An Update: The Notices of Intention to Circulate Recall Petitions in the Proposed San Bernardino Recall 2013

I’m not sure why this was not posted at the time, but for historical interest, here is a post that supposed to appear in 2013.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

San Bernardino Residents For Responsible Government, the political action committee behind the proposed recall,  contacted me today regarding the last post on the Notices of Intention to Circulate Recall Petitions in the Proposed San Bernardino Recall for November 5, 2013.

The Petitions were drafted by Michael L. Allan, a Pasadena attorney.  The decision to use process servers was also his decision.  The rest of the petitions will be released to the public on Monday, as listed on their website.  They say they have not filed the petitions against Wendy McCammack and Rikke Van Johnson yet. San Bernardino Residents For Responsible Government says they are giving the office holders 14 days to respond to the petitions.

Per the Charter of the City of San Bernardino, Section 122:

Within seven (7) days after the filing of the notice of

intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the City Clerk an answer in

not more than 500 words to the statement of the proponents and if an answer is

filed, shall serve a copy thereof, personally or by certified mail, on one of the

proponents named in the notice of intention. At the time the proponents publish

the notice and statement referred to above, the officer sought to be recalled may

have the answer published at his/her expense. If the answer is to be published the

officer shall file with the City Clerk at the time the answer is filed a statement

declaring his/her intent that the answer be published. The statement and answer

are intended solely for the information of the voters and no insufficiency in the form

or substance thereof shall affect the validity of the election or proceedings. The

notice and statement as referred to above, and the answer, if it is to be published

shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, as described

in Sections 6000 to 6066 of the Government Code, adjudicated as such.

Seven (7) days after the publication of the notice, statement and answer, if it

is to be published, the recall petition may be circulated and signed.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 708-6055

The Notices of Intention to Circulate Recall Petitions in the Proposed San Bernardino Recall 2013

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Below are four of the Notices of Intention to Circulate A Recall Petition, or at least unexecuted and undated versions.  The originals were in PDF format which were printed with the home addresses of the petition signers were crudely redacted using a Sharpie Magnum Permanent Marker, and rescanned into PDF.

City Attorney James F. Penman

The reasons for the recall are listed by Scott Beard, the proponent, Wendy McCammack’s appointment to the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission, Rialto-based developer, and Seventh Ward resident:

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Mr. Penman is the duly elected City Attorney, and as such is accountable for the actions of that office and of his subordinates. Mr. Penman has been derelict in his official duties by failing to properly enforce the law regarding personal use of public property by members of the Common Council. In addition, Mr. Penman’s office’s selective enforcement of City codes and his failure to timely update and codify city codes, ordinances, and other matters lawfully passed by the City Council has created confusion and insecurity in the City’s residents and businesses regarding accuracy of the City’s published law.

Council Member Virginia Marquez, First Ward

The reasons listed for the recall in the Notice of Intention are listed by the proponent, Christian Fernando Flores (who was reported in the Sun as a student at California State University, San Bernardino):

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Council Member Marquez was elected to office
in November of 2009 and has since that time has failed to protect the health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the City of San Bernardino and demonstrated dereliction to the duties of her
elected office by making fiscally irresponsible votes and by supporting fiscally irresponsible
program leading to the misuse of the City’s General Fund. Council Member Marquez’s actions
and failures to act, have propelled the City of San Bernardino into financial crisis, and have led
to the filing for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy laws by the City. The City
of San Bernardino is currently the object of nation-wide ridicule as a result of the mishandling of
the bankruptcy and its proceedings.

Further, Council Member Marquez has violated the public trust by repeatedly failing to
reach consensus with the other members of the San Bernardino City Council on basic issues of
City finances, and ignored advice of the City’s Executive Staff for the previous two years
regarding financial concerns. Her actions have led to massive reductions in City services and
police and fire personnel, causing an increase in crime rates, businesses leaving the City, and
contributed to overall blight within the City.

Council Member Fred Shorret:

The proponent of the recall against Fred Shorett, 4th Ward Council Member, Stephen T. Dawson, who is the chairperson of the United  Transportation Union, states:

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Council Member Shorett was elected to office in March of 2009 and has since that time has failed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of San Bernardino and demonstrated dereliction to the duties of his elected office by making fiscally irresponsible votes and by supporting fiscally irresponsible program leading to the misuse of the City’s General Fund. Council Member Shorett’s actions and failures to act have propelled the City of San Bernardino into financial crisis, and have led to the filing for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy laws by the City.
Further, Council Member Shorett has violated the public trust by repeatedly failing to reach consensus with the other members of the San Bernardino City Council on basic issues of City finances which would allow the City of San Bernardino to emerge from the bankruptcy proceedings and begin revival of its economy. The City of San Bernardino is currently the object of nation-wide ridicule as a result of the mishandling of the bankruptcy and its proceedings.

Mayor Patrick J. Morris:

Scott Beard, also the proponent of the recall against City Attorney James F. Penman, gives these reasons:

The grounds for the recall are as follows: Mayor Morris was elected to office in February of 2006 and has since that time has failed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of San Bernardino and demonstrated dereliction to the duties of his elected office by failing to veto fiscally irresponsible votes and fiscally irresponsible programs leading to the misuse of the City’s General Fund. Mayor Morris’s [sic] failures to act have propelled the City of San Bernardino into financial crisis, and have led to the filing for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy laws by the City.
Further, Mayor Morris has violated the public trust by repeatedly failing to facilitate consensus with the members of the San Bernardino City Council on basic issues of City finances, and ignored advice of the City’s Executive Staff for the previous two years regarding financial concerns. His action and inaction have led to massive reductions in City services and police and fire personnel, causing an increase in crime rates, businesses leaving the City, and contributed to overall blight within the City.

The original PDFs, which are not the embedded redacted versions you see here, have some metadata that explains a little about the origin of the PDFs that were obtained. The Notice of Intent  involving Mayor Patrick J. Morris was created on April 28, 2013 at 10:04:50 PM, with the application being Microsoft Word 2010, with “Michael” listed as the author.  The Notice of Intent to Virginia Marquez  was titled C:\My Files000 — SanBernardinoMatter\NOI.2013.1stWard(Marquez).wpd, also authored by “Michael.”  It was created on April 28, 2013 at 2:19:17 PM.  The original file was on WordPerfect (as you can see by the extension), but the PDF was created by Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0. The Fred Shorret document was created by Microsoft Word 2010, also authored by “Michael.”  It was created on April 28, 2013 at 3:40:59.  The City Attorney James F. Penman document was also on Word 2010, on April 28, 2013, at 10:00:13.

What does this metadata mean?  That whoever created the PDF (but not necessarily the author of the petitions), was named Michael, and that at least one of the documents was created on WordPerfect.  WordPerfect is, or was, largely used by attorneys. No conclusions can be drawn from this metadata.  The Michael may refer to Michael McKinney, the Orange County-based publicist for the recall proponents.  It could be someone else entirely.

Unfortunately, the petitions to recall Second Ward Council Member Robert Jenkins, Third Ward Council Member John Valdivia, Fifth Ward Council Member Chas Kelley, Sixth Ward Council Member and Mayoral Candidate Rikke Van Johnson and Seventh Ward Council Member Wendy McCammack were unavailable.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 708-6055

The Results of the San Bernardino County California Election November 6, 2012

Over on sbdpolitics.com, the results, as of about 6:05 a.m. on November 7, 2012, of the election as it pertains to San Bernardino County, with a focus on the City of San Bernardino and surrounding cities.
Here is the abbreviated version:  Gloria Negrete McLeod over Joe Baca in the 35th; Gary Miller over Bob Dutton in the 31st; Cheryl R. Brown over Joe Baca Jr. in Assembly District 47; Gloria Macias Harrison, John Longville, Nick Zumbos, and Kathleen Henry for San Bernardino Community College Board of Trustees; James Ramos over Neil Derry in the Third Supervisorial District, Robert Lovingood over Rick Roelle in the First Supervisorial District; City of Highland Council unchanged, Pete Aguilar reelected in Redlands,  Measure Q beats Measure R, and Measure N passes handily.

Did the San Bernardino Unified School District Violate Education Code Section 7054 Regarding Advocacy For Measure N on The November 6, 2012 Ballot?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Measure N is the San Bernardino City Unified School District’s bond measure is to sell $250,000,000 (250 million dollars or a quarter billion dollars) in aggregate principal of  bonds with a maturity not to exceed twenty-five years. The ballot statement and resolution do not give the total cost to the bond issue including principal and interest.  The District’s estimate is that it will cost property owners $34 per year for each $100,000 of assessed value to pay the principal and interest on the bonds (which is in addition to any existing bonds).  It was placed on the ballot by the Board of Education on August 7, 2012 by a six to one vote.  The members voting for were Barbara Flores, Mike Gallo, Margaret Hill, Bobbie Perong, Lynda Savage, Judi Penman.  Danny Tillman voted no.  The measure requires a 55 percent “yes” vote to pass per Proposition 39 (2000) and Education Code section 15264.  In connection with Measure N, the San Bernardino Unified School District has sent mass mailings, including this piece:

California Education Code section 7054 reads, as of today:

(a) No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the district.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met:
(1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of this state.
(2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
(c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both, or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months, or two or three years.
Therefore, a school district cannot use funds for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate.  California Education Code section 7054(a).  However, a limitation to California Education Code seciton 7054(a) is that a school district may expend public resources to provide information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue if two conditions are met.  The informational activities are otherwise allowed by law, and the “information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.”  California Education Code section 7054(b).  The violation of this section is a wobbler, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. California Education Code section 7054(b).
In the resolution of August 7, 2012, the San Bernardino Unified School District Board of Directors made this finding:
WHEREAS, the District needs to install lighting, replace and fix fences and update security
alarms to keep students safe during and after school and to protect our schools from gang
members who break into schools, vandalize and steal equipment;  . . .
The front of the mailer states “From the Desk of School District Police Chief Joseph Paulino”
The letter says

Dear Neighbor:

As School District Police Chief, my job is to keep our students and school sites safe.
I also seek to protect our schools from intruders who break into schools, vandalize, steal school equipment and tag walls with graffiti. Unfortunately, many of our schools have outdated security alarms, inadequate fences and limited lighting.
Measure N is on your local ballot.  Among the priorities included in Measure N are the following safety and security upgrades to San Bernardino and Highland schools:
  • Maintain safe, clean clasrooms
  • Repair/replace leaky roofs
  • Remove asbestos and other hazardous materials
  • Repair/replace fire alarms, security and electrical systems
  • Replace old playground equipment with new, safer equipment

Remember to vote on Measure N.

Sincerely,
/s/
Chief Joseph Paulino
San Bernardino School District
Police Department
The Measure does not give an actual project list (meaning, x amount is going to do x at Cajon High School on x date).   However, there is a more generic project list, and this is the relevant section:
School Safety and Energy Efficiency School Projects
Goal and Purpose: The District must protect its schools from gang members who break
into schools, vandalize and steal equipment and tag walls with graffiti. Unless the District
replaces outdated security alarms, inadequate fences and limited safety lighting, it can’t
keep them out. To keep students safe during and after school, projects such as proper
lighting, fences and security alarms are needed:
Student Safety
• Repair and replace security and electrical systems, such as security lighting, fencing,
gates and classroom door locks.
• Upgrade fire alarm systems including fire safety equipment and sprinklers to make
students safe in the event of an emergency.
• Upgrade schools to meet handicap accessibility requirements.
• Remove hazardous materials like asbestos and lead paint from older school sites.
• Increase after-school program space to reduce juvenile violence.
The headline’s question is whether the District’s statement has violated California Education Code section 7055 regarding advocacy for Measure N.  The California Supreme Court decision in Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 is important to consider in such cases. The Court ruled:
On June 4, 1974, California voters approved a $250 million bond issue to provide funds for the future acquisition of park land and recreational and historical facilities by state and municipal authorities. One day before the election, plaintiff Sam Stanson filed the present taxpayer suit, alleging that defendant William Penn Mott, Jr., director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (department), had authorized the department to expend more than $5,000 of public funds to promote the passage of the bond issue. Asserting the illegality of such use of public funds, plaintiff sought a judgment that would require Mott personally to repay the funds to the state treasury and any other appropriate relief.

. . .

As we explain, past decisions in both California and our sister states establish that, at least in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign; in the present case, no legislative provision accorded the Department of Parks and Recreation such authorization. Although the department did possess statutory authority to disseminate ‘information’ to the public relating to the bond election, the department, in fulfilling this informational role, was obligated to provide a fair presentation of the relevant facts. Since plaintiff specifically alleged that public funds were expended for ‘promotional,’ rather then ‘informational,’ purposes, his complaint stated a valid cause of action, and the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer. If plaintiff proves the allegations of his complaint at trial, he will be entitled to at least a declaratory judgment that such expenditure of public funds was improper, and, perhaps, to injunctive relief as well.
Whether defendant Mott may be held personally liable for the funds which have already been spent presents a more difficult question. Although early California decisions held public officials strictly liable for any unauthorized expenditure of public funds, even when such expenses were incurred in good faith, subsequent legislation has considerably narrowed the circumstances under which public employees are generally held personally accountable for resultant losses. In accommodating the policy underlying this legislative development with the long-recognized public interest in protecting the public treasury from potential mismanagement or abuse, we conclude that defendant may be held personally liable to repay expended funds only if he failed to exercise due care in authorizing the expenditure of the funds. Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 209-210.
What is the difference between promotional and informational? Stanson v. Mott says it’s a fine line, but in the case of Mr. Stanson v. Mr. Mott, left it to the trial court to decide:
Problems may arise, of course, in attempting to distinguish improper ‘campaign’ expenditures from proper ‘informational’ activities. With respect to some activities, the distinction is rather clear; thus, the use of public funds to purchase such items as bumper stickers, posters, advertising ‘floats,’ or television and radio ‘spots’ unquestionably constitutes improper campaign activity (see, e.g., Mines v. Del Valle, supra, 201 Cal. at p. 276, 257 P. 530; Porter v. Tiffany, supra, 502 P.2d at p. 1386), as does the dissemination, at public expense, of campaign literature prepared by private proponents or opponents of a ballot measure. (See 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 190, 194 (1968); Stern v. Kramersky, supra, 375 N.Y.S.2d 235.) On the other hand, it is generally accepted that a public agency pursues a proper ‘informational’ role when it simply gives a ‘fair presentation of the facts’ in response to a citizen’s request for information (see Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of Education, supra, 98 A.2d 673, 677; Stern v. Kramarsky, supra, 375 N.Y.S.2d 235, 239—240; 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 190, 193 (1968)) or, when requested by a public or private organization, it authorizes as agency employee to present the department’s view of a ballot proposal at a meeting of such organization. (See Ed.Code, s 1073;cf. Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of Education, supra, 98 A.2d 673, 677.)

      Frequently, however, the line between unauthorized campaign expenditures and authorized informational activities is not so clear. Thus, while past cases indicate that public agencies may generally publish a ‘fair presentation of facts’ relevant to an election matter, in a number of instances publicly financed brochures or newspaper advertisements which have purported to contain only relevant factual information, and which have refrained from exhorting voters to ‘Vote Yes,’ have nevertheless been found to constitute improper campaign literature. (See 35 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 112 (1960); 51 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 190 (1968); cf. 42 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 25, 27 (1964).) In such cases, the determination of the propriety or impropriety of the expenditure depends upon a careful consideration of such factors as the style, tenor and timing of the publication; no hard and fast rule governs every case.  Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 221-222.
The question, then, is this presentation “fair and impartial?  The mailer does not say Vote for Measure N, (it says “vote on Mesaure N”).  On the other hand, it says that the Chief wants to keep students and school sites safe, and protect schools from intruders, and that many schools have outdated security alarms, inadequate fences and limited lighting. It then says that Measure N is on the ballot.  It then says that the priorities included in Measure N are the following safety and security upgrades.  Arguably, each of these things are true.  However, someone may argue that in placement of the needs and the solutions to that need together, the San Bernardino Unified School District has gone from a strictly informational piece about Measure N to advocating for voters to vote for Measure N.  Further, the style of the mailer looks like a campaign advocacy piece, showing the picture of the Chief in his uniform, showing stock photos of alarms and a fire pull box, and a drug free, gun free, school zone sign.
A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 708-6055

How the Measures Are Assigned Letters in the San Bernardino County Election November 6, 2012

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

If you ever wondered the legal basis for measures being assigned letters, here is a release from the Registrar of Voters showing both the measures, and their assigned letters for November 6, 2012:

In accordance with California Election [sic] Code §13116(b), the San Bernardino County
Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters has designated the measures below with the
letters N through V. To determine what letter was assigned to each measure, a random
drawing was held at 10:00 a.m. on August 13, 2012.
School Districts
County
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
Q San Bernardino Proposed Charter Amendment by the Board of Supervisors to
enact a permanent cap on compensation and mandatory
transparency for members of the Board of Supervisors
R San Bernardino Proposed Charter Amendment by SEBA to enact
compensation limits and budget reductions for members of
the Board of Supervisors
City
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
S Needles Proposed Marijuana Business Tax
T Needles Proposed Utility User Tax
U Yucca Valley Proposed 1 cent sales tax for 30 years
V Rialto Proposed business tax on items related to petroleum
products
Letter Jurisdiction Measure Description
N San Bernardino City Unified Proposed Bond Measure to promote student safety and
school repairs
O Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified Proposed Bond Measure to repair and upgrade local schools
P Chaffey Joint Union High School Proposed Bond Measure to improve neighborhood schools

What does California Elections Code section 13116 say?:

(a) In an election at which state, county, city, or other local measures are submitted to a vote of the voters, all state measures shall be numbered in numerical order, as provided in this chapter or division. All county, city, or other local measures shall be designated by a letter, instead of a figure, printed on the left margin of the square containing the description of the measure, commencing with the letter “A” and continuing in alphabetical order, one letter for each of these measures appearing on the ballot.
(b) An elections official may commence designating local measures with any letter of the alphabet following the letter “A,” and continuing in alphabetical order, in order to avoid voter confusion that might result from different local measures carrying the same letter designation in successive elections.
(c) Where two or more counties or cities submitting measures to the voters are in close proximity, the elections officials of those counties or cities may mutually agree to use letter designation for ballot measures that will not conflict or confuse the voter.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 708-6055

Measure R Proposed San Bernardino County Charter Amendment Initiative November 6, 2012

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Voters in the County of San Bernardino are voting on two competing charter amendments.  The first, alphabetically is Measure Q, which I wrote about yesterday.

Measure R is a voter-submitted Charter Amendment, but unlike Measure Q, amends more than just Article VI, Section 1 of the San Bernardino County Charter:

County Counsel, as required by the Government Code, created a summary of the charter initiative:

COMPENSATION LIMITS AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. INITIATIVE CHARTER AMENDMENT.
Changes the elected office of County Supervisor to a part-time position. Establishes the
maximum monthly compensation for the office of County Supervisor to a total amount of
$5,000 plus a cost of living adjustment not to exceed 5% annually. Cost to the County
of all County Supervisor benefits, including but not limited to, salary, health insurance,
life insurance, leave, retirement, memberships, portable communication devices, and
vehicle allowances shall be included in the $5,000. Establishes a maximum total annual
budget for each Member of the Board of Supervisors at an amount not to exceed five
(5) times the annual compensation amount for each Member. Limits retirement benefits
for the position of County Supervisor to that of regular, non-sworn-peace officer, County
employees. Eliminates the participation by any County Supervisor in the County’s
401(k), 401(a), or 457(b) Plan.

Article I,  Section 1 of the San Bernardino County Charter would be amended to read:

SECTION 1. The Board of Supervisors shall consist of five members, one from
each supervisorial district. The Supervisors shall be nominated and elected at the time
and in the manner provided by general laws, except that provided that each supervisor
shall be elected by the electors of such district and not by the electors of the County at
large.

The position of County Supervisor shall be considered a part-time position.
“Part-time” is defined as attending a minimum of two regular board meetings per
month. Members may hold full-time employment and must comply with economic
disclosure requirements as set forth in the County Code and the California Government
Code. as required.

Article VI, Section 1 would be replaced and Section 2 would be added:

SECTION I. The total compensation of each member of the Board of Supervisors shall be five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per month, which amount shall include the
actual cost to the County of all benefits of whatever kind or nature including but not
limited to salary, allowances, credit cards, health insurance, life insurance, leave,
retirement, memberships, portable communication devices, and vehicle allowances. This
compensation amount shall be in full compensation for all services by the respective
member of the Board of Supervisors.
Annually, the compensation of Supervisors shall be increased by the percentage
of increase in the cost of living, to be determined by the County Auditor-Controller as of
November I st of each year as shown in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index for the Los Angeles Region, not to exceed five percent (5%) per year, provided that
such adjustments shall be rounded to the nearest $100. Any amount of increase in the
cost of living in excess of five percent (5%) may be accumulated and applied to increase
in salary in future years.

The foregoing compensation provisions shall not be changed except by a vote of
the people at the time of a general election.

SECTION 2. The compensation amount provided in Article VI. Section 1 shall
not include amounts deemed to be mandatory employer contributions and/or payments
under state or federal law, including, but not limited to, contributions for social security,
workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, Public Employee Retirement System,
and reimbursement for actual expenses.

Measure R would add Article I, Section 10:

ARTICLE I. SECTION 10: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET
The total annual budget for each Member of the Board of Supervisors, including.
but not limited to, all office operations, and including staff member salaries, office
equipment, rent, vehicle allowances, credit cards. health insurance, life insurance, leave,
retirement, memberships, and portable communication devices shall not exceed five (5)
times the annual compensation amount for each Member as provided in Article VI.
Section I of this Charter. Compensation for each member of the Board of Supervisors
shall be separate and apart from the foregoing amount.
At no time shall any County resources be directed to supplant this provision
through any other county department or division including the County Administrative
Office.
The foregoing compensation provisions shall not be changed except by a vote of
the people at the time of a general election.

The Measure continues with the addition of Article VI, Section 6 to the Charter of the County of San Bernardino:

ARTICLE VI. SECTION 6: RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SECTION 6. Upon the commencement of the next regular individual respective
term of each member of the Board of Supervisors, each member of the Board of
Supervisors shall thereafter be limited to annual retirement pension benefits of regular,
non-sworn- peace officer, County employees. Any supplemental retirement allowance
and/or contribution on behalf of the respective Supervisors is hereby eliminated,
including, but not limited to, participation in the County’s 401(k) and 401(a) retirement
plans; participation in the County’s 457(b) plan is eliminated; and any matching
payment(s) on behalf of any or all of the Supervisors by the County.
For each member of the Board of Supervisors who is a participant in the County
retirement system and/or any successor retirement system (“retirement system”), the
earnable compensation amount used to calculate the relevant pension formula shall
consist of wages derived from the respective Supervisor’s hourly rate equivalent. All
other forms of compensation, including, but not limited to, automobile allowance, health
benefits, insurance, portable communication device allowance, and leave accrual cash-outs
shall be excluded.
The Board of Supervisors shall not take any action, by ordinance, resolution, or
otherwise, which increases the retirement benefits of members of the Board of
Supervisors, with the exception of statutorily-established cost of living adjustments,
without first obtaining the approval of a majority of those qualified electors voting on the
matter.
Prior to placement of any proposed increased benefits on the ballot, the retirement
system shall prepare, or have prepared on its behalf, an actuarial study of the cost and the
funded and unfunded actuarial accrued liability attributable to the retirement benefit
changes proposed by the amendment. Such actuarial study shall be available to the
public and a summary of the actuarial study shall be published in the ballot pamphlet.

The effective date is the next term of each Supervisor.  Measure Q, Section 5.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 708-6055

The Results of the 1995 San Bernardino City Municipal Primary: City Attorney Election

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

I have been researching the history of the City Attorney’s Office in San Bernardino.  In the past, I have written a post which touches a little about the history of the City Attorney’s Office in San Bernardino, but I haven’t published a full history of the office.

In my series about past election results, I included data from past elections that was available from the San Bernardino Registrar of Voters.  I wrote “online sources say that City Attorney Penman beat Stan Tomlinson by a 3 to 1 margin in 1995.” Yesterday, pursuant to a California Public Records Act Request, I received a copy of the results of the 1995 election.  3 to one would be by 75 percent, but it was not quite 75 percent.

I have created a database of the City Attorney elections from 1907 to present, but other than the winners, and in some case the candidates, and in the rare case actual results, it is most complete from 1987 to present. I  have added all the counts together in one data set.  If there is a blank, I don’t have data.

Race (San Bernardino City Attorney) Candidates (Winner in Bold) Name as shown in records, where available Votes Percentage
19870307 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman
Ralph H. Prince
19910305 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman
19951107 Primary Municipal Election Jim Penman 9305 72.82
Stan Tomlinson 3472 27.17
No Vote Recorded 1116 Not included
19991102 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman
20031104 Primary Municipal Election Jim Penman 7,999 96.11
Write-In 324 3.89
20071106 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman 7,001 51.46
Marianne Milligan 6,557 48.2
Write-In 47 0.35
20111108 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman 6,447 51.72
David L. McKenna 6,019                       48.28
No Vote Recorded 489  Not included

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Address : 1255 W. Colton Ave., Suite 104
Redlands, CA 92374
Telephone: (909) 708-6055
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers