(October 5)  BARSTOW—Considerable detail emerged late last week with regard to the events that led up to the June resignation of former Barstow police chief Dianne Burns, the first woman in San Bernardino County history to serve as the chief of a municipal police department.
Burns voluntarily retired on June 29, three days before her five-year contract with the city was set to expire, just about a year after the first public indications of dissension and difficulty attending her trailblazing tenure on behalf of her gender within the ranks of southern California law enforcement.
The actual nature of the contretemps involving Burns and certain elements of the Barstow community was heretofore only partially publicly known. It was revealed early this year, just as Burns was returning from a nearly seven-month extended paid hiatus that a majority of the police department’s members were chaffing under her leadership and were opposed to her coming back. It is now known that Burns was also out of favor with at least one member of the city council, Tim Saenz, who accused her of having wrongfully used her authority as police chief to threaten him personally and politically.
After a 20-year career with the Los Angeles Police Department during which she served in the capacities of a patrol officer, homicide detective, sergeant and lieutenant of a gang suppression unit,  Burns in 2007 was the choice of then-Barstow city  manager Hector Rodriguez to replace former police chief Lee Gibson. Rodriguez selected Burns, who also possessed a law degree, within four weeks of Gibson’s May 1, 2007 departure. It took a majority of the city council another month to set aside some of its members’ concerns about having a woman take on a leadership role within the oftentimes machismo-driven ethos of a law enforcement agency, and  achieve a consensus about Burns’ suitability to serve as the commander of the department’s officers.
The department was 11 short of its authorized strength of 38 officers when Burns arrived. It gained five officers over the next 21 months and then went to full staffing in May 2009 when six officers were sworn in. Burns’ tenure as chief suffered a first noticeable blow in November 2007 when Rodriguez, her primary supporter at City Hall, departed Barstow.
Burns worked  through a number of challenges besetting the department, instituting  several of what were hailed as positive changes by the community, including establishing a shooting and tactical training school just outside of Hinkley and mandating that officers take target practice at least once every two months; her rewriting of the department’s policies and procedures manual, which had not been updated since 1983; and her authorship of an until-then non-existent internal affairs manual for the department. She simultaneously sought to improve the interdepartmental relationship with the sheriff’s station in Barstow and encouraged officers in the department to become actively involved in community programs such as Cops for Kids, Neighborhood Watch,  Cook and Serve for the Homeless, and local neighborhood street fairs. She further sought and obtained $100,000 per year in “Cops’ Grant” money to update equipment, buy new computers, and provide officers with protective vests.
Outside the department, Burns’ efforts did not go unnoticed and the 2009-2010 grand jury in its yearly report took the uncommon step of commending her “for the changes, improvements, and upgrades she has made since becoming chief of police.” The grand jury waxed praiseful in the commendation, stating “It is hoped that the citizens of Barstow and the surrounding area appreciate her fine work.”
Despite those external accolades, internally there were problems brewing as her command of the department was tested by some officers resentful of her leadership who perceived her as an outsider who had vaulted into the top position in the department without working up through the ranks in Barstow. This was exacerbated by what some officers saw as her formalized big city approach, deemed in some quarters as inappropriate for a desert city with a population of less than 23,000. In response, Burns on occasion lashed out at officers in ways some caricatured as hysterical.
In July 2011, Burns went on vacation and did not return at the end of her holiday, which was not anticipated to last for more than two weeks. Shortly after that it was acknowledged that city manager Curt Mitchell had placed her on administrative leave. She remained absent from the department for more than six months while Mitchell and the council conducted a review of an unspecified issue relating to her job performance.
Throughout the ordeal, city officials steadfastly refused to say what was at the basis of Burns’ suspension. Last week, light was shed on what had occurred when word reached the public that the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing responded to a complaint and a request for leave to sue the city filed  on April 25 by councilman Tim Saenz. In that filing, Saenz related that Burns began evincing hostility toward him in June 2011, specifically engaging in “threatening, harassing and discriminating” behavior, which Saenz informed city manager Curt Mitchell about in an email on June 12, 2011. The strained relationship between Saenz and Burns did not subside. During a community event held at Quigley’s Restaurant on June 30, 2011, according to Saenz, Burns made a series of deprecating statements about the councilman to assistant city manager Oliver Chi, using profanity when she referred to Saenz and speaking in a tone and volume that was audible to others.  She said she wanted to initiate an investigation into Saenz related to his “sleeping with every woman in Barstow.”
Saenz sent further emails to Mitchell about Burns that day and again on July 1 and July 2, 2011, the following two days. During a conference with Mitchell and Chi over the matter, Saenz said Chi advised him to avoid Burns because she was out to get him.
Saenz alleged in his filing that Burns’ action had resulted in “anxiety, stress, family issues, professional issues, work related issues, sleepless nights [and] a total change of my and my family’s lives.”
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing provided Saenz with a right-to-sue notice, stating that Saenz had met the minimum evidentiary threshold of showing that discrimination might have occurred. He had sought the right to sue under the assertion that as a councilmember, he is technically an employee of the city. The Barstow Desert Dispatch reported on the existence of the right to sue letter last week.
The state agency provided the right to sue notice despite an eventual finding by Mitchell that Burns had not violated the city’s policy on harassment. That determination was made just before Burns returned to work on February 27. Mitchell, to whom the police chief is answerable within the city’s chain of command, did determine after an unprecedented six month suspension of the police chief that Burns had made negative remarks about Saenz in public, though Mitchell turned up no evidence to show she had actually initiated the investigation of  Saenz as she had threatened in her June 30, 2011 remarks to Chi.  Saenz told the Desert Dispatch he does not intend to sue the city but felt he had to obtain the  right-to-sue notice to protect himself from retaliation by Burns after she was reinstated as police chief.
Just prior to Burns’ return from her extended leave, after Mitchell had signaled that she was about to resume command of the department, the Barstow Police Officers Association, representing 30 officers, corporals and detectives, and the Barstow Police Management Association, representing six sergeants and lieutenants, provided on February 24 a vote of “no confidence” in Burns’ ability to continue to lead the department. The groups then sent a letter to Mitchell referencing the votes and excoriating Burns for “poor performance” and “extreme favoritism,” as well as a “hostile work environment” that the unions said were the product of her oversight of the department.  The letter upbraided Mitchell for “failing to adequately address all concerns” the department’s officers had expressed about Burns. “She has demonstrated a lack of leadership and she has displayed severe instability in her emotions while in an official capacity,” the letter stated.
Despite the insurrection, Mitchell restored Burns to her position, mindful that her contract was up on July 2 and that she would be due for another review before it would be renewed on July 2, if indeed it was to be renewed.
Mitchell had not yet completed his review nor arrived at a decision about whether he would recommend to the city council that Burns be retained when she tendered her resignation.

(October 5)  The Fontana Unified School District has committed to using an extremely expensive method of financing several ongoing and upcoming construction projects that will entail interest payments roughly eight times the principal of the loan it will take out.
Next week, the district will sell $108 million in capital appreciation bonds the school board recently voted to issue. To pay off that bonded indebtedness in full, the district will make payments of close to $840 million over the next 40 years.
Normally, public agency bonds are structured to provide interest payments on the face value of the bond  over a 20-year, 25-year or 30-year period, at which time the bonds reach their date of maturity, and the issuer repays the principal, which is equal to the original amount of the investment. Typical interest payments on bonds run from 3.5 percent per year to six percent per year, such that a bondholder normally receives a total of 180 percent to 220 percent of the investment back over the life of the bonds.
The $108 million in improvement bonds most recently authorized for issuance by the Fontana Unified School District’s board, however, are not typical bonds but rather capital appreciation bonds, ones that carry a longer term of financing – 40 years – and are structured to provide a far greater overall return to their buyers. That rate of return will be 707 percent.
There has been considerable focus on capital appreciation bonds lately, with articles and reports in the New York Times and by the public interest group CalWatch, which have pointed out the exorbitant long term cost of that form of financing.
Fontana Unified issued the capital appreciation bonds to cover the principal and interest on a short-term “bridge” loan the district took out in 2009 to undertake several construction projects, including Jurupa Hills High School and Citrus High School.
San Bernardino County Treasurer/Tax Collector Larry Walker said the bonding arrangement the district entered into will push repayment on the loans well into the 21st Century, encumbering future district officials and taxpayers with debt they will have had no part in creating. Walker said the district’s reliance on capital appreciation bonds “represents a generational transfer of debt created by a financing mistake, and is clearly not in the interest of the taxpayers.”
District officials asserted that their financial affairs have declined to such a state that there was no realistic alternative to relying on the controversial instruments.

(October 5)  NEEDLES—The Needles City Council has waived a host of the restrictions it normally applies to selling city-owned property in listing for sale more than 280 acres of what it now considers surplus municipal land.
In recent months, the city proceeded with the sale of five parcels totaling 1.81 acres, including a one acre parcel near the rodeo grounds, netting $40,510.05 for those combined properties. The council on September 11 resolved to put a significant amount of the land it owns on the market. In doing so, the council approved waiving requirements it has traditionally adhered to in selling property. Those included obtaining a real estate appraisal prior to the sale, prohibiting the sale of property smaller than an acre and requiring a developer agreement and master plan on larger properties prior to the sale.
The city will now allow the properties to be sold on the basis of a broker’s opinion of the value instead of a real estate appraisal.
Georgia Breault, a member of the city’s property sale committee, and council member Terry Campbell said that maintaining the prior requirements for the sales would likely discourage buyers from purchasing the properties. Breault said the sales would have a short and medium term benefit to the city in the form of revenue from the sales and property tax income.
The city had waived those requirements in  selling the five parcels totaling 1.81 acres.
The properties being listed inclued 3.54 acres at 3509 Needles Highway; 0.37 acres on Route 66 near the wrecking yard; 20.39 acres off Bailey; 24.88 acres at the intersection of Lillyhill and Parkway; 6.01 landlocked acres accessible via Casa Luna; 1.22 acres off east Broadway, across from Harris Motors; 37.14 of wilderness acreage 5,000 feet from Peru and Lillyhill; 5 acres on Bailey near the senior citizens center and the hospital; 17 acres on Lillyhill behind the senior citizens center and the hospital; 20 acres at the southwest corner of Lillyhill and Parkway; 16.97 acres at the end of J Street; 37.33 acres on Eagle Pass Road past the San Bernardino County flood control property; 39.9 acres on Needles Highway outside the city limits; 20 acres at the end of Crestview below the Travelers Inn; 0.68 acres at 511 W. Broadway; 8.42 acres at 228 Safari Drive; 2.53 acres on the north side of the intersection of Clary and San Clemente, across from the water tank; and 22.87 acres at the end of J Street.
In the previous sales, the city used two of the four brokers based in Needles, and will seek to involve all four brokers in future sales.

(October 5)  The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office last week dismissed all charges against Sam Clauder, the former spokesman and finance chair for the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee,  more than three years after he was charged with felony child pornography possession.
The district attorney’s move came just three days before Clauder’s trial on those charges was set to commence and raises questions with regard to the motivation of the prosecutor’s office in having initiated the case against Clauder.
The case was initiated with a complaint filed by the district attorney’s office on February 25, 2009, and an arrest warrant was issued shortly afterward on March 3.
From the outset, the case against Clauder appeared marginal, at best. It was based wholly on  offending images that were alleged to have been downloaded on a computer in the control and possession of Clauder’s former wife until the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department took possession of it.
Moreover, there have been accusations all along that the prosecution was politically motivated, given Clauder’s standing within the Democratic Party and the consideration that despite county voter registration numbers by which Democrats have eclipsed Republicans, the GOP still dominates San Bernardino County politically in terms of the numbers of elected officials at the municipal, special district, county, state and federal level.
Clauder’s function within the party was key to marshaling resources to invigorate voters and encourage them to show up at the polls and vote. His arrest and prosecution dealt a significant blow to the party, which now boasts more registered voters in the county than the Republicans but continues to lag behind its rival in voter turnout at the polls.
The case against Clauder was based upon allegations made against him arising out of the break-up of his marriage, in particular that his son had found an image “depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct” on a personal computer to which all members of the household had access during the time they lived together in the community of Crestline in the San Bernardino Mountains.
Clauder contends his wife and son provided the computer to the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Office in Twin Peaks on July 7, 2008. On January 8, 2009, both his wife and son submitted to a polygraph examination regarding their discovery of the images on the computer and failed that test.  According to Clauder, Deputy Brian Swann wrote regarding the polygraph tests “inconsistent … but we believe them anyway” in his report.
Despite the district attorney’s office’s contention that evidence implicated Clauder in the matter, no evidence was ever produced that Clauder had in fact downloaded the image in question onto the computer.
At the September 28, 2012 hearing three-and-a-half years after the charges were filed, San Bernardino County deputy district attorney Maryanne Jung Won Choi told the judge, “At this time the people wish to dismiss the case.”  Choi cited information that her office had received in July, indicating her office did not want to proceed any further. She called for the charges to be dismissed “in the interest of justice.”
A press release issued by Clauder just before the September 28 hearing claimed, “Clauder’s computer consultant has presented undeniable evidence to prove all of the alleged child pornography found on the Clauder family’s computer is traced to his son, while none of it is traced to Clauder.”
At the time Clauder was charged, he was a staffer for local Congressman Joe Baca.  Clauder was released from that position when the charges became known.
Clauder alleges that in addition to the domestic issues involving his former wife and son, members of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Twin Peaks Station had motivation to wish him harm and those two forces joining together resulted in the filing of false charges.
Clauder related that while working for the Alpenhorn News as a sports writer he reported and investigated allegations of sexual assault made against a star football player at Rim of the World High School by a fellow female student.  Clauder objected to a press release issued by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department announcing the arrest of the football player at the high school.
Clauder’s position on the press release was that the announcement  tainted the case in that if the suspect was innocent, it would ruin his life,  and that if the case was valid, the victim would be exposed to peer pressure and possible retaliation, lowering the chances of her testifying in the case.  Clauder believes the sheriffs’ press release caused a sexual perpetrator to get away with a crime because the victim and three additional victims who came forward decided not to testify in the matter.
Clauder claims he became motivated to lobby the state legislature on the issue and as a result of his actions the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Twin Peaks Station came under scrutiny.
Clauder alleges that led to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s Twin Peaks Station to cover up a beating that he sustained in October 2006 from several youths. Deputies falsely claimed he sustained his injuries as a result of stumbling due to inebriation at the San Bernardino County Central Detention Center, he said.
In September 2007, Clauder worked for three months as an associate editor and primary crime reporter at the Mountain News and primary crime reporter.  In that position, Clauder asserts he was able to gain additional information regarding corruption in the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department Twin Peaks Station.
Clauder spoke of spending 50 days in the San Bernardino County Central Detention Center as a result of the criminal charges and of being made “homeless” when he moved out of his family home and again when he lost his job with Congressman Joe Baca.
At the September 28 hearing, Clauder inquired of the court, “Where do I get my life back?”  Judge Glenn Yabuno responded, “I don’t have an answer.”
After the court hearing, Clauder’s attorney Raj Maline told the Sentinel, “There was conclusive proof that it was all done after he (Clauder) left the house.”  Maline further explained that at the preliminary hearing the defense was given a folder of photographs, in which there were ten photographs that could be considered child porn. “It was Trey’s (Clauder’s son’s) account on the front.”  Maline said. He asked, “How did they miss that?”
Two years ago, in discussions with Maline, Choi offered Clauder two years in the state penitentiary as part of a plea bargain.
“Friday morning she wouldn’t look me in the eye,” Clauder said.
Contacted by the Sentinel, Choi declined to comment.

(September 28)  LOS ANGELES—The findings in a long-awaited report from the Los Angeles city administrative officer further the possibility that the City of Angels will relinquish ownership and control of  Ontario International Airport, though the report indicates the aerodrome’s selling price will be far higher than Ontario officials were hoping. And while Los Angeles City Manager Miguel Santana’s report recommends that his city begin a dialogue on negotiations for the possible transfer of the airport back to Ontario, he has also called for exploring the possibility of selling the airport to the highest bidder, which might prove to be any of  ten private sector domestic and international companies that last year expressed an interest in owning and running the facility.
This week, four days after the report was released, the Los Angeles City Council’s Trade Commerce and Tourism Subcommittee endorsed Santana’s report and recommended to the full city council that it direct Santana to begin discussions for transferring control of the airport.
Los Angeles took over management of the airport in 1967 as part of a strategy to increase flights out of the aerodrome. That ploy worked, as Los Angeles was able to use its control of gate positions and other considerations at Los Angeles International Airport to induce airlines to fly into and out of Ontario. Just under 200,000 passengers enplaned at Ontario Airport in 1966. Under Los Angeles’s management, over $550 million in improvements were made to the facility. In 1985, Ontario deeded the airport to Los Angeles for no consideration. In 2007, usage of the airport peaked, with 7.2 million passengers moving through the airport’s gates.
Since that time, passenger traffic through Ontario International has dropped dramatically, with 4.2 million passengers using the airport in 2011, and further declines registering this year.
Ontario city officials have repeatedly asserted that Los Angeles World Airports, the non-profit entity Los Angeles created to manage the four airports it owns,  is purposefully mismanaging Ontario Airport’s operations to increase passenger traffic at Los Angeles International Airport, which has undergone significant renovations in recent years.
Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) officials reject those assertions, maintaining that the drop in passenger traffic through Ontario is a function of the sputtering economy and the doldrums in the airline industry generally.
Ontario officials have pushed ever more strenuously – including seeking legislation in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. and conducting an intense public relations campaign – to have Los Angeles return ownership and management of the airport to Ontario.
At one point, Ontario city officials, led by councilman Alan Wapner, were suggesting that Los Angeles should simply deed the airport back to Ontario as a public benefit transfer, propounding that the airport had no value as marketable real estate. Quietly, however, the city of Ontario made a confidential offer to purchase the airport for $50 million and an assumption of $71 million in bond debt related to financing for improvements that had been made to the airport and another $125 million to repay Los Angeles for passenger facilities charges collected at Los Angeles International Airport that were used to make improvements at Ontario Airport.
On September 21, Santana, who in March was directed by the Los Angeles City Council’s Trade, Commerce and Tourism Committee to examine the feasibility of transferring Ontario Airport to local control, released his 100-page analysis calling for Los Angeles to “respectfully” decline Ontario’s $246 million offer.  Rather, Santana suggested, the two cities carry out discussions relating to viable options for Ontario’s purchase and Los Angeles’s sale of the airport along with the shared ownership and management of ONT between officials from Los Angeles World Airports, the owner and operator of the airport, and Ontario and San Bernardino County, who have members that make up the majority of the Ontario International Airport Authority board.
That crucible of negotiations would lead to a determination of the airport’s a fair market value, which Santana indicated was well above what Ontario had offered.
Santana was assisted in compiling the report by New Jersey-based Acacia Financial Group.
“Ontario Airport, despite the economic downturn affecting both the national and local economies with its corresponding effect on airline service levels and passenger volume, is an important regional transportation asset,” the report states. “With a focused and innovative approach in creating a new business model for the airport, Ontario Airport could become a stronger driver of economic growth in the Los Angeles region.”
In calling for the rejection of the $246 million offer, Santana still signaled that the offer represented a beginning point for negotiations. “While the conceptual proposal by the city of Ontario has limitations, it does provide a vehicle in which to open a dialogue between the city and Ontario and pursue commonalities between the parties,” he stated.
Santana suggested the airport is a far more valuable commodity than the city of Ontario has suggested.
“With the proper mix of innovative management and operational models and efficiencies, Ontario Airport could become a strong contender for the busiest regional medium-hub airport in the Los Angeles Basin,” Santana wrote.
Santana said Ontario’s offer was problematic for technical legal reasons, as well. “The $50 million transaction payment to the city of Los Angeles’ general fund is meant by Ontario to be a reimbursement of the city’s costs for transferring the airport; however, such a payment appears to be viewed by the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] as a potential revenue diversion under federal aviation law. The FAA regulations define airport revenue as any revenue that the sponsor (owner) derives from the use or sale of airport property. Likewise, federal airport grants like those received by LAWA require that the airport revenue be used solely for capital and operating costs of the airport, the local airport system or other local facilities substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property. As a consequence, the city attorney is of the opinion that payment to the city’s general fund would likely violate the FAA revenue use diversion rules.”
Santana said the city of Los Anglees had four basic options, consisting of maintaining ownership of the airport and the status  quo; marketing the airport to the highest bidder; negotiating a selling price and acceptable legal terms with Ontario and transferring ownership and operations to Ontario; or entering into an agreement with Ontario and the Ontario International Airport Authority for operation of the airport.
Last year Los Angeles floated the idea of privatizing the airport and selling it and its assets to an investor or firm specializing in airport operations. The city sought parties interested in just such an arrangement, eliciting responses from ten  domestic and international entities, including American Airports Corporation, a California-based airport operator; Airport Property Ventures, a California-based airport operator; AMP Capital Investors, an Australian infrastructure fund manager; Aviation Facilities Company, a Virginia-based airport manager and developer; Carlyle Group, a Washington DC-based private equity firm; Fraport, a German airport investor, owner and manager; GMR Airports, an Indian airport operator; Goldman Sachs Infrastructure Partners, a New York-based infrastructure fund; Incheon International Airport Corporation, a Korea-based airport operator; and Munich Airport Consulting, a German airport operator.
The transfer of the airport to a private sector operator could happen in relatively short order, according to Santana.
“The estimated time needed to structure and execute a management  services contract could take as little as six months,” Santana wrote.
Los Angeles World Airports recently hired the firm of Leigh Fisher to make a calculation of the airport’s fair market value. Leigh Fisher pegged the airport as being worth at least $243 million and as much as $605 million. The calculations were based on cash flow expectations over the next half century.
According to Santana, “The final value will be determined through negotiations between the parties but should not be less than the fair and reasonable recovery of LAWA’s investment.”  Given that total investment by Los Angeles over the years has reached $550 million, the asking price would appear to be $550 million.
Los Angeles officials have privately told the Sentinel that if Ontario were to make an offer of $450 million, it would be accepted.
Ontario city councilman Alan Wapner, who is leading his city’s efforts to wrest Ontario Airport back from Los Angeles, resisted making any commitment with regard to the dollar figure Ontario will be willing to pay to purchase the airport, and he quibbled with the use of the term purchase.
“FAA regulations dictate that an airport, as a public benefit property cannot be sold,” Wapner said. “It was never Ontario’s intent to buy the airport from Los Angeles. The $50 million we offered was money to be paid to Los Angeles in consideration for dissolving the joint powers agreement.”
Pressed about the language in Santana’s report stating that the amount to be paid to Los Angeles for relinquishment of ownership and operation of the airport “should not be less than the fair and reasonable recovery of Los Angeles World Airports’ investment,” Wapner said that the amount Ontario would be prepared to pay under that formula was $0. “That one is easy,” Wapner said. “Zero. Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports have never invested any money in Ontario Airport outside of $58,000 in legal fees they accrued when they got the airport in 1985. If you can show me documentation that Los Angeles or Los Angeles World Airports invested any money beside that, I’d love to see it.”
When quoted the $550 million asking price and $450 million minimum expectation prices,  Wapner said, “Any negotiating on the price will be done at the negotiating table and not publicly in the media.”

(September 28) San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer Greg Devereaux on September 25 nailed down a key plank in the fiscal reform platform he has been charged with effecting to reverse the “institutional deficit” the county is projected to face by the middle of this decade.
At its meeting on Tuesday, the board of supervisors approved a four-year contract with the Safety Employees Benefit Association (SEBA), the union representing sheriff’s deputies and district attorney’s office investigators.
The terms of that contract, worked out between Devereaux and the union’s president, Laren Leichliter, included a curtailment of benefits previously enjoyed by the union’s members. The union accepted, and supervisors on Tuesday ratified, having the officers pay into their own retirement plans a sum equal to 4.72 percent of their yearly pay, which until now was being defrayed by the county; reducing previously granted 5 percent raises to promoted employees to 2.5 percent; giving back one percent of what the county pays into their medical retirement trusts; a reduction from 100 hours to 50 hours the compensation time union members can cash out annually; no cost-of-living salary increases; reducing the salary for entry level deputies by five percent;  and having all new hired union employees accept a retirement plan that grants them the right to retire at the age of 50 and receive two percent of their highest yearly salary times the number of years they have worked with the county. The acceptance of the latter provision will create two classes of employees, since current union members are eligible to retire at 50 and receive three percent of their highest salary times the number of years they have worked with the county.   The county will register an immediate $5.3 million per year savings as a consequence of the contract, a significant step toward closing a $33.2 million budget gap that Devereaux has identified.
Simultaneously, Devereaux is continuing to seek concessions and/or contract terms with other county employee unions to ensure that what was previously foreseen as a “locked-in” annual deficit by 2016 can be avoided. Had the terms of the contracts with county employee unions signed in recent years  been perpetuated across the board, those contractual commitments with regard to salary and benefits would have resulted in the county expending  $130 million more annually to operate county government than it woud take in per year in revenues. Devereaux is seeking to negotiate with the San Bernardino Public Employees Association, which is the largest bargaining unit representing county employees, modest pension and medical benefit  reductions for current employees and more substantial reductions for employees to be hired in the future. He is also in discussions with the unions representing county nurses, attorneys and probation officers.
Devereaux committed to press as hard in wringing concessions from those unions as well as the one representing emergency service employees, saying that if those units “do not agree to reduce or eliminate the items of compensation or benefits [conceded by the sheriff’s deputies and district attorney’s investigators], then those items of compensation and benefits shall be restored retroactively to members of the safety unit.”
A major consideration in the effort to rein in county costs consists of skyrocketing pension commitments, as life expectancies lengthen and the sheer numbers of county retirees increase. In this respect, the concession obtained from the Safety Employees Benefit Association with respect to reducing the retirement benefits of future hires was seen as a major breakthrough and accomplishment, and a feather in Devereaux’s cap.
Nevertheless, others made a more sober assessment of the accomplishment, pointing out that the impact from that reform will not manifest for at least two decades.

(September 28)  The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting on Monday at 10 a.m. consisting of a public hearing to be followed by deliberation on action to either endorse or reject an Orange County Water District’s approval of a private company’s plan to extract massive amounts of water from the East Mojave Desert for ultimate use in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside Counties.
On July 31, Orange County-based Santa Margarita Water District  certified the environmental impact report for the Cadiz Water project, clearing the way for Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. to extract an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water per year for the next century from the eastern Mojave Desert and send it via pipeline westward to Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties.
The controversial plan was given go-ahead over the strident objections of desert residents and landowners, who said they viewed the project as an unprincipled theft of the desert’s water resource by Cadiz, Inc. and the water district, the second largest water district in Orange County serving the affluent communities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, Coto de Caza, Las Flores, Ladera Ranch and Talega.
The Santa Margarita Water District’s assumption of lead agency status on the project, officially known as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation and Recovery Project,  raised hackles in several quarters within San Bernardino County. The Santa Margarita Water District  lies 217 miles from the Cadiz Valley across the county line from San Bernardino County. Moreover, the district has an interest in the project in that some 20 percent of the water to be mined by Cadiz, Inc. will be sold to Santa Margarita.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, which would have normally been the lead agency responsible for approving the project and granting it environmental certification, initially contemplated filing an appeal with the California Office of Planning and Research to wrest from Santa Margarita authority over the project and its application for approval. The county, however, did not file such an appeal and acceded to the Santa Margarita Water District’s assumption of lead agency authority over the project application and environmental certification. Earlier this year, the county upon a vote by the board of supervisors entered into a memorandum of understanding with Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District that gave the county limited power to second-guess the district’s decision on the environmental certification and compliance with its own ground water management ordinance as well as requiring that Cadiz, Inc. defray the cost of any legal action taken by parties against the project or in reaction to its impacts.
The project has garnered considerable opposition, particularly in San Bernardino County and the East Mojave Desert, where the Cadiz Valley is located.
A brine mining operation in the desert, Tetra Technologies, has already filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino County over the memorandum of understanding. Tetra alleges the monopolization of water in the area will harm its operation.
Four environmental groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Parks Conservation Association, the San Gorgonio chapter of the Sierra Club and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society – filed a suit in San Bernardino County Superior Court, naming both the county of  San Bernardino and the Santa Margarita Water District. That suit asserts the county should not have allowed the environmental review of the project to be carried out by the Mission Viejo-based Santa Margarita Water District. The suit challenges the county for allowing Santa Margarita to commandeer lead agency status and calls into question as well the water district’s approval of the environmental impact report.
The Colorado River branch of the Archaeological Heritage Association filed suit in federal court against Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and San Bernardino County, further naming the Santa Margarita Water District, project proponent Cadiz, Inc. and a Cadiz, Inc. corporate offshoot, the FennerValley Mutual Water Company, as real parties in interest. That suit cited the failure of Salazar and the Department of the Interior to invoke the protocols and requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the National Environmental Protection Act, which the association maintains should have been done because part of the project will involve a 42-mile right-of-way for the aqueduct on federal land. The suit further alleges the county failed  to live up to its obligation to comply with federal law in reviewing the impact a permitted project might have on federal public resources in transferring the authority for environmental certification of the project to the Santa Margarita Water District.
A group of Orange County residents calling themselves Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense have sued the Santa Margarita Water District over its approval of the environmental impact report and the water purchase agreement it entered into with Cadiz, Inc.
John Goss, a former assistant administrative officer with San Bernardino County who had worked for 18 months drafting the county’s desert groundwater management ordinance before it was adopted in 2002, said he was concerned that the memorandum of understanding between the county, Cadiz, Inc. and Santa Margarita Water District had been entered into before a groundwater management plan for the Cadiz project was adopted. He said this violated the terms of the 2002 ordinance.
On October 1, the board of supervisors will consider the proposed Groundwater Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation Plan for the project and determine whether it will accept the Santa Margarita Water District’s certification of the project’s Environmental Impact Report. The board of supervisors will also consider a finding that it has acted properly with regard to its responsibility under the  California Environmental Quality Act.
Documents to be considered by the board during the hearing are now available for public review at http://cms.sbcounty.gov/lus/Planning/CadizValleyWater.aspx.

(September 28)  A complaint to the  State Fair Political Practices Commission is being drafted which will detail accusations that the Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce has favored one set of candidates by providing them with a forum to promote their town council candidacies while excluding others. The complaint alleges the chambers action ran afoul of the Political Reform Act in that the chamber is a recipient of town funds, and is thus prohibited from sponsoring a political forum that favors any candidates over others.
The chamber’s executive director, Janice Moore, said no promotion of candidates took place and that all candidates who were in attendance at the September 19 convocation of chamber members were offered the opportunity to address those assembled and  introduce themselves and their campaign platforms. Moore insisted that the chamber was not receiving town subsidization, as had been alleged.
The chamber, which routinely holds a gathering of its members on the third Wednesday of every month, met on September 19. That meeting featured a presentation by Burrtec, the city’s franchised trash hauler, relating to its service and arrangement with the town to enforce recycling by the imposition of liens against homeowners who fall into arrears on their trash service bills. During the gathering, Moore invited all political candidates present, including those for Congress, the board of supervisors, town council and the school board to introduce themselves and expound on their current political effort.
While former Apple Valley fire chief Art Bishop and Apple Valley Fire District board member and Apple Valley planning commissioner  Larry Cusack made a pitch to their fellow chamber members, council hopefuls, Iver Bye, Jackie Moore (no relation to Janice  Moore), Christina Burton, David Phillips, Tom Piper and Robert Seifert were not in attendance.
Bye, Burton and Jackie Moore told the Sentinel they had been snubbed by the chamber, having not been invited to participate and having not been informed that the opportunity to address the chamber membership about their respective candidacies was being provided.
The chamber receives money from the town of Apple Valley. In February, the town council approved a business retention services agreement with the chamber for a six-month term at a cost of $18,820. This week, on Tuesday September 25, six days after the chamber’s September meeting,  the town council approved an extension of the agreement with the chamber for the nine-and-a-half month remainder of fiscal year 2012-13 in the amount of $29,400.
The chamber’s financial ties to the city prohibit it from engaging in any type of selective candidate promotion, several of the challenging town council candidates and their supporters maintain. At press time, they were preparing a complaint to the FPPC, citing state law, the chamber’s receipt of town taxpayer money and last week’s forum.
Chamber executive director Janice Moore said the complaint was based on a misreading of the facts, state law, the chamber’s policy and routine and the circumstance.
“The chamber of commerce is a membership-driven organization for business people and people in Apple Valley interested in developments in  local business circles,” Janice Moore said. “Every third Wednesday of the month we have a speaker of relevance to the business community. Last week we had a presentation on the town’s mandatory recycling program. After the speech I asked if those running for office wanted to speak. We had a congressional candidate, one for the board of supervisors, two running for town council and two running for school board. I told them I thought it was courageous of them to be stepping up to run for office and wanted to give them the opportunity to introduce themselves. Those that were there came forward.”
Janice Moore said that there was no favoritism shown to anyone and no one was purposefully excluded. “Everyone who was there was allowed to speak. If they (Bye, Jackie Moore and Burton) had attended I would not have said, ‘You can’t stand up, too. We are pretty inclusive, but I’m not going to chase them down. If you are a member of an organization and you are running for office, I do not think that it is odd that your fellow members want to hear about your election effort. I am sorry if people feel they missed out. It is too bad they felt slighted.”
Turning the matter around, Janice Moore said that those who were not at the meeting to take advantage of the forum it offered were to blame. “They say they want to be on the town council but are not interested in joining the chamber?” she intoned. “If they are not interested in the chamber, then they are not interested in the local business climate. It only costs $250 per year to join. I do not have leverage on people. You have to be present to play. I sent out over 500 emails. I announced this at the town council meeting. They are not members of the chamber and they don’t subscribe to our newsletter. Even if you are not a member of the chamber of commerce, you can still come to the meetings to see our culture, to see what we are like. They had the chance to be there. I have heard of Iver Bye. I don’t know either of those other people [Jackie Moore and Burton]. I do not know why they would choose not to be a member of the chamber.  I don’t have an understanding of why someone who wants to lead the city would not want to be a member of the chamber. It sounds to me like someone doesn’t know how to organize a campaign.”
As to those who suggested that the chamber is bound by the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices regulations because the town is subsidizing the chamber, Janice Moore said those people are “misinformed. We have a contract with the town for services. Read it and tell me if that reads like a subsidy.”
The chamber contract with the town calls for the chamber to host a recognition event for top sales tax producers and long-standing businesses; develop a shop local program; create a business start up guide; develop a YuccaLomaBridge.com website for promotion and information of local services; survey and promote home-based businesses; and continue the ongoing radio media and marketing campaign. In the previous six months, the chamber had conducted grand opening celebrations; served as a member of the Local Preference Ad-Hoc Committee; conducted computer skills training workshops; conducted a job preparation and job skills training workshop, facilitated a social media campaign for Apple Valley Village, served as a marketing consultant to Apple Valley Village PBID Association; and attended the International Council of Shopping Centers tradeshow.
“I am a professional person,” Janice Moore said. “This sounds like there is jealousy in people who do not want to be a member. I and the chamber do work under contract for the town. I am contracted to provide specific things, specific services. My skills and services and my knowledge are valuable. The town happens to be one of my clients. They seek my service. I write contracts for services. I am pretty doggone talented to provide these services. Not everyone can do that.  Look at the contract.”
Janice Moore said the chamber provides to the public on its premises electioneering material prepared by current office candidates who are chamber members and does not feature electioneering material by candidates who are not chamber members. She said that policy is not out of compliance with the law or FPPC regulations.
Bye told the Sentinel, “I was not invited to the chamber’s function. I received no notice that it was going to take place.”
Jackie Moore said, “I heard there were several candidates at the luncheon, all invited. I was not invited. They were given time to promote their elections. But it was only the chosen few. This was for the powers that be. The little people were not invited. The town pays the chamber $29,000. I think the FPPC will have something to say about that.”
Burton told the Sentinel, “I heard that the chamber CEO mentioned that she had invited everybody and that all the candidates were expected to be there. Those that were there were allowed to speak and campaign. I was not invited. At least four of us were not invited. I think the chamber is in collusion with the good old guys, [incumbent councilmen]Curt Emick and Scott Nassiff and their supporters and hand-picked candidates all together. That is what I think.”

(September 28)  CHINO HILLS—The timing of councilman Wilburn “Bill” Kruger’s resignation, combined with other factors, has necessitated a special election that will cost Chino Hills taxpayers $135,000.
Had Kruger delayed his resignation by another 40 days, the council would have had the option of appointing his replacement. Because he tendered his letter of resignation on September 4, however, and because two of the currently serving members of the council are serving in an appointed rather than an elected capacity, an election to replace him must be held.
Under California’s election code and the municipal regulations for general law cities throughout the state, following the resignation of a council member a city council normally has three options: appoint a replacement for the remainder of the official’s term, hold a special election, or appoint an interim replacement to serve until a special election is held. The law specifies a 60-day deadline for the council to commit to one of those options.
Another law, however, prohibits a governing panel such as a city council from being composed of a majority of appointed rather than elected members. In the run-up to the 2008 election Art Bennett and Gwenn Norton-Perry were the only candidates who had qualified to compete in the November election. The council cancelled the election and appointed them both to the council that August. Thus, for the council to now appoint Kruger’s replacement would result in three members being appointed.
The city does not have the option of waiting until after the November election to make the appointment because Kruger resigned on September 4, necessitating that the appointment be made by November 3. The winners of the upcoming November race, in which Bennett is running and Norton-Perry is not, will not be sworn into office until December.
The city council on September 25 voted to hold a mail ballot special election in March involving all 36,512 of the city’s voters, the estimated cost of which is $135,000.
At press time, Chino Hills city attorney Mark Hensley had not responded to a Sentinel inquiry as to whether the council will have the option of cancelling the election in December and making an appointment at that time.

(September 28)  The sheriff’s department in short order will acquire a device of its own that will allow the department to track firearms used in crimes or otherwise obtained by its officers. According to captain Steve Higgins, the department has requested and the board of supervisors has approved the expenditure of $206,427 to purchase an Integrated Ballistics Identification and Forensic Technology System manufactured by WAI, Inc. as an unbudgeted fixed asset.
The device “will allow the department’s scientific investigation division to track guns used by and found on criminals,” Higgins said. “This purchase will allow the scientific investigations division to retain access to the system while providing enhanced three dimensional imaging and reduced processing time. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms spearheads a National Integrated Ballistic Information Network Program to track about 100,000 guns used in crimes and facilitate the sharing of information between different law enforcement agencies. The rapid dissemination of ballistics information allows for tracking of gun-specific information and connection of a particular firearm to multiple crimes irrespective of geographic location. Historically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has allowed local laboratories to access the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network to search cartridge cases for possible case-to-case or case-to-gun matches by utilizing equipment provided and maintained by The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Due to budgetary issues at the federal level, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is removing its workstations from a number of local law enforcement laboratories, including the sheriff’s department’s scientific investigations division crime lab.”
The purchase was made without a competitive bid, Higgins said.
“This is a sole source purchase, as it is the only new system approved by Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,” he said.