 |
|
|
We ask the Important questions others are too afraid to ask! " POLITICIANS
WILL ONLY START SEEING THE LIGHT WHEN THEY BEGIN TO FEEL THE
HEAT" |
|||||||
|
|
11/01/06
This city used to employ a professional grant writer. That grant writer was fired (excuse us, "let go") in June with the other mass firings (excuse us, "mass lettings go"). Now we have a police Chief that everyone is going to great pains to say was not "fired" but instead is being reassigned. But reassigned to what job? As widely reported to the media, former Interim Police Chief Walter McKinney will now be a city grant writer. A Chief of Police is NOT by profession a grant writer. Those are not his job skills and even if he has an idea of how the process works from his time working with the city's former professional grant writer, we question if he has the qualifications for the job. This city has just answered grand jury recommendations, one of which was that people should not be hired for positions they are not qualified to fill. The city's answer to the grand jury was that city jobs will no longer be given to those that do not possess the qualification for the job. On the grand jury question, city hall will tell you McKinney is no longer an employee (but also was not fired) and has been retained as an independent contractor (a consultant perhaps - can we see the contract please?). The questions remain, consultant or employee aside, is he qualified to write grants? If we need a grant writer, why did we fire our professional grant writer? This one does not smell right. Explanations are in order, real explanations. 10/31/06 Deception No. 3 City hall reported to the media that several people had come to city hall and "pulled recall papers" on Mayor Alex Bias. Let's be very, very clear on this: No one goes to city hall to pull recall papers. That is NOT where you get them. City hall does not supply recall papers. City hall knows that. It was an outright deception by city hall. The impression that was left was that a recall of the Mayor had been started. The press heard the rumor created by city hall and ran with it. It was a blatant deception by city hall. Deception No. 2 City Hall reported to the media that it had received many calls from people that were upset with the Mayor. We do not doubt city hall received such calls. But what city hall did not report was that it also received several calls of support for the Mayor. We have since been contacted by several people asking us this specific question: Why didn't city hall tell the press about our calls of support for the Mayor? Deception
No. 1 The law firm of Aleshire & Wynder was selected from 10 finalist to be the city's law firm. After selecting the firm, the council instructed the city manager to begin negotiations with the firm over price. Then city hall said "Negotiations had broken down" leaving the impression the city and the firm could not come to terms over price. Price
was not the issue. There was a serious conflict of interest. The
firm had to withdraw when that conflict was revealed in a series of
articles in a local newspaper. “The
city of Why didn't city hall give the real reason the law firm of Aleshire & Wynder withdrew from consideration? With such an obvious disqualifying conflict of interest, how did they make the final cut?
10/19/06
See if this sounds familiar. The city fails to do its homework and then the local news media doing a little digging finds a major problem with someone the city has selected for a key position. Last time it was David Lane, Candidate "A" for the job of city manager. This time it is the new city attorney. Despite
Mary Stephens's quote in the Desert Sun that the process was
extensive - Stephens actually said "it was a very through
process" - we find out she was again "wrong" to put
it mildly. How "extensive" can it be when they picked the same law
firm that our current city manager, Ann Marie Gallant worked with
while she was one of the city managers of Carson City and a city sued? This time it was not the Desert Sun or FODHS that found this lie..., it was the Desert Local News! There is a problem with a major conflict of interest that has caused this law firm to withdraw. They can not represent the city of Desert Hot Springs and the City of Carson at the same time because our current city manager, Ann Marie Gallant sued and worked for the city of Carson creating a major conflict of interest. Here is the real problem If the process was open as FODHS said it should be throughout the entire time the city was looking for an attorney, the process would never have gotten to the blunder stage. The name would have been public and the conflict revealed. Why do Hank, Mary and now Yvonne keep making the same embarrassing mistakes? Because they keep following the same pattern of making major decisions illegally in closed sessions. Their actions once again lands our city in a bad light. There are those (DHS Chamber of Commerce) that have said recently that we should take these concerns to the parties involved to correct the problem. That we should not first publish them here on this site. FOR THE RECORD (and To Dan Gibbons)...
WE told Hank, Mary and Yvonne (QUIETLY) that they were making a mistake They did not listen to us. You judge what the results are. To the Chamber of Commerce president, Dan Gibbons, we ask, can you get them to change their ways? Do you have a suggestion for another approach? The one you suggested did not work. They still went headlong into another embarrassing blunder, even when it was pointed out to them in advance. Offer another suggestion but don't blame us for reporting it now. If council members Yvonne, Hank and Mary choose to blindly go forth and break the brown act laws after we warn them not to do it, and therefore causes yet another embarrassment for our city, all after we warned them, we will not keep it secret. In the pre FODHS days, everyone (including the Chamber of Commerce) just ignored the illegal actions, some of which caused the city to become bankrupt and to sign an asinine contract with past city manager, Jerry Hansen. Sorry, but we will not let that happen again by not reporting what we know. 10/18/06 Our
city could not agree with the legal firm chosen per last nights
council session announcement because of failed contract
negotiations. The council will continue to deliberate on a
second (third or fourth or fifth?) choice. 10/11/06
A
few days ago we
learned the name of the new law firm. Tomorrow we learn how much
that law firm will be paid. Never did the public
have any input or so much as a glimpse of the process.
These are some of the questions we have, questions we will answer for you when we get them. Those are questions that should have been asked and answered in public before any contract was signed. CLOSED
MEETINGS MAY BE HELD FOR:
The city council, the three of them that conducted this business in closed session, relied on this: They say they did not violate any law because they had the City Manager negotiate the contracts. Do we detect someone waking up stupid here??? Does this all sound familiar?
.
09/07/06 |
Whistleblower
Suit
POWERFUL VIDEO |
|||||
|
Legal stuff here! Any statements from these letters should be verified prior to being relied upon as being factual. We believe that the information is true when we post it within these letters. Even so, the reader should question and investigate the information provided as to its truth fullness. Even though we feel that the information is true, no one should rely on any information provided until it is verified as correct. The views represented within these letters are not necessarily our opinion. Please Note: We will attempt to correct any information we find to be false. We will not publish any information about a public figure that we "believe" to be "False" or have "actual knowledge of being false". (See Sullivan vs New York Times) Please let us know if you find any additional information regarding any posted statements herein. The information posted here has had a very high probability of being factually correct. We have tried to be diligent in our postings as to avoid any "reckless disregard" for the information presented (expanded Sullivan Rule). The letters are provided a "Matter of Public Concern" therefore are "Common Law Privilege" (See Sullivan vs New York Times). These letters are posted as citizen opinions under the First Amendment Right. In 1974, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 there is no such thing as a false idea. Even obvious sarcasm is not liable per 1988 ruling in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46. This forum of letters is a constitutional privilege of "neutral reporting" per Edwards v. National Audubon Society. |