(March 26)  RIALTO—The Rialto Unified School District spent over $28,000 on employee perks, incentives and awards in a dubious effort to boost staff and faculty morale, according to a state auditor.
Last July, Mohammad Z. Islam, who was then the district’s associate superintendent of business services, requested that the state of California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team look into Rialto Unified’s procurement practices.
Islam’s request came well before there was any public disclosure of the embezzlement scandal that rocked the district two months later, following the arrest of former district accountant Judith Oakes, who stands accused of stealing $1.8 million in lunch money proceeds from the district’s Nutrition Services Department between 2005 and 2013. The Oakes matter ultimately led to Rialto Unified School District Superintendent Harold Cebrun and his second-in-command, deputy superintendent James Wallace, being placed on paid administrative leave.
Though Oakes’ depredations predated hisrun’s 2009 arrival at the district and he steadfastly maintained he had no knowledge of Oakes’ actions, Cebrun resigned as superintendent earlier this month.
It is unclear whether Islam’s approach to the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team,  known by its acronym FCMAT, was made as a consequence of suspicions with regard to Oakes or other district employees. It is known that the irregularities with regard to the nutrition program proceeds, which appear to have been ongoing since 1999, had come to the district’s attention in May.
Islam, who was made the acting superintendent following Cebrun’s suspension in September, after Cebrun’s resignation was appointed as the district’s interim superintendent.
FCMAT is an arm of the state government that assists school districts with financial and management research. On January 6 FCMAT completed its audit of the Rialto Unified School District. It has been suggested that elements of the report destroyed any chance that Cebrun might be reestablished as superintendent.  FCMAT’s audit extended to 2009, which corresponds with Cebrun’s tenure as superintendent.
In particular, according to FCMAT, under Cebrun the district routinely allowed vendors to write their contracts with the district.
The audit turned up that district credit cards had been  used to make what were characterized as  “questionable” purchases, among them $7,201 in payments made to Nike by the superintendent’s office over a two-year period. In addition, there were unspecified payments made to Paypal, a Las Vegas casino, a florist, as well as to cover meals at restaurants on weekends.
A series of questionable expenditures had been made, according to the audit, on “employee incentives” that included $7,429 for picture frames apparently to serve as a backdrop for photos of employees to be selectively honored; $7,614 spent on an employee appreciation dinner at ESPN Zone; and over $14,000 spent for engraved trophies intended as awards to deserving employees. According to the auditors, the actual value of the trophies was under $2,000.
The district’s previous accounting firm,  Vavrinek, Trine, Day, .had not made any notation with regard to the expenditures deemed questionable by FCMAT. Consequently, Vavrinek, Trine, Day was terminated as the district’s auditing firm in February.
FCMAT’s findings were provided to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and the  Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office.

(March 26)  RIALTO—The Rialto Unified School District spent over $28,000 on employee perks, incentives and awards in a dubious effort to boost staff and faculty morale, according to a state auditor.
Last July, Mohammad Z. Islam, who was then the district’s associate superintendent of business services, requested that the state of California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team look into Rialto Unified’s procurement practices.
Islam’s request came well before there was any public disclosure of the embezzlement scandal that rocked the district two months later, following the arrest of former district accountant Judith Oakes, who stands accused of stealing $1.8 million in lunch money proceeds from the district’s Nutrition Services Department between 2005 and 2013. The Oakes matter ultimately led to Rialto Unified School District Superintendent Harold Cebrun and his second-in-command, deputy superintendent James Wallace, being placed on paid administrative leave.
Though Oakes’ depredations predated hisrun’s 2009 arrival at the district and he steadfastly maintained he had no knowledge of Oakes’ actions, Cebrun resigned as superintendent earlier this month.
It is unclear whether Islam’s approach to the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team,  known by its acronym FCMAT, was made as a consequence of suspicions with regard to Oakes or other district employees. It is known that the irregularities with regard to the nutrition program proceeds, which appear to have been ongoing since 1999, had come to the district’s attention in May.
Islam, who was made the acting superintendent following Cebrun’s suspension in September, after Cebrun’s resignation was appointed as the district’s interim superintendent.
FCMAT is an arm of the state government that assists school districts with financial and management research. On January 6 FCMAT completed its audit of the Rialto Unified School District. It has been suggested that elements of the report destroyed any chance that Cebrun might be reestablished as superintendent.  FCMAT’s audit extended to 2009, which corresponds with Cebrun’s tenure as superintendent.
In particular, according to FCMAT, under Cebrun the district routinely allowed vendors to write their contracts with the district.
The audit turned up that district credit cards had been  used to make what were characterized as  “questionable” purchases, among them $7,201 in payments made to Nike by the superintendent’s office over a two-year period. In addition, there were unspecified payments made to Paypal, a Las Vegas casino, a florist, as well as to cover meals at restaurants on weekends.
A series of questionable expenditures had been made, according to the audit, on “employee incentives” that included $7,429 for picture frames apparently to serve as a backdrop for photos of employees to be selectively honored; $7,614 spent on an employee appreciation dinner at ESPN Zone; and over $14,000 spent for engraved trophies intended as awards to deserving employees. According to the auditors, the actual value of the trophies was under $2,000.
The district’s previous accounting firm,  Vavrinek, Trine, Day, .had not made any notation with regard to the expenditures deemed questionable by FCMAT. Consequently, Vavrinek, Trine, Day was terminated as the district’s auditing firm in February.
FCMAT’s findings were provided to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and the  Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office.

(March 25)  With the project nearing completion, the construction cost on the Adelanto Detention Center this week increased for the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth times, escalating to  $120,419,790.
The construction bill on the project was originally slated at $90,951,937.
Moreover, the total price tag on the project, including engineering, architectural, licensing and inspection costs, has reached $145,451,910,  which is $25.45 million more than the $120 million projected to be the project’s overall price including a ten percent cost overrun contingency when it was approved in 2010.
The expansion will add 1,392 new beds to the existing 706-inmate capacity of the facility, which was  formerly privately owned and run while known as Maranatha Prison. The owner of that facility, Maranatha Private Corrections, a part of the Moreland Family Trust, in April 2005 sold the prison, located on 9438 Commerce Way in Adelanto, to the county of San Bernardino for $31.2 million.
The county initially envisioned shouldering the lion’s share of the cost of the project, but in March 2008 the board of supervisors approved the submittal of a proposal to the State Correction Standards Authority requesting available funding of up to $100,000,000 to cover 75 percent of the cost to construct 1,368 additional jail beds at what was dubbed the Adelanto Detention Center. In May 2008, the county was conditionally awarded the requested $100 million for the expansion, and was ranked first on the list of public entities to be conditionally awarded funds available under a state detention facility financing law, AB900. In July 2010, the board gave conceptual approval to the project and established the various obligations of the county, California Public Works Board, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as to the project’s general terms and termination, cost, cost sharing, scope, schedule, bidding and construction, post project completion and records retention for the project.
The county held a bidding competition that fall and in December 2010 awarded a $90,951,937 contract to Bellevue-Washington-based Lydig Construction as the low bidder, after making a finding that  the bids received from S.J. Amorosa Construction Co., Inc. of Costa Mesa, California and Flintco of Folsom, California to be non-responsive.
The overall project cost at that time was put at $120,419,790, which included a ten percent contingency.
Since that time, the cost of the project, which is to consist of three four-story housing buildings plus a support building that includes booking and holding cells and a medical clinic, has consumed the state money and eaten up the ten percent contingency as well and risen significantly beyond that, led by contract increases with Lydig.
Eight months after Lydig was granted the original $90,951,937 contract, the county amended the contract to pay Lydig another $448,516 to install approximately 3,000 linear feet of 5” conduit, pull boxes and electrical vaults as required by Southern California Edison.
On December 13, 2011, a second amendment to the contract was made for demolition and installation of concrete and asphalt associated with the rerouting of utilities and electrical duct banks as well as the modification to 124 handicap combo units at a cost of $303,773.
On April 24, 2012, a third amendment to the contract relating to modifications to lengthen holding cell benches and state fire marshal-mandated design modifications to the construction elevated the contract by $834,076. On September 11, 2012 a fourth amendment calling for the addition of handicap desks to the jails dayrooms, stainless steel well casing for the well and state fire marshal-mandated seismic upgrades to the fire protection lines set taxpayers back another $557,668. On February 23, 2013, the county amended the contract for the fifth time, in order to provide state fire marshal-mandated changes to the smoke control evacuation and automatic fire sprinkler systems, increase in number and size the heating ventilation and air conditioning structural roof supports as well as make further modifications mandated by the state fire marshal and various other agencies, providing Lydig with another $2,472,388 enhancement to the contract. On May 21, 2013 the county made a sixth amendment to Lydig’s contract, this time relating to labor and materials for the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems, to, in the words of county director of architecture and engineering Carl Alban, “convert the specified fire smoke dampers to smoke dampers as part of the revisions to the smoke control system” in the amount of $5,063,392.
Also on May 21, 2013 the county approved amendment No. 7 to the contract to cover labor and materials for the added treatment systems associated with the water well, not including the potential costs of schedule impacts along with labor and materials for the purchase of the switch gear and installation of conduit from the service yard to the existing pull boxes, as required for the installation of a third electrical service at an added cost of $1,818,807.
On June 25, 2013, the board of supervisors approved an eighth amendment to the contract in the amount of $6,004,736 to cover labor, materials, labor impacts and acceleration costs related to the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems, a portion of the cost of which was covered with Amendment No. 6.
Also on June 25, 2013, the board also signed off on a ninth contract amendment, one for $537,336, to cover labor and materials for the added treatment systems associated with the water well, not including the potential costs of schedule impacts. The total cost of the treatment systems was $2,037,336, which includes the $1.5 million allowance approved as part of the seventh amendment to the contract.
On July 23, 2013, the board approved a tenth amendment in the amount of $778,340 to complete the procurement of a fire booster pump to increase flow and pressure of the fire protection systems and the relocation of mechanical piping and electrical lines to allow for the installation of additional fire risers and a 2-hour rated ceiling assembly in the stairwells between the detention center’s housing units.
On August 6 2013 the board approved an eleventh amendment, providing Lydig with $709,533 for the installation of a third electrical service necessary to increase the available power for providing capacity for future upgrades of the facility; the installation of a fire booster pump to ensure the proper flow and functioning of the fire protection systems; the expedited procurement and delivery of smoke control panels and supervisory panels necessary to achieve the scheduled project completion date; and the relocation of smoke detectors in the dormitory sleeping areas as required by the Board of State and Community Corrections.
On November 11, 2013 the board approve a twelfth amendment to the contract for $415,952 to add twenty-seven dampers to the smoke evacuation ductwork, modify the glazing stops at master control, install fire wrap to ducts and dampers at specified locations and separate the dry zones at the housing units.
On December 17, the board of supervisors approved a thirteenth amendment in the amount of $304,450  for modifications to the electrical service yard, fire sprinkler system isolation in the support building and constructing foundation and adding position indication valve and monitoring devices for the fire booster pump, relocating  fire/smoke dampers, revising exhaust duct risers in the center core of the housing units and adding a control module to the master control fire shutter.
On January 14, 2014, the board approved a fourteenth amendment for $161,795 for the addition of elevator screen counter weight protection as required by the state elevator inspector, fire alarm revisions related to the elevator shut trip and recall as required by the state elevator inspector and state fire marshal and fire alarm revisions related to the duct detectors as required by National Fire Protection Association codes.
In addition to those previous contract amendments, the county also made several expensive change orders, including one for $2,101,536 on  August 23, 2011 that called for upgrading the security electronics in the existing facility and to provide touch screens, digital intercoms, a camera system and increased video storage capabilities, install frosted security glazing in lieu of the standard clear glazing specified in the sleeping rooms and install an anti-MRSA and prime coat finish on the floors and walls at the support building. It then made a second change order on December 13, 2011 involving an added cost of $2,392,443 to install a card reader system in the housing units to be utilized by sheriff personnel, purchase scheduling licenses for video visitation kiosks; and upgrade the roofing system to a single ply system.
On April 24, 2012 the architecture and engineering division sought from the board of supervisors approval for a third change order that called for installing an anti-MRSA coating to interior handrails in the dayrooms of the housing units and the installation of various security electronics, electrical and plumbing modifications and enhancements at a cost of $824,237.
On September 11, 2012, the board acceded to a fourth change order, at a cost of $902,801, for the addition of detention ceilings at the 32-bed dorms; modifications to center core casework, guardrails and exhaust systems, modification of the roof system and various utility modifications and enhancements.
On February 26, the fifth change order, one for $367,734, provided electrical power and venting for dryers and various structural, utility and mechanical modifications to the new expansion and existing facility.
On May 21, the sixth change order, at a cost of $47,651, called for the planting of Yucca Rostrata Trees in lieu of the specified owner-furnished Yucca Trees which were no longer available; modifications to the seismic joints between the housing units; providing a remote maintenance bypass switch for the security electronics system; deleting the painting of the interior of the mezzanine level mechanical chases; and providing security metal panels to conceal electrical conduits in two of the buildings.
On June 25, 2013, the board approved an eighth amendment to the contract at a cost of $6,068,128 to cover labor, materials, labor impacts and acceleration costs related to the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems. This brought the total cost of repairing the smoke control systems to $11,068,128, which includes the $5,000,000 allowance approved as part of the sixth amendment to the contract.
The board on June 25, 2013 also approved a seventh change order, entailing an added cost of $551,910, to make security improvements requested by the sheriff’s department; modifications to the phone and data cabling requested by the county’s information services department to improve facility communication systems; and miscellaneous revisions related to construction.
The board on July 23, 2013 also approved an eighth change order, increasing the contract amount by $252,198 to compensate Lydig for the labor and materials related to constructability issues and include modifications to doors, frames, hardware, stair supports, a fire shutter, the installation of a drip pan above electrical panels, and modifications to the electrical power supply for the security systems, as well as removing and replacing the existing asphalt pavement in the parking lot south of the existing facility.
On August 6 2013, the board approved a ninth change order costing $325,568 to make modifications of the detention ceilings and drywall in various areas of the housing units, light fixture modifications at the center core of the housing units. make miscellaneous modifications of the fire alarm and smoke detector relocations, light fixture revisions for the dormitory ceilings, add fire alarm devices in the elevator machine, hard wire the dryers in the compressor room, perform programming and engineering for added functions in the fire/smoke control system, add thirty-nine site bollards, add countertop support brackets in the center core of the housing units, add decomposed granite at specified site locations, and add sidewalks and a ramp between the new housing units and the existing facility.
On September 24, 2013, the board approved a tenth change order with Lyding in the amount of
$307,630 to add a touch screen building automation system and UPS backup, add flooring at the passenger and freight elevators, add an eye wash station at the water facility,  provide a set of spare breakers for the main electrical switchgear, and handle miscellaneous constructability issues.
On November 5, 2013, the board approved an eleventh change order in the amount of $129,151 for relocating the duct detectors to an exterior application, installing four additional phone lines in the support building, adding ten privacy screens in the recreation yards, modifying the handrails in the mechanical chases, and modifications to the power and sprinkler heads in the master control room.
On December 17, 2013 the board approved a twelfth change order for $52,413 to replace 2 doors in housing unit No. 4’s group room, add and relocate security cameras, replace existing gates in the electrical service yard, and make modifications of the programmed water technology system.
On January 14, 2014, the board approved a thirteenth change order for $217,856 which provided for modifying the grading of the swale on the north side of the facility, implementing the radio system re-design requested by the county’s information services division and the sheriff, modifications of the water facility and the modification of the existing planter on the south side of the facility.
This week the board approved a fifteenth amendment to the original contract, costing $336,682 to provide an additional concrete pad at the third electrical service, make modifications at the fire booster pump, relocate the fire/smoke dampers and make additions to the fire alarm system, make modifications to the elevators, extend flood insurance and mechanical warranties, make modifications to the safety, sobering and holding cells and provide credit for unused overtime allowances.
This week the board of supervisors also approved the fourteenth change order on the project, one for $336,682 to cover the cost of correcting overcurrent issues, improvements to water facility operations, balancing of the smoke control system, perform load bank testing of the generators and carry out various corrective work.
There has thus been a total of   $20,657,043 worth of amendments to the project contract and $8,810,810 worth of change orders, totaling $29,467,853 in cost overruns on the construction portion of the project.
In addition to the amendments to and change orders made on the construction contract, there have been amendments and change orders to other service providers on the project.
The firm of  Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Incorporated, based in Culver City, was originally given a $4,466,000 contract to provide architectural service on the project. Nine amendments later, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum’s contract has reached $10,438,396, an increase of $5,972,396.
C.H.J. Incorporated of Colton was hired under a $413,857 contract to perform testing and inspection. After five contract amendments, C.H.J. has taken on another $1,920,546 of work so that the total amount that company has received under the revised contract is $2,334,403.
The adjusted project budget of $144,000,000 is comprised of  design and construction administration costs of $12,865,750;  Lydig’s construction cost of $120,419,790; additional construction costs of $350,000; testing, inspection, labor compliance and commissioning costs of $3,545,005; utilities and permitting costs of $1,457,028; furnishings, fixtures and equipment costs of $3,300,000; telephone and data costs of $250,000; miscellaneous project costs of $260,000; and a contingency allowance of $1,552,427. In addition, the sheriff is anticipating transition planning costs of $1,451,910, bringing the total estimated project cost to $145,451,910.
There has been criticism and questioning of the cost overruns among selected pockets of county residents. Neither county executive officer Greg Devereux nor the board of supervisors has made an issue of the cost overruns and the board of supervisors has unanimously approved all 15 contract amendments and all fourteen change orders.
Carl Alban the director of the county’s architecture and engineering division this week told the Sentinel, “The original budget on the project was $120 million. With contract overruns we are looking at $145 million and change. There have been a number of change orders that are a combination of owner-directed changes, minor corrective issues that have to take place where parts and pieces do not line up and we had to modify things to make that work.  The major cost upgrades have come about as a result of unforeseen conditions or mandates by outside parties over which we have no control. When the state fire marshal directs that changes are to be made, we do not have any option on whether to do those changes. We must do them. We have the same with the board of corrections. When they do a walk-through of the job site and direct changes, we do not have a choice. In other cases, third parties we are working with may mandate changes, as in the case of utility companies. Southern California Edison required us to install boxes, vaults and line.”
Alban said some of the changes were self-imposed.
“One change we elected to do is the fire pump,” Alban said. “We did that because the water flow and pressures we were getting from the city of Adelanto were not consistent. We elected not to gamble with the certification of the facility and the safety of staff and inmates. If we had a fire occur we did not want to have to rely on flow and pressure that would not be adequate for the [fire suppression] sprinklers. We also had issue with wells and found problems with the water supply. We added additional treatment facilities to deal with that.”
Asked if the number of amendments and change orders to the Adelanto Detention Center were typical of county projects, Alban said, “First off, we don’t do a lot of projects of this magnitude. In my tenure we have had the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and the West Valley Detention Center. There were a fair number of change orders and amendments on both projects,” he said, but indicated they were fewer than with the Adelanto Detention Facility. He said part of the change came about because of the substantial number of state mandates that came about as a consequence of the state funding used to construct the project. “The circumstances here were unique,” he said. “The design started a little different than it ended up. The $100 million changed the dynamics of the construction. There was  almost a two year period between time we were advised of the availability of the funds from AB900 and the time we got the funding. That delay was problematic for us as well as the design team. Members of the project team come and go and the design team members change. Over that two years, code requirements changed. There were a number of things that occurred during the period that were unique to this project and resulted in amendments and change orders and the cost overruns.”
Alban said that despite the complications, “It was worth it to the taxpayers. We ended with a $100 million cost offset, but you do have issues associated with that.”
His division has, Alban said, “issued a notice of substantial completion” on the project, “so it can be used for its originally designed intention. It already is functioning. Somewhere in the range of 800 to 900 inmates are currently housed in the new expansion. For all intents and purposes, the project is completed, but from a technical standpoint, there are still dibs and dabs that need to be completed and we will not issue a notice of completion until those are fully taken care of to our satisfaction. There are things the contractor is finishing up.”
That notice of completion will be delivered, Alban said, “in late April or early May.”

(March 25)  The county has entered into a contract with the city of Big Bear Lake’s former associate planner to have her serve as a contract employee to do consultant work to the county’s land use services division with regard to the formulation of portions of its general plan update.
Siri Eggebraten has been provided with an 18-month contract that will pay her $165,000  in total salary and  $9,000 in expenses over the year-and-a-half term of her contract, according to county land use services department director Tom Hudson . He said Eggebraten  is being brought in “to provide consulting services to the Land Use Services Department as a general plan update project manager, for the period of April 9, 2014 through October 9, 2015. Ms. Eggebraten will work full-time (not-to-exceed 80-hours per two-week pay period) on supporting the preparation of the general plan update for eighteen months for the period of April 9, 2014 through October 9, 2015, at an hourly rate of $50.00, plus local travel-related expenses. At the end of the eighteen-month period, her work on the first phase of the general plan update is expected to be completed and her contract will expire.”
According to Hudson, “The county is moving into a new era of community-based planning. Fourteen  community plans and the county general plan will be updated starting this fiscal year. Due to the dramatic changes in the economy, technologies, environment, regulatory standards and society, the land use services department anticipates a substantially new approach to both the general plan and community plans updates. Ms. Eggebraten is highly skilled in community development, advanced planning and community outreach. She has worked as a public planner in the San Bernardino County region for many years and knows the region well. Her abilities in community development research, public presentations, outreach, and advanced planning are well suited to the approach the department proposes for the general plan and community plans updates. She has a long history of success in community development projects, public communications and planning tools. Her breadth of rural experience combined with her knowledge of San Bernardino County and organizational skills in supporting consultant collaborations make her ideally suited for this senior project support role.”
As a contract employee, Eggebraten will not be eligible for benefits, including pension set-asides or medical coverage provided to county employees. Hudson said the county was getting a good deal through the contractual arrangement.
“If the county was to hire Ms. Eggebraten (or someone else with her years of expertise) as a third-party consultant to perform this work, the approximate cost would be $130 per hour, plus expenses. The financial savings in hiring her as a contract employee exceeds $249,000 per the period of the contract.”

(March 26)  Upland City Councilman Glen Bozar’s effort to remove the sale of his city’s water division as a revenue-generating option for cash-strapped Upland was rejected by his council colleagues this week.
At the  Monday, March 24 Upland City Council Meeting, the council was presented with an agenda item to schedule its deliberation with regard to 47 options recommended to it by a fiscal response task force the council created in October. Those potential moves to assist the city in turning around anticipated general fund deficits of between $7 million and $8 million in the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years include ideas for cutting costs or generating new revenue. Among the cost cutting suggestions are seeking concessions from city employees on salary and benefits, combining fire and police dispatch services, outsourcing engineering services, outsourcing street maintenance, outsourcing fleet maintenance and curtailing the level of service at the city animal shelter.
Revenue producing options include imposing a citywide sales tax or either selling off the city’s water assets or entering into a management arrangement with a private company that allows that company to lease the city’s water utility to operate and manage it and capture a profit from doing so.
Bozar, referencing escalations in the price of water paid by consumers that occurred after the cities of Claremont and Rialto either sold or leased their water assets, requested that the council remove the sale of its water division from the list of money generating options to be discussed in the future.
None of Bozar’s colleagues – Mayor Ray Musser, councilmen Brendan Brandt and Gino Filippi and councilwoman Debby Stone  – seconded his motion, making clear that they intend to consider the sale or lease of the water division when the task force’s suggestions are considered over the next two months.

(March 26) The National Park Service has emerged as the earliest strong opponent of the Bechtel Corporation’s revamped plan for a solar power project south of Baker.
In this way, one branch of the federal government is pitted against another branch of the federal government over whether the project should be given go-ahead.
The federal Bureau of Land Management owns the property where the project is to be constructed and has signed off on leasing the property to Bechtel for the stated purpose and appears to be inclined to grant Bechtel the right-of-way required to proceed with and complete the project.
Previously, Bechtel wanted to cover much of 14.9 square miles roughly six miles south of Baker and near the northwest corner of  the Mojave National Preserve with solar panels. Bechtel redrafted that plan after concerns were aired about the impact the project would have on wildlife and it was pointed out that the panels would blanket the landscape and be placed into natural washes and arroyos.
The corporation has since relented and is now intent on proceeding with a project with a 6.5-square mile footprint within which 3.3 square miles will be covered with solar panels.  Those panels will generate, Bechtel says, 358 megawatts, or enough electricity for 170,000 homes.
The property in question would be utilized on a long term lease from the Bureau of Land Management. It lies atop a dry lake, known as Soda Lake, which lies outside the preserve. Visually, the bright white dry lake can be distinguished from the surrounding desert. It is ringed by springs, seeps and ponds, which support a variety of area wildlife.
The Bureau of Land Management is conducting research and gathering input to assist with the drafting of an environmental impact analysis for the project. In response , Mojave National Preserve Superintendent Stephanie Dubois on March 3 submitted an eight-page missive to the BLM, saying,  “We urge the BLM to reconsider the potential for this project to be sited on other BLM lands, private lands, or other degraded lands where renewable energy projects would present fewer adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources.”
Dubois maintains the project conflicts with the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, which established the Mojave National Preserve.
Environmental groups are opposed to the project, arguing it will impact the area adversely, interrupt migration paths for desert species and damage species habitat, most notably that of the desert tortoise. Moreover, the project’s draw on desert water is an issue for environmentalists.  Bechtel predicts it will have a need for roughly 192 acre-feet of water yearly for the three years construction of the project will be ongoing and that it subsequently will require 46acre-feet of water per year for operations.
At issue in this regard is the impact on Bighorn sheep and other roaming and nocturnal animals that depend upon  the area’s springs, as well as the potential harm that would inflict on the Mohave tui chub, a fish  living in the desert now categorized as endangered.
The federal government, through BLM environmental reviews, has given clearance for six commercial solar projects in the Mojave Desert, despite the opposition of environmental groups, which cited habitat destruction and other ecological issues. Environmentalists see this project as a test case because it is planned in an area that is well beyond the solar energy project zone established by the Department of Interior established further south along Interstate 10 in 2012.
The BLM has previously rejected expressed concerns that the well pumping Bechtel proposes to engage in at the project site will adversely impact the springs that run along Zzyzx Road in the Mojave National Preserve or MC Spring, which feeds a pond where most of the remaining  Mohave tui chub are known to exist.
Bechtel has sought to minimize or allay concerns that the project, which would involve solar panels on both sides of Interstate 15, will impact the scenic vista from the Mojave National Preserve.
Bechtel maintains the Soda Mountains site is suitable for the project and that the company will incorporate protection for wildlife, fencing off the rows where the panels will be placed into the ground but allowing sufficient space between the fenced rows so that wild life can transit the area.
Dubois’ wrote that the BLM’s consideration of the project proposal should prioritize issues so that its ultimate decision “will put natural resources first and solar development second.” She said alternatives and options to the design for the project Bechtel is proposing is “lacking in the current document.”

(March 25)  The county and the registrar of voters have turned down a request by the Twentynine Palms Water District to consolidate that entity’s  elections with the statewide general elections in November of each even-numbered year.
Currently, the Twentynine Palms Water District holds its board elections in odd-numbered years.  In years past, multiple governmental agencies throughout San Bernardino County held their elections in years that did not correspond with the even-numbered years in which presidential and gubernatorial elections are held along with those for state and federal legislative offices as well as those for county government.
Over the last several decades, a majority of those agencies, school districts and cities have changed their elections to even-numbered years.
On January 22, 2014, the board of directors of the Twentynine Palms Water District passed a resolution to move its governing board election to the statewide general election in November of each even-numbered year.
California Elections Code section 10404 authorizes a special district, by resolution of its governing board, to seek such a change, which needs to be ratified by the county board of supervisors.
Elections Code Section 10404 requires the registrar of voters conduct an impact analysis addressing issues of cost and capacity of the current system to accommodate the increased usage. The board of supervisors may deny the request for consolidation if it finds that the ballot style, voting equipment, or computer capacity is such that additional elections or materials cannot be accommodated.
According to Laura Welch, San Bernardino County’s clerk of the board of supervisors, “on April 17, 2007 the board of supervisors approved a policy to deny future requests indefinitely that are made by school, community college, and special district jurisdictions to change election cycles, from that of odd-numbered year cycles to even-numbered year cycles, until such time that the registrar of voters is able to accommodate such requests based on, but not limited to, one or more of the following: (a) the likelihood that additional district election cycle changes would not cause the absentee ballot to expand beyond the current two-card standard; (b) future technological or program enhancements become available to accommodate voting measure/contest volume growth; or (c) subject to further applicable provisions of the California Elections Code. The impact analysis from the registrar of voters reflects that this request would likely expand the ballot in the affected precincts beyond the two-card standard ballot and no changes have occurred that would accommodate the volume growth.”
In her report to the board of supervisors for the March 25 meeting, Welch wrote, “It is therefore recommended that the board of supervisors adopt a resolution denying the Twentynine Palms Water District’s resolution requesting consolidation of the district elections with the statewide general elections in November of each even-numbered year.”
The board followed Welch’s recommendation.

(March 26) As anticipated, Assemblyman Mike Morell, has won Tuesday’s special election to replace Bill Emmerson as California State Senator in the 23rd District.
Emmerson resigned in December, prompting five candidates – Morrell and another Republican, Crystal Ruiz, Democrats Ameenah Fuller and Ronald O’Donnell and Libertarian  Jeff Hewitt – to seek to replace him in the district that stretches from the eastern tip of Los Angeles County into San Bernardino County through all or parts of Rancho Cucamonga, the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, Big Bear Lake, San Bernardino, Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yuciapa and down into Riverside County and the cities of  Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Hemet, Menifee and San Jacinto.
Morrell captured a safe majority of the votes, such that there will not be a run-off between the two top vote-getters in the district. As an incumbent state legislator, Morrell was able to bring his superior fundraising capability to bear to vanquish his opposition. He was alone among the field in being able to afford to send electioneering material to the district’s voters.
In San Bernardino County, Hewitt captured 2,358 votes or 6.16 percent. O’Donnell polled 5,554 votes or 14.51 percent. Fuller captured 3,802 votes or 9.93 percent. Morrell was favored by 24,683 voters or 64.46 percent. Ruiz came in last with 1,823 votes or 4.94 percent.
In Riverside County, Hewitt received 1,902 votes or 6.98 percent. O’Donnell captured 4,506 votes or 16.54 percent. Fuller pulled 2,404 votes or 8.82 percent. Morrell claimed 16,322 votes or 59.91 percent. Ruiz, who is a councilwoman in San Jacinto, placed fourth with 2,111 votes or 7.75 percent.
In Los Angeles County, only 33 voters are registered within the 23rd Senatorial District. Two of those casted votes on Tuesday, one for Hewitt and one for Morrell.
Morrell’s victory now creates a vacancy in the California Assembly, where he had been serving in the 40th Assembly District in the current term and where he served in the 63rd Assembly District from 2010 to 2012 prior to the redistricting following the 2010 Census.
The 40th Assembly District seat will likely remain unfilled until after this year’s elections.  Marc Steinorth, Art Bustamante, Kathleen Marie Henry, and Melissa O’Donnell are running in the 40th Assembly District.

You can download a PDF of the March 21 Edition of the SBC Sentinel by clicking on the portal below.

Sentinel 03-21-14

SAN BERNARDINO (March 20)—San Bernardino County’s current presiding judge and immediate past assistant presiding judge this week said the scheduled realignment of the county court system in May is one that has been necessitated by the state drastically cutting back on court budgets and raiding the reserve funds county court administrators were previously allowed to maintain.
On March 19, the last full day of winter and less than two months before the opening of the new downtown San Bernardino Courthouse and the initiation of the realignment, Presiding Judge Marsha Slough, Judge Larry Allen, whose term as assistant presiding judge ended in January 2014 and San Bernardino County Court executive officer  Christina Volkers met with the Sentinel to provide a description of the realignment, explain the factors necessitating it and answer criticism that the move is a counterproductive change that will effectuate minimal cost savings while imposing on the residents of the county an insufferable burden by consolidating the various functions of the court in too few locations and requiring most residents to travel tremendous distances to access justice.
The makeover will include transferring all civil cases countywide to the new San Bernardino Justice Center, an eleven story edifice with 40 courtrooms now in the final stages of completion. In addition, San Bernardino district criminal cases, now being heard in the San Bernardino Central Courthouse built in 1927, will be tried in the new San Bernardino Justice Center.
West Valley Superior Courthouse in Rancho Cucamonga, which currently is the venue for both civil and criminal cases originating on the west end of the county, will be devoted primarily to criminal cases, including those arising on the county’s west end and other felony and misdemeanor cases from the county’s central district which are currently routed to the Fontana Courthouse.  A small portion of the criminal cases now heard in Fontana will be adjudicated in San Bernardino. At least temporarily,  hearings on both civil and domestic violence restraining order matters will be heard at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse.
The historic San Bernardino Courthouse will remain as the forum for the family law cases it currently hosts and will soon serve as the venue for the family law cases presently heard in Rancho Cucamonga.
The Fontana Courthouse will become the stage for all small claims, landlord tenant disputes and traffic/non-traffic infractions from the San Bernardino, Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga districts. The lion’s share of criminal cases now being heard in Fontana will transfer to Rancho Cucamonga. A lesser number of the Fontana criminal cases will go to San Bernardino.
The Victorville Courthouse will remain a venue for High Desert family law cases.
After the terms of the realignment were spelled out to the county’s legal community, alarm spread among the county’s lawyers in general and particularly among attorneys working on the county’s west end.
A chorus of those attorneys pointed out that the closures of the Needles courthouse at the county’s north east end, the closure of the Chino courthouse at the county’s southwest end, the closure of courthouses in the San Bernardino Mountain communities and the removal of civil cases from the Victorville and Joshua Tree courthouses had already greatly inconvenienced large numbers of the county’s residents and compromised their access to justice. The realignment set to take place in May, they assert, will virtually prevent a major segment of the county’s population from going to court altogether.
Far flung San Bernardino County, which spans more than 20,000 square miles, is the largest county in the lower 48 states, with a land mass greater than the states of Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut combined.
Even before the civil courts were closed in Victorville, it was a forbidding sojourn for some county residents seeking justice. Driving distance from Needles to Barstow is 144 miles one way, with an average traveling time of two hours and eleven minutes. The trip from Needles to San Bernardino, which in less than two months will host the only courtrooms in the county where civil cases will be heard, is 212 miles, with an average traveling time of three hours and nine minutes.
Residents of Chino Hills and Chino, who two years ago had the courthouse in Chino at their disposal but since December 2012 have needed to travel anywhere from 20 to 30 miles to reach the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse, will need to travel 45 to 55 miles to access the civil courts in San Bernardino.
Large numbers of attorneys, including Dennis Stout, who was formerly the county district attorney and mayor of Rancho Cucamonga; Gus Skropos, a former judge and former mayor of Ontario; Richard Anderson, who has been practicing law since 1968 and was formerly Upland mayor; as well as James Banks and David Ricks, a past president and the current president-elect of the Western San Bernardino County Bar Association, respectively, assailed the realignment as an ill-conceived move that would produce only marginal cost savings for the court system itself while transferring the financial burden to the county’s residents and other public agencies, while simultaneously legally disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of the county’s residents.
Numerous problems with the realignment were cited, including:
•    The sheer distance large numbers of county residents will need to travel to have their cases heard
•    The disadvantage that poorer defendants and litigants will suffer vis-a-vis contesting charges against them or responding to or pressing forward with lawsuits filed by or against well-heeled adversaries
•    The concentration of criminal defendants into Rancho Cucamonga’s downtown district
•    The lack of adequate parking in downtown San Bernardino to accommodate the influx of litigants, lawyers, witnesses and jurors
•    The perception that transferring all of the county’s civil cases to San Bernardino was being done not to conserve finances or improve the provision of justice but to assist with the urban renewal of San Bernardino, which as the county seat and the largest of the county’s 24 cities, suffered the ignominy of having filed for bankruptcy in 2012.
Judge Marsha Slough, who has served as presiding judge for San Bernardino County since September 2012, rejected those criticisms, saying the realignment was a carefully calibrated and crafted approach to a nearly impossible challenge.
“We are doing it this way because it allows us to focus our resources where we need to focus them,” she said. “I know for those on the outside looking in and even for some of those on the inside it is very hard to get your arms around this. The rationale behind this may not seem clear but if you are sitting in this seat as I am and you see and are living every day with the decline in the money we are receiving year after year and you still have the statutory obligation to handle those files in a timely manner, you better figure out how to do it. Missing statutory deadlines is not something you can do once you have taken the oath to uphold the constitution. We understand what this will entail. We have gotten into our cars and driven throughout the county.”
Slough sought to provide a financial backdrop to the situation she and Allen, who was previously presiding judge in 2006 and 2007, face.
“In 2008-09, the court system in San Bernardino County had a budget of $110 million,” she said. “Most of our funding for that year came directly from the state, such that the county courts spent $1.1 out of its reserves that fiscal year. In 2009-10, the state began cutting the amount of money the county court system had to work with, resulting in a $99.2 million budget, with $6.3 million of that coming from the system’s reserves. In 2010-11, the court system in San Bernardino County saw a respite in the funding reductions, based upon the state providing an infusion of funds consisting of one-time transfers of funds from other state accounts that pushed the San Bernardino County court system budget back up to $108 million, with $1.8 million coming from reserves. But that did not last. The following year, 2011-12, the state was again reducing funding to the courts, with the budget being reduced to $103 million, requiring the expenditure of $4.7 million from the county system’s reserves. In 2012-13, the money supplied by the state to the county court system dropped precipitously to $84 million. The county dug into its reserves that year to come up with $15.4 million.”
At that point, Slough said, new legislation went into effect that called upon all court systems to maintain a reserve of no more than one percent of their annual budget.
In the current 2013-14 fiscal year, the court system for San Bernardino County has a projected budget of $98 million. In 2014-15, Slough said the court system for San Bernardino County’s budget was projected at $98 million again.

Slough said she realized that many lawyers and others are lamenting the consolidations that are to be put into place with the realignment in May, but pointed out that the trend in consolidation has been ongoing for several years now.
“We had an informal juvenile court,” she said. “We did away with that. We closed the courthouse in Chino in December of 2012. We closed the Barstow Courthouse but we have now reopened one courtroom there three days a week for handling small claims, unlawful detainers, domestic violence/restraining orders and traffic trials. Barstow does not do a full traffic calendar. It does not handle criminal cases. It does not handle civil cases, all of which have been removed to San Bernardino. San Bernardino already does all of the civil cases from Barstow and Victorville, Joshua Tree and Big Bear. Victorville has not had civil cases for years. At present Victorville is limited to criminal cases, family law, traffic, small claims and unlawful detainers.”
Both Slough and Allen used the term “evolving” in reference to the ongoing changes in the court system, which contrasted with the depiction of devolvement which the critics of the realignment lay at the feet of the court’s executive office.
“At one time, we had almost thirty courts in this county,” Allen said, indicating the closures over decades and the more recent accommodations that he said were carefully weighed and considered. “This has been something that has been a long time formulating. This reorganization, realignment, reengineering or whatever you want to call it did not spring  full form like Athena with a full panoply of war from Zeus’s head.   There has been an evolution toward efficiency and consolidation. If I had my way, it would not be like it is today, with only six active courthouses. I would do it differently with many more small local courthouses. But we are left with what we have. We cannot just tear everything we have down and start over. We have to make our changes incrementally on what we have and our vision of the future.”
Slough said she inherited from her predecessors as presiding judge a situation in which the county’s court system had been hamstrung by funding limitations.
According to California’s Judicial Needs Assessment, San Bernardino County should have 156 judges and
The state has authorized 91 judges to serve on the courts located in San Bernardino County but has provided funding for only 86.
“We have more than fifty percent fewer employees – judges and staff – than we need,” Slough said. “This is a horrific situation. It is remarkable, to be honest with you, that we are still functioning and meeting our statutory requirements. With the budget cuts we have made layoffs to our staff. When the employees you had go away, that workload stacks on top of the employees that remain. Our courts are still running and I cannot say enough about how much our staff does, year after year, by the month, the week, every day, every hour.”
Referring to court staff as those serving “on the front line,” Slough said they were carrying out their duty despite having been undercut by budgetary decisions made in Sacramento.
“For every dollar that comes out of the state general fund, the courts get 1.2 cents,” she said.
Allen said that the governor and the legislature have fallen into a pattern of raiding the courts’ financial allotments early in the budget process and then making slightly less draconian cuts with the final passage of the annual budgets, calling the pittance that is restored new money.
“It’s not new money,” Allen said. “What they put back in does not equal what they took away.”
Slough said she has had no choice but to make the unpopular changes to the way the county’s courts function.
“If you look at the background and what has been going on since 2008-09, you can see we are confronted by a financial crisis,” she said. “We could not continue to operate in the same way we always had. When the state takes that big of a chunk of your funding away from you and you are limited to one percent on your saving account,  you are called upon to reallocate and reshuffle where and when you will do the work.”
One aspect of Slough’s realignment that was roundly second-guessed was concentrating the county’s criminal cases in Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino. Both Slough and Allen dismissed the suggestion that this was in any way a disservice to the county’s residents or resisted by the sheriff’s department or the district attorney’s and public defender’s offices.
“The response from the sheriff with regard to our reduction in criminal court locations is very favorable,” Allen said. “We will now be functioning entirely from more secure locations. At the central courthouse you have defendants in custody chained together who are then moved through corridors or hallways where members of the public are exposed to them. In Fontana, these shackled prisoners require constant monitoring by bailiffs and sheriff’s personnel. In Rancho Cucamonga and in the new San Bernardino Courthouse, a member of the sheriff’s department is able to put our in-custody defendants unescorted into an elevator and send them up to a specific floor where they are met by a bailiff. That is a far better arrangement. This reduces the need for personnel. The courts have always been looking for ways of reducing the number of bailiffs. This is a much more efficient and safer way of processing defendants. The sheriff’s department loves it. They will now need to transport their prisoners to fewer places.  This consolidation offers the same cost benefit to the public defender and district attorney from the standpoint of reducing their need for multiple facilities and offices.”
Slough met accounts of widespread resistance to the realignment by judges, court staff and prosecutors with the response that “not every individual deputy or probation officer is going to be happy with being transferred  When Larry was presiding judge I was sent out to Joshua Tree. I did not appreciate it at the time. If I recall, I don’t think he got a Christmas card from me that year. But looking back on it, I now see it as one of the best times I served. Yes, there are judges who do not want to move. Was every single judge counseled? No. Each was informed. Many were advised. Some told me straight out ‘You have to make the hard decision. I’m glad it’s you and not me,’” she said.
Slough continued, “If you take every big decision out to a committee you will flounder in frustration because there will always be differences of approach among even those with the same basic goal. The best you can do if you are charged with making the decision is to get educated on what you are faced with, what the facts are and the limitations you have to work within, local and global, and then you make the tough decision and execute.”
The perception that the realignment plan was formulated in secret and is being imposed by executive fiat is inaccurate, Allen said, although he acknowledged it was abruptly unveiled to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate information.
“The courts and the people who work within them are incapable of keeping a secret,” he said. “Once the information is out there it goes all over the place, in a mutated form usually. You have to be discrete in discussing things of this nature. That is just an outgrowth of the process.” Allen said the realignment in its “early version was displayed at a full bench meeting. Many had not heard of it before that time. We put it out as a proposal. We asked for suggestions.  The judges had their chance to weigh in then. This outcry that some talk about was never said directly to Judge Slough. At one time we were considering polling all of the court reporters in family law about this. When we consulted with the judges about that we decided not to go that route.”
Allen continued, “The presiding judge is not a Caesar-like figure who can disregard her colleagues. She can be recalled. We have to live with this image that in this office [of presiding judge] there is this monolithic power, but there is no monolith. If there are people who are against this but do not want to be quoted, you have to ask why they are not willing to take a stand publicly. That they are unwilling to be identified, I think, brings what they are saying into question.”
Allen said he and Slough had formulated the best approach to the financial crisis they can, given the constraints they must function within. He owned up to some degree of inconsistency in approach and strategy over the years, but said this was an outgrowth of changes in the state’s economic support network.
“Every decision you make in retrospect may not have been the best,” Allen said. “When I was presiding judge, we built another courtroom in Joshua Tree. That was before we experienced all of the budgetary cutbacks we have gone through. I did not foresee the downturn in the economy.”
Allen was presiding judge in 2006 when the plan to build the new courthouse in San Bernardino was approved. He said that he and other decision-makers at that time had a somewhat differing conception of how it would be utilized than the range of uses to which it will actually be put when it opens in less than two months.
He said previously a portion of the courthouse was envisioned as being devoted to juvenile court. That has been abandoned, he said.
“It turned out that the juvenile operational portion did not have proper sight and sound barriers for juveniles in adult custody,” he said. “How it would be used is changed dramatically because of the budget cuts we have experienced in the years since.  The process of running a court is very fluid.”
Efficiency is the watchword, Slough insisted.
“As the administrators of the court, we are responsible for making decisions so that our precious resources are distributed as efficiently as possible so we can provide the best service to those we are charged to serve,” she said. “We have looked at the numbers and have tried to efficientize our case loads. Family law being consolidated in one building consolidates the self-help and mediator services where people can come to access them rather than having them spread all over and for these family law cases, which are very important to people, we have a broader source of judges and staff. In Rancho Cucamonga there are four family law judges with just over 1,000 cases a piece filed in 2013. San Bernardino has five family law judges and their case load is 1,500 each from 2013. We are taking this opportunity to more equitably distribute the handling of the cases from throughout the county. This is not being done for the convenience of the judges but for the people we serve. We will be able to have self help services and mediation services in one location. When we consolidate like that we can offer everyone who needs them a higher level of service and ensure everyone of the same level of service. It is not just the efficiency we are looking at but the quality of service.”
In a similar fashion, Slough said, moving the entire court system’s civil division to San Bernardino will allow disparities in case loads to be rebalanced.
“Our judges and staff in Rancho Cucamonga do substantially less civil work than our judges in San Bernardino,” she said. “The civil judges here [i.e., in San Bernardino] have almost 600 cases more per judge. Having all that work load is not good. The five judges hearing civil cases in Rancho Cucamonga have an average case load of 2,300 cases filed in 2013. In San Bernardino, the judges average case loads of 2,900. from 2013  By bringing all of the civil judges and civil cases to San Bernardino we can essentially distribute and equalize the case loads between judges. This won’t happen immediately but as new cases are filed, the ones with the shorter case loads will see their number increase, so the work will be more equitably distributed. The same applies to our family law judges.”
Additionally, Slough said, “By having all of the civil cases in San Bernardino, we can pool the courtrooms sharing court reporters affiliated with the civil and criminal divisions and we can backfill with those court reporters as it becomes necessary.”
Slough sought to deflect charges that in planning for the new courthouse in San Bernardino, parking issues had been neglected.
Conceding that “from the beginning we knew parking here is atrocious,” she said she and her staff have been “meeting with the county of San Bernardino and the city of San Bernardino to fix problems that have been in place since the 1980s. We are aware that the city has been working with the county and the district attorney to add a multi-level parking structure off of Arrowhead Avenue south of Third Street.”
She said she and Allen had been mindful that a significant portion of those adding to the parking problem are people coming to court to address traffic citations.  “We are taking all of the traffic cases and moving them to Fontana,” which she said would eliminate “single rider vehicles” from the downtown San Bernardino district altogether.
Slough downplayed suggestions that concentrating criminal cases at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse would have a deleterious impact on the city of Rancho Cucamonga by serving as a magnet for the county’s criminal element.
“They are already there,” Slough said of criminal defendants in Rancho Cucamonga. “We already have death penalty cases, murder trials being heard there along with serious felonies. A huge segment of our criminal calendar is already being heard in Rancho [Cucamonga]
Allen said he did not believe there will be an exodus of lawyers and a closure of their offices from around the civic center in Rancho Cucamonga or an influx of bail bond businesses into the area. “Bail bondsmen will open up around the jails and the holding facilities, not the courthouses,” he said. “Apparently there are people in Rancho Cucamonga who do not want all these criminal cases transferred there. What are they saying? ‘We only want high class civil people here?’”
Both Slough and Allen bridled at the suggestion that any factors other than streamlining the judicial system were factors in formulating the realignment. There was a twang of impatience in Slough’s voice when she responded to the charge that the realignment had as a goal urban renewal in downtown San Bernardino.
“What has happened to the budget over the last five years is the driver,” she said.
“San Bernardino will be getting a new court facility downtown, which is certainly of some benefit to them,” Allen said. “It is a nice facility. San Bernardino is the city where the newest and largest facility is located. But San Bernardino was six years away from bankruptcy in 2006 when I, as the presiding judge, made that decision. The civil case loads were moved to San Bernardino from the desert a few years ago. No one said then that we were moving civil cases there at that time to help the city of San Bernardino.”
Resistance to change is understandable and inevitable, Allen said. The true test of the wisdom of effectuating any change is time, he suggested, referencing a decision he made with regard to how and where the county’s probate cases were heard eight years ago.
“We have to reimagine,” he said. “The way we did business in probate ten years ago was we had it in all of the courts in the county but not as a full assignment to anyone, just as an add-on calendar. Probate was in no way a full assignment, with a half afternoon or afternoon at most in one courtroom. No one judge had developed an expertise in it. It had become the poor step child. My determination when I was presiding judge was to move probate courts from all over the county to Redlands. There was a great outcry. Attorneys complained that their clients could not get there. We went to great lengths to accommodate them and made it so people could go to the courthouse nearest them and appear by means of video hook-up. No one used that. But we set up the probate court in Redlands and now it is seen like sliced bread. Attorneys and their clients alike loved it because they found that we then had two judges devoted to probate who had developed an expertise and knew what they were doing and the lawyers were able to get to know them and know what direction they were going in. Now everyone thinks it was the greatest idea I ever had but that is not how they thought of it at the time.”
Allen said he hoped the realignment would be similarly perceived down the road.
Slough and Allen would not accept the suggestions that they had failed the citizens of the county by opting to realign and redesign the county court system to the convenience of themselves as the court’s executives, the judges and the court employees at the expense of the citizens of the county.
“Judge Slough’s efforts have been unparalleled,” Allen said
Citizens, lawyers and whatever discontented judges and court employees there are need to look past the immediate inconvenience of making the change, Slough said. “We have seen historically that cycles come and go and some have created chaos in our court system,” she said. “What I am trying to do is put our operations on a solid foundation so that we can weather those cycles and keep providing the utmost level of service even if we are in the position of the governor and the legislature taking away even more of our money.”