Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has nominated Deborah Ale Flint, the aviation director for the Port of Oakland who is the chief executive at Oakland Airport, to lead Los Angeles World Airports.
Los Angeles World Airports is the public corporation acting on behalf of the Los Angeles Department of Airports, which oversees Los Angeles International, Ontario International and Van Nuys airports.
Flint will replace Gina Marie Lindsey, the outgoing executive director of Los Angeles World Airports.
During the last five years of her stewardship of Los Angeles World Airports, Lindsey had become the focus of much of the city of Ontario’s discontent with the city of Los Angeles over the manner in which Ontario International Airport has been managed and operated.
Lindsey’s departure comes at a critical juncture in the relationship between the city of Los Angeles and the city of Ontario.
Ontario International Airport has been under the control of Los Angeles for more than 47 years. In 1967, when Ontario Airport yet had a gravel parking lot and fewer than 200,000 passengers passing through its gates annually, the Ontario City Council ratified a joint operating agreement with the city of Los Angeles to permit the larger city to use its stronger negotiating position with the airlines serving Southern California to induce them to utilize the Ontario facility. Using the leverage it possessed by virtue of its control of gate positions at Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles persuaded a whole host of airlines to begin flying into and out of Ontario, transforming the former backwater air field into a world class aerodrome, eliminating one of its obsolete runways, improving its existing east-west runway and constructing another, and providing the facility with an ultra-modern concourse and two new terminals. After all of the performance criteria in the original joint operating agreement were achieved, in 1985 the city of Ontario deeded the airport to the city of Los Angeles for no consideration. During the more than two-decades after that transition, the airport continued to prosper, with ridership rising to an all-time record 7.2 million in 2007.
That same year, on June 4, 2007, Lindsey, who had decades of experience in airport management and a record of success in renovating and improving international airports, including with Seattle-Tacoma Airport, was appointed Los Angeles World Airports executive director.
Lindsey’s arrival coincided with two sets of events that ultimately fueled the souring of relations between the cities of Los Angeles and Ontario with regard to Ontario International Airport. The first of these was Lindsey’s push to step up the modernization of Los Angeles International Airport, which would ultimately lead, at least in part, to soaring passenger numbers there. The second event was the massive economic downturn that transitioned into a lingering national, statewide and regional recession that perpetuated itself for nearly seven years. Airlines, in an effort to shield themselves from the continuing economic decline, began cutting back on flights, particularly to locations outside heavy population centers. Beginning in 2008 and until mid-2014, passenger traffic at Ontario International declined steadily. This led to a deterioration in the working relationship between Los Angeles and Ontario. In 2010, Ontario officials, led by city councilman Alan Wapner, initiated a campaign aimed at wresting control and ownership of Ontario International Airport back from Los Angeles. Los Angeles officials, including most prominently Lindsey, at first ignored and then began to resist that effort, which grew increasingly strident and uncivil. Ontario officials, with Wapner in the lead, began to openly charge that Lindsey had evinced hostility toward the city of Ontario and its airport, and was deliberately managing, or mismanaging, Ontario International operations to raise costs and minimize both revenues and ridership there as part of a plot to increase revenue and gate numbers at Los Angeles International Airport. Lindsey and her staff denied those accusations, pointing out that the airlines were being pushed by their own economic imperatives. In 2013, in the waning days of Anthony Villaraigosa’s tenure as Los Angeles mayor, the city of Ontario, through the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, sued Los Angeles in the neutral forum of Riverside Superior Court, charging Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports with willful mismanagement of Ontario Airport and seeking the return of the aerodrome to the city in which it is located.
That lawsuit is yet pending in Riverside Superior Court, where major portions of it have been dismissed. For their part, Los Angeles officials at all levels, from the city council through to the management ranks at Los Angeles International Airport, have been offended by the vitriol and tenor of Ontario’s campaign. It is unclear whether Lindsey’s departure came at her own initiative or was imposed upon her by the political leadership on the Los Angeles City Council and the airport board. Her leaving has presented the cities of Los Angeles and Ontario with an opportunity to undertake a reconciliation, one that calls for similar statesmanlike action on both sides.
In this way, Flint exists as the fulcrum upon which the interests of the megalopolis to the west and the smaller city to the east might be balanced.
Flint has served as the director of aviation in Oakland since 2010. As of press time, her appointment needed to be confirmed by the Los Angeles City Council. She brings to the table experience in facilitating a regional approach to transportation issues, which included a public transit rail connection serving all of the East Bay with a terminus at Oakland International Airport.
As of 2012, she became a member of the Aviation Consumer Protection Committee, which advises the Department of Transportation on the rights of air travel passengers. She holds a bachelor’s degree from San Jose State University.

The county of San Bernardino has quietly initiated drug testing of its employees. For various reasons, the program has gotten little publicity. It loomed into the public spotlight this week, when the board of supervisors approved a three year contract with one of the two companies that perform drug and alcohol testing.
According to Laurie Rozko, the director of the county’s purchasing department, “The human resources department requires specialized services and handling processes beyond the requirements of other departments, including pre-employment physical examinations, random testing for certain employees with safety-sensitive job tasks, post-accident clearance for personnel, and reasonable suspicion drug and alcohol testing as needed. Testing regulated by the Department of Transportation also requires independent medical review officer confirmation of certain testing results. Without local services, human resources may experience delays in turnaround time for test results, which could also be non-compliant with Department of Transportation requirements.”
Rozko asked the board of supervisors to “approve [an] agreement with Addiction Medicine Consultants, Inc. for services at fixed rates for the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018, with one option to extend for an additional two-year term. The fixed rates include $37.35 for a 10-panel drug test for alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), opiates, amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, methadone and propoxyphene; all to be collected at a lab-provided facility, with the cost to include the drawing/collection of the specimen and testing of the specimen; and $39 for a 5-panel urine drug and alcohol tests, per Department of Transportation standards; collected at a lab-provided facility, with the cost to include the drawing/collection of the specimen and testing of the specimen.”
While it appears that Addiction Medical Consultants’ profit on negative tests will be marginal or non-existent, it stands to make money on positive tests.
The laboratory director, supervising technical representative and technical representative with the company are to be remunerated at a rate of $100 per hour for their court testimony in addition to a $250 per diem for that testimony.
According to Rozko, “In April 2014, a request for proposal for drug and alcohol testing services was released on behalf of multiple county departments. On September 23, 2014 the board of supervisors approved Agreement No. 14-820 with PhamaTech, Inc. Since that time, Purchase Order No. 151285 has remained in place with Addiction Medicine Consultants to meet the specialized needs of human resources. In addition, Addiction Medicine Consultants was coordinating county testing sites under contract with PhamaTech, Inc. Addiction Medicine Consultants was the second highest ranked proposer in the competitive process, and works closely with a local medical review officer.”
Rozko told the board of supervisors that approving the agreement with Addiction Medicine consultants “will give the department the ability to have specialized Department of Transportation related testing services, as well as a secondary vendor for countywide services if needed.”
The county has not publicized its drug testing policy. Neither have the unions representing various county employee groups seen fit to vector attention to the testing the county is conducting, their acquiescence in allowing the testing to take place, the frequency with which the testing turns up positive results or the punishment or discipline meted out in such circumstances.

By clicking on the portal below, you can download a PDF of the June 5 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 06-05-15

(June 2) he county is paying a Portland, Oregon-based firm at a rate of over $370,000 per year to provide the county hospital in Colton with an operating room manager in the wake of the recent departure of Karen Jarvis, who previously worked directly for the county in the operating room manager capacity.
The main campus of the county hospital, known as Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, opened in Colton in 1998. It offers a full range of medical services, including surgeries.
In September 2014, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center received notice that the operating room manager was going to retire. A request for recruitment for the position was completed and still remains open. Two candidates applied for the position, but only one had operating room experience. That candidate was interviewed in February 2015, but did not accept the position. As there were no other qualified candidates, consultant quotes were requested and received from four vendors. Of those vendors, Whitman Partners was deemed the most cost effective, and the only vendor who offered operating room managers as a specialty.
On March 6, 2015, Master Blanket Pusrchase Order No. 152837 was issued to Whitman Partners in the amount of $67,940 for the period of March 1, 2015, through May 15, 2015, for the provision of an interim operating room manager.
As it turned out, the interim operating room manager began work on April 24.
On May 20, 2015 Whitman Partners announced it placed Nancy Hungarland at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center as the director of surgical services. Hungarland was previously the interim perioperative team manager at University Medical Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. Hungarland oversees the operations of the operating room, pre-operative, post-operative, gastroenterology laboratory, and pain clinic. She plans, directs, coordinates, controls and evaluates the operation of the department and oversees staffing and budget for nursing care in the surgical services department in compliance with established standards, and is scheduled to provide an operational assessment at the end of the contract period.
According to R. Richard Pitts, the interim director of Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, “The experience and knowledge of this manager is vital to maintain compliance and efficiency in this department for the provision of patient procedures and care. Of these vendors, Whitman Partners was the most cost effective, and the only vendor who offered operating room managers as a specialty.”
A change order was processed to revise the effective dates of this purchase order to April 24, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
The original eight-week period agreed upon for the services of the interim operating room manager provided by Whitman Partners ends this month. The increased amount requested will provide sufficient purchasing authority for the extension of the services to be provided by Hungarland. The agreement document with Whitman Partners includes a provision requiring the vendor to find and provide a permanent candidate to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center for this position. A placement fee of 25% of the candidate’s first year’s income upon hiring of a permanent candidate is required of Arrowhead Regional Medical Center as part of this provision.
The search is being conducted by Colin Mahoney, executive recruiter at Whitman Partners and he is being assisted by Jim Carver, partner and executive recruiter.

The Board of Supervisors today unanimously selected an experienced executive with more than 30 years in the health care industry as the new director of Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.
William L. Gilbert, who has held chief executive officer positions for several large health care systems across the United States, will oversee Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton beginning July 6, 2015.
“Mr. Gilbert is the right person to serve as Director having years of experience in the health care industry,” said Board Chairman James Ramos. “I believe he will bring valuable contributions to the ARMC community.”
Most recently, Gilbert worked with Deaconess Hospital in Spokane, Washington and Foundation Surgical Affiliates in San Antonio, Texas.
Gilbert has a bachelor’s degree in healthcare administration from the University of La Verne and a Master of Business Administration from Pepperdine University. He has also been a board member for the Washington State Hospital Association, the California Hospital Association and several other healthcare associations throughout his career.
In his position as director, Gilbert will supervise 3,691 employees and manage a budget of $451 million at the state-of-the-art acute care hospital. His employment contract calls for him to earn a salary of $299,500. Gilbert succeeds William Foley who left ARMC in May for another healthcare position in the Midwest.
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center is a Level II trauma center which also operates a regional burn center, a primary stroke center, a free-standing behavioral center, four primary care centers including three family health centers and more than 40 outpatient specialty care services.

The city of Grand Terrace has selected former Compton City Manager G. Harold Duffey as its new city manager effective June 1, 2015. The council approved a three-year contract at its May 26, 2015 meeting.
“We believe that Mr. Duffey brings the desired ‘business focus’ and clear understanding of the council’s vision for the future,” said Mayor Darcy McNaboe. “His experience with municipal budgets, public safety, infrastructure maintenance, and development are an important base of knowledge that is essential for ensuring that Grand Terrace remains a sustainable, fiscally solvent community.”
Duffy brings more than 25 years of municipal experience to Grand Terrace. He started his career at the city of Riverside, and later held positions at the county of San Bernardino, the city of Sacramento and the county of Yolo. He also served as city administrator in Oroville, California. He is a graduate of the University of Redlands where he received his Bachelor of Arts in political science and sociology. Duffey also received a Masters’ Degree in public administration from California State University San Bernardino.
“This is a wonderful opportunity for me professionally and personally. I started my higher education and career in the Inland Empire,” said Duffey. “I am excited about returning here to work with policymakers that value fiscal prudence and service standards to maintain or enhance the quality of life for the residents of Grand Terrace.”
Duffey will be paid an annual salary of $180,000 plus $51,775 in benefits including an annual $4,800 car allowance for a total of $231,775. He will also receive a one-time moving stipend of $3,500 and a laptop computer not-to-exceed $1,300. The city of Grand Terrace is a partial-service council-manager form of government. The city manager is appointed by the city council and is responsible to the city council for the administration of all municipal affairs placed in his charge. Duffey replaces interim city manager Carol Jacobs who has held the interim post since January of 2015.

(June 2) An indication of just how much of a property tax burden county residents are bearing came this week when the board of supervisors authorized spending $150,000 to pay for the paper upon which the county property tax bills will be printed over the next three years.
The board ratified County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Larry Walker’s request to issue a no-bid. non-competitive blanket purchase order to Newport Printing Solutions in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide property tax bill design and paper stock to the tax collector’s office for the period of June 2, 2015 through June 1, 2018.
According to Walker, who is prone to illeism and therefore often speaks about himself in the third person, “Costs for property tax bill stock average $48,000 each year, and are not expected to exceed $50,000 annually during the term of the three-year purchase order. In 2014-15, the tax collector distributed over 850,000 property tax bills totaling over $2.3 billion. Property tax revenue is used to fund key public services including education, police and fire protection, social, and public health services. The issuance of a blanket purchase order with Newport Printing Solutions will ensure that the tax collector has sufficient tax bill stock to generate and mail tax bills pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 2610.5 and 2910.1. Bill stock must have proper perforation and printing must be in the precise location for the high-speed remittance processing machines to correctly read and process payments efficiently.”
Walker offered a justification for awarding the non-competitively bid contract to Newport.
“The enterprise printers used by the information services department to print tax bills perform optimally when using paper that exceeds the manufacturer’s minimum requirements,” Walker stated. “In June 2010, the tax collector requested that [the county] purchasing [division] conduct a competitive procurement for tax bill paper. Newport Printing Solutions was a part of the solicitation, but since they did not have the lowest bid, they were not selected. Due to quality issues with the paper received from the selected vendor, both the annual secured tax bill form and the secured property memo form were returned to the vendor to reproduce. The sample paper received from the corrected order still had significant quality issues, resulting in excessive paper jams and misfeeds which resulted in an increase in time and administrative costs to correct and rerun the print jobs. To resolve the paper quality issue, the tax collector contacted Newport Printing Solutions which had supplied paper to the tax collector in prior years. The tax collector completed a non-competitive purchasing requisition with Newport Printing Solutions in September 2010. Since then, the tax collector has continued to purchase paper from Newport Printing Solutions on a non-competitive basis. Newport Printing Solutions has consistently provided quality paper and pre-printed forms.”

The town of Yucca Valley and the city of Twentynine Palms together provide animal control services to 5,313 square miles of San Bernardino County’s Low Desert.
According to Brian Cronin, San Bernardino County’s head of animal care and control, the two municipalities which lie off of State Highway 62 in the county’s remote desert outback act as service providers to the unincorporated areas that surround them in terms of animal control and animal sheltering.
“The town of Yucca Valley provides services for the county in the vast portion of that part of the desert,” Cronin told the Sentinel. “We also have a contract with the city of 29 Palms in that region, so there are two shelter facilities called upon to serve this square mileage area. Yucca Valley serves the primary area. As for the immediate area around the city of 29 Palms, we have a contract with them on a simple purchase order. Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms together serve approximately 5,214 square miles of the unincorporated low desert area of the county.”
The town of Yucca Valley has 40.015 square miles within its boundaries and Twentynine Palms counts 59.143 square miles within its city limits.
This week, the county, thorough an act of the board of supervisors, renewed its existing contract with the town of Yucca Valley to continue to provide animal shelter services in the unincorporated areas of the Morongo Basin region, extending the contract an additional three years, and increasing the total contract amount by $837,321, from $257,686 to $1,095,007, for the period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018.
Cronin said “The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health’s Animal Care and Control Division provides animal shelter services to the unincorporated areas throughout the county of San Bernardino. Animal care and control utilizes contract shelters in outlying unincorporated areas of the county where the county does not own or operate a shelter. These contract facilities reduce travel time for field animal control officers and make it easier for residents to retrieve and adopt impounded animals. Services provided by these shelters include housing, rabies quarantine, stray animal impound, and stray animal euthanasia in accordance with the county ordinance and California law. In addition, these shelters collect licensing revenue and other fees on behalf of the county, and may also contract with local veterinarians for spay and neuter services of adopted animals. The town of Yucca Valley operates the Yucca Valley Animal Shelter, which is jointly owned by the town and county.”

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
For all of you Sentinel readers with your heads buried in the sand of local news, we turn now to something of national and international import. My subject this week is the Pacific Rim Partnership trade agreement, a 12-nation pact that President Barack Obama says is a major objective in his second-term agenda. Mr. Obama is at odds in his sponsorship of this agreement with members of his own party, finding himself aligned with a majority of the Republicans in Congress as the matter is being earnestly debated on Capitol Hill. For that reason alone, this is an interesting topic…
This weekend, as our president flies to a summit in Germany, he will have several key Democrats on Air Force One with him and he will plead with them for their support for the Pacific Rim trade accord, approved by the Senate last month, so he can win the support of the House of Representatives and fast track the pact’s finalization. Only 18 of the 188 Democrats in the House are with the president so far. There is majority Republican support for the bill to ratify the pact, but there is some scattered Republican opposition to it. The president therefore needs to ensure the votes of 200 Republican House members or thereabouts, to get the agreement in place…
So the question comes: Should the U.S. enter into this agreement? Certainly, there is an upside to the pact, as it will improve things for some sectors of our economy. On the other hand, there are some drawbacks, as it will have a hurtful impact on other portions of our economy. When he appeared on the public radio show “Marketplace,” Mr. Obama conceded that some sectors of the U.S. economy will be harmed by the Pacific trade accord. In the next breath, he offered his assurance that it would benefit a larger number of Americans. “The question is, ‘Are there a lot more winners than losers?’ ” our president asked. “And the answer in this case is yes.”
The readers of this column know I am no great fan of this president. I do not believe, as many say they do, that he is consciously and deliberately seeking to destroy our country. I, in fact, believe just the opposite, that he is sincerely doing the best he can to serve and improve our nation. It is just that I disagree with him on how to go about doing that. He thinks he can improve our country by making it easier for the non-productive elements of our society to access the fruits of the labor of the productive elements of our society. I fear that in doing what he is trying to do, he is going to overwhelm those hardworking pillars of society that are already doing the heavy lifting and that when they stumble under the oppressive load, we will collectively collapse. But I digress…
As far as the Pacific Rim Partnership goes, I am not sure our president is right. Nor am I convince he is wrong. I have not made up my mind. If I were a member of Congress, there are some issues I would want clarified before I cast my vote. So, without any further ado, here goes:
Under the Pacific Rim Partnership, will U.S. companies that have spent millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars incorporating safeguards for the environment into their operations be put at a disadvantage in competing against foreign companies that are not required to meet such requirements?
Under the Pacific Rim Partnership, will U.S. companies that have engaged in collective bargaining with the unions representing their employees and who are now paying union scale wages to their workers and providing them with health and retirement benefits be put at a disadvantage in competing against foreign companies that are permitted to pay their employees peanuts and offer them no benefits?
Under the Pacific Rim Partnership, will U.S. companies that receive no subsidies from the U.S. Government but rather pay hefty federal and state taxes be put at a disadvantage in competing against foreign companies that are provided with financial assistance from their governments?
Under the Pacific Rim Partnership, will U.S. companies that, either because of their own high standards or because of their compliance with U.S. law, incorporated product safety standards into the design of the goods they produce be put at a disadvantage in competing against foreign companies that need adhere to no such standards in their manufacturing processes?
Under the Pacific Rim Partnership, will fishermen based in the U.S. who adhere to maritime laws restricting them from overfishing certain areas of the ocean be put at a disadvantage in competing against fisherman based in countries who need engage in no such restrictions?

By Mark Gutglueck
Dirty politics and the use of the power of their political office by incumbent officials to sway the outcome of elections in San Bernardino County is a tradition extending back well into the 20th Century.
Some 69 years ago, the man who was then district attorney utilized the prosecutorial power he possessed for a blatantly political purpose, succeeding in getting reelected through a cynical manipulation of the process and by exploiting the respect and trust that that many in the public at large too freely accorded him because of his title and position. This inspired others who came after him to manipulate the electorate by false representations or the use of authoritarian gimmickry.
The unfortunate experience of a would-be but never-was district attorney of San Bernardino County, Wardwell Evans, and the tribulation he underwent at the hands of the then-incumbent district attorney, Jerome Kavanaugh, he had sought to unseat more than two-thirds of a century ago stands as a classic example of why San Bernardino County is held in such low regard by historians and students of politics.
Born in Chicago on June 24, 1901, Ward Evans was the son of D. Walter and Anna (McCauley) Evans, the former a native of Maine and the latter of Illinois.The Evans family moved to California when Ward was a year old. D. Walter Evans was a principal in the Lang & Evans Company and served for a time as deputy assessor of San Bernardino County. After his graduation from the San Bernardino High School, Ward attended Stanford University, which awarded him an A. B. degree in 1923. Determined to follow his older brother, Daniel W. Evans, an attorney in San Francisco, into the practice of law, he spent the year 1923-24 in study at Harvard Law School and returned to Stanford to get his Juris Doctor degree there in in 1925. He was admitted to the California bar in August 1925 and he began practice in San Bernardino in association with William Guthrie and was in the district attorney’s office for two years. He was later an assistant city attorney in San Bernardino.
In 1933, Congressman John Steven McGroarty, a Democrat, said of Evans, a Republican, that he was
“experienced and capable. He is making a creditable record as assistant city attorney and also has a remunerative clientele, maintaining an office on the fifth floor of the Andreson Building. Wardwell D. Evans has become well established in his profession, due to his analytical powers and ability to present arguments in the strongest possible light.”
In 1936, he ran unsuccessfully for the California Legislature in an effort to to represent the the 72nd Assembly District in the lower chamber of the Statehouse in Sacramento. He would subsequently vie, again unsuccessfully, for the U.S. Congress.
In 1946, Wardwell D. Evans, then 44, challenged incumbent district attorney Jerome B. Kavanaugh, in that year’s district attorney’s race.
Evans was a credible and viable challenger. At that time, he was practicing law out of an office in the desert. Previously, he had resided and practiced law in the city of San Bernardino and had worked in the 1930s and early 1940s as a deputy district attorney with the county of San Bernardino and as deputy city attorney with the city of San Bernardino. Eight years previously, in 1938, Evans had vied for district attorney against Kavanaugh. By the mid-1940s, Evans had moved to Barstow, which was then a major city in San Bernardino County. He was a leading attorney in the community there.
After filing as a candidate in the race in March 1946, Evans had undertaken a serious campaign against Kavanaugh which dwelled on the differences he said he had with the incumbent over administering the authority of the prosector’s office. He was scheduled to go head-to-head with Kavanaugh in that year’s primary, which was held June 4.
Less than a month before the election, Kavanaugh, as district attorney, called for a special session of the impaneled grand jury and presented to it evidence prosecutors employed by Kavanaugh alleged indicated Evans had engaged in grand theft.
On the third day of that special session, Monday May 13, 1946, the grand jury returned an indictment against Evans.
The indictment charged that Evans stole $2,600 from a couple, Clarence E. Day and his wife Gladys Marie Day. Kavanaugh maintained that the case had been brought to the grand jury’s attention by another couple, George and Sarah Clark, who had intended to sell the Days their property located about six miles west of Barstow.
Upon the return of the indictment, Kavanaugh publicly stated, “Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Mr. and Mrs. Day told me that they entered into an agreement regarding the sale of the Clarks’ home at Lenwood. The Clarks said they agreed to sell their house for $1,055. The four said they went to Mr. Wardwell D. Evans, Barstow attorney, and he prepared the contract of sale and promised to get a certificate of title and prepare the necessary papers. They further stated that he also agreed to act as escrow agent in the matter and, in accordance with this agreement, Mr. Day executed a check payable to Mr. Evans as escrow agent in the sum of 2,600. Mr. Day complained the check was delivered to Mr. Evans on Feb. 9, 1946, and since that day he has not delivered a trust deed, deed of conveyance or furnished certificate of title as he agreed to do, although demands were made on him. The complainants say they made repeated efforts to locate Mr. Evans but were unsuccessful.”
Kavanaugh made further statements calculated to shed further discredit on his political opponent and portray him in the worst possible light. Kavanaugh’s quotes highlighted the press coverage of the Evans’ indictment, reported in the county’s newspapers, including the San Bernardino Sun, the Ontario Daily Report, the Redlands Daily Facts, the Fontana Herald News, the Victorville Daily Press and the Barstow Dispatch.
“Edward B. Demarest, the manager of the Barstow branch of the Bank of America, reported that $2,600 was deposited to the credit of Mr. Evan’s only account at the bank on Feb. 11 1946,” Kavanaugh stated. “He produced bank records which showed me that the account had been overdrawn on several occasions since then. Mr. and Mrs. Day, who purchased the home, have apparently lost their $2,600, which they stated was their savings accumulated during three years of war, when Mr. Day was a laborer employed by the U.S. government at the Marine base near Daggett. Mr. and Mrs. Clark, on the other hand, may now undertake to repossess the house which they thought they had sold and which is now occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Day and their 12-year-old daughter.”
Evans, who had been campaigning in the desert area on the morning of May 13 when the indictment was returned, was caught flatfooted by the development, learning about it when he phoned his office shortly after noon. He immediately surrendered himself to the sheriff’s department substation in Barstow. He was held incommunicado in sheriff’s custody in the desert city while at the county seat Kavanaugh was regaling reporters with his account of Evans’ misdeeds. That evening Evans was transported to the county jail in San Bernardino by then sheriff Emmet Shay’s chief criminal deputy Perry Green.
Evans was not given an opportunity at that point to hear the specifics or the substance of the charges against him, being informed only that he stood accused of grand theft. While he was at the county jail and attempting to arrange to meet the $5,000 bond judge Martin J. Coughlin had set in order to obtain his release, Evans was contacted by a reporter for the San Bernardino Sun.
“This is the dirtiest and most vicious thing I have ever heard of,” a shaken Evans told the reporter. “The charges are the outgrowth of a dirty game of politics in the interests of the district attorney election. I can only say at this time that I am innocent of all charges and am very interested in finding out just who instigated this whole procedure. The whole thing smells of politics of the lowest form.”
While Evans attempted to retain his dignity in the face of his indictment and arrest, he had sustained a blow that doomed him politically. Word of the larcenous candidate for district attorney spread throughout the 20,105-square mile county. Though the fire in his belly had not been doused, Evans’ intensity on the campaign trail had been attenuated as he had to deal with the negative publicity, and he was overwhelmed at the show of public disapprobation and the resultant need to take psychological cover in the face of the charges, a sentiment absolutely antithetical to running a spirited and effective political campaign. On June 4, Kavanaugh defeated Evans, 20,786 votes to 17,336.
After only a minimal suspension of time, the Evans case was brought to trial. Because of what were clearly recognized as the political ramifications of the case, the matter was removed to Inyo County, in the courtroom of judge William D. Dehy, and a special state prosecutor was assigned to the case in the form of Kavanaugh’s counterpart from Riverside County, district attorney John H. Neblett.
Intimately familiar with the facts of the case and intent on vindicating himself, Evans acted as his own attorney, though in the latter stages of the trial he associated attorney Frank Bates in his defense.
The weakness of the case against him soon became apparent when Evans established that the escrow was not limited to any specific period and the Days, called as prosecution witnesses, testified Evans had returned the $2,600 upon their demand.
Upon final arguments, the case went to the jury. Deliberating less than ten minutes, jurors Imogene McMurray, Jessie M. Stock, Lew Trusler, Helen Davis, Lucille Smith, Ada S. Lamb, Irvin D. Lane, Mrs. Paul Gardner, Mary Littlchale, Annie J. Newland, Jessie M. Carr and LaVerne Frazier acquitted Evans on the first ballot.