REMINDER: TONIGHT IS THE FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING SINCE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT. SHOW UP AT 7:00 p.m. TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD ON THE REPORT’S FINDINGS!!
Following is part 2 of our analysis of the recently released Grand Jury report regarding the Slate’s various activities. In this edition, we will be focusing on our “favorite” Councilmember Annette Smith. Many have known for years that Mrs. Smith has an issue with her temper and close ties to many of Patterson’s power players, and the Grand Jury report confirmed both.
They found:
- Annette was a tenant of John Ramos, both with her Kudos printing business and personally via a space at one of Ramos’ storage facilities. Not only did the Grand Jury find that she never publically disclosed this relationship or recuse herself from Ramos-related matters before the Council, it also found that some of her fees to Ramos were written off.
- Along with Campo and Farinha, Annette played an instrumental role in the terminations of Cleve Morris and Rod Simpson.
- She acted on her own in an effort to stop the DP Health District move, and she participated in the illegal vote to give Ramos $27,000 without any documentation of his legal expenses.
- She failed to comply with state law by taking ethics training every 2 years as she was required.
- Along with Campo, she pressured Rod Simpson to hire Dominic as an assistant planner prior to his appointment to the City Council.
- She inappropriately berated fellow council members and constituents in public, something many of us have either seen or been subjected to ourselves.
By far, Annette’s activities received the most scrutiny from the Grand Jury, and they took the extraordinary step of urging her to resign, or if she refuses, for the community to consider recalling her. The most significant offenses involved failure to disclose her relationship to Ramos and her unwillingness to take herself out of matters before the Council involving his various business dealings. This not only taints the Council’s actions on the DP Health Center move, but also the Walmart vote, the Villages vote, and a variety of other issues that the Council has considered over the years. It is for this reason that the Grand Jury concluded that her resignation or recall was the best course for the city.
While not one of the more serious offenses, the Grand Jury also called Annette out for her outrageous behavior and treatment of those who disagree with her, not only mentioning the infamous Savemart incident but also her childish rant at a recent city council meeting after the council reversed its initial decision to appoint Buehner without going through a candidate evaluation process. What’s particularly striking about this latest incident is that she did it on a night when members of the Grand Jury were in attendance. She had already been interviewed by the Grand Jury at that point and had to know they were there that night, and yet she still couldn’t restrain herself.
Even after the GJ report was released, Annette still couldn’t control her temper. In the latest Irrigator article which included Annette and Becky’s attempts to lay blame for the report on Mayor Molina, Annette was actually quoted as calling our mayor a “Thug in a suit.” She then went on to say he is “disloyal to the city” and “disloyal to his friends.” Very classy and statesmanlike indeed Annette. Not to mention the fact that Annette just reconfirmed one of the Grand Jury’s findings regarding her treatment of fellow council colleagues and members of the public.
It didn’t take very long for Annette to make it known that she has no intention of resigning. She’d rather continue putting the city through more unnecessary trauma and division rather than do the right thing and remove herself from Patterson politics. So it will very likely be up to the citizens of Patterson to make sure she is removed from office once and for all, either by recalling her or by making sure she is not re-elected next year. Given everything our residents have been put through, the sooner Annette can be taken out of office, the better off we will all be.
Stay tuned. Next Grand Jury Breakdown – Dominic Farinha.
Ida Perez said,
October 8, 2011 @ 3:45 PM
There is a need to educate the public about the function of the Grand Jury and its legal implications.It appears from the “heated”comments here that there is a confusion as to how that system operates.In his comments to the Patterson Irrigator(Oct 6,2011)Bruce Bickle had some very good questions about the present lawsuit “can she sue the GJ?’Is she going as an Individual or a member of the council?”As a council member,do her actions implicate the City Council”If she proceeds,what type of benefit would she get..who would get it, she or the council”.As residents of Patterson,and represented by the City Council with the advise of the City Attorney,where does the City of Patterson residents stand on this issue?The City Attorney’s response to the GJ report did nothing more than to further incide the matter.Any person should be held responsible for his/her actions, and while sitting or representing a group or public appointed seat ,should think before speaking to an issue which will have an adverse effect on that public group that he/she represents.In this case, an action has taken place that will have an effect on how the City Council continues to functions and the City residents continue to have no voice as tax payers.The members of the County Grand Jury were given a task to answer the complaints about the functions(or malfunctions)of the City Council and because one Council member does not agreed with the findings of the GJ, she has taken the matter to a different level.A City resident’s complaint about an elected public official( that being a City Council member) begins at the City Council board.If there is no relief, then the county Grand Jury is another step.The GJ is “ex-parte’and only the proscuter presents evidence for a criminal complaint.Defendants are not allowed to present mitigating evidence or even to know the testimony that was presented to the Gj.A criminal indictment then goes to the regular criminal procedure.There are reasons for the secretcy involved,one is to protect the reputation of the individual involved,another is fear that witnesses will be less likely to come forward and or be subject to retribution,or risk of the indicted will flee,another is a danger that a potential defendant will influence the votes of the Gj.Another function of the Grand Jury is to answer to matters apart from the criminal indictment such as when it involves a public scandal.There is more….much more.. and a responsible person with knowledge and expertise should answer these questions for that public who makes comments that continue to further worsen the present situation at the City Council level.