The comprehensive seven-part Grand Jury Report is now out, as well as the initial reaction from the report’s targets. Since the Irrigator has made it clear that they are not interested in really exploring what its findings truly mean, the Irritator team is willing to take on the case.
But before we get into the Grand Jury, keep in mind that the City Council will be meeting tomorrow (Tuesday, July 12), providing the public’s first opportunity to let the Slate know how you feel about the Grand Jury findings.
For this article, we will focus on the findings associated with our former Mayor Becky Campo.
The Grand Jury found:
Campo resided in a home outside of the city going back to 2008, and that she admitted as much both in direct testimony as well as in written correspondence to a constituent.
She inappropriately used her position to pressure staff on a variety of issues, from urging Cleve to fire Rod Simpson, to attempting to speak for the Council unilaterally by trying to sign off on a proposed bar expansion. This also included holding an illegal meeting with Smth and Farinha, at which they threatened to fire Morris if he didn’t agree to fire Simpson.
She committed multiple Brown Act violations by engineering and/or participating in various votes behind closed doors, from the firing of Morris to the awarding of $27,000 to Ramos during the DP Health Clinic fiasco without having any documentation regarding Ramos’ legal fees.
She appointed a personal business associate to the Planning Commission
She failed to comply with state law by not taking the required ethics training every two years.
Along with Annette, she attempted to pressure Cleve Morris into hiring Dominic as an assistant planner, prior to his eventual appointment to the Council.
Of all these offenses, perhaps the most significant is her residency problem. Becky claims to have proof of her residency, but for some reason she never took the opportunity to present that proof to the Grand Jury. She also can’t explain the email she sent in 2008 in which she indicated that she wouldn’t be able to run because of her residency. By failing to live in the city from 2008-2010, the Grand Jury found that her time as mayor during that period is invalid, that she should return the $9,300 in salary she made during that time, and that the city should review all 3-2 votes during that period that may have gone another way had we had a legitimate mayor in office. We all know the last two years were marked by a number of 3-2 votes, including Cleve’s firing and the Ramos payment. It will be very interesting to see how the city handles the major headache that the Grand Jury just gave them on this front. Speaking of the city, it is very troubling that the latest Irrigator article quoted Becky as saying she had met with with the City Manager and City Attorney to “go over options.” Regardless of her residency standing as mayor, she is no longer mayor, and if she’s actually seeking legal counsel from the city at this point, the city’s problems are only going to get worse.
The Grand Jury report also confirmed what many have long suspected; that Campo operated like being Mayor gave her extraordinary powers to approve projects, muscle staff and carry water for her developer and business friends. She was able to pull the wool over a lot of people’s eyes for many years, but now the truth is coming out and the damage she has done to the city will take many years to undo. This is probably why we have seen very little of her around town since leaving office last year.
Despite the Irrigator dropping the ball, the Modesto Bee has has done a good job looking into the report’s ramifications. See their latest editorial here.
Stay tuned for additional analysis of the Grand Jury report. The focus of our next article will be Annette Smith.
The Stanislaus County Grand Jury Report on the City is out, and it’s a doozie! For starters, the Grand Jury:
1. Calls for Annette’s resignation for failing to disclose her business relationship with Mr. Ramos, for not recusing herself from votes involving Mr. Ramos, for inappropriately directly staff, for pushing for Dominic’s hiring as an assistant planner, and for multiple Brown Act violations.
Determines that Becky’s service as mayor was invalid from 2008-2010 because she did not live within the city limits, and as a result, recommends she return her salary and that her votes during this period be invalidated.
Finds that the $27,000 paid to Ramos over the Health District controversy was voted upon without any documentation of any legal fees he incurred and that the money should be returned to the city.
Finds that Cleve Morris’ firing was inappropriately voted upon in closed session.
And that’s just for starters. To view all seven parts of the complete Grand Jury Report, click here.
If you’ve been to any City Council meetings in the last few months, you’ve probably noticed that virtually every meeting has included a convening of the Patterson Redevelopment Agency, an obscure but important public agency governed by members of the City Council. There’s been quite a rush of activity from this group lately, as the city races to spend more than $1.2 million in redevelopment funds before the Governor follows through with a threatened elimination of redevelopment agencies throughout the state.
The world of redevelopment is understood by few, but cities and counties derive redevelopment funds from tax increments collected on local properties. Sacramento has been hijacking these funds off and on for years as part of its patchwork efforts to address the state’s ongoing budget woes. Earlier this year, the Governor proposed to get rid of redevelopment agencies all together as part of his budget proposal. Thus, the race by our local City Council/Redevelopment Agency to spend what money we have right now.
Sounds good on the surface, right? The city should rightly spend redevelopment money in our community before it gets taken from Sacramento permanently. In concept, redevelopment is supposed to provide various improvements to blighted or downtrodden areas, revitalizing those areas and hopefully creating jobs in the process. And what’s being proposed in terms of specific redevelopment projects sounds good at first too. The team of Howard Sword and Martin Salmon have brought forward a plan to significantly “revitalize” North and South Park by creating an integrated, promenade-style “super park” that will serve as a primary congregation and destination location in the heart of our historic downtown.
But the speed at which this process is moving is troubling, and the numbers don’t add up. How will contracts be doled out for all of this work? Who will decide how the contracts will be doled out? To do everything being proposed for the North and South Park improvements would cost approximately $3.2 million, or $2 million beyond what currently exists in our redevelopment coffers. Even though it is being presented as a 5-year plan, it seems hard to believe that we’ll come up with that much additional redevelopment funding in that time frame. So where will the rest of the money come from? Perhaps the city’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget, or maybe our General Fund? Curiously, the CIP has also been a frequent topic at Council meetings of late, with Councilwoman Smith requesting staff to hold a CIP workshop at the last meeting.
These are all questions that have yet to have been answered. But the biggest question may be this: who decided that this was the best use of our redevelopment dollars? Redevelopment money can be used for many purposes, including job creation, crime reduction, toxic cleanup and affordable housing. An argument can certainly be made that revitalizing North and South Parks will bolster downtown, enhance the Apricot Fiesta and perhaps bring in some additional revenues from events. But given our community’s ongoing crime and unemployment issues, could that $1.2 million be put to better use? How about using a portion to help finance the development of a new Youth Center? What about using some of that money to address the city’s affordable housing or water quality issues?
The Redevelopment train is moving very quickly, and residents need to start paying very close attention to this process. The Sword/Salmon team – both of whom have been seen running around town quite a bit with Councilmembers Novelli and Buehner – are urging the RDA/City to act by July 1. At tonight’s City Council meeting, they are expected to get direction from the Council on how the RDA money will be spent. And as we know from history, when things get approved very quickly in Patterson, there’s usually a reason why. Stay tuned.
Patterson faces many challenges while the Slate moves forward with its agenda to direct our future. The Slate now includes Mr. Larry Buehner, a genial man who is also one of Patterson’s largest landowners and prominent businessmen. It includes new member Deborah Novelli, a rotarian known for her coupon mailer whose campaign was largely financed by Mr. Buehner’s family. And then of course there are Slate holdovers Annette Smith (aka ObserverOfObservers?) and Dominic Farinha, the subjects of many posts here over the years. Mayor Molina will do his best to fight for the community’s collective interests, but the deck has been stacked given the votes aligned against him.
Based on how our new council has acted since December — highlighted by the forced appointment of Mr. Buehner – the Slate clearly believes it’s firmly in control and can do pretty much whatever it wants. The 0nly way this turns around is by our residents becoming even more involved in the upcoming activities and plans of our City Council. When residents stood up recently and made a passionate case for the Council to reconsider appointing Mr. Buehner without interviewing other candidates, our Council listened and showed respect for the will of the people (temporarily). But that victory was short-lived, and a sustained effort by residents will be required to ensure that our leaders continue listening to our priorities and needs. We need more residents coming to Council meetings, reviewing agendas, writing letters, posting their comments here, and making their opinions heard. With Mr. Buehner’s appointment, virtually every council agenda will include items in which he, his family or his business partners will surely benefit. He already failed his first test earlier this week to voting on an item involving the South County Corridor, a project which could involve property his business owns north of town. With that vote, along with his dismissive reaction to this week’s Irrigator story on his various conflicts of interest, it appears that Mr. Buehner either doesn’t understand how to handle the legal requirements for handling conflicts of interst or that he doesn’t care.
In the coming weeks and months, the Patterson IrriTator team will be working hard to shine a bright light on the many conflicts of interest this Council will face. We will also be looking at the recently adopted General Plan and lay out what the Slate and their friends are REALLY planning to do with our city. We will detail how our leaders spend our tax dollars. And as much as possible, we will alert you to key issues coming up on future agendas so that you’ll know how you can get involved and express your feelings to our leaders.
But we can’t turn this around on our own. You need to get involved and stay involved. Check back with the IrriTator regularly for updates, or better yet, subcribe to the IrriTator so that those updates can be emailed to you directly. Tell your friends and family about the IrriTator and urge them to visit us for a different perspective on what our city faces.
Patterson IrriTator 2.0 will continue the tradition of community dialogue and information sharing, but we also want to see it become a tool for community organization and action. There is too much at stake right now, and we cannot afford to wait until the next election before turning around the community we love.
It has been a simple pleasure to be part of this site over the past two years. As many of you already know, the IrriTator was created to give folks an opportunity to voice their concerns about the issues facing Patterson. Indeed, the fight will and should continue until the residents of this city take back their right to chart the future course of Patterson. With the current city council in place, it appears that free handouts to large corporations and local developers will not be gone anytime soon. However, if events like the previous council meeting, (where a dozen of concerned citizens, stood up and demanded a fair and transparent appointment process), continue, I’m confident that Patterson can reclaim it’s title as the jewel of Stanislaus County.
So last month, I received a notice from my twitter account, stating that George Logan wants my:
1. identity
2. address
3. phone number
4. IP address
So to save him some time, and rid the court of his sham lawsuit, I”ve decided against filing a motion to quash, although it was quite enticing to get my chance with him in the courtroom. But when you forum shop and file a suit in Merced County…..well, it is what is. So here’s to you King George, I hope your fishing expedition proves a few things:
1) I’m fred ross and I write everything on this twitter account; 2) You won’t find any IP addresses from Patterson (maybe a few from Grayson), all posts were coming from sacramento and modesto, because I live there; and 3) that you were only a pawn in the game, hit the links, your reputation doesn’t need to be injured by bloggers, your doing a fine job yourself.
Editor’s Note: If you follow the link above you’ll notice that this entry is no longer up, we got a copy before they erased it.
Smith feels if you got something to say, say it at the podium…wondering if she forgot about her former blogging entries. For more on this site and Smith, see the article below.
As many of you already know, the site will be in transition over the next month, primarily due to a change of contributors. As noted on my twitter account, we are currently planning a meeting to determine what are the next steps for this site. Many of you have contacted us with ideas and thoughts about the site’s current makeup, and it’s potential to do much more.
In order to put the site into the hands of those who live within city limits, we will be inviting folks to an informational gathering where you can ask questions about the site and it’s future.
If we don’t have your email, but you would like to be involved, be sure to contact me at pattersonirritator@yahoo.com. Folks from all interests are encouraged to participate, each of you possess a particular expertise that the community at large can surely benefit from.
General Plan up tomorrow, will they jam it down our throat before new elected officials are seated?
Access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State. The greater and more unfettered the public official’s power, the greater public’s interest in monitoring the governmental action. – Summary of the California Public Records Act, California Attorney General’s Office.
I will try to comment on the article above this weekend, there is so much to discuss. The general reaction that I received more information than asked for is quite humorous. Smith needs to up her micro-managing, if she did she would have discovered that I submitted two (2) requests. The first request was for Smith’s emails, when it became apparent that my request would take close to a month, I sent a second request for the emails of the entire council.
Why are certain political officials so disturbed with the public taking a look at the manner in which they govern? Surely, a tea party supporter like Smith can appreciate this right. Nevertheless, we are willing to give the entire batch of emails to anyone who wants them. If you think I was selective in the postings, your right, we chose to not to post some emails that would not been in good taste. Smith and co. should be grateful.
The very suggestion that the emails posted are taken out of context…..is pretty hard to comprehend since we posted the entire original message.
The scariest thing to come out of all this, is that we got redacted emails, the Grand Jury’s version has got to be far juicier, after-all they have the ability to see the entire story, unedited.
No one said a word when John Ramos made public request act “shotgun style”, meaning he asked for everything under the sun…not a word from Becky, Annette, or Dom. (We’ll post his request soon).
The bottom-line: Instead of owning up to their comments, they make excuses about how the public shouldn’t have seen these emails. The councilmembers who don’t care about the emails have one thing in common, they’re not afraid to show the people of Patterson what they’re up to. Sadly, instead of owning up, Smith and Co. will desperately look for a sacrificial lamb, further damaging the public trust in their ability to lead.
J. The term of a member of the commission who fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings or four meetings within any six-month period, without permission from the commission, will automatically be terminated; that finding to be made by the city council, upon notice from the commission secretary. This rule would apply to special meetings, if one-week notice was given for the meeting. (Ord. 678 (part), 2006; Ord. 588 § 2, 1999; Ord. 572 § 3, 1997).
In September 2009, the Patterson City Council reimbursed local developer John Ramos $27,000 for legal fees he allegedly expended during his appeal of city staff’s approval of the health center’s move. But who really pushed to get JR his cash. Take a look below, it wasn’t King George. Despite the King’s legal advice, the three stooges chose to give away $27,000 in tax payer dollars, for what? A measly $500 donation every other election?
We couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried. Only affirms what we already knew, stacking the Planning Commission deck was step one toward forming planning commission that would carry out Big Boss and Local Developer wishes. Dominic, what were you thinking? As a courtesy to you, we refrained from using many of your emails, not too flattering.
THE PATTERSON IRRITATOR IS AN INDEPENDENT WEBSITE AND/OR PUBLICATION AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE PATTERSON IRRIGATOR. NO PORTION OF THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE PATTERSON IRRITATOR.
The comprehensive seven-part Grand Jury Report is now out, as well as the initial reaction from the report’s targets. Since the Irrigator has made it clear that they are not interested in really exploring what its findings truly mean, the Irritator team is willing to take on the case.
It has been a simple pleasure to be part of this site over the past two years. As many of you already know, the IrriTator was created to give folks an opportunity to voice their concerns about the issues facing Patterson. Indeed, the fight will and should continue until the residents of this city take back their right to chart the future course of Patterson. With the current city council in place, it appears that free handouts to large corporations and local developers will not be gone anytime soon. However, if events like the previous council meeting, (where a dozen of concerned citizens, stood up and demanded a fair and transparent appointment process), continue, I’m confident that Patterson can reclaim it’s title as the jewel of Stanislaus County.
