(July 9) With just seven percent of the city of Chino’s 31,789 registered voters participating in Tuesday’s special mail election, three measures that amended the city’s general plan to allow for the rezoning of designated areas to residential use were passed.
The mail balloting was necessitated by 1988’s Measure M passed by Chino’s voters, which prevents the city council from converting the zoning of non-residential land to residential use or otherwise upping the city’s population density without prior voter approval.
Because a handful of landowners wanted their property rezoned to residential for development, they requested the election. Three measures were offered to voters for a decision: Measure H, Measure I and Measure J.
Measure H called for rezoning 11.6 acres south of Schaefer Avenue between Fern Avenue and Euclid Avenue. Measure H was endorsed by both the city council and the planning commission. It passed with 60.3 percent of the vote.
Measure I sought rezoning approval on 9.2 acres at the east side of Central Avenue and north of Francis Avenue.
Measure I received 61.2 percent of the ballots cast.
Measure J proposed rezoning 38.5 acres of former dairyland north of Eucalyptus Avenue between San Antonio and Euclid avenues. It received 59.8 percent.

By Mark Gutglueck
(July 10)  It is of historical note, perhaps, that San Bernardino County’s earliest crop of county supervisors were not particularly long serving in their official capacities. This is perhaps because the early years of San Bernardino County were fraught with several major upheavals, not the least of which was the approaching Civil War.
San Bernardino County came into existence on April 26, 1853 by a legislative act in Sacramento, separating it from Los Angeles County. At the time of its creation, San Bernardino County entailed not only its current confines, the largest county in the lower 48 states, but also what is today Riverside County. which seceded from San Bernardino County in 1893.
Shortly after its creation, in August 1853, San Bernardino County’s First Court of Sessions, headed by county judge D.M. Thomas, divided the county into three townships: Chino, San Salvador and San Bernardino. The Court of Sessions remained as the governing body of the county until the board of supervisors was formed. In 1854, the city of San Bernardino was selected as the county seat in a close and bitterly contested vote.
San Bernardino had been established a few years before as the westernmost outpost of the Mormon exodus westward. The town was dominated by the church, run as much by the edicts of Mormon Leader Brigham Young emanating from Provo, Utah as the judgment of any local elders. At that time, Amasa Lyman was elected mayor of San Bernardino, essentially at the suggestion of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints authorities.
In March 1855 a new California statute made it mandatory for each county to have a board of supervisors of either three or five members. San Bernardino County, despite its immense size – at that time larger than five of the states in New England –  was allotted only three supervisors. An election was ordered for the second Monday in April 1855. The county’s three districts, corresponding roughly to the county’s three townships, had already been established by the county clerk, assessor and surveyor.
Elected in that first election were Daniel Stark in the county’s First District, William Crosby in the county’ Second District and Louis Robidoux in the county’s Third Supervisorial District.
On May 7, 1855 the first attempted meeting of the board of supervisors took place. Only Crosby and Stark were present. Accordingly, they adjourned to Saturday May 12. Only Crosby and Stark were again present so they adjourned again to May 19, at which point Robidoux was yet a no-show. On a motion, Crosby was elected chairman of the board. The board’s first official act was to create a road authority, by which the county was divided into five road districts. The board named personnel to look after each road district.
On May 26, 1855, the first board of supervisors meeting at which all of the members were in attendance was held.
Daniel Stark was born on June 29, 1820 in Windsor, Nova Scotia. At the age of 17, Stark left home to work with his brother in a Boston cabinet factory, completing his apprenticeship in 1842. He joined the Mormon Church in Boston and was ordained an elder on July 23, 1844 by Brigham Young. With his bride, the former Ann Cook, the couple left Boston and accompanied a large party of Mormons sailing by ship around South America to Hawaii and then to San Francisco, arriving there on August 3, 1846. He worked as a cabinet maker and miner in the Bay Area and then acceded to a request by C.C. Rich and the aforementioned Amasa Lyman to invest in the new San Bernardino community. He built a home on a ten acre ranch there and thereafter acquired another 160 acres.
San Bernardino at that time was being rapidly built up by the Mormons living there. One testimony to the steely determination and heartiness of those in the settling party was the road they built running 23 miles up into the San Bernardino Mountains, wide enough for the passage of two horse drawn wagons, all without the benefit of modern machinery.
William Crosby was born on September 19, 1808 in Knox County, Indiana. Succumbing to some proselytizing, he converted to Mormonism and he married Sara Harmon, another member of the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Church in Monroe County, Kentucky in 1832. He departed on his own to Utah’s Salt Lake Valley on April 6, 1846 and then returned to Kentucky to move his family to Utah in October 1848.
Crosby and his family were among the hundreds of Mormons who sojourned to California at the behest of Brigham Young  in wagon trains led by Amasa Lyman and Charles Rich.  The Mormon Party, which consited of 150 wagons, settled into the 80,000-acre Rancho de San Bernardino on October 1, 1851.
William Crosby was ordained a bishop in the church in San Bernardino. His ecclesiastical duties brought him into close contact with each member of the community.  He purchased part ownership in a sawmill and operated a hotel in San Bernardino.
Louis Robidoux( variant spelling: Rubidoux)  was born near St. Louis, Missouri on July 7, 1796. As a young man he worked as a fur trader. He picked up a fluency in Spanish, French and some Indian dialects as a consequence of his trade and came to Taos, New Mexico in the late 1820s. He married Guadalupe Garcia while there and shortly thereafter, in 1829, obtained Mexican citizenship.  He and Guadalupe had eight children.
As a Mexican citizen, Robidoux  became involved in politics, serving as an election district official in Santa Fe in 1830 and being elected an alderman on the Santa Fe Town Council in 1834. In 1839, he was elected alcalde, i.e., mayor, of Santa Fe. A contemporary esteemed him as being “shrewd, aggressive and an ambitious man of high intellect.”
Robidoux and his family moved to California in 1844, having taken with them his cattle and sheep. They settled at an abode near what is now Riverside. He purchased land and sold it in parcels to others coming to the area. He built the first flour mill in the region. With the onset of the Bear Flag Revolt, Robidoux fought on the side of the Americans and was wounded and captured in a battle near Chino. He was imprisoned and almost executed as a traitor to Mexico, but survived the war and profited by supplying stock and goods to the influx of 49ers during the Gold Rush. He was the only non-Mormon member of the original San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.
On August 6, 1855, both Stark and Crosby resigned from the board of supervisors, having been in office, less than five months. They were replaced by Norman Taylor and Charles Rich, respectively, both of whom were hand-picked by the Mormon leadership to take on the county supervisorial positions. Norman Taylor served just 16 months and was replaced by his father, Benjamin. Benjamin Taylor served as supervisor ten months and was replaced by Stark, who once again was approved to serve by the church. In the Second District, Charles Rich lasted as supervisor just a single month, and was replaced by another church designee, William Cox.
Meanwhile, in the Third District, Robidoux’s first term as supervisor lasted until December 1856, at which time he was replaced by Cornelius Jensen. Robidoux would return as supervisor twice more, from September 1857 until October 1858 and from August 1859 until October 1861, alternating in office each time with Jensen.
A major event impacting the stability of San Bernardino County and the longevity of the early members of the board of supervisors in their posts was the contretemps between the Mormon Church and the United States Government. In April 1857, shortly after James Buchanan became president, it appeared that the U.S. Army was marshalling its forces for an attack on Salt Lake City. Later that year, Brigham Young issued a summons for all of the church members in their far flung settlements out west to return to Salt Lake to defend the city and its tabernacle, the church, their families, and their way of life. Like Joseph in the Old Testament who obeyed the command of the Angel of the Lord to kill his own son, many Mormons complied with Young’s edict, renouncing ownership of the homes they had toiled for years to establish, abandoning their settlements and the vast improvements they made. The majority of the San Bernardino Mormon community, though not all of it, returned to Salt Lake City. Despite that abrupt outflex of more than half of its population and more than two thirds of its skilled laborers, artisans and craftsmen, the city – and the county that had grown up around it – survived.

There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm… Now and then we hear the wilder voices of the wilderness, from animals that in the hours of darkness do not fear the neighborhood of man: the coyotes wail like dismal ventriloquists, or the silence may be broken by the snorting and stamping of a deer.” –President Theodore Roosevelt
By Diane Dragotto Williams
Wildlife sanctuaries have been born out of necessity. Man’s interruption of life in the wild through urbanization, depletion of natural resources, and unconscious, selfish motives of human needs, demands the separation of a place to protect wild animals. Also, the compassionate, intelligent citizens of a state, or country have a right to protect that which is legally theirs, overseen by government agencies like California Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife services.
Beginning this type of work in 1994, the San Bernardino Mountains Wildlife Society has stressed the importance of wildlife preservation, while educating the public about the importance of the flora and fauna we are blessed with. We have witnessed, and cared for thousands of injured and orphaned animals whose state was begun by the interference of man, on purpose, or by accident. It is our responsibility as good stewards of this earth to repair what we can and close the breach between man and animal which has been broadened by ignorance throughout the centuries.
One of the earliest guests was Willow, an orphan mule deer fawn, whose mother was shot during hunting season. She was found, frightened, trembling  and hungry without a herd to protect her. As she was raised at Wildhaven Ranch, she gained her innate nature to fight for life. She grew to be a lovely and dominant doe that saw to the needs of her herd. She gained the respect of us all, and at the proper time, she and those with her were released back into the wild. For a season, she needed “sanctuary,” a place to heal, and to be born again to be what she was created to be. Now she brings her fawns to our sanctuary to feed on abundant browse, and to rest in the shade of our oak trees, secure in the knowledge that no one will hunt her, or her herd, at this safe place.
Some of our wild ones do not have the privilege of living again in the vast outback of the wild, and must live their lives on a wildlife sanctuary like Wildhaven, where we tend to their needs and give them a protected life, and at the same time, elevate their position as Animal Ambassadors, teaching man! They bring great joy, inspiration and relevance to the lives of many children and adults that visit our ranch.
At Wildhaven, we struggle to invest in our wild beings, to give every shred of time, energy and funds to give them a place to call home. We invite you to be a part of that precious mission: “Preserving wildlife helps heal the human spirit.” Join us for a day with our resident wildlife, from bears to eagles. Meet Bandit, the raccoon who amazes guests with his dexterity of paws! Watch Misha, the black bear, as she reveals herself as a tree hugger. You may see Lexus, the bobcat stalk his prey! And many other wild ones waiting for you.
To conclude, in Thodore Roosevelt’s words: It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird.”

Wildhaven Ranch is a wildlife sanctuary in Cedar Glen that gives programs to the public by appointments only. Bears, Bobcat, coyotes, deer, Eagles, falcon, hawk, owl and raccoons are seen “up close and personal” in guided tours. For reservation, call (909) 337-7789 or email ddwilliams@hughes.net.

(July 8)  The board of supervisors this week approved increasing the project budget on the sheriff’s department’s Frank Bland Regional Training Center expansion by $932,000, from $2,385,000 to $3,317,000.
The renovation and expansion of the existing facility, located at 18901 Institution Road in Devore, is intended to accommodate the current and future staff and to facilitate the training of future peace officers as required by the State of California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) protocol.
The project was originally budgeted at $2,385,000. The construction bids exceeded the pre-bid estimates. In addition, the county fire division required the addition of a fire
line and the project has encountered the unanticipated need of replacing mechanical equipment and related structural modifications to support that equipment. Also, modifications to the original plan have been made, including the reconfiguration of the parking lot to provide Americans with Disabilities Act compliant access to the facility and additional improvements to upgrade the security of the facility.
In December 2013 the county’s architecture and engineering department advertised for competitive bids, resulting in the submission of sixteen bids.
Hamel Contracting, Inc. of Murrieta bid $2,360,000; Young Contractors, Inc. of Riverside bid $2,498,000; Cal-City Construction, Inc. of Cerritos bid $2,530,000; Woodcliff Corporation of Los Angeles bid $2,613,000;
Dalke & Sons Construction, Inc. of Riverside bid $2,648,000; NILE International, Inc. of Montclair bid $2,666,300; Horizons Construction Co. Int’l, Inc. of Orange bid $2,675,000; Parkwest Construction Company of Redlands bid $2,691,000; Inland Building Construction Companies, Inc. of  San Bernardino bid $2,745,000; Sun Construction Group of Costa Mesa bid  $2,759,000; Angeles Contractor, Inc. of Buena Park bid $2,851,700; Construct 1 One Corp. of Tustin bid $2,938,213; Oakview Constructors, Inc. of Calimesa bid $2,948,000; Rossetti Construction Company, Inc. of Ontario bid $2,974; 210 KEMCORP Construction, Inc. of Chino bid $3,000,000; and Jergensen Construction of Oak Hills bid $0.
During the bid opening, it was found that NILE International, Inc. and Construct 1 One Corp. did not include an executed Non-collusion Declaration in their bids, and Jergensen Construction did not list pricing in its bid. The board found NILE International, Inc., Construct 1 One Corp. and Jergensen Construction to be non-responsive.
Staff recommended that the board award the contract to Hamel Contracting, Inc., the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and the board complied.
In doing so, the board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $2,360,000 to Hamel and authorized the engineering department to order any necessary changes or additions in the work being performed under the contract for a total amount not to exceed $130,500 pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20142.
The revised project budget of $3,317,000 is comprised of the following components: programming and design costs of $144,500; soils survey and testing costs of $33,000; project management, inspection, and permit costs of $154,000; furniture, fixtures and equipment $304,000; security, telecommunication and electronics costs of $85,500; construction costs of $2,360,000; and a construction contingency of $236,000.
The funding sources are $3,167,000 from the sheriff’s contract training fund and $150,000 in savings from a discretionary general funded project that was recently completed at the training facility.

(July 9)  The Fontana Police Department has recently hired six new officers, five of whom had previous law enforcement experience or were recently discharged from the military after tours of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq.
On May 22, Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones swore in Brad Carlson, Garrett Goosela, William Neal, John Sullivan, Danny Wells, and Ryan Windell.
The hirings are part of an effort on Jones’ part to reinflate the department to the manpower level it embodied when Jones became chief in 2007. Seven years ago the department boasted 202 men and women in uniform.
In the years since, as the city struggled with the persistent economic downturn gripping the nation, state and local region, the department’s ranks dwindled from attrition. As officers left or retired, for five years none were hired to replace them. By early 2012, the department had just 185 officers.
That year, the department began rebounding from the cuts that had been imposed on it which had resulted in its sustaining a nine percent loss of its personnel since the onset of the recession.  The first major turnaround came later in 2012 when a $625,000 funding windfall materialized for the department in the form of a  U.S. Department of Justice COPS grant.
By this spring, the department had 191 sworn personnel.
Jones had asked the city council, through city manager Ken Hunt, to be allotted 197 active badges. The council complied, but six of the positions remained unfilled until May 22. Carlson, Goosela, Neal, Sullivan, Wells and Windell were hired after Hunt and the city’s finance department had pretty much finalized the calculations for the 2014-15 fiscal year budget.
Jones indicated the department is not immune from future cuts if Hunt must impose such to have the city make ends meet. Most likely, the department will make any necessary economies in the way it has for the last seven years, not though layoffs but by freezing positions as they become vacant.
Carlson worked for the Colton Police Department of seven years. Before that, he served in the Army. Goosela is the only recent hire without previous paid police experience. Neal was a five-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. John Sullivan served in the Army and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Wells was an officer with the Desert Hot Springs Police Department. Windell was in the Marines and served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(May 8) The county has opted to allow California’s Department of Transportation to carry out the design phase for the Cedar Avenue/Interstate 10 improvement project in Bloomington.
To save itself the chore and headache of undertaking the designing of the project, the county will assign $4 million in federal funds it is receiving in connection with the project to the state’s transportation agency, known as Caltrans.
According to Gerry Newcombe, the county’s director of public works, the county, together with the county transportation agency, the city of Rialto and the city of Fontana have funding responsibility for the project.
The county transportation agency, a joint powers authority composed of the county and all 24 incorporated cities in the county, is referred to as San Bernardino Associated Governments and is known by its acronym, SANBAG. SANBAG’s funding share on the design phase is $2.8 million. The county’s share of the design phase cost is $823,000. Rialto’s share is $234,000 and Fontana’s share is $143,000.
According to Newcombe, “The design of the Cedar Avenue at Interstate 10 Improvement Project is financed by Federal Surface Transportation Program Local funds. The county of San Bernardino will assign (technically termed “subvent”) $4,000,000 in Federal Surface Transportation Program Local funds to the California Department of Transportation to design the project. Toll credits in the amount of $458,800 will be applied towards the $4,000,000 of Federal Surface Transportation Program Local funds in place of a local match. The federal toll credits program allows the state to use toll revenues to meet non-federal state matching requirements and waives the county’s requirement to participate with a local match. Therefore, no county local funds will be needed for this phase of the project. The county will advance the funding shares of SANBAG, Rialto and Fontana. Separate funding agreements will be forthcoming with SANBAG and the cities to apply reimbursement of the advanced funds toward the county’s share of cost in future phases of the project.”
The county’s total share of the project for all phases will be approximately $13,016,000.
Previously, the county funded the costs related to the project approval and environmental documentation phase of the project. The environmental document was approved on June 28, 2013, In accordance with the proposed design cooperative agreement, Caltrans will design the project on behalf of the county. The county will assign $4,000,000 in Federal Surface Transportation Program Local funds to Caltrans to fund the design effort, as reflected, and recommended to be approved, in the cooperative agreement’s funding summary. Assigning these   Federal Surface Transportation Program Local funds will allow Caltrans to receive payment directly from the Federal Highway Administration for its design services and will save the county the associated administrative costs.

(July 10)  Two months after the Upland City Council agreed to spend $27,000 to survey residents about their willingness to impose on themselves a half-cent sales tax to assist the city government in staving off future budget deficits, the Sentinel has learned that voters  surveyed were decidely against raising taxes and were similarly unenthusiastic about increasing the city’s business license fees.
The council had also authorized, at the same time it approved the $27,000 expenditure for the survey, to expend $48,000 on a public relations program aimed at “educating” residents about ideas put forth by a specially-formed task force that considered possible solutions to the city’s financial challenges.
One of the options delineated by the task force earlier this year included the sales tax proposal.  Taxes, however must be approved by voters to go into effect.
Given the outcome of the survey, it is not clear at this point whether the city will want to proceed with the public relations campaign, which was to be handled by the 20/20 Network, a communications firm  headed by Steve Lambert and Tim Gallagher specializing in media and community relations and crisis management. Lambert is the former editor of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the most widely circulated daily newspaper in Upland.

(July 9)  Concerned that an enterprising civil rights lawyer might sue the city over violations of the Voting Rights Act, Highland city officials are looking at the merits of placing a ballot initiative before the city’s voters to see if they would support creating ward districts. Under such a system, members of each ward would be represented by a council member voted into office only by members of that district.
Currently city council members are elected at large by all of the voters in Highland.
A handful of civil rights attorneys have propounded the argument that at large elections discriminate against minorities in that they make it more difficult for a member of an ethnic minority to win an election if he or she must face the full spectrum of voters in a given jurisdiction rather than being able to run from a geographical area in which minority voters may reside in a higher concentration.
There are countervailing theories and arguments on that point. While the city council individually and collectively have made statements saying they are satisfied with the current at large election process, council members Jody Scott and John Timmer expressed concerns that not considering the creation of a ward system might leave the city vulnerable to a civil rights lawsuit citing the Voting Rights Act.
The Highland City Council currently has no ethnic minority members.
Highland City Attorney Craig Steele complied with an earlier directive by the city council to draft documents that would, if enacted by the council, place a measure on the ballot in November to ask voters whether they would rather elect city council members by district. He also provided two proposed maps delineating possible city wards.
At the council’s last meeting in June, Scott and Timmer endorsed putting the measure on the ballot. Mayor Sam Racadio and councilman Larry McCallon said going to the expense of an election over the issue was ill-advised, since voters might reject the ward concept, in which case those intent on suing the city could proceed anyway, perhaps with further causes of action, since it could be demonstrated the city residents themselves had acted in precluding the creation of the ward system.
Council member Penny Lilburn was absent and the vote deadlocked 2-2. Thus, no action was taken. The city will need to lodge its request for the ballot measure with the county registrar of voters by August for it to be placed on the ballot this year.

By clicking on the portal below, you can download a copy of the July 4 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 07-04-14

(July 2) The 2013-14 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury, while taking up the subject of conditions inside the detention facilities run by the county sheriff, made no mention of the circumstances or activities relating to the alleged abuse of inmates that led to an FBI investigation of the West Valley Detention Center or the filing of a federal lawsuit alleging abusive and sadistic treatment by jailors there.
In its final report, the 2013-14 San Bernardino County Grand Jury characterized relations between sheriff’s department employees who work the jails and those imprisoned there as “good” and made a finding that the five largest detention facilities run by Sheriff John McMahon and his department are operated within the parameters of the California Code of Regulations applicable to adult detention facilities.
Between August of last year and March of this year, members of the grand jury paid pre-announced visits to those five facilities – the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center in Devore, the Victorville jail, the High Desert Detention Center in Adelanto and West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga.
The analysis of the conditions at all five of the jails ran through a gamut of criteria, including staffing, capacity and crowding, meals and nutrition, health of the inmates and medical care, programs available to the inmates including mental health services and both telephonic and written communication opportunities, visiting and educational opportunities, policy manual availability, the physical conditions and aesthetics of the buildings both outwardly and internally as well as the conditions of individual cells and the personal appearance and hygiene of the inmates themselves.
The five facilities passed this test with flying colors, according to the report.
Moreover, the report gave no indication of jailor-on-inmate violence and stated that a grievance procedure was in place throughout the sheriff’s department’s detention system and was working well.
According to the report the “inmates [are] oriented to rules and procedures, rules and grievance procedures [are] posted [and the] rules and grievance procedures [are] understood by inmates.” Furthermore, procedures for handling complaints are in place, according to the grand jury.
The report further characterized all grievances lodged by inmates at all of the detention facilities including West Valley as “minor.”
That, however, clashes with the allegations contained in a lawsuit filed in federal court in May by attorneys Stan Hodge, Jim Terrell and Sharon Bruner on behalf of inmates John Hanson, Lamar Graves, Brandon Schilling, Michael Mesa, Christopher Sly and Eddie Caldera alleging they were physically and psychologically tortured by deputies from January 1, 2013 through March of this year. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs were submitted to abuse and torture that included being shocked with Taser guns, having shotguns held to their heads, being rectally invaded during unreasonably aggressive pat down searches, and having their arms pulled up behind their backs while handcuffed.
According to the lawsuit, this treatment was inflicted upon Hanson, Graves, Schilling, Mesa, Sly and Caldera by deputies Robert Escamilla, Robert Morris, Russell Kopasz, Daniel Stryffeler, Eric Smale, Brock Teyechea, Andrew Cruz, Nicholas Oakley and civilian custody specialist Brandon Stockman, all of whom are named in the suit. Also named are sheriff John McMahon and captain Jeff Rose, who was the commander at the West Valley Detention Center.
In March, three deputies – Teyechea, Cruz, and Oakley, each of whom had been with the sheriff’s department for less than a year, were ignominiously fired after FBI agents descended on West Valley and subjected staff there to a series of interrogations.
The action taken against Teyechea, Cruz and Oakley, together with statements emanating from the FBI that its investigation into abuse of inmates in San Bernardino County remains ongoing is widely seen as an indication that there is some substance to the allegations in the lawsuit.
One of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case is Stan Hodge, a former San Bernardino County Superior Court judge who before that was a prosecutor in the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office.
The timing of the grand jury report declaring relations between deputies working the jails and inmates as “good” has been questioned, as has been the thoroughness of the report. Of issue in the county’s legal challenging of the lawsuit’s validity is the suggestion that the plaintiffs did not, as is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, first exhaust available administrative remedies by pursuing to completion whatever inmate grievance and/or appeal procedures their prison custodians provide.
The grand jury report, in its reference to the grievance procedure at the county’s jails, asserts that all “inmate grievances/complaints [were] reviewed by staff and answered.”
At West Valley, the grand jury report states, the “impression of staff/inmate interactions [is] good.”
In what was perhaps a concession to the accusations of brutality at West Valley that broke into public view with the filing of the lawsuit, the grand jury report does have a more in depth analysis of incarcerated population “incidents” at the West Valley Detention Center than at the other four facilities. The report notes that between September 2012 to September 2013 there had been one suicide at West Valley Detention Center, 20 unsuccessful attempted suicides at the facility, four natural deaths, one murder, 366 inmate-on-inmate assaults, and 41 assaults on staff. The grand jury report nevertheless states, “After examining all completed reports, the grand jury discovered that each and every incident was handled appropriately according to policy and procedure.”
Rosalio Hinojos was the foreman of the 2013-14 Grand Jury and was a member of two past grand juries, including the 2012-13 Grand Jury which delivered a report critical of the sheriff’s department’s employment of its Taser stun guns and policies relating to those devices.
He defended the grand jury report.
“You have to remember that there were only certain sections of the jails we dealt with,” he said. “We just did a cursory inspection. We checked the infirmary. We checked to see if the inmates were fed properly and clothed properly, if they were getting the health care they need. We checked the medical facilities and the general conditions of the jails. We looked at some incident reports to see how incidents were handled and how they followed through on them. We completed all of our inspections by March. The reports you are talking about came out, I believe, in April, at which time we were done with our inspections. We did not interview inmates. We just looked at the conditions of the jails, basically health factors, safety factors, things of that nature, like when they last performed a fire drill, how many beds they have, the number of inmates, whether they have adequate staffing, items like that. I am aware that the attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that was filed said we should have talked to the inmates, or their family members or the FBI. That is nothing we can go about and do on our own. We can’t arbitrarily call people in on something like that unless we have a specific complaint.”
A personal accusation against Hinojos was raised by critics of the grand jury report who suggested the grand jury had been used to cover for the sheriff’s department. They pointed out that Rosalio Hinojos has a family member employed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and it was suggested that he had used his authority as the grand jury foreman to rein in the grand jury to prevent it from exploring issues that would have complicated or compromised the county’s ability to defend itself in the lawsuit.
Steve Hinojos, a sergeant with the sheriff’s department, is an up and coming member of McMahon’s staff, who oversees security at the Victorville Courthouse. He is also Rosalio Hinojos’s nephew.
“Yes, he is my nephew,” Rosalio Hinojos said of Steve Hinojos. He insisted that relationship had no impact on the investigation carried out by the grand jury and the report it filed.
“As the foreman, I was there to oversee the procedures and to make sure everything was carried out properly,” Hinojos said. “As foreman, I did not participate in any of the inspections of the jails. I did not go on any of the visits to the jails. I did not participate because of my nephew being stationed at the courthouse in Victorville, so I especially did not go on that investigation or inspection there.”
Hinojos noted that the previous grand jury impaneled for 2012-13, of which he was a member, had taken up the sheriff’s department’s use of Tasers and that he had likewise not participated at that time in its examination of the sheriff’s department because of his nephew’s position with the department.
Hinojos said things had improved all over the county and that the new reality was reflected in the grand jury report. “I think what made me happy is the county departments generally are working a lot harder,” Hinojos said. “They are more efficient and are really doing a good job. We visited a lot of county departments. Those departments are working good and spending money the way they should. We were pretty impressed with the county and the folks who work there. There was nothing we could write about as far as improvements went and we finally decided to go back and revisit the grand jury reports and recommendations made in past. We wanted to see how they were implementing what was in those reports. We wanted to make sure the county doesn’t put them up on a shelf someplace. That was meant to ensure that they will implement the recommendations of future grand juries.”
Hinojos said that “As far as the jails go, they were operating as they should.”
The sheriff’s department, which last year contested the grand jury’s findings with regard to the department’s Taser use policy, immediately seized upon the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report to assert that its deputies were humanely treating prisoners at its detention facilities. Within three hours of the public release of the grand jury report, the department put out a statement attributed to McMahon that “These recommendations are the end product of many hours of serious study, and offer thoughtful suggestions for our department. We are thankful for the insights provided by the grand jury, and we will consider the implementation of their recommendations.”