Richard Warne, the city manager for 29 Palms, was quoted in the local newspaper, The Desert Trail, as follows: “…ironically, the state’s financial officials gave the city $200,000 for litigation expenses relating to the dissolution of the redevelopment agency.”
Seems pretty innocent until you examine the words that are used and then do as I did seek out from our councilmembers what they were told in closed session.
The operative word in Warne’s statement is “dissolution”. He is correct that the State has provided $200,000.00 for litigation expenses. He is also correct in his quote to the paper that the $200,00.00 is for the “dissolution” of the former RDA and its various debts or contracts if any.
But what Warne and the city attorney told the council was that the State provided $200,000.00 for non-specific legal expenses and that is simply a plain misstatement of the truth as reflected in his clarification as reported by The Desert Trail.
Several councilmembers walked out of that closed session thinking that the State provided $200,000.00 to the city of 29 Palms in order to have the city sue the State. They thought, due to the spin of city staff, that the State welcomed a lawsuit and was willing to pay our city to file a lawsuit in order to finalize the answer that Project Phoenix was dead. They thought, due to staff, that the State was tired of telling the city of 29 Palms “no” and was more than willing to pay the city $200,000.00 to get an answer from a judge that the answer was “no”.
Of course contact with the State this week about this paying 29 Palms money to sue the State has resulted in rather boisterous laughter from State officials.
The State is very clear, money for legal expenses has been provided to 29 Palms for the “dissolution” of the former RDA and not for the continuation of a defunct project.
So how did five rather smart people get bamboozled and how did they buy into a ruse of rather apparent contradictions?
My estimation is that our local leaders have for some reason lost their ability to lead and direct. They have bought into the divisive strategy that Warne has brought with him from every city he has ever been a part of. Our council is now no longer a team that acts for the interests of the city. Instead they have become pawns of a city staff member that manipulates them for his own designs.
As it stands right now our local taxing entities that should have been the benefactor of the dissolution of the RDA, such entities as our schools, college, and hospital, will continue to receive less of the tax dollars that they should be getting because our council apparently can’t discern a ruse from a solid plan for economic growth.
Meanwhile $200,000.00 will go to Rutan and Tucker, the cities law firm, and $600,000.00 a year will be placed into an account for the next 30 years so as to pay back 31 million in bonds that to date have built or bought nothing.
One can only imagine what our schools, college, and hospital could have done with that money had our council been a bit more skeptical and inquisitive over the last 2 years but as it stands right now we are over the half a million mark in tax expenditures and nothing to show for it.
As always Steve you make a pretty cogent arguments and are a true citizen watchdog. However the council being bamboozled is not something I do not buy into.
The council stumbles all over themselves one every word the city manager (and Munzo) feeds them without using their cognitive skills (if they have any). They should have tabled this matter so as to educate themselves. That’s the problem, if you get bamboozled once shame on the city manager, if you get bamboozled constantly, shame on the city council.
When are they going accept responsibility for their own actions and inaction, and quit blaming Warne? That’s like children always blaming someone else.
Warne is not the problem: The city council is the problem. Because, as they often do, they have their anterior motives.
Best thing to do is recall at least town two of these failures.
Another issue: Everyone ought to read Paul Smith’s flowering letter dated Feb.27 to the editor in the TRAIL on how wonderful Richard Warne has been for 29.
Entitled:”Four cheers for Richard Warne”
http://www.hidesertstar.com/the_desert_trail/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_5ac82fb0-8129-11e2-865c-0019bb2963f4.html
As always Steve you make a pretty cogent arguments and are a true citizen watchdog. However the council being bamboozled is not something I do not buy into.
The council stumbles all over themselves one every word the city manager (and Munzo) feeds them without using their cognitive skills (if they have any). They should have tabled this matter so as to educate themselves. That’s the problem, if you get bamboozled once shame on the city manager, if you get bamboozled constantly, shame on the city council.
When are they going accept responsibility for their own actions and inaction, and quit blaming Warne? That’s like children always blaming someone else.
Warne is not the problem: The city council is the problem. Because, as they often do, they have their anterior motives.
Best thing to do is recall at least town two of these failures.
Another issue: Everyone ought to read Paul Smith’s flowering letter dated Feb.27 to the editor in the TRAIL on how wonderful Richard Warne has been for 29.
Entitled:”Four cheers for Richard Warne”
http://www.hidesertstar.com/the_desert_trail/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_5ac82fb0-8129-11e2-865c-0019bb2963f4.html
Branson,
You are right. Warne doesn’t need to be blamed. The responsibility of the decisions made belong to the city council. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Warne does need to be blamed. He is the professional and gets paid rather large sums to make the right decisions. The council is to blame for not holding him accountable.
You know I hate to ask, but what decision did he make without council approval? He does make his opinion known, but he still can’t run the show without 3 city council members say so.
Your are right. By decisions I should have said “right” decisions in regards to options.
He has pushed this Project Phoenix since day one and has never offered the option to simply bow out, defease the bonds, and move on. Or did I miss something in the two years of presentations by Warne?
Steve,
but again, if City Council is upset with his lack of options, they, now “we” should call him on it. and in fact Jim has done so, when Hogle Ireland was the only option offered for the housing update. So Warne brought other options and we in fact went with another firm.
Copy on that – perhaps you and Jim are the ones that I agree with and hope that the two of you can bring back sanity to this city.
I know both of you are in a up hill fight and I and others appreciate both your efforts.
It is from homogenization or more fittingly the dumbing down of councils state wide by the league of ca cities, much of what is wrong in 29 is going on in most if not all cities. The league hosts shinny retreats for council in places like Monterey to keep council members inline with the path set by the lobbyist / consultants, who see the cities as an easy path to enrichment. Over the years I couldn’t help but notice how many go as independent thinkers only to return as part of the pack, unable to sift through the BS and settling with the limited choices put forth by those embedded in the established extraction of the people’s wealth.
As long as council members follow the direction of the league of CA cities we will never attain the leadership potential 29 has.
We have a major revenue source from the base payroll, the council need to ask why there are not more offerings, what is stopping people like I who would develop the commercial in front of the drive in? I am setting on plans for an indoor expansion. The league of CA cities would tell the council members to give a large out of town exhibitor like Edwards theaters a tax break to get a theater in 29, of course Edwards lobbies heavily and have profited from RDAs and tax breaks. Meanwhile the small business owner who would pay his own way gets shafted.
Council wake up let the local businesses compete in the open and free market.
Just for kicks, I want to ask if anybody on the Council knows what is required for the housing update? Our CM/Frankie sold our Council on the idea of hiring a consultant (once again) to do the job our $150,000 per year Planning Director (new title now of Community Services Dir.)should be able to do. His job description specifically requires that he be able to prepare a General Plan – which he did not do, and was done by outside consultants. Frankie said that because of AB244 the Housing Update was so complex and the regs so new, that our own employee could not do it – at a cost of $50,000. So I called the HCD in Sacto, something our city council had not done but should have as part of their job, and inquired re AB244. I was told that AB244 would not affect most cities, including La Quinta, and was told furthermore, that the regs and requirements for AB244 [aka sphere of influence reporting] had not even been written yet…that LAFCO was writing those regs…and guess who sits on LAFCO???…one of our councilmembers. I asked HCD how many cities used outside consultants for their housing updates…she said it is not complex and most of the info can be extracted from the Gen. Plan and a lot of it is checking boxes…and she guesed about 50% of the cities used consultants, especially those “who do not have a professional planner on staff”…which means that we are paying a $150,000 salary for a non-professional planner. It’s only taxpayer money..what do these councils care?
LINGAG,
Just for your information, in mid 2012 LAFCO expanded the City’s sphere by 23,810 acres.
Which LAFCO, Which City?
Dan, exactly what I was going to ask.
Oh, and end of story re La Quinta, at the next meeting following the approval of hiring outside consultants to do our own employee’s job of preparing the housing update… IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAD JUST FOUND OUT THAT LA QUINTA IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER AB 244 AFTER ALL, AND HE, I REPEAT HE, SAVED US $15K CAUSE NOW THE CONSULTANTS ARE ONLY CHARGING US $35K….for a report that should be done by our own $150,000 PROFESSIONAL PLANNING DIRECTOR and his staff. Now, if we are not required to do the reporting under AB244, which was their justification for hiring a consultant in the first place, why don’t we save ourselves the entire $50k and do the work ourselves? That might require our staff to actually do some critical thinking to figure out how to do this report and we certainly would not want that…their heads might explode if they actually had to engage their brains. Oh, and our brilliant Mayor commented at this meeting that we should give our Planning Director a raise for saving us the $15k…you know, for doing his homework AFTER HE BRINGS THE REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL!
Yeah Mayor Adolph!
Let’s give our Planning Director a raise
FOR NOT DOING HIS JOB!
(I needed to throw that in to get it off my chest.)
…and how did that affect your housing element update report?…do you even know? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I find these City/Town Managers throw out information that is not accurate and the Councils do not understand, but nobody is willing to ask questions for fear they will appear as though they do not know “everything”. So Councils, and other members, sit and bobble head and push the green for “go ahead and waste some more of the taxpayers money” button…and the general public thinks that the Council and others know what they are doing, and they don’t…and the person who knows that the Council and others don’t know what they are doing is the City/Town Managers, who use this ignorance to their advantage. That is why you have City/Town Managers running the whole show…nobody else knows what is really going on and they are chagrined to admit it. I believe you are on the Planning Commission of your town. Please make it a policy to ask stupid questions, especially of your Town Manager, and especially when it comes to no-bid, single bidder contracts.
If the State determines this is the wrongful use of legal fees I presume that your town will be stuck with these costs??? These Councils do not do their homework. They are a joke. These cities are a terrible misuse of our tax dollars. Shut them down.
Again Linda this is one of those “gray” areas where you and I as well as millions of other Americans just do not understand how this stuff happens.
There is no improper use of these monies at all by the city. The interpretation of “litigation” is broad.
The city asked for litigation money and the State provided it. You and I and the millions of others see that the money should be used for legal counsel and any litigation that may arise from the ultimate “dissolution” of the RDA certainly not in the furtherance of the defunct RDA.
The laughter at the State was more in the vein of – I hope you have more than $200,000.00 because the State has lawyers upon lawyers upon lawyers.
This is an ethics question as I see it. I would simply try my best if I were on the council to get to the dissolution of the old RDA as fast as possible. Others want to continue the spending.
What seems to get lost is “intent”. I am sure that the State “intended” for allowance of legal fees to pay for the winding down costs and costs of DEFENDING the cities against lawsuits that may be brought as a result of that winding down process, i.e. contractors, etc., not for the initiation of litigation, especially against the State (which will only result in a delay of the winding down process). These Council members know this fact in their gut,but they are gutless; they get led by the nose by the C/T Managers and City Attorneys, and the cronies/hangers on who feed at the taxpayer trough.
I am still not sure how the fab five can be bamboozled when it is clear by two separate definitions, one, a basic definition and the second the legal definition that the money is to dissolve the RDA.
Definition of dissolution (n)
act of breaking something down: the separating, decomposing, or disintegrating of something into smaller or more basic constituents
breakup of something: the process of breaking up or destroying an organization or institution
formal ending of meeting: the formal closing of a meeting or assembly
DISSOLUTION LAW AND LEGAL DEFINITION:
Dissolution is the act of bringing to an end. It is the act of rendering a legal proceeding null, or changing its character.
The term has varied meanings. For example:
Under contract law, dissolution is the cancellation or termination of a contract or other legal relationship by the parties. For example, dissolution of marriage.
Under corporate law, it is the last stage of liquidation. Dissolution is the process by which a company is brought to an end.
it is apparent that either Mr. Warne intentionally failed to mention that word or maybe once you get past, say, Joshua Tree, definitions common to the rest of the world to not pertain.
I have talked with a Dept of Finance Lead Analyst that has worked with 29 on many of the letters and memos back and forth. I also talked to legal counel and RDA specialists from League of California Cities.
DOF reports that they are broadly interpreting the litigation requests and are neither surprised or against a city requesting litigation money and using it in a law suit.
So those are the facts without embelishment.
Thanks Cora,
One still wonders what our schools, the college, and the hospital could have done with this money had we had a council two years ago that knew the difference and the reality of whose money they were spending and for whom.
29 is a poster child for what not to do in my opinion. Perhaps after another 1/2 million of our tax dollars our council will do what is morally and ethically right.
Cora, I repeat, I don’t know you, or know anything about you other than the fact that you are recently elected and had much support on this blog, with posts saying kind things about you and how much they believe in your desire to do good things for your town. I am a supporter based upon that info.
I am impressed that you are taking the time to contact the various agencies to gather information. Please make it your policy to ASK STUPID QUESTIONS. We are all on a learning curve when it comes to gov and policy as that information changes all the time. If you view your job on the council with the seriousness that you should, it is a job with great responsibility to the people you serve. it is not small town politics. “All politics are local”…somebody said…and that is because all politics have to do with the people…politics are about serving the average citizens period. The well-to-do/connected can take care of themselves. Listen to your gut in your decisions when others are trying to use their “seniority” to push you around. The evidence is that they don’t know what they are doing…they just vote in lockstep because they are told they are not “team players” if they don’t. We want people with conviction, not lemmings. Your supporters will have your back if you maintain your integrity.
LindaG,
Thank you for your support. I agree that this is a job that has great responsibility and I do take it seriously. I appreciate your understanding of the learning curve and I plan to take the advice of asking more questions and encouraging open discussion. I am going to try to never leave a closed session or city council meeting without asking the “stupid” questions.
I’ll be watching and listening. It won’t be easy to maintain your integrity and live by your convictions, but remember, which is worse, compromising your integrity or pissing off another councilmember(s) as you search for the truth? And don’t be afraid to reach our for help from the public asking them to come to the council meetings to speak out in your support. I want to help make change in my City of La Quinta and I know people in your town do as well…that fact is clearly reflected on this blog. Have some “town hall” type meetings with your residents and keep them in the loop and they will be there when you need them. Don’t hide behind closed sessions…its creepy.
Cora, I am going to call you out on this one….first of all, rule of grammar is that it is “neither/nor” not “neither/or”…just to get that off my chest.
Now, I would like to know the names of the individuals you are talking with at DOF and the League of Cal. Cities, because I, too, have been talking with all of them including SCO and County Counsel, and every one of them give me different answers to the same questions. So, let’s compare notes, take names, and hold their feet to the fire for the answers they give. This is ridiculous that nobody knows how to do their job or what the laws are that they are charged with enforcing…AGAIN! Everybody in gov getting these big paychecks and nobody knows what the hell they are doing….no wonder things are so f—-d up!
Snark Snark
I know, I have had the Grammar Police after me many times…it is pithy, isn’t it…I’m gonna blame hormones.
Dan, is that pre-Algadones?
Richard Warne, the city manager, is to blame right along with the city Council,
in my opinion the money spent or should I say wasted, should come out of the city manager’s pocket. It seems to me the voice of the people should let city hall know that this was a very bad idea. The biggest factor in this is the city Council didn’t allow the input from the citizens of Twentynine Palms. How dare the city Council spend that kind of money without the input from the voters of Twentynine Palms.
Hi Ed,
I could not agree with you more. I know all five of these individuals and not one of them is on the “shady” side yet they voted in a closed session to spend $200,000.00 of tax dollars without any input at all from the tax payers.
I am at a loss for their conduct. Perhaps they can explain it themselves but except for Cora and maybe Jim Harris none of them will.
It is a sad state of affairs when those that we elect do things behind closed doors without even a comment from the public that elected them.
Mark my words not a one of them will surface on this blog, or in the paper, or on the radio, to explain themselves except for Cora and perhaps Jim Harris.
Steve, Doesn’t this sound very familiar, isn’t this exactly what they did in Yucca Valley, when the town Council wasted over $200,000.00 on measure U. They spent that money without any input from the voters at all, they just did. Once again this is city at his worst.