenness and undulations, as well as the presence of buildings in urban settings, can have a “shadowing” effect in which direct communications between a cell phone and the antenna on a tower can be blocked and a signal weakened so that the phones, in some cases, find a stronger or optimal signal from a tower that is geographically more distant in some locations, he said.
Boles said in August 2014 he was called in to assist in the investigation of the murders of the McStay family and that he was provided cellular phone records for Charles Merritt and Joseph McStay. Boles said the cell phone records provided him with the latitude and longitude, essentially the location, of the cell towers utilized by the cell phones with each call. He said he mapped out Merritt’s and McStay’s whereabouts in February 2010 based on that data. Boles said he went to the north of Victorville toward Oro Grande where the bodies had been discovered and took note of a cell tower on prominent high ground, at an elevation of 4,522 feet, which he said he determined to be approximately 1,500 feet above and at a distance of 1.97 miles as the crow flies from the 3,021-foot elevation burial site.
Boles presented and testified about graphics he had prepared showing McStay’s and Merritt’s whereabouts, surmised from their available cell phone data, on crucial dates relating to the murders.
Based on the records for Joseph McStay’s T-Moble cell phone, 949 2957451, using a map/graphic displayed on the courtroom’s overhead monitors, Boles traced McStay at or near the McStay home in Fallbrook, using his phone at various points between 8:56 a.m. and 11:41 a.m on February 4, 2010, with his phone connected to the closest nearby cell tower, located adjacent to the 15 Freeway and Highway 76. The records then show him at 11:43 a.m. beginning a progress northward along a route consistent with the 15 Freeway, with his cell phone having connected with various cell phone towers along the route of the 15 Freeway northwestward at 11:51 a.m. and 11:53 a.m. near Temecula, 11:57 a.m. north of Murrieta, 11:58 a.m., 12 p.m. at Clinton Keith Road and the 15 Freeway, 12:02 p.m. near Sedco Hills north of Wildomar, 12:04 p.m. near Lake Elsinore, 12:11 p.m., 12:15 p.m. in the Temescal Canyon area, 12:22 p.m. near south Corona, 12:28 p.m. in Mira Loma/Eastvale, and 12:52 p.m., at which time his phone is connected with a cell phone tower in Rancho Cucamonga north of Foothill Boulevard and south of Church Street. That is a point proximate to Merritt’s known residence in Rancho Cucamonga and the Chick-fil-A restaurant where Merritt and McStay met that day for lunch and a discussion regarding Earth Inspired Products-related projects, as established through previous testimony and evidence presented to the jury. The phone records showed, according to Boles, two other calls relayed off of another cell phone tower in Rancho Cucamonga near Fennel Road and Church Street at 1:01 p.m. and 3:03 p.m. Using displays, Boles showed that thereafter at 3:32 p.m. McStay was making his way back toward his residence, with his phone pinging off of a cell tower in Norco at that time. By 4:28 p.m., according to Boles, McStay was back in close proximity to his home in Fallbrook, as his phone registered a connection with the cell phone tower closest to his home near the 15 Freeway and Highway 76. There were a series of calls that connected to that tower, Boles said, between 4:28 p.m. and 8:28 p.m. From previous testimony and evidence presentation, the jury knows that the 8:28 p.m. call on February 4, 2010, one placed to Merritt’s cell phone, was the last one ever made from Joseph McStay’s cell phone.
According to Boles, on February 1, 2010, activity on Merritt’s cell phone occurred between 8:25 a.m. and 10:14 p.m., a duration of almost 14 hours, all of it involving connections with just two towers in Rancho Cucamonga in close proximity to his home.
Boles charted Merritt’s known travel on February 2, showing him in the Temescal Canyon area at 8:43 a.m., near Lake Elsinore at 8:50 a.m., just below Lake Elsinore at 8:53 a.m., at 9:03 a.m in Temecula, and at 8:22 a.m. through 10:01 a.m. in Fallbrook. At 10:17 a.m. he is shown headed north on the 15 at Rainbow, followed by ten connections with cell towers along Interstate 15 consistent with northbound travel, where he reaches the south end of Rancho Cucamonga at 11:05 a.m. At 11:10 a.m. and at 12:05 p.m. there were connections with two cell phone towers near Merritt’s residence. At 12:34 p.m. through 12:47 p.m. Merritt’s phone was in connection with a cell phone tower in Covina and at 12:57 p.m. the phone had connected to a tower in the Upland area. At 1:12 p.m. he was in the Fontana area, and at 1:14 p.m., 1:25 p.m. and 1:45 p.m in Rancho Cucamonga. At 2:26 p.m. he was in the West Covina area near Azusa Avenue, close to the Metro Sheet Metal foundry, and at 2:38 p.m. near the 57 Freeway and 210 Freeway. At 3:33 p.m. his phone connected to a tower near Mission Boulevard in Montclair, at 3:51 p.m. just north of Ontario Airport, at 3:56 p.m. near Cherry Avenue and the 10 Freeway in Fontana, then at 4 p.m. near Cedar Avenue and the 10 Freeway in Bloomington. Records reflect a series of calls between 4:21 p.m. and 5:10 p.m. connecting with two cell towers in the area of south San Bernardino and Loma Linda. There were then contacts with two cell phone towers in east Fontana and then west Fontana near the 10 Freeway at 5:52 p.m. and 6 p.m., consistent with travel in a westbound direction. From 6:18 p.m. until 10:58 p.m. there were a series of calls connecting with three cell towers in Rancho Cucammonga.
Boles similarly charted Merritt in Fallbrook again on the morning of February 3, 2010 and then returning to Rancho Cucamonga and traveling to the area of the Metro Sheet Metal foundry in Azusa before returning to Rancho Cucamonga in the afternoon.
Merritt’s cell phone records for February 4, Boles said, show him in Norco at 9:36 a.m. and traveling north to reach Rancho Cucamonga at 9:51 a.m. His cell phone was then in contact with the two cell phone towers closest to his home for the remainder of daylight hours, until 5:48 p.m.
At that point, the ability to determine Merritt’s whereabouts by means of his cell phone emanations ceased for almost four hours, Boles said.
“The next available call after the last cell tower connection at 5:48 p.m. is at 9:32 p.m., and connects with a cell tower in the Mira Loma area near Interstate 15 north of Norco,” said Boles. “That’s south of Ontario.”
All calls to Merritt during that gap were forwarded to his voice mail, Boles said.
Prosecutors allege that Merritt killed the McStay family the night of February 4, 2010. What Imes was suggesting to the jurors by Boles’ testimony was that Merritt was in some fashion aware his movements could be tracked by his cell phone activity and he had calculatedly turned his device off before departing from Rancho Cucamonga to Fallbrook on the evening of February 4 to carry out the carnage. To emphasize this, Imes displayed the page of Merritt’s AT&T cell phone records covering February 4, 2010, showing that after the 5:48 p.m. call, a six-minute exchange with McStay’s phone, Merritt’s phone went dead. Six calls were made to Merrit’s number at 6:09 p.m., 6:10 p.m., 6:12 p.m., 6:17 p.m, 7:18 p.m. and 9:04 p.m. Those calls did not connect with his phone, however, as was demonstrated by there being no cell tower data relating to any of those calls, all of which were routed to his phone’s voice mail function.
“The lack of the equipment identifier indicates the phone could be off, off the network, in airplane mode, anyone of those,” said Boles.
On February 5, 2010, Boles said Merritt’s phone records show that at 7 a.m. he was in the Upland area near the 210 Freeway. Thereafter, Boles said Merritt’s phone was next used at 10:45 and 10:46 in the Santa Clarita area. At 10:59 a.m., his phone made a single connection in the San Fernando area. At 12:49 p.m. and then at 2:23 p.m. his phone had connected with the two cell towers close to his residence in Rancho Cucamonga. Between 2:32 p.m. and 3:54 p.m., his cell phone connected with four towers in the Rancho Cucamnga area. At 9:17 p.m. and 9:18 p.m., Merritt’s cell phone connected with a tower in the Mira Loma area followed by a 9:25 p.m. connection in the Ontario/south Rancho Cucamonga area adjacent to Interstate 15.
Boles moved onto Merritt’s cell phone activity on February 6, 2010, the day prosecutors allege Merritt buried the McStay family in shallow graves in the desert north of Victorville.
Boles identified the first cell tower connection of that day on Merritt’s phone as being made at 10:46 a.m. near the intersection of Mojave Drive and Interstate 215 in Victorville, followed by some calls between 11:30 a.m. and 11:52 a.m. utilizing a cell tower north of Victorville toward Oro Grande. Then, somewhat inexplicably, there is a call one minute later, at 11:53 a.m. which pinged off a cell tower in Victorville. At 12:49 p.m. there is a call which connected to a cell tower in the Hesperia area. At 1:30 p.m. there is another call connecting to the cell tower in the Oro Grande area.
Boles included a chart of six calls placed from Merritt’s phone beginning at 11:30 a.m. and ending at 11:52 a.m. – at 11:30 a.m., 11:31 a.m.,11:32 a.m., 11:33 a.m., 11:34 a.m. and 11:52 a.m. All of those connected with the Oro Grande cell tower, the one that is at the 4,522 foot elevation level and a distance of 1.97 miles from the McStay family burial site. Boles said that all of the calls with the exception of the one at 11:32 a.m. had connected with the antenna receiver on the cell tower oriented east from the tower. This area of coverage corresponded to the area where the McStay family graves were located.
Boles’ testimony on direct examination had not concluded when court adjourned for the week after 4 p.m. on Thursday. He is due to return to the witness stand Monday for further direct examination to be followed my Merritt’s legal team’s cross examination.

Three months after a majority of Colton’s residents voted to reduce the number of its council members and council districts from six to four, the council voted to fill an existing gap within ts ranks with Kenneth Koperski.
Colton’s 3rd District has been without representation since Frank Navarro resigned from his council post to move into the mayor’s slot following his election as the city’s top political dog in November.
While competition for spots on the Colton City Council has on occasion been stiff in the past, in the aftermath of the November 2018 election there was no mad rush to succeed Navarro. Koperski was the only 3rd District resident to apply for the post after the council determined it would make an appointment rather than hold a special election.
The filling of the Third District gap runs counter to the general sentiment in the city as well as on the council. Two years ago, Councilman Luis Gonzalez took up the cause of reducing the number of council positions from a half dozen to four. Until 1994, only San Bernardino of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities had more than five members on their respective city councils. In 1992 Colton’s voters voters approved adding two more members. That move was made despite the consideration that 13 of the county’s cities had larger populations than Colton. The larger council found justification in the consideration that despite its small size, Colton is among the most mature of the county’s municipalities, having incorporated in 1887, the third one to do so, one year before Redlands. The second of the county’s city’s to incorporate, nearby Riverside, left the county in 1893 when what is now Riverside County seceded from San Bernardino County in 1893. Colton was, and for the most part remains, a full municipal service city, with its own fire department, police department, water utility, electrical utility including electricity-generating plants, wastewater treatment facilities, a municipal cemetery district and city-owned and operated senior citizen housing. Until 1997 it had a municipal sanitation division that handled refuse collection and disposal. Founded by would-be railroad magnate David Colton, the city incorporated into its layout railroad bridges within its 16.04 square mile expanse that in 2019 dollars would cost more than $2 billion to reproduce.
Gonzalez first appealed to his council colleagues more than two years ago, asserting that the city’s machinery of government was too elaborate. He initially failed to get the requisite support he needed to proceed. Last year, District 1 Councilmen David Toro and District 6 Councilman Isaac Suchil registered their opposition when Gonzalez raised the issue once more, but the remainder of the council came though and in August, at what was literally the last minute, put an initiative, designated by the County Registrar of Voters Office as Measure R, on the November 6 ballot. The city’s voters favored returning to four council members representing four separate districts comprising roughly one-forth of the city’s 54,000 residents each, and continuing with a mayor elected at-large, with 5,321 votes or 54.35 percent in favor of Measure R and 4,469 votes or 45.65 percent in opposition.
The transition is to take place in 2022. In preparation for the change, council members representing current districts 3, 5 and 6 in accordance with their 2016 election are to serve out their four year terms, which are to expire in December 2020. In the November 2020 Colton Municipal Election, those vying in districts 3, 5 and 6 will do so with the understanding that the terms will last only two years. In 2022, at which point the boundaries for the four newly drawn districts will be set, city voters will then elect a full complement of council, the mayor and two of the council members for a full-four year term and two of the council members to a two year term. Thereafter, commencing in 2024, all elections will be to elect candidates to full four-year terms.
In the meantime, to ensure the residents of District 3 have representation, Koperski will be their councilman.
-Mark Gutglueck