San Bernardino Seal
Forget about the “Recommendations” of the City of Twentynine Palms or Yucca Valley Council members to nominate to the County of San Bernardino to fill County seats on the Successor Agency Oversight Board. You can apply directly to the SB Board of Supervisors for consideration.
In a Successor Agency Staff report presented by Mark Nuaimi, appointed Executive Director of the Successor Agency to the Yucca Valley Redevelopment Agency, dated March 1, 2012 , he spelled out the complete history leading up to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agencies.
Nuaimi stated:
“There is no policy yet on what factors the County will take into consideration when making their appointments. In other counties, cities have suggested appointments to the Oversight Board for the county to consider. In fact, the City of 29 Palms recommended that the County appoint council members to their oversight board. In Orange County, there are examples where City Council members, City Managers and Deputy City Managers have been appointed to Oversight Boards to represent the County seats on the body.”
I wondered why Nuaimi included Orange County and made no reference to our San Bernardino County? My work was cut out for me to make phone calls to random cities (and only two towns) in our county. I sent an email to Josie Gonzales, Chair of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors for clarification on this matter and a link to Santa Barbara County story.
The City Managers and/or City Clerks in our SB County that I spoke with informed me Council members will not be nominated to the Oversight Board. In fact, in Rancho Cucamonga, their attorneys were recommending not to appoint any council members. When I asked why, I was told they determined there was a conflict of interest.
The Yucca Valley Town attorney clarified this issue at the March 6th meeting. She stated the FPPC , California Fair Political Practices Commission, regulations would apply to the Oversight Board and since they are not receiving any compensation, there is no conflict of interest other than the FPPC rulings, IE: owning/controlling property within the prescribed stated distance from the properties under consideration by the Oversight Board. However, the perception of a Conflict of Interest is a concern even if it is legal. I sent an email to Nuaimi asking if the members will be required to file form 700′s, Declaration of Economic Interests with the FPPC and have not heard back from him as yet.
I went a few steps further and found out the following Cities/Counties are accepting applications from the general public:
Solana Beach, County of Santa Barbara ( 1 Supervisor + one public member), San Ramon (1 Supervisor + one public member) , La Habra (County BOS to select 1 Supervisor + one public member), Tulare County dissolving nine RDA’s ( 1 Supervisor + 1 public member each) and Palos Verdes Peninsula recently nominated a city founder and former Mayor.
Coming back to our San Bernardino County area, I called Supervisor Janice Rutherford’s office and spoke to her Chief of Staff, Chad Mayes, who was out of town. He referred me to the Deputy Chief of Staff, Mark Taylor, who is going to research the County position and call me back next week.
I received a reply from Dan Flores, Chief of Staff for Josie Gonzales, and he wrote:
“Dear Ms. Sturges,
Thank you for your inquiry. The County of San Bernardino will have approximately 50 appointments to the various oversight boards throughout the County. Given the large number of appointees and the complexity of managing the meetings, we have asked our administrative office to recommend a strategy for the oversight board appointments.
This may include recruitment of appointees from the public. If you have an interest in serving, I would recommend that you submit a letter of interest to our Chief Executive Officer. This will ensure you are included in the process should the Board of Supervisors solicit applications from the public. For your convenience I’ve included Mr. Devereaux’s contact info below.”
Gregory C. Devereaux
Chief Executive Officer
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, Ca 92415-0120
(909) 387-5417
Margo Sturges Link to Previous Posts
You might be interested
Department of Finance Denies RDA Loan to Fontana by SB County
FPPC Slaps Planning Commissioner with $3,000 fine
The Defeat of Measure U-The New Media Factor….
Yucca Valley 30 yr. 1% Tax- Nuaimi’s Wishful Thinking…
As I See It-Yucca Valley Sidewalks
An Invitation to the RDA Wake & Viewing
Alleged cover up, SB RDA implicated
Thank you Margo… I’m dropping Cora’s name into the hopper here in Twentynine Palms. She would be look out for the county and the schools interest’s for sure.
In fact I think I am going to start a petition this weekend.
Note:YV Successor agenda not posted online at this time. Staff report in this story links to regular Town Council agenda. As soon as it is available online, I will correct the link.
Successor agency agendas for Yucca Valley are online at:
http://www.yucca-valley.org/pdf/mam/Successor_Agency/Agendas/index.html
@Mark Nuaimi-Thank you for the link to the Successor Agency agenda. I will go back into the story and correct the link.
I did look for it on the Town website under the usual meetings/agendas tab. My vision was okay the last time I checked. Always good to have another set of eyeballs as a back-up.
Thanks.
Twentynine Palms City Councilmembers are Johny Cole, Joel Klink, Jimmy Haris; Jay Corbin and Danny Mintz.
They all appointed themselves to the RDA (not a surprise).
Johnny, Joel, Jimmy, Jay, and Danny appointed themselves to the Successor Agency (What no community representation? But yet since 2008, Theatre 29 has been quietly working behinds the scene to control of $8.9 million of borrowed public finds for their own selfish purpose).
Johnny, Joel, Jimmy, Jay and Danny upon their own recommendation are seated at the Oversight Board (This smell to high heaven of self-serving conflicts of interest, and Machiavellian heavy hands and manifest cronyism).
Thus, there NO ONE from the community or from any of the special districts on the Oversight Board. Why? Because the city council continue to play games with reality monopoly. They will do anything for a duplicate city theater, even risk their integrity.
Who knew this seated city council would be the worst thing that has ever happened in City Politics.
Ben, no one from the community? Balderdash, hogwash!! The community (voters of 29 Palms) voted them into office to represent the community.
Larry, you would have been better not posting your comment.
You are essentially advocating that all local politicians — just like the “Playhouse Five” cronies on the City Council — should never be questioned because “they were voted into office to represent the community.” Only an uninformed, gullible, or crony himself would advocate such nonsense.
The “don’t question authority” doesn’t go very far in today’s political climate.
Your hatred of G.D. is well known. You don’t have to reiterate it every time you comment on the proposed community center. As you know there is more to this building other than the use of the facility by Theatre 29.
PS Larry,
Take a look the language that creates Oversight Boards. By its very nature is is not to be 100% STACKED with City Council/RDA Members/Successor Agencies/Oversight Board members. All the same people.
To add insult to injury, or rub salt in an open wound, danny mintz has conflicts of interest oozing out like an off-shore oil spill. Ane the abject arrogance of jay, jimmy, joel, danny and johnny to place themselves on the Oversight Board is outrageous AND unacceptable if not ethically corrupt.
An excellent example of how the quest for power compromises personal ethic absolutely.
P.S.- P.S. Larry,
No one mentioned G.D’s name in any of the comments in here, or in the instant story. It seems to me that when Theatre 29 is called into attention for being self-serving, you immediately think GD. Your problem, not mine.
How about for a change, Larry, you talk the issues? Please explain why it’s okay for the same five councilmen to be on the Oversight Board, while elbowing out appointees from public safety, fire agencies and education sectors in this community.
We all know the “Playhouse Five” have a single agenda.
Because you equate Theatre 29 with G.D. As to Danny owing stock in a radio station. How does that make him having a conflict of interest supporting an amateur theatre group? And “Playhouse Five” is cute. Why don’t you acknowledge that there is more to the Community Center than the play house? It can be used for showing movies, holding movies.
Meant holding meetings.
Hi Larry,
Been watching this one.
I have complete knowledge of what Project Phoenix was going to be. You too have that knowledge. This present form of a 8.9 million dollar building was never the concept of the project.
I am working on a story that I think will show that city staff is guiding our city as opposed to those that we elected to lead our city.
The fingerprints are in the staff reports where city staff recommends this or that.
We now have Action Council 29 asking for $10,000.00 for a mural.
What do you say to that Larry!
When you and I as well as the many others that have been involved in the affairs of the city know full well that never was it the intent of the mural committee to seek tax dollars when the idea of murals was conceived.
The PAAC, Theater 29, and Action Council 29, have bought our Council through prestige that none of them would have had if they stayed as they were instead of what they have become.
Steve, the town unwisely dumped the City of Murals last year for one of the local cronies’ new art images. Now comes the annual teat-sucking Action Council 29 back for another of their breast feeding fiestas.
Larry, why don’t you defend Theatre 29 and the city council in its hot pursuit of taxpayers borrow money that descendants will be paying for the next 30 years later for a new second AND unnecessary city playhouse. Defend that Larry.
Btw, Larry, G.D. is no longer president of Theatre 29 or president of the Chamber of Commerce. That’s why I don’t bring up his name.
Defend all five of these city council gents with their fingers tightly wrapped around $$8.9 million, and the grab for all the seats on the Oversight Board, so they can get what they, you and Theatre want.
No one in city hall or you have defended their actions. Will you? Can you? Won’t you? All the public gets from this council is GLIB double speak telling the public anything that may sell. Larry, BUllshit doesn’t sell very well with voters.
In case you didn’t know, Larry, the town already has a underused community center. Oh, and, it has a senior center with a new kitchen too. We seniors do not need another senior center. Many of these folks can’t even afford the 3 bucks for a senior meal.
You people have lost your minds. I guess there are no priorities in town like infrastructures, roads, beautifications, etc.
In doing so you are at a great disadvantage because your friends on the City Council and the beneficiaries of a new playhouse (the local clique of directors, actors, writers, behinds the scene guy and others) have done NO STUDIES WHATSOEVER as the need of a fifth playhouse in the Basin, not including the theaters in high schools and the fabulous BELL THEATER.
Larry, don’t waste my time. Convince me the town needs to blow $8.7 million of taxpayers debt for a theater — do your stuff Larry, show the need; establish a priority?
From the California Attorney Generals Office:
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code Section 81000-91015) provides that “no public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.” (Section 87100.) In addition, the Act requires every public official to disclose those economic interests that could foreseeably be affected by the exercise of his or her duties.
(Sections 87200-87313.)
CONSULTANT?
The term “publicofficial’, includes consultants: “‘Public official at any level of state or local government’ means a member, officer, employee, or consultant of a state or local government agency.” (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18701(a).)
Regulation 18701(a)(2)defines “consultant” as an individual who, pursuant to a contract with a state or local government agency:
(A) Makes a governmental decision whether to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Approve a rate, rule, or regulation;
Adopt or enforce a law;
Issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license, application, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization or entitlement;
Authorize the agency to enter into, modify, or renew a contract provided it is the type of contract which requires agency approval;
Grant agency approval to a contract which requires agency approval and in which the agency is a party or to the specifications for such a contract;
Grant agency approval to a plan, design, report, study, or similar item;
Adopt, or grant agency approval of, policies, standards, or guidelines for the agency, or for any subdivision thereof;
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
-OR-
(B) Serves in a staff capacity with the agency and in that capacity performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the agency that would otherwise be performed by an individual holding a position specified in the agency’s Conflict of Interest Code.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/conflict_interest/faq_1.pdf?
Ben, I won’t waste my time or yours anymore.
Steve, I agree with you that the original Phoenix was just a small segment of downtown. It has grown due to the RDA’s being terminated. And I agree with you that the concept of the mural program was individual donations to commission the murals. I still agree with that concept. I was with Action 29 from the beginning and still support them in their goals. But I think going to the city for funding is not in the tradition of Action Council.
Larry-”It (Phoenix) has grown due to the RDA’s being terminated? I don’t understand your statement. Do you mean since your RDA has issued bonds, you are required to spend these huge amount of tax payer dollars for an enhanced and larger Phoenix project?
One further question, are you saying the Phoenix project would have stayed at the original small segment IF the RDA program were still in place?
By “securing” the private parcels now paying taxes to build a large City complexe, paying no property taxes, how are the bonds going to be paid back since there willnot be any enhanced/increased tax increment?
Last question: When was the last time 29Palms “secured” a property by eminent domain?
Hi Margo. Question #1. The bonds have been issued but but no monies other than planning have been spent to my knowledge on anything else. Question #2. Yes. Question #3 What do you mean by “securing”? Question #4 Don’t know.
Larry, I don’t want to get into the ring with you; I prefer for you to be an advocate for Phoenix — using facts, statistics, studies, reports, interviews, or genuine opinions why the Phoenix is such a PRIORITY or a necessity — when the town already has a senior center, a community center and a year-around community theater that is off-limits to the community.
You have yet to dig your heals Larry, but at times you give judo chops to those of us whom do bring out the facts. Also, seems we get a new guy in town and next thing the town has a debt bond for 30 years, and very silly things that cost mega-millions of dollars that are not needed and which do not fit into the rural Santa Fe feel of the town.
Branson says to Larry, “I don’t want to get into the ring with you;..”
Wouldn’t the walkers get in the way of one another?