Understaffed, overwhelmed, Riverside and San Bernardino county officials say the verdict is few options on further cuts

RICHARD K. De ATLEY/Staff

RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
rdeatley@pe.com

Published: 29 January 2012 07:33 PM

Like passengers on a plane with half the engines snuffed, Inland court officials can only wait and watch as Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget for next year fiscal year moves through the state’s political turbulence.

After four years of cuts reduced the statewide court budget by nearly $653 million — losses passed on to the state’s 58 superior courts, including $5.7 million slashed for Riverside County and $6.1 million for San Bernardino County courts for the current fiscal year — Brown has no further cuts proposed in his new budget.

But there’s a catch: Brown’s budget is based on his tax package getting approved. If it doesn’t, an additional $125 million in cuts to the courts will be imposed.

And court officials have expressed ambivalence about Brown’s proposed revenue plan of increasing fees and fines to raise $50 million.

“We do have money problems but the fees and fines are getting to be a problem for folks who are coming in for civil cases and family law cases,” said San Bernardino County Court Executive Officer Stephen H. Nash in a phone interview. “We do appreciate the governor’s support for new money, but we are not excited about higher fees.”

The interest in court funding is especially keen in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, where courts for years have been seriously understaffed as the counties’ populations each soared past 2 million during the past decade.

The state Judicial Council funds county courts based on the number of judicial officers, not population.

Riverside County has 76 judicial positions, including judges and commissioners, but a recent workload assessment report that was assigned by the state Judicial Council said it should have 150.

San Bernardino has 86 judges and commissioners combined, and likewise needs 150. The two courts have the highest caseloads-per-judge in the state for large population counties.

Another round of deep cuts could overwhelm their systems.

‘KEEP THE COURTS OPEN’

“The goal is to keep the courts open,” Riverside County Court Executive Officer Sherri Carter said. “We really want to do that without furloughs or layoffs because we don’t have the staff to do the work we have now.”

Riverside County officials fear a return to the backlogged court struggles of a few years ago, when civil cases sat unheard and a strike force of 12 judges was dispatched to the county to handle its longest-pending criminal cases.

Riverside County has depended for years on assigned judges — retired jurists sent by the state Administrative Office of the Courts to counties that need extra help with their case workload.

While the state pays the assigned judges’ salaries, the local courts have to pay for their courtroom personnel. And there is no extra staff in the clerk’s office to handle the work generated by the assigned judges.

Carter said the cost to the courts is “in the millions.”

Riverside County Superior Court has already reduced the number of assigned judges from 22 a day to 15, “and that just keeps our heads above water,” Riverside County Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth said.

But “if we are looking under rocks” to save money, further cuts in the assigned judges program would have to be considered, she said.

Also threatened are the collaborative courts, in which prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers and social workers cooperate in programs designed to help selected defendants return to productive roles in society.

Veterans, domestic violence cases, and drug offenders are among the specialized courts.

“We have done a good job addressing those issues and being a full-service court,” Ellsworth said, but all of it is threatened by further substantial cuts, she said.

To read entire story, click here.

Hoping to restore jail funding to San Bernardino County, an Inland Empire assemblyman introduced a bill on Friday that could potentially bring $16 million to county coffers.

Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucaipa, introduced AB 1556, which would direct jail funding to the county – funding that was not made available when the Adelanto Detention Center expansion project broke ground last year.

Cook was optimistic about the bill while acknowledging the uphill battle against other Sacramento leaders.

“We’ll do the best we can,” Cook said. “And if I get a bloody nose, so be it.”

In 2007, lawmakers allocated $1.2 billion for county jail construction projects. According to Joshua Candelario, deputy legislative director for San Bernardino County, Adelanto was at the top of the list to receive funding for its $111 million expansion project.

At the time, the local match, or the county’s contribution to the project, was 25 percent. However, lawmakers last year modified the local match requirement and signed a law that calls on counties to contribute 10 percent.

The new law does not apply to county jail projects already under way. In other words, Adelanto does not benefit from the lower match.

“Because the county played by the rules of the game, we should not be punished,” Cook said. “It’s just not right. We’re going to make a ruckus about it.”

To read entire story, click here.

Executive Editor Frank Pine
Posted: 01/28/2012 05:38:39 PM PST

San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors asked county lawyers last week to draft language for a ballot measure that would give voters the final say on increases to pension benefits for public employees.

Supervisors Janice Rutherford, Gary Ovitt and Josie Gonzales voted yea with supervisors Brad Mitzelfelt and Neil Derry voting nay.

Gonzales and Mitzelfelt both expressed at least a little ambivalence, saying they wanted to wait and see the final language of the ballot measure before committing.

We didn’t quote Derry in our story, but he was the first person to comment on it once it was posted on our website, and the nuance of his nay is significant.

Derry: “This wasn’t pension reform. It was a feel-good measure that would have had zero impact on current employee pensions and would create a significant roadblock to negotiating pension reductions in the future. How is it `reform’ if the pensions aren’t being changed?”

Mere hours after the board made its decision Tuesday, the head of the county’s most powerful union – the Safety Employees Benefit Association – announced it would fund an initiative to cut supervisors’ pay by reducing their employment status to part time.

Union president Laren Leichliter said the SEBA announcement was not intended to intimidate supervisors and noted that signature gatherers were collecting names the Thursday before the pension item was placed on the supervisors’ agenda.

His quote: “All our elected officials, according to them they’re all overpaid, so we’re just trying to assist them in their progression of trying to save county residents money,” Leichliter said.

Maybe that’s the case, but the timing is pretty suspect and it’s hard to see this as anything other than the latest example of the rough-and-tumble politics of San Bernardino County in particular and California in general.

The real issue here, however, appears to be the county’s ongoing contract negotiations with SEBA. As the county struggles to close daunting budget shortfalls, those negotiations have been anything but smooth.

In December, the county threatened to impose a 14 percent reduction in pay and benefits on SEBA’s Specialized Peace Officers bargaining unit, which includes probation officers, coroner investigators and welfare-fraud investigators.

To avoid that, the unit approved a contract with a 7 percent cut in benefits and a reduction in annual merit raises from 5 percent to 2.5 percent.

To read entire column, click here.

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris walked away from talks with the banks last year, saying not enough was being offered for California homeowners. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

By Alejandro Lazo

January 25, 2012, 2:57 p.m.

Calif. Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris’ office has called a proposed $25-billion settlement with the nation’s mortgage industry “inadequate.”

“We’ve reviewed the details of the latest settlement proposal from the banks, and we believe it is inadequate for California,” Shum Preston, a spokesman for Harris, said in a statement. “Our state has been clear about what any multistate settlement must contain: transparency, relief going to the most distressed homeowners and meaningful enforcement that ensures accountability. At this point, this deal does not suffice for California.”

Many analysts consider California’s participation to be key to a strong deal. Harris walked away from talks with the banks last year, saying not enough was being offered by the financial institutions for California homeowners.

Since then, certain terms have been added to lure the Golden State back to the table, and Harris has opened separate inquiries into the mortgage business.

State attorneys general have received drafts of a $25-billion settlement with the nation’s biggest banks that would overhaul foreclosure and mortgage servicing practices. No deal has been officially reached among the states, federal agencies and the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers: Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co.,Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. Individual states must decide whether they will join a settlement or pursue independent lawsuits and investigations.

The proposed $25-billion settlement would cover only mortgages held by the banks privately and exclude those from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The biggest component of the deal would be a $17-billion principal reduction program that the Center for Responsible Lending this week said would “provide an important template for ways banks can use principal reduction to reduce unnecessary foreclosures and put the country back on a path to economic recovery.”

That money would go toward writing down the principal of homeowners who are “underwater,” on their mortgages, or owe more on their properties than they are currently worth. Negotiators estimate that about 1 million homeowners could benefit, with an average principal reduction on those loans of $20,000.

In addition, $5 billion would go to a reserve account for state and federal programs and to individual homeowners harmed by bad servicing practices. Negotiators estimate about 750,000 people could receive checks for about $1,800. An additional $3 billion would help homeowners refinance their loans at a rate of 5.25%.

To read entire story, click here.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 – 06:00 p.m.

So much for that plea deal way back when!

Anthony Orlando Sanchez, 36, plead not guilty to extortion and bribery charges this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Riverside.

He will be held without bail due to the fact he fled the country for Honduras several months ago.

Sanchez, who is charged in an alleged corruption scheme involving former Upland Mayor John “J.P.” Pomierski, returned to the United States on Sunday and was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals.

A trial date of March 13 has been set.

Sunday, January 5, 2012 – 11:30 p.m.

A federal fugitive tied to the corruption case involving former Upland Mayor John “J.P.” Pomierski was taken into custody Sunday afternoon.

Anthony Orlando Sanchez was arrested by the United States Marshals Service at Los Angeles International Airport upon his re-entry into the U.S.

Sanchez, 36, fled the country after agreeing to a plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice over his involvement in an alleged bribery scheme involving Pomierski.

The deal would have left Sanchez a convicted felon and required the revocation of his California real estate brokers license.

Sanchez is being held without bail at the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s Central Detention Center in San Bernardino.

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, January 15, 2012

Sacramento –Gov. Jerry Brown wants to cut state prison spending next fiscal year for the first time in nearly a decade, a departure from the goals of recent administrations, which consistently increased corrections spending and pushed for prison expansion.

Brown’s budget would save California $1.1 billion on housing inmates and hundreds of millions more by allowing the state to halt some prison construction – savings largely due to his administration’s recent overhaul of the state’s criminal justice system.

General fund spending on prisons nearly doubled under Brown’s Republican predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, from $5.2 billion in 2004 to $9.5 billion in 2011, when Brown, a Democrat, took office. The increase in spending was largely caused by an exploding inmate population and a court order to improve medical care in prisons.

The general fund is backed by statewide taxes and pays for most of the government’s basic programs, including schools, police, welfare services and other programs. A cut in prison spending makes more dollars available for other programs.

“We’re knocking it down, and we’ll knock it down further,” Brown said Friday of the prison budget. “A lot of the problems come from the fact that they built (too many) prisons in 20 years – it was too fast, they didn’t know what they were doing, and now we have to clean up that mess. We made good progress the first year.”
$1 billion savings

Under Brown’s spending proposal, released Jan. 5, general fund spending on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would decline from this year’s budget of $9.8 billion to $8.7 billion, largely because the state prison population has fallen nearly 1,000 a week since Oct. 1, when the state shifted responsibility for lower level offenders to county law enforcement, a policy known as realignment.

“I don’t think there’s any question we’ve turned a corner here … just by the fact that we are significantly reducing the prison population,” said Daniel Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, a nonprofit that conducts policy analysis on criminal justice issues.

But Republican Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, a former parole board chairman who has been a vocal critic of realignment, predicted the savings would not last, particularly without more investment in rehabilitative services for criminals. He said that counties will ultimately have to raise local taxes to fully pay for realignment, eliminating any savings for taxpayers.

“It’s frankly not a long-run savings for the state,” said Nielsen, of Gerber (Tehama County). “Corrections spending will go down a little and then creep back up.”

Just one year ago, California was grappling with a court order to reduce its prison population by 33,000 inmates and was moving forward with 13 construction projects to expand prison capacity.

Now, the prison population is at 130,000, a decrease of 11,000 in six months. State officials met the first benchmark set by the U.S. Supreme Court to reduce the prison population and say they are on track to meet the next one as well, as thousands of offenders that would have flowed into the overcrowded system are staying in county jails instead and being supervised by local probation officials rather than state parole officers.

In addition to halting construction projects, Brown next year wants to begin phasing out the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice and place the state’s most violent youth offenders in county facilities. And after years of cuts to rehabilitation programs in prisons, Brown wants lawmakers to restore about $100 million in funding for drug treatment, education and other services.

The governor’s budget proposal, like most criminal justice issues, has prompted mixed reactions.

To read entire story, click here.

Wes Woods II, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Created: 01/09/2012 03:03:05 PM PST

View Document: Lawsuit filed by Claremont police union vs. city and chamber

CLAREMONT – The Claremont Police Officers Association has filed a lawsuit against the Claremont Chamber of Commerce and the city alleging its right to freedom of expression, association and assembly were violated at the Village Venture event in October.

According to the lawsuit, Robert Ewing, a detective and association president, and others were not allowed to hand out fliers related to the association’s stance on contract negations with the city.

The incident took place at the arts and crafts fair in downtown that is put on by the city and the chamber.

City Manager Tony Ramos said the City Council would meet tonight in closed session about the lawsuit because it’s a “litigation matter.”

“If you saw that flier the guys were handing out … it paints the City Council in a position that highlights how they’ve been detrimental to public safety,” said Dieter Dammeier, an attorney for the Police Officers Association.

The city “didn’t want the facts to come out.”

On the flier is the phrase “Why Is City Council Gambling With Your Safety?” and includes a hooded man with a gun and a flashlight. Statements on the flier such as “Police budget reduced,” “97 sex offenders” and “1908 parolees” are imposed on a roulette wheel.

Ewing contacted chamber staff member Maureen Aldridge about two weeks before the event and asked to participate, according to the lawsuit.

He told Aldridge that the association wanted to set up a booth to distribute materials related to the association’s position on the contract negotiations, according to the lawsuit.

Aldridge said the association would not have to pay a normally required fee, and it could set up next to the Police Department’s command post.

Ewing set up the association’s booth next to the Police Department’s equipment, but Police Chief Paul Cooper said the association was not allowed to have its booth at the location, according to the lawsuit.

In response, a booth was set up a short distance away and fliers were handed out.

Aldridge later told association members that they could not have a booth at all, according to the lawsuit.

To read entire story, click here.

By Mark Gutglueck
Friday, January 6, 2012

Questions continue to dog the second highest ranking member of the county auditor-controller/treasurer-tax collector’s office with regard to the role he and a political action committee he controlled played in illegally passing through and laundering money for those convicted of or charged with participation in a bribery and extortion conspiracy.

At issue is how Matt Brown, a former member of the Republican Central Committee and the one-time chief of staff to former Second District San Bernardino County supervisor Paul Biane, has been able to avoid being criminally charged after he became entangled in a set of circumstances that led to the indictment of Biane, as well as another former member of the board of supervisors, Bill Postmus, together with the chief of staff to another supervisor, a one-time county employee union president and the businessman accused of bribing them.

Brown was moved into the position of assistant county auditor-controller in 2010 by county treasurer/auditor-controller Larry Walker. Brown is also the founder/principal of two political action committees, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans and the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association.

In 2006, Brown, who was then supervisor Biane’s senior staff member, founded a political action committee (PAC) to assist Biane and other members of Biane’s political circle in distributing money to politicians they supported. That PAC, known as the San Bernardino County Young Republicans, has been alleged by the California Attorney General’s Office and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office to have been used as a vehicle to launder bribes and kickbacks to Biane.

During the first year of its existence, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC had raised $7,500. In November 2006, Biane joined with his then-colleagues on the board of supervisors, Bill Postmus and Gary Ovitt, to approve a $102 million payout to Rancho Cucamonga-based Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit that company had brought against the county over flood control issues at the Colonies at San Antonio residential subdivision and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivision projects in northeast Upland. Supervisors Josie Gonzales and Dennis Hansberger opposed that settlement.

Campaign finance records show that the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC, received a $100,000 check from Colonies Partners, L.P. on June 17, 2007. In two separate indictments, one returned by a criminal grand jury in February 2010 against Postmus and his one time political associate Jim Erwin and in another indictment returned in May 2011 against Biane, Erwin, Colonies Partners managing principal Jeff Burum and the former chief of staff to supervisor Ovitt, Mark Kirk, it was alleged that Biane actually controlled the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC through Brown and that the $100,000 donation was a quid pro quo paid in exchange for Biane’s vote to approve the settlement. Also delineated in the February 2010 indictment were five unindicted co-conspirators identified as John Does 1 through 5, who are identifiable through information contained elsewhere in the public record including the superseding May 2011 indictment as Colonies Partners managing principals Burum and Dan Richards; Colonies Partners public relations consultant Patrick O’Reilly; Kirk; and Biane. According to prosecutors, Postmus controlled two political action committees, the Inland Empire PAC and the Conservatives For A Republican Majority PAC, which each received separate $50,000 donations from the Colonies Partners principals which were also bribes. Erwin’s Committee For Effective Government PAC likewise received a $100,000 donation from Burum and Richards that was a bribe, according to prosecutors; and Kirk’s Alliance For Ethical Government PAC received a $100,000 contribution from Burum and Richards that was also a bribe, per the indictment.

Postmus last March pleaded guilty to the five felonies alleged against him in the February 2010 indictment, including conspiracy, one count of accepting a bribe, one count of conflict of interest, and one count of misappropriation of funds.

Postmus in April was the star witness before the second grand jury which indicted Burum, Biane and Kirk and reindicted Erwin. Erwin, who served as assistant assessor under Postmus after the latter was elected to that post in 2006 and took office in 2007, continues to maintain his innocence on the charges stemming from that case, including conspiracy, two counts of corrupt influencing, two counts of offering a bribe, two counts of extortion, one count of misappropriation of public funds and one count of forgery. Biane, Kirk and Burum maintain their innocence. As of yet, no charges have been filed against Richards or O’Reilly.

The indictments allege that Burum in 2006, with the assistance of Erwin and O’Reilly, had brochures prepared which purported that Postmus, who was then the chairman of the board of supervisors as well as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee and was running for county assessor, was a homosexual who was addicted to methamphetamine, and that Biane, who was then the vice chair of both the board of supervisors and the Republican Central Committee and at that time engaged in an election campaign, was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Burum’s company, the Colonies Partners, had filed a lawsuit against the county in 2002 over flood control issues at the companies Colonies at San Antonio development in northeast Upland. Ultimately, Burum withheld the mailing of those brochures. It was three weeks after the November 2006 election, in which Postmus and Biane were elected and reelected, that the board of supervisors voted 3-2 to confer the $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners. The indictments allege that the series of $100,000 donations to the political action committees founded and controlled by Postmus, Brown, Kirk and Erwin were in fact quid pro quos — bribes — paid in exchange for the approval of the settlement. Prosecutors allege that Biane, through Brown, secretly controlled the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC.

The Sentinel is informed that a complaint has been filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission citing a PAC founded by Brown in 2008, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association, which is separate from the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC alluded to in the indictments. According to well placed sources, both the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association and the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC were involved in the activity now under further investigation.

On March 17, 2008, Brown formed the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC and named J.M. Olchawa as the PAC’s treasurer. Both Brown and Olchawa are residents of Grand Terrace. Olchawa endowed the PAC with its first operating capital in the form of a $100 contribution. Less than a month later, on April 9, the San Bernardino County Young Republicans PAC contributed $40,000, which had apparently originated with the $100,000 contribution from the Colonies Partners the previous year, to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. The following month, on May 29, 2008, one of the political action committees controlled by Postmus, the Inland Empire PAC, infused the San Bernardino County Taxpayers PAC with $3,000 and the month after that, on June 2, 2008, with another $2,000. That $5,000, too, had apparently been originally provided by the Colonies Partners.

In the less than two month period between the $40,000 contribution from Brown’s own Young Republicans PAC on April 9 and Postmus’ Inland Empire PAC’s $2,000 donation on June 2, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC received a substantial amount of money in the form of both contributions and loans, all from other political figures. On April 25, 2008, the Committee to Elect Paul Biane gave the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC a $15,000 contribution. On April 29, 2008 the Committee to Elect Dick Larsen provided the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC with a $10,000 loan. Larsen was then the county treasurer. On May 5, 2008 the Committee to Elect Gary C. Ovitt made a $15,000 contribution to Brown’s San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. That money may have originated with the Colonies Partners before being provided to Kirk’s Alliance For Ethical Government PAC and then being provided to Ovitt. On May 9, 2008, the Josie Gonzales for Supervisor campaign provided a $15,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers PAC. On May 16, 2008, Bill Emmerson for Assembly 2008 made a $5,000 contribution to Brown’s recently formed PAC. The same day, the San Bernardino Public Employees Association PAC provided Brown’s PAC with a $10,000 contribution. On May 23, 2008, the Committee to Elect Gary C. Ovitt provided Brown’s PAC with a $10,000 loan. On May 27, 2008, the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee made a $25,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC. The next day, May 28, the Paul Cook for Assembly 2008 Committee provided Brown’s PAC with a $5,000 loan. The same day, the Committee to Elect Paul Biane

made a $10,000 loan to Brown’s PAC. On May 29, Bill Emmerson for Assembly 2008 made a $5,000 contribution to the PAC and on June 2, 2008, the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee made a $15,000 contribution to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC.

The lion’s share of the money Brown’s PAC took in was used to fund Hansberger’s effort to be reelected as county Third District supervisor that year. According to campaign disclosure documents, the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC on May 18 provided the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee with $57,030.70 and on June 30, 2008, more than three weeks after Hansberger had lost the election to Neil Derry on June 3, Brown’s PAC gave the Hansberger for Supervisor Committee $100,920.29.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is now investigating the lack of any subsequent accounting for the $35, 000.00 in loans made to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC by the Larsen, Ovitt, Cook and Biane campaign committees. All references to those loans disappeared from subsequent campaign filing statements made on behalf of the PAC by Olchawa. The loans in question appear to be outstanding. No explicit reference to repayments to any of the lending parties can be found in any of the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC’s financial disclosure statements. While the online filing made by the Committee to Elect Gary Ovitt shows an outstanding loan of $10,000 to the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association PAC committee as of 12/31/2010, online filings for the other lending parties were not immediately available. There is no indication in any available documentation showing any of the loans were repaid.

The lack of repayment, and lack of accounting of the still existent outstanding loans or failure to note the loans were forgiven is alleged to be multiple violations of the Political Reform Act. Moreover, the lack of notation of the loans might suggest that the funds received by the committee during the 2008 electioneering season from the Larsen, Cook and Biane campaigns were being laundered for Hansberger, according to the complaint received by the FPPC.

Another issue in the complaint and the follow-up FPPC investigation is the connection between the PAC and the Hansberger Campaign, which contributed money to the PAC and was also the major beneficiary of the PAC’s expenditures. In this way, money provided to Brown’s PAC is suspected of having been used to attack Derry without adequate disclosure of the origin of that money. Those mailers sent out attacking Derry did not disclose that Hansberger’s campaign was involved in funding them.

Many familiar with Brown’s role in the Colonies matter have questioned why prosecutors did not seek and obtain from the grand jury an indictment of Brown. The indictment itself describes how the political action committee he founded and controlled served as a laundering vehicle through which bribes allegedly provided by Burum were passed, action virtually indistinguishable from that engaged in by the indicted Kirk, another chief of staff to a board member who voted to approve the Colonies settlement.

Brown was one of 45 witnesses who testified before the grand jury this spring before it handed down the indictment naming Burum, Biane, Kirk and Erwin. In that testimony Brown said SEBA, the sheriff’s deputies union that Erwin once headed, had promised to provide, but then failed to come through with, backing for a countywide measure Biane was sponsoring in 2006 to boost the pay for county supervisors. An examination of campaign reporting documents and other material, however, indicates that SEBA in fact did support the Biane-backed proposal, known as Measure P, which passed, resulting in an immediate $22,000 annual increase to supervisors’ salaries. Prosecutors declined to say whether Brown’s misstatement of fact before the grand jury constituted perjury. No charges have been filed against him.

A possible explanation of how it is that Brown has avoided prosecution on several counts is that he has been working as an informant for the district attorney’s office. It is known that beginning in 2009, Brown began wearing a “wire,” that is, a hidden electronic audio device at work while he was serving in the capacity of Biane’s chief of staff. Reportedly, the target of this effort was Biane himself. To date, no incriminating statements by Biane on any of those tapes have surfaced or been produced by the prosecution, despite requests by defense attorneys for their production. Transcripts of some of those conversations have been turned over to defense attorneys.

At some point in the spring of 2010, Biane became aware that his chief-of-staff was seeking to entrap him. There ensued strained relations between the two and Brown was put on paid leave after he filed a claim in which he alleged he was being harassed. Brown was then transferred to the county treasurer/auditor-controller office under Larry Walker.

Walker installed Brown as his second-in-command, i.e. as the assistant auditor-controller. In so doing, Walker ousted his longtime assistant and close associate Betsy Starbuck, who was ignominiously sacked after having served more than twenty years as Walker’s right hand woman, both when Walker was Fourth District supervisor, the position he held before he ran for auditor-controller, and as auditor controller.

The displacement of Starbuck, who after more than eight years in the position of assistant auditor-controller practically ran the division, to accommodate the inexperienced Brown has sparked a widespread belief in the halls of the county that the move was imposed on Walker by county chief executive officer Greg Devereaux and district attorney Mike Ramos as part of an effort to protect a witness seen as crucial to the prosecution of the Colonies settlement criminal case. Collectively and individually, Walker, Brown, Devereaux and Ramos were unwilling to comment on the matter.

BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
rdeatley@pe.com

Published: 06 January 2012 06:30 PM

Riverside County jails have reached their inmate capacity because of the state prison realignment program, and officials said that 57 inmates will have to be released between Friday evening and today.

The county has 3,906 jail beds and is under a federal court order not to add any more unless it builds additional housing for inmates.

Released inmates will be low-level, non-violent offenders, jail officials said. Common offenses in that classification would include low level property and narcotics crimes that do not directly involve other people. Options include ankle-bracelet monitoring, return of parole violators to outside supervision and early release of the least problematic convicted inmates.

Another possibility is post-arraignment release of low-level offenders awaiting resolution of their cases, said Riverside County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Jerry Gutierrez, who oversees the jails.

“We are just trying our best to incarcerate those who need to be there, but I have to make room for the most violent,” Gutierrez said.

He said the inmates released Friday and today will be spread among the county’s five facilities in Riverside, French Valley, Indio, Blythe and Banning.

Riverside County now joins San Bernardino and Kern counties, which also had to let inmates out early or stop accepting some low-level offenders because of realignment overcrowding.

To read entire story, click here.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly on Thursday said he was assaulted and threatened on Dec. 26 by a man in Rancho Cucamonga due to his opposition to the Dream Act.

Donnelly, R-Hesperia, said the incident happened at an event to collect enough signatures to qualify a referendum to overturn the act on this November’s state ballot.

The late December incident comes along with numerous threats that have been made to his office in Sacramento, he said.

He said he has always carried a weapon but these incidents have underscored his need for having one.

Donnelly was cited Wednesday morning after Transportation Security Administration officers found a loaded handgun in his carry-on bag at an L.A./Ontario International Airport checkpoint.

“I’m not going to go publicly into detail because that’s just not prudent,” Donnelly said Thursday. “What I will say is that our office in the Capitol received multiple death threats.”

The threats also have been sent by email, he said.

To read entire story, click here.

UPLAND – A week later: It’s still open.

Medical marijuana collective G3 Holistics Inc. continues to be open for business, but it may not be so for long.

The collective at Suite F4 at 1710 W. Foothill Blvd. has been keeping regular hours from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily since reopening last Friday.

But on Thursday, attorneys for the city served papers saying they want to shut down G3, said Roger Jon Diamond, who represents the cooperative in its efforts to remain open in Upland.

The case is scheduled to be heard at 8:30 this morning in Department R9 in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga, Diamond said.

“We say the city is wasting tax money because if the (state) Supreme Court denies our petition for review the appeal would be over at that time,” Diamond said. “So why not wait for Supreme Court to act?”

On Nov. 9, a judgment by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Riverside determined Upland’s banning of the collective did not contradict Proposition 215, the 1996 law that approved medical marijuana in the state, nor Senate Bill 420, which details the amount of marijuana a person can possess for medical purposes.

Collective president Aaron Sandusky and Diamond said their appeal of the the Upland case to the Supreme Court could be heard in February.

Sandusky said he believes G3 Holistics was able to reopen in Upland because he had filed a stay against the injunction obtained by Upland,

“The point is if the state Supreme Court says no to us, (Sandusky) closes,” Diamond said on Thursday. “So shouldn’t we wait for the Supreme Court to act? That’s the question. There’s no emergency that requires immediate action. We dispute the stay dissolved. The stay of appeal lasts until the Supreme Court acts in this case.”

To read entire story, click here.

By Michael B. Marois and James Nash – Jan 5, 2012 9:01 PM P

California (STOCA1) Governor Jerry Brown proposed a budget that would lop off the equivalent of three weeks from the public school year if voters reject his proposal for $7 billion in temporary tax increases.

The $92.6 billion spending plan Brown unveiled yesterday for the year that starts in July boosts spending by 7 percent from the current year, even though the state faces a $9.2 billion deficit. The increase is to be financed through economic growth (BCAX), higher income taxes on those making at least $250,000 a year and expanded sales levies.

Brown, a 73-year-old Democrat who approved $16 billion in cuts last June, said the state would have to slash another $4.8 billion from education if voters fail to approve his tax plan at the polls in November. The largest U.S. state by population has perennial budget crises and Standard & Poor’s worst credit rating among its peers.

“It’s the most expensive ransom note in California political history,” Dan Schnur, a former aide to Republican Governor Pete Wilson and now director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

Brown wants to raise income taxes on individuals making at least $250,000 a year to 10.3 percent from 9.3 percent. For those earning $300,000 to $500,000, the rate would climb to 10.8 percent. For single filers with income above $500,000, the tax would rise to 11.3 percent. Californians with income of more than $1 million are now taxed at 10.3 percent.

Sales Taxes

He also wants to boost retail sales taxes to 7.75 percent from 7.25 percent. The higher income and sales levies would expire after five years.

Brown has been trying to forge a coalition with unions and some business groups to raise the money needed to gather enough signatures to put the measures on the ballot. His effort for a voter initiative on higher taxes last year was blocked by Republican lawmakers.

“There are people who say we shouldn’t scare the voters,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, told reporters in the capitol yesterday. “I agree with that. But on the other hand, it is our obligation, the governor’s obligation, to inform the voters. The voters aren’t going to want to lose three weeks of the school year.”

Brown dismissed the notion that he was threatening to cut school funding to win support for his tax increase. His finance director, Ana Matosantos, noted that public schools, from kindergarten through 12th grade, account for 40 percent of state spending.

‘Where the Money Is’

“That’s where the money is,” Brown told reporters at a news briefing yesterday.

The new budget, Brown’s second since taking office one year ago, would slice $4.2 billion from existing spending, including almost $1 billion from welfare and another $842 million from the state’s health insurance program for the poor. School spending will increase by $4 billion, or 11 percent under his plan.

Brown’s proposal to cut health-care and welfare programs while maintaining education spending illustrates the disparate view voters have of those expenditures, Schnur said.

“There are lot more Californians who attended public school, or who have kids in school, than who receive health-care or welfare benefits,” Schnur said. “This budget recognizes the vast political difference between cuts in one versus the other.”

Health, Welfare Cuts

Brown’s budget also finances a shift in some health, welfare and prison programs to counties, which he has called realignment. His ballot measure also would include a constitutional protection of the money needed to keep paying counties for those services.

“The state of California (STOCA1) is a very generous, compassionate political jurisdiction,” Brown said. “When we have to cut spending, that spending is going to come from programs that are doing a lot of good. It’s not nice. We don’t like it. But the economy and tax statutes of California make just so much money available.”

The $4.8 billion additional cut in education would be automatic if voters turn down Brown’s tax increase. Similar so- called trigger cuts aren’t new. Last month, Brown had to make $1 billion in additional cuts, including eliminating a $258 million busing subsidy, and trimming $230 million from higher education and $200 million in programs that help the elderly and disabled, after revenue fell below his estimates.

 To read entire story, click here.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, was cited and released today after being found with a .45 caliber handgun in his luggage at Ontario airport.

BY JIM MILLER
jmiller@pe.com
Published: 04 January 2012 10:38 AM

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly was stopped at Ontario airport this morning after security line officers discovered a handgun in his luggage, his office said this morning.

Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, was cited and released, a spokeswoman said. He faces a misdemeanor charge.

Donnelly had forgotten that he had an unloaded .45 handgun in his luggage when he went through security, spokeswoman Cassandra Joiner said. Donnelly missed his earlier flight and is now scheduled to land in Sacramento in a short while.

To read entire story, click here.

Former San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputy Nathan Gastineau sits during his preliminary hearing in a San Bernardino Superior Courtroom December 15, 2011. Gastineau, 30, of Redlands, is charged with sexual acts with a teenaged female Explorer. (Gabriel Luis Acosta, Staff Photographer)

Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/03/2012 04:17:20 PM PST

SAN BERNARDINO – A Redlands girl who says she was sexually abused by a former sheriff’s deputy while in the sheriff’s Explorer program also alleges in a civil lawsuit that administrators at the Sheriff’s Department and the Public Safety Academy, a charter school in San Bernardino, were negligent or failed to act.

Los Angeles-based attorney John West of the office of Gloria Allred filed the personal injury lawsuit on Dec. 13 in San Bernardino Superior Court on behalf of the unnamed girl and her father.

Defendants named in the lawsuit are former Deputy Nathan Gastineau, the charter school, the Sheriff’s Department and the city of Highland, according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained Tuesday.

The plaintiffs allege four main causes of action, including negligence, sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual battery, and seek an unspecified amount of general, compensatory and special damages.

“I have no comment on the matter,” West said when reached Tuesday by telephone.

Gastineau, 31, also of Redlands, was arrested in April when the Sheriff’s Department learned he may have had inappropriate sexual relations with the 16-year-old girl. By June, he was no longer a deputy.

Gastineau was charged on June 10 and is awaiting trial on five criminal counts each of committing a lewd act upon a child and two counts of having unlawful intercourse.

He has pleaded not guilty in San Bernardino Superior Court. His lawyer in the criminal case, Andrew Haynal, has challenged the girl’s statement to sheriff’s detectives.

“I think the alleged victim has a lot of discrepancies in her various statements,” Haynal told the court at a Dec. 15 preliminary hearing.

The girl met Gastineau through the Explorer program at the sheriff’s Highland station, deputies testified at the hearing.

After initially denying to detectives that she had sex with Gastineau, the girl later admitted to having sex with him about 20 times – six times before her 16th birthday, according to sheriff’s Detective Julie Brumm.

To read entire story, click here.

Wes Woods II and Sandra Emerson, Staff writers
Created: 01/04/2012 09:44:49 AM PST

UPLAND – Medical marijuana collective G3 Holistics Inc. remains open for business.

The collective at Suite F4 at 1710 W. Foothill Blvd. reopened at Friday afternoon, said Aaron Sandusky, president of G3 Holistics, and is keeping regular hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily.

“The neighborhood has been very supportive,” Sandusky said on Tuesday. “Even those who don’t use (the medical pot) give us words of encouragement.”

It is Sandusky’s interpretation that he is able to reopen because he had filed a stay against an injunction obtained by Upland and is appealing the city’s prohibitions of medical marijuana dispensaries.

Upland Police Chief Jeff Mendenhall referred a reporter on Tuesday to City Hall for a comment.

“The city is working with the city attorney to identify the city’s options,” said Stephanie Mendenhall, the administrative services director on Tuesday.

G3 Collective opened in Upland in 2009 and closed in August 2010 after the city filed an injunction in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga.

During the closure, G3 opened another facility in Moreno Valley at 12276 Perris Blvd., Suite B. The landlord was the same as the Upland facility.

In 2011, G3 opened a facility at 1231 E. Washington St., Suite D in Colton.

Sandusky filed a stay against the Upland injunction and is appealing the city’s prohibitions of medical marijuana dispensaries.

A Drug Enforcement Administration raid in November closed G3. A warrant said between January and August, the total deposits to G3 accounts were more than $3.3 million while total debits were more than $3.2 million.

To read entire story, click here.

January 03, 2012 1:50 PM
Brooke Edwards Staggs, City Editor

VICTORVILLE • An attorney is seeking to recover more than $9 million in damages on behalf of 4,300 people who’ve received tickets from Victorville’s red light cameras, claiming the system is “unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and deceptive.”

Robert Conaway, a criminal defense attorney from Barstow, sent notice in early December to the city of Victorville and Redflex Traffic Systems that he intends to file a class action lawsuit unless changes are made with the way red light cameras are handled here. He updated that notice in late December, tacking on the calculated damages.

Conaway is seeking to recover more than $2 million for each of the $490 fines paid by convicted residents, $6 million for resulting higher insurance premiums, $215,000 for legal fees paid by those who tried to fight the tickets and $860,000 to cover lost wages for those forced to miss work to attend arraignments or trials.

Along with actual damages, Conaway states he hopes to recover up to three times that amount in punitive damages from Redflex, or up to $28.5 million.

The thrust of Conaway’s argument against the cameras is that they violate civil rights because the accused don’t have the opportunity to confront their accuser, with a private, for-profit company in charge of first processing the evidence against alleged red light runners.

Conaway said he hasn’t heard any response back from either the city or Redflex since he sent his initial claim dated Dec. 9. If the two parties don’t agree within 30 days from receiving that notice to stop issuing tickets or assign San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies to watch the live video feed and issue tickets as the violations occur, Conaway said he intends to file the class action lawsuit.

A spokesman for Redflex and the city’s attorney have both previously said they don’t believe there are grounds for a lawsuit.

Victorville’s next City Council meeting — where the group can discuss the claim in closed session and potentially vote on whether to reject or agree to Conaway’s demands — is scheduled for Jan. 17

Brooke Edwards Staggs may be reached at (760) 955-5358 or at bedwards@VVDailyPress.com.

Get complete stories every day with the “exactly as printed” Daily Press E-edition, only $5 per month! Click here to try it free for 7 days. To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755, 1-800-553-2006 or click here.

.

From left, Mark Kirk, former chief of staff to Supervisor Gary Ovitt, developer Jeff Burum, former assistant assessor Jim Erwin, and former supervisor Paul Biane, at an August court appearance.(STAN LIM/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)

BY IMRAN GHORI
STAFF WRITER
ighori@pe.com

Published: 31 December 2011 05:39 PM

A panel of California appellate judges could soon be deciding how, and possibly if, the Colonies corruption case will proceed to trial.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside is considering an appeal filed by the San Bernardino County district attorney and state attorney general offices seeking to restore charges that were dismissed in August against Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum, former Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt.

The court completed briefings from prosecutors and defense attorneys on the appeal last month and also agreed to consider writs of mandate filed by the defense seeking to have more charges dismissed against the four. A decision is expected in the next few months.

The defendants will be returning to San Bernardino County Superior Court on Jan. 6 for a status hearing but the main focus now is at the appellate level. Except for discovery issues, further proceedings in the case have been suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.

Prosecutors have argued that the lower court erred in dismissing five of the seven counts against Burum and one count each against Biane, Erwin and Kirk from the original 29-count indictment that a grand jury returned in May.

The defendants are accused of taking part in a scheme to net Burum’s company, Colonies Partners, a $102 million legal settlement. Prosecutors allege the deal, approved by the Board of Supervisors in November 2006, was a result of extortion and $400,000 in bribes by Burum and intermediaries acting on his behalf. The settlement ended a lengthy legal battle over flood-control improvements on a Colonies’ development in Upland.

To read entire story, click here.

From left to right: Colonies scandal defendants Jeff Burum, Mark Kirk, Jim Erwin, and Paul Biane stand during a motion to delay their arraignment hearing in a San Bernardino Superior Courtroom

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Created: 12/30/2011 11:37:49 AM PST

Investigations into corruption in San Bernardino County advanced in fits and starts over the past year.

Prosecutors gained ground when former Supvervisor-turned-Assessor Bill Postmus agreed in March to plead guilty to bribery, conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds and to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

His testimony bolstered the case and resulted in charges against Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum and three other former county officials – former county Supervisor Paul Biane and former supervisorial chiefs of staff Mark Kirk and Jim Erwin – related to the county’s $102 million legal settlement with Colonies Partners LP in 2006.

A few months later, in August, Judge Brian McCarville dealt investigators a major blow when he dismissed five of the seven felony charges filed against Burum, citing insufficient evidence or prosecutorial error.

McCarville also dropped one charge of misappropriation of public funds against each of the other defendants.

Prosecutors have appealed McCarville’s August dismissal of the charges, while Burum’s attorney, Stephen Larson, has appealed McCarville’s upholding of the two remaining charges against Burum.

“Frankly, the last seven months have been very difficult for Jeff Burum and his family,” Larson said. “Jeff’s been accused of crimes he did not commit. We’ve known that from the start, and now it’s becoming increasingly clear to the community as the evidence and prosecution’s tactics come to light.”

State and local prosecutors maintain their case is on solid ground.

“We continue to be confident in the facts of this case, and in order to protect the integrity of the case and each defendant’s right to a fair trial, it would be inappropriate to comment any further,” District Attorney’s officials said in a statement earlier this month.

Just weeks after McCarville dismissed the charges against Burum and the other defendants in the Colonies’ case, FBI and IRS agents served search warrants at the homes and businesses of the four Colonies’ defendants and other figures tied to the investigation, including the Fontana home and business of former state Sen. Jim Brulte and the Riverside office of publicist Patrick O’Reilly.

O’Reilly’s attorney, Bill Lehman, said he was told by the FBI that O’Reilly is a witness, not a suspect, in the investigation.

Federal agents sought evidence of bribery, extortion or fraud, including “cash in an amount or concealed in such a manner as to indicate it is proceeds of criminal activity” according to one of the search warrants.

The momentum of the investigation this year seems to stem from information provided to investigators by Postmus, who pleaded guilty in March to 15 felonies tied to scandals at the Assessor’s Office and the county’s 2006 settlement with Colonies.

The settlement ended nearly five years of heated legal battle over who was responsible for paying for flood control improvements at the developer’s 434-acre Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads retail center in Upland.

To read entire story, click here.

By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
The Sacramento Bee
Published: Friday, Dec. 30, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

Attorney General Kamala Harris’ first year in office saw her dive into a massive financial crisis by ordering an investigation into mortgage meltdowns, attracting a national spotlight for California’s top cop.

After talking tough in her inauguration speech in January, Harris created task forces to tackle not only home loan practices but cybercrime and drug cartels as well.

The first woman and the first non-Caucasian to serve as California’s attorney general now gets the chance to show if she can make a difference in such complex problems.

“She’s confident, forceful and she has a dynamic mind, so it doesn’t surprise me that she was willing to take on some big problems,” said Vikram Amar, a UC Davis law professor. “Now we’ll have to see whether she can actually make a dent in them.

“Harris bowed out of multistate talks with lenders aimed at extracting a settlement of perhaps $25 billion for wrongful home foreclosures or other mortgage-related misbehavior by lenders.

The Democrat opted instead to form a 40-member California task force to investigate the approval, servicing and handling of mortgages – and to prosecute lenders, if necessary.

“She walks in the door and has the kind of mega-case that everyone wishes they had a couple years to prepare for,” said state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat and former California attorney general who applauds Harris but calls the mortgage mess “as hard a legal situation as any AG would ever have to deal with.

To read entire story, click here.

Adams

Sandra Emerson, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Created: 12/27/2011 10:24:01 AM PST

UPLAND – Former Police Chief Steve Adams is no longer being accused of extortion by operators of a closed restaurant.

Adams was dismissed from Chronic Cantina’s civil case against the city earlier this month.

The restaurant owners filed the lawsuit against the city in April in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga. They accused former Mayor John Pomierski and contractor John Hennes of extorting money from them.

Adams was accused along with Pomierski and Hennes, but the owners dropped the former police chief from the case earlier this month, according to court records.

In the lawsuit, the owners – Dan Biello and Keith Scheinberg – said they paid Pomierski and Hennes $15,000, but the city revoked their conditional- use permit when they did not pay an additional $25,000.

Council members revoked the permit in April 2009, citing an increase in crime at the restaurant and bar.

Pomierski’s attorney, Robert Schauer, filed a claim with the city last week demanding that they defend Pomierski in the case according to government code. He said he will file a lawsuit if the city does not agree to defend him in the case.

The city hired a third-party private investigator to look into accusations made in the lawsuit against Adams.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 12/24/2011 06:11:58 AM PST

San Bernardino County’s imposition of labor terms on a law enforcement union could have longstanding ramifications on its relationship with the bargaining group.

On Tuesday, the county’s probation corrections officers, deputy coroner’s investigators and welfare fraud investigators, comprising the Special Peace Officers bargaining unit of the San Bernardino County Safety Employee Benefits Association (SEBA), voted unanimously to accept labor terms proposed by an arbitrator in October.

The vote came after the unit had rejected three previous contract offers – two by the county and the final being by the arbitrator in October.

On Dec. 13, the Board of Supervisors took its most aggressive action to date with a labor union, giving the bargaining unit an ultimatum: Accept what the arbitrator offered in October or the county would impose its “last, best and final offer” from June, which would mean a 14 percent cut in pay and benefits.

It gave the unit no choice but to accept, in the union’s mind, the lesser of two evils.

SEBA President Laren Leichliter said the county’s actions will have a strong impact on its relations with SEBA.

Under the leadership of former SEBA President Jim Erwin, the union’s endorsement of a candidate for public office often tipped the scales heavily in favor of that candidate.

Erwin, whose political savvy and negotiating skills elevated SEBA to its most powerful status in the county, declined to comment.

“We’re not happy they imposed this on us,” said Leichliter. “If that’s the way they’re going to play, then of course we have to take that into account. Will it affect our political campaigns? Yes!”

Supervisors Neil Derry and Brad Mitzelfelt opposed the county’s imposition of the labor terms, which was avoided Tuesday after 72 percent of the bargaining unit’s members who voted chose the arbitrator’s offer from October.

Derry said he believed such an imposition was a bad precedent for the county to set, and he felt there was still room on the negotiating table.

Greg Devereaux, the county’s chief executive officer, said the county’s severe budget crisis is leaving the county no choice but to make such choices.

The county is looking at a budget deficit of more than $120 million over the next five years and still has to trim its current budget by more than $50million. The alternative: layoffs.

“I think it’s unfortunate, but I think the majority of the board understands the severity of the county’s financial condition, and the choice becomes pretty simple,” Devereaux said. “The choice becomes are you going to ask employees to participate and give up some of their compensation to pay for their own portion of retirement…or are we going to reduce the number of employees and the level of service?”

To read entire story, click here.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, one of the high court’s more conservative members, says the death penalty is no longer working for the state.

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
December 24, 2011

Reporting from San Francisco— Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who heads the state’s judicial branch and its highest court, said in an interview that the death penalty is no longer effective in California and suggested she would welcome a public debate on its merits and costs.

During an interview in her chambers, as she prepared to close up shop for the holidays, the Republican appointee and former prosecutor made her first public statements about capital punishment a year after she took the helm of the state’s judiciary and at a time when petitions are being gathered for an initiative to abolish the death penalty.

“I don’t think it is working,” said Cantil-Sakauye, elevated from the Court of Appeal in Sacramento to the California Supreme Court by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “It’s not effective. We know that.”

California’s death penalty requires “structural change, and we don’t have the money to create the kind of change that is needed,” she said. “Everyone is laboring under a staggering load.”

In response to a question, she said she supported capital punishment “only in the sense I apply the law and I believe the system is fair…. In that sense, yes.”

But the chief justice quickly reframed the question.

“I don’t know if the question is whether you believe in it anymore. I think the greater question is its effectiveness and given the choices we face in California, should we have a merit-based discussion on its effectiveness and costs?”

Cantil-Sakauye’s comments suggest a growing frustration with capital punishment even among conservatives and a resignation that the system cannot be fixed as long as California’s huge financial problems persist.

Her predecessor, retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, was similarly disheartened. A former prosecutor who defended the state’s death penalty before the U.S. Supreme Court, George concluded in his later years on the California Supreme Court that the system was “dysfunctional.”

Cantil-Sakauye, 53, alluded to the proposed ballot measure to replace the death penalty with life without possibility of parole but declined to say whether she supported that plan.

“That really is up to the voters or to the Legislature,” she said, asking whether the criminal justice system can “make better use of our resources.”

In her first year on the state high court, Cantil-Sakauye has more often sided with its conservative justices than its more moderate jurists, said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the court. He said her early track record shows her as more conservative than George, who was a key swing vote on the seven-member court.

Uelmen called the chief justice’s comments on the death penalty “powerful” and said they confirmed what he has been hearing privately — that even the conservatives on the California Supreme Court have grown disillusioned with the state’s capital punishment system.

Men and women on death row are far more likely to die of old age than by the executioner’s needle. Litigation has brought executions to a halt, and there is a shortage of lawyers willing to take capital cases. Inmates must wait an average of five years before getting lawyers to bring their first appeal.

Cantil-Sakauye has written a ruling affirming a death sentence and joined other justices’ decisions upholding capital sentences since her elevation to the high court last January. Her biggest ruling came in a Proposition 8 case in which she said initiative sponsors have the right to defend their ballot measures in court when state officials refuse to do so.

The chief justice indicated during the interview that she is probably still too new on the court for outsiders to assess her judicial philosophy. Most of her first year was dominated by administrative matters, particularly budget cuts, she said.

She spends more time with Justice Marvin R. Baxter than any other member of the court because he serves with her on the Judicial Council, the policymaking body for the judiciary, she said. Baxter is considered the court’s most conservative member.

Cantil-Sakauye took the reins of the court system in the midst of crisis. She was in office only a few days when a state audit was released blasting the administrative office of the courts for mismanaging a costly computer system, casting the organization she presides over as financially reckless, secretive and bloated.

Citing the audit, two legislators publicly called on her to fire William Vickrey, then head of the Administrative Office of the Courts, which runs the court system. She bristled at the interference, calling the demand “a serious attempt to interfere with judicial branch governance and my ability to evaluate the AOC’s management team.”

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Created: 12/21/2011 10:31:20 AM PST

A union representing San Bernardino County public- safety employees has agreed to labor terms proposed by an arbitrator in June that averts 14 percent pay and benefits cuts to certain employees, the county announced Wednesday.

On Tuesday, 73.5 percent of the 277 members of SEBA’s Specialized Peace Officers bargaining unit, composed of probation corrections officers, deputy coroner investigators and welfare-fraud investigators, voted in favor of the new labor terms.

The new terms include the elimination of the county’s

7 percent pickup of the employees’ share of retirement contributions, a reduction in step increases – annual merit raises – from 5 percent to 2.5 percent, and the union dropping a lawsuit it filed earlier this year challenging the county’s refusal to grant the employees a 3 percent at 50 retirement benefits package common with sworn law-enforcement employees.

“I’m happy with the agreement right now because I think it’s the best deal for the group right now,” said Laren Leichliter, the president of the San Bernardino County Safety Employee Benefits Association, or SEBA, the union representing the employees.

Members of the bargaining unit will get to keep their take-home vehicles and not face an additional 7 percent cut to their salaries, which the Board of Supervisors approved last week after the union declined initial proposals by an arbitrator on two separate occasions, the last being in June.

“I’m not happy with (the county), but it wasn’t anything they strayed from in the beginning,” Leichliter said. “They just followed through with what they said they were going to do.”

The county began collective bargaining with the unit in February and reached two separate agreements with the unit’s negotiators. In October, both sides went into arbitration, but the unit rejected both proposals presented to them by their negotiator, forcing the county to take more aggressive action.

At the last Board of Supervisors meeting on Dec. 13, the board voted 3-2, with supervisors Brad Mitzelfelt and Neil Derry dissenting, to impose the county’s “last, best and final” offer before the unit went into arbitration. The county took further action by also imposing the 7 percent salary cut and the elimination of take home vehicles to the employees.

To read entire story, click here.

Money & Company
Tracking the market and economic trends that shape your finances.
December 20, 2011 | 2:43 pm

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris has filed suit against mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for refusing to answer subpoenas issued to the companies this year.

The suits, filed Tuesday in San Francisco County Superior Court, comes after investigators with the state attorney general’s office presented the two firms with questions regarding their foreclosure, lending and mortgage-related practices in the state.

The subpoenas ask the government-controlled finance companies to answer questions about their activities in California, including their roles as landlords that own thousands of foreclosed properties, The Times previously reported. The attorney general’s office is also seeking details of Fannie and Freddie’s mortgage-servicing and home-repossession practices.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 12/19/2011 05:22:30 PM PST

Seven current and former employees of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, accused of forging training documents for increased pay in a decade-long scam, appeared briefly in San Bernardino Superior Court Monday for a pre-trial hearing.

Lawyers agreed to another continuance and set a new pretrial date for March 23.

It has been more than nine months since the defendants were indicted following a criminal grand jury inquiry.

“I think this is typical for a case like this,” prosecutor Dan Silverman said. “Here we have seven defendants and seven defense attorneys.”

He said the delays are due in part to extensive discovery — the process in which both the prosecution and the defense exchange their information and/or evidence in preparation for trial.

It is also a time when culpability is more carefully evaluated and plea bargains are oftentimes struck.

“That’s basically where we’re at right now — sorting out where the parties are,” Silverman said. “It’s a time for the defense attorneys to speak to me, make sure that everybody has all the discovery that’s necessary and to see if we’re headed for trial or if there’s anything to consider before moving forward to trial.”

Charged in the case are retired sheriff’s Capt. Hobart Gray, who commanded the sheriff’s Yucaipa station; his wife and former sheriff’s training specialist Angela Gray; retired Assistant Sheriff Michael Stodelle; Lt. Russell Wilke, former training specialist secialist Sallyann Christian; retired Deputy David Pichotta; and retired Lt. Bill Maddox.

Wilke and Christian are the only two defendants who remain employed at the department, though they have been reassigned to the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, where Wilke remains a lieutenant and Christian a custody specialist, sheriff’s spokeswoman Jodi Miller said.

To read entire story, click here.

The aircraft pictured above, now valued as worthless, was used as collateral for a $500,000 public loan to contractor Scot Spencer.

Monday, December 19, 2011 – 10:15 a.m.

Nice try. But it’s too late!

Too late, for those involved, to runaway from the mess at the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) and Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) that is.

All the elected officials, current and former, ever associated with the two agencies are throwing contractor Scot Spencer under the bus.

As they should.

This is a scandal that’s going to take-down a lot of people. And attempting to play the handy Monopoly “Get Out of Jail Free” card isn’t going to work.

Even though both agencies were ran like a monopoly board.

An ongoing federal investigation is going to ferret out just what happened, who was paid, and who was involved.

All the official pronouncements of “we’re cleaning house” just won’t do here.

Though it is entertaining to say the least.

Let’s face it. If the Fed’s hadn’t rolled in the door the same malfeasance would have continued on without a glitch.

Remember all the public defending by San Bernardino Mayor Pat Morris and County Supervisor Josie Gonzales?

They were both outraged at the criticism of the money wasted.

Remember all the “agency paid for” reports and studies saying the airport is viable?

Almost $200,000,000 has been blown on the former Norton Air Force Base.

By the way some are acting, one would think it was just $200,000.

BY IMRAN GHORI
STAFF WRITER
ighori@pe.com

Published: 16 December 2011 09:49 PM

A union representing San Bernardino County public safety employees will vote again on a previously rejected contract as it faces a possible 14 percent pay and benefit cut.

The Specialized Peace Officer unit of the Safety Employees Benefit Association will vote Monday and Tuesday on a two-year contract recommended by an arbitrator, according to the union. Ballots will be counted Wednesday.

If the 380 members of the unit fail to approve the contract by Thursday, the county will impose its last, best offer in which workers would face even more pay and benefit reductions. Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors agreed to impose its final offer on the group if it did not accept the previous offer by that deadline.

Affected employees include coroner’s investigators, probation correctional officers and welfare fraud investigators.

Under the final offer, those employees would see a 7 percent cut in salary and lose a 7 percent county pickup of retirement contributions. The county also would eliminate a flexible benefit plan for medical expenses, reduce the amount of holiday leave the employees can take and no longer allow them to take county vehicles home. Employees who get promotions would get 2.5 percent salary increases instead of 5 percent, under the plan.

The county and the union have been negotiating since February over a new contract. They twice reached tentative agreements that were rejected by the union membership. The parties agreed to nonbinding arbitration in October, but the union membership rejected the arbitrator’s recommendation last month.

To read entire story, click here.

A ferry passes by San Quentin Prison in 2002. (Eric Risberg / Associated Press)

By Carol J. Williams Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 16, 2011, 12:50 p.m.

A judge on Friday threw out California’s new lethal-injection protocols, which have been six years in the making, because corrections officials failed to consider a one-drug execution method now in practice in other death penalty states.

The action by Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal sends the state back to square one in redrafting procedures for lethal-injection executions. The death penalty has been on hold for six years in California after a federal court ruling deemed the previously used three-drug method unconstitutional because it might inflict pain amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.

D’Opal said in her 22-page ruling that the state’s failure to consider replacing the former execution practice with a single-injection method violated state law and ignored the courts’ and public criticism of the previous protocols.

The de facto moratorium on executions imposed by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in February 2006, when he halted the scheduled lethal-injection execution of convicted murderer Michael A. Morales, has remained in place despite the state’s revision of the procedures to address Fogel’s concerns. Attorneys for Morales and other condemned inmates have made additional challenges to the new execution protocols, and Fogel left the bench earlier this year to head a judicial academic center in Washington.

To read entire story, click here.

By Jon Ortiz
jortiz@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Dec. 17, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

For months, Attorney General Kamala Harris has warned that a mandated budget cut enacted by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature last July would force her to let go of hundreds of Justice Department employees, most of them sworn officers.

Now, after several cost-cutting moves, Harris told staff this week that she’ll lay off just a third of the 322 jobs originally on the chopping block.

“We have been able to significantly reduce the impact these cuts will have on this department and reduce the number of sworn layoffs to 102 and the number of non-sworn to 21,” Harris said in a Tuesday department email obtained by The Bee.

The 2011-12 budget that took effect July 1 calls for a $35 million cut to the Justice Department’s Division of Law Enforcement budget and anticipates a similar slice for the next fiscal year.

Special agents of the division’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement took the biggest hit. The bureau, which works on drug cases and complex investigations with state, local and federal law enforcement, will be virtually eliminated.

Lawmakers and Brown mandated the cuts, so Harris couldn’t spread them to other units in her department. She lobbied to no avail for more money or to have discretion to spread the cuts as she saw fit.

Meanwhile a group representing special agents whose jobs are in jeopardy sued Brown and his finance director, Ana Matosantos, alleging that the layoffs are “obvious political retaliation” for their union’s endorsement of Brown’s Republican opponent in 2010.

They also have launched a media and Internet campaign to let Harris decide where to make department cuts.

To read entire story, click here.