San Bernardino Recall 2013

    According to the Sun today, the Valente Duran Letter is again a campaign topic. I was asked on Facebook if I had a copy of the letter.

    When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I had to review every mobilehome notice of violation before they were issued. Long-time readers of this blog will remember that I was hired about a month after the City’s closure of the Cypress Inn Mobilehome Park and the Valente Duran letter.

    What does the Valente Duran letter actually say?  For some reason it is not available on anywhere on the web that is searchable by Google, at least the “original letter.”  There were two letters, one in English and one in Spanish.

    However, the English version is available on Laserfiche, the City of San Bernardino’s online records system. It was part of a handout to the Mayor and Common Council entered into the City’s record on April 15, 2002 by Gil Navarro, at public comments, and received by then-City Clerk Rachel Clark.

    The letter is undated, but refers to attachments dated March 18, 2002. The letter is addressed to Paul Smith, Chief of the Intake Division of the United States Department of HUD, California State Office.  The letter says (the all caps are in the original):

    WE HAVE CONDUCTED A THREE MONTH INVESTIGATION AND
    DISCOVERED CITY DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE
    ILLEGAL EVICTION OF THE RESIDENTS OF ” CYPRESS INN TRAILER
    PARK ,” WAS RACIALLY MOTIVATED.
    JAMES PENMAN, THE ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY
    OF SAN BERNARDINO, IN OUR OPINION, MALICIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY
    MISLED THE COURTS TO ALLOW A COURT ORDER TO THROW
    THESE LAW ABIDING RESIDENTS OF THE CYPRESS INN INTO THE
    STREETS OF SAN BERNARDINO INTO COCKROACH INFESTED MOTELS;
    LESS THAN TWO WEEKS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
    THIS ILLEGAL EVICTION DISRUPTED THE RIGHTFUL EDUCATION OF
    UNDER A HUNDRED SCHOOL CHILDREN WHO ALSO WERE INNOCENT
    VICTIMS. JAMES PENMAN, ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY’ S RACIST WRATH
    AGAINST THE LATINO COMMUNITY, RESULTED IN PITTING WHITE
    AND LATINO FAMILIES AGAINST EACH OTHER.
    IN ORDER FOR JAMES PENMAN TO INSURE THAT THE LATINO
    COMMUNITY GOT THE MESSAGE, HOW HE FELT ABOYT [sic] MEXICANS, IN
    GENERAL, HE TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO WRITE A LETTER ON OFFICIAL
    CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO LETTERHEAD, TO THE DURAN
    FAMILY, WHO ALREADY WAS [sic] SUFFERING FROM HUMILIATION AND
    DESPAIR, TO DEMAND AN APOLOGY OR ACCEPT A ” ONE WAY TICKET
    BACK TO MEXICO “.
    WE PRAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL INTERVENE
    AND COMPENSATE ALL OF THE FAMILIES THAT HAVE SUFFERED
    UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY’ S RACIST DICTATORSHIP OF THE CITY
    OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRING RELIEF TO THEIR CONTINUE [sic]
    SUFFERING.
    /s/ GIL NAVARRO, CHAIRMAN

    The first thing attached to MAPA’s letter to HUD is the Valente Duran Letter.  This is the English Duran letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/172196415/Letter-dated-December-20-2000-from-City-Attorney-James-F-Penman-to-Valente-Duran.

    If you don’t like to click through to other documents, here is a transcription of what the Valente Duran letter says:

    [Seal of the City of San Bernardino]

    OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
    CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

    James F. Penman

    City Attorney

    Mr. Valente Duran

    c/o EZ-8 Motel, Room 237-238
    1750 S. Waterman
    San Bernardino, California  92408

    Re: Cypress Inn Trailer Park

    Dear Mr. Duran:

    I read in the paper yesterday a statement attributed to you, “In Mexico, they treat us better
    than here.”
    The City of San Bernardino, out of concern for the safety of you and your family, evacuated
    you and your family on Thursday, December 14, 2000 from Cypress inn Trailer Park to the EZ-8 Motel.
    Our Fire Department Inspectors believe you and your family were living in a situation that                                  could result in serious injury or even death, due to the condition of the park and your mobile home.

           The people of the City of San Bernardino are presently paying for two rooms at the motel for
    you and your family and are reimbursing the Salvation Army for providing you and your family with  daily meals.

            We intend to continue providing you this assistance for the remainder of the two week period that you were informed of when the evacuation first occurred.

            In addition, as you have also previously been advised, the people of the City of San Bernardino through the City’s Economic Development Agency, is prepared to assist you and your family in obtaining more permanent housing by paying your first month’s rent and a security deposit at a residence that meets fire and building code standards.

             I do not know if the comment attributed to you in the newspaper is correct or not. If it is correct, I understand and respect your feelings for what I assume is your native country.

    300 NORTH “D” STREET •SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92418-0001 • (909) 384-5355 • Fax (909) 384-5238
    [End Page 1]
    [Beginning Page 2]
    Mr. Valente Duran
    Re: Cypress Inn Trailer Park                                                                                                        Page 2

                                                                                                                                                                                           
    However, I want you to know that the comment attributed to you in Tuesday’s paper was
    perceived as a criticism by you of the effort and funds that the people of the City of San Bernardino                        are providing for you and and your family.  We do not believe the criticism of our efforts is justified.

            The people of this City have no desire to deprive you or your family of what you may believe                   would be better treatment by the government of Mexico.  Therefore, in substitution for the housing,                      food, and other assistance the City of San Bernardino is voluntarily providing, we want to give you                         the option of continuing to receive this assistance or accepting our offer to arrange and pay for transportation for you and your family, one way, to Mexico.

               This alternative offer is conditioned upon your signing a release for the City of San
    Bernardino.

                If you choose not to accept this alternative offer the people of the City of San Bernardino will                      continue to assist you in the manner and for the time previously indicated.

                                                                                     Sincerely,

                                                                                                   /s/

                                                                                     JAMES F. PENMAN                                                                                     City Attorney

     

    cc:         Mayor Judith Valles

    City Councilmembers

     

    JFP/js [DURAN.LTR]

     

    [End Valente Duran Letter]

    As I stated, I was not at the City of San Bernardino at the time the letter was created and delivered.  I was still the Staff Attorney at Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino, Inc..

    A little context for the letter.  In 2000, there was a battle between the City Attorney, his Council allies and the forces of then-Mayor Judith Valles regarding Measure M, which was to pass a new charter for the City of San Bernardino.  Among the things that Measure M was going to do is make the City Attorney elected versus appointed.  Measure M was defeated by the voters. Measure M was drafted by a charter commission appointed by the Mayor and Common Council, and it was chaired by Jim Morris, the son of then-Judge Patrick Morris, and future chief of staff to now-Mayor Patrick J. Morris.

    The aftermath of the Valente Duran apparently lives on today. The reactions were immediate as well.

    According to an article by Stephen Wall in the Sun that is included in the backup for the January 8, 2001 Mayor and Common Council Meeting, the quote from Valente Duran appeared in the Sun on December 19, 2000.  That would mean the quote was probably on December 18, 2000.

    San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council Resolution Number 2001-007 was passed by the Mayor and Common Council by a vote of 5-2 on January 8, 2001.  The title of Resolution Number 2001-007 is “A Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino to Censure the City Attorney for Unauthorized and Insensitive Conduct.” The votes for the Resolution were Esther Estrada, Susan Lien, Gordon McGinnis, Frank Schnetz, and Joe Suarez. Voting against the Resolution were Betty Dean Anderson and Wendy McCammack.  It was also signed by Mayor Judith Valles.  The “approved as to form and content” is unsigned.

    A slightly different version of the Duran Letter is attached to Resolution 2001-007 as Exhibit “A.”  This version of the Valente Duran Letter is time and date stamped by “Common Council Office City of San Bernardino” on “00 Dec 20 P.M. 5:21”

    At the same time, the Council repealed a 1984 ordinance regarding the need for City Attorney approval prior to hiring outside attorneys.  That issue was later resolved, I believe, with a Charter amendment, but had been a long-simmering issue between the Mayor and Common Council and the City Attorney’s Office, which dated back to Holcomb and Ralph Prince fights.

    Here are the minutes of that discussion:

    THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REPEALING CHAPTER 2.
    20 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
    TO CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL TO RETAIN OUTSIDE
    SPECIAL COUNSEL SERVICES. (Discussed later in the
    meeting – page 25)  . . .

    Council Member Estrada stated that she would like to discuss an item that arose subsequent to the posting
    of the agenda, which was related to a comment made in the newspaper by representatives of
    the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) that they were going
    to request that the United States Department of Justice investigate what they believe to
    be a violation of civil rights of residents of the Cypress Inn Mobile Home Park. City Attorney
    Penman advised that the law requires that two- thirds of the Council vote that
    the matter arose after the agenda was posted; and in fact, the matter arose on December
    20, when the letter (a letter from City Attorney Penman to Mr. Duran, a resident
    of the Cypress Inn Mobile Home Park) was delivered to the Mayor’s Office and
    the Council Office. He noted that there was a newspaper article on Thursday morning,
    and members of the Council and the Mayor were contacted on Wednesday, long
    before the agenda was posted; therefore, in order to cast a vote that the need to take action rose after the agenda was posted, the event would need to have taken place since Friday morning.

    Council Member Estrada pointed out that it was only on the 5th of January
    Friday) that the threat of litigation was made public by MAPA.
    Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Lien,
    that the matter arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
    The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada,
    Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Members Anderson, McCarnmack.
    Absent: None.

    Council Member Estrada stated that earlier, before going into closed session,
    she had asked the Mayor and Council if they could address the issue in the newspaper
    regarding the controversy over a letter that was directed to a gentleman by the name of
    Mr. Duran. She stated that the reason she wanted to go into closed session was to be
    able to discuss privately the potential liability surrounding this issue. However, she had
    a concern as to whether the Council could receive an unbiased opinion or advice, since
    the person the Council would ask for advice is the very same person that is involved in
    this public controversy. She also stated that she did not think it would be fair to put a
    burden on the employees of the City Attorney’s Office by placing them in a
    situation where they could be asked to produce information that the Council might need on
    this matter. Ms. Estrada advised that this is very clearly the type of situation, in
    her opinion, where the City Attorney comes into conflict–the Conunon Council
    needs legal advice on a matter in which the City Attorney
    is involved. Council Member Estrada continued by explaining her concerns
    relative to Chapter 2.20 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, which states that
    the City Attorney must approve any outside counsel that the Mayor and Council would
    desire to hire. She pointed out that the original City Charter clearly gave the Mayor
    and Council authority to hire outside counsel, when needed. However, 15 to 16 years
    ago the Municipal Code was changed, and Chapter 2.20 was approved. She stated that
    it was her opinion that this chapter of the code needs to
    be addressed. At this time, Ms. Estrada presented a draft ordinance she
    had prepared rescinding Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 and asked City Clerk Clark for her
    help in finalizing it for Council approval. She stated that it was her understanding that
    in order for the Council to take this action on an ordinance, that there has to be
    something equal or higher replacing it, and it was also her understanding that what was contained
    in the charter already gives that authority to the Mayor and Council. She also
    understood that there must be 5 to 7 days before the second reading; therefore, if
    the ordinance received first reading today, this meeting could be continued to the
    following Monday,and the Council could act on the second reading at
    that time.

    Discussion ensued regarding the wording of the ordinance, the use of the word
    rescinded” versus “repealed,” and the fact that it must be approved as to form and
    legal content by the City Attorney’s Office.

    City Attorney Penman advised that should the City be sued over the letter
    he sent to Mr. Duran, the City Attorney’s Office would automatically recuse
    itself. He stated that it was the opinion of prior City Attorney Prince that the only
    thing Chapter 2.20 does is to codify what state law and case law is. He also advised that last
    year an independent evaluation of Section 2.20 was done by Attorney Allen Gresham,
    who also stated that Section 2.20 is merely a codification of the
    current law. Mr. Penman stated that insofar as that section of the City
    Charter which authorizes the Mayor and Council to retain legal counsel as needed–
    as Mr. Gresham’s opinion says, the words “as needed” have been interpreted by
    the courts to mean exactly what is written in Section2.20 of the Municipal
    Code. Mr. Penman contended that repealing Section2.20 would not give the Council authority
    to hire outside counsel.Mr. Penman stated that even though Council
    Member Estrada opposed Measure M, she came out at the same time wanting language put in
    the proposed charter that would do just what she was now proposing. He stated that Ms.
    Estrada has had a problem for years with the decision of the taxpayers to elect the
    City Attorney and to prevent the Mayor and Council from hiring attorneys of
    their own without the permission of the City Attorney. He stated that, in his opinion,
    Measure M was a strong reaffirmation of this policy, and by adopting the
    proposed ordinance the Council was setting the stage, first, for litigation; and secondly, for
    some more onerous civil action.

    Council Member McCammack expressed concern that repealing this section of the Municipal Code would provide an opportunity for
    future Councils to take advantage, possibly leaving the City open to litigation and costing
    the City hundreds of thousands of dollars. She questioned why, if the state bar and
    state law already require that if there is a lawsuit naming Mr. Pemnan, that he
    would automatically have to remove himself, the Council would need to repeal an ordinance that in
    the long run is going to endupcostingthe taxpayers hundreds of thousands of
    dollars. She stated that the issue is that of leaving the
    City open for litigation. Council Member Anderson questioned whether the
    action taken by City Attorney Penman was within his scope of duties as an elected
    official and whether he had violated any protocol, stating that she would hate to see
    the Council changing the Municipal Code every time something comes up
    they don’t agree with.
    Council Member Estrada reiterated that this action had nothing to do with what
    Mr. Penman had or had not done; it had to do with what she sees as a conflict, in that
    the person that would be giving the Council advice in this matter is the same person
    involved in the controversy. She stated that given these facts, it brings everything back
    to this ordinance which, according to Mr. Penman, is meaningless because the state
    statute prevails; and if that is the case, then no one should be opposed to going back to
    the original Charter.
    Mayor Valles pointed out that this has been a topic of discussion and a concern
    for much longer than this recent incident–that it was not something that just came
    up. She added that the timing is such that this may be the time to do it, and she
    believed this was the point Council Member Estrada was trying to
    make. City Attorney Penman expressed his opinion that this action was aimed at
    him personally, stating that it was incredible that a groupof elected officials would take
    an action so strongly against the will of the majority of the people in the city. He
    stated that in his opinion the Council was claiming falsely that the matter arose subsequent
    to the posting of the agenda, thereby denying the public the opportunity to attend one
    of the hearings relative to this ordinance.

    He also reminded the Council that the Charter provides that the City
    Attorney’s office shall prepare all ordinances and resolutions. He noted that if the
    Council did otherwise, the ordinance would be subject to being stricken by the court in a
    writ of mandate proceeding, and he strongly believed a citizen’s group would
    move to bring such an action.

    Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Lien,that the Mayor and Conunon Council direct the City Attorney’ s Office to prepare an ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code and that said ordinance be brought back to the afternoon session of the
    Council meeting for Council consideration.

    The motion carried by the following vote:
    Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays:
    Council Members

    During the announcements in the meeting, the minutes say “Mayor Valles also noted that she would be writing a letter to the Duran family.”

    During the same announcements, the minutes summarize City Attorney Penman’s comments as thanking “the large number of people (127) who called his office offering support and expressing agreement with his letter to Mr. Duran. He stated
    that 125 callers voiced support, while 2 of the callers were opposed to the letter.”

    After the repeal of section 2.20 was put on the agenda, this was the discussion at the January 8, 2001 meeting according to the minutes:

    Council Member Estrada reiterated that she had asked the Mayor and Council
    to allow her to bring an item forward that, in her opinion, arose after the posting of
    the agenda for today’ s meeting. She stated that it was also her opinion that the
    matter arose as the result of an article in the newspaper on Friday, January 5,which stated
    that the Mexican American Political Association ( MAPA) was going to be requesting
    that the United States Department of Justice investigate San Bernardino, and the City
    might find itself in litigation. It was her opinion that since City Attorney Penman is the
    person the Council should go to for legal advice, yet he is also the person involved
    in this controversy, that a conflict existed. She noted that for the past 15 or 16
    years the Municipal Code has contained Chapter 2.20, which basically gives authority to
    the City Attorney relative to approving any request by the Mayor and Council to
    seek outside legal advice, which now places the Council in a situation where there is
    a conflict.

    City Attorney Penman stated that it was his opinion that last summer the Mayor
    and Council wanted to have authority to hire their own attorney, and they brought
    forward to the voters Measure M which, among other things, contained language that
    was suggested by Council Member Estrada, who has long objected to the fact that the
    Council cannot hire their own attorney. He stated that the idea was to make the City
    Attorney appointed by the Mayor and Council so they could hire their own attorneys
    and, in his opinion, get confidential or secret advice. Subsequently, Measure M went
    to the voters and was defeated.

    Mr. Penman advised that when the firm of Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden was
    retained to provide an analysis of Measure M, they also provided an analysis of Charter
    Section 241 which states, “The Mayor and Common Council shall have power and
    authority to employ and engage such legal counsel and services and other assistants,
    as may be necessary and proper for the interest and benefit of the City and the
    inhabitants thereof.” Attorney Allen Gresham stated in his analysis, ” As a public officer, the
    City Attorney is, by law, expected to properly and timely provide the services required
    of the office. Indeed it would be tantamount to a waste of taxpayers funds if ”
    outside” counsel were hired to perform duties which the City Attorney was expected to
    discharge. ” Mr. Penman proceeded to read into the record a column from the editorial page of the San
    Bernardino Sun on November 9, 1987, dealing specifically with this issue. According to Mr.
    Penman, the Council, having failed to do away with the elected City Attorney
    by a Charter amendment, are now trying to sneak it in the back door by bringing
    an item forth that was not placed on the agenda, claiming that the need arose after
    the posting of the agenda. He stated that the letter to Mr. Duran is a ruse being used
    by the Council to get back at the voters, but he sees through the subterfuge.

    Mayor Valles stated that as she has researched what the City has spent in legal fees, she noted
    that the City has hired many, many, many outside attorneys, and some of them have
    cost a bundle, based on some decisions that were, perhaps, not made in the best interest
    of the City. She stated she resented the comment that the only reason this is being
    done is because Measure M failed–that one has nothing to do with the other.

    Council Member Estrada pointed out that she has always supported an elected City Attorney,
    and in fact has always seen Mr. Penman as an ally. She stated that if this ordinance
    is so meaningless, why is it that Mr. Penman is being so defensive and why is
    he willing, as he indicated to her, to expend all his money and efforts to beating this. She
    also stated that this has nothing to do with Measure M–it is about going back to
    what the City Forefathers and those who created the Charter planned–something that
    is in the Charter now.

    Ms. Estrada stated that she wanted those people who support Mr. Penman, as
    she has supported Mr. Penman over the years, to know that this is not personally
    against Mr. Penman–it has to do with the conflict of interest that it presents to
    the office of the City Attorney regardless of who sits in that office. She pointed out that
    it is Mr. Penman who continues to keep Measure M alive, and also noted that we are
    a charter city, not a general law city, and some of the rules that apply to general
    law cities do not apply to us.

    Council Member McCammack spoke in opposition to the proposed
    ordinance, stating that she could not support this item because she must be a more
    responsible elected official with the taxpayers money than what repealing this ordinance
    would allow; and for this reason–fiscal responsibility– she would not
    support this ordinance. She also expressed her opinion that there were underlying reasons
    for this action.

    Discussion on this matter continued at length. It was pointed
    out that no individual Council member could go out and hire an attorney and then bill
    the City for these services–that anytime outside counsel would be retained, it
    would have to be approved by the Council.

    Mayor Valles, putting the matter in historical perspective, noted that Attorney’sopinions appeared on the scene in approximately 1987, yet the charter was approved in 1905. Therefore, up until the 1980s the Mayor and Council had the right to hire outside legal counsel, and she did not believe there was ever
    any record of it being abused. Therefore, she requested that the discussion move “off
    of Measure M and off of making this a personal issue.” She stated that what
    Council Member Estrada wanted to do is rescind or repeal Municipal Code Section 2.20 and go
    back to the original Charter.

    The Mayor reiterated that from 1905 to 1987 this edict of the charter was never abused; however, the City has hired a great deal of outside counsel since the mid ’80s and it has cost the City a bundle. In addition, for any
    additional legal expenditures to be made it has to come before this Mayor and Council and must be voted
    on by all of the Council members, who are here to represent their constituents, while the responsibility of the Mayor is to be the real fiscal watchdog of the City. She noted that Council Member Estrada had given this a great deal of thought, it did not happen overnight, she was talking about this long before Measure M,
    and for people to associate one with the other is a false association.

    Council Member McGinnis stated that when he first became a Council member he asked if the Council could get a second opinion and was told “no.” He stated that he believed there were some issues where he could see no harm in obtaining a second opinion; however, he did not think these opinions should be
    separate from Mr.Penman–he should be included in the process.
    Council Member Schnetz reiterated that it would take a majority vote of the
    Council to hire outside counsel, and if it is less than five votes it can be vetoed by the
    Mayor. He advised that he does not see anything in the charter, which the people
    recently reaffirmed they were overwhelmingly in favor of, that anybody in particular
    has a specific watchdog role-that the closest thing he could see that talks about
    the concept of a watchdog” and whose duty that is, is reference to the Mayor of the
    City, as having the oversight or management of the City, making sure the books are
    kept, making sure all contracts of the City are fulfilled and to bring legal action if
    those contracts are not fulfilled.

    Mr. Schnetz stated that he takes it a little personal that in the City
    Attorney’s comments he portrayed the Council as being something less than honorable and
    that this less than honorable body would defeat or restrict the people’s lawyer.
    He stated that the last time he checked, this body was the people’s body–
    the Mayor was elected by the people, and when he was elected he received nearly 66% of
    the vote of his ward, Council Member Estrada 72 % of her ward, and Council Member Lien over
    70 % o f her ward– that this body is the people’s body. Mr. Schnetz
    noted that there have been numerous Council Members and three or four Mayors, and for
    some reason they all get sideways with the City Attorney. He stated that he did
    not understand it–whether it is the process that the City Attorney uses, or if it is
    the personal attributes of the City Attorney–but he does feel that this particular
    ordinance is something that is not needed, and the rescinding of Chapter 2.20 would be in the
    best interest of the people, and this body was elected by the people.

    Council Member Estrada explained that over the course of all these years, many times Council Members have gone as members of the Council (not for personal counsel) to Mr. Penman and brought up different issues,
    and he has said,I “do not represent you, I represent the people” –and
    this has never been clearly clarified. She noted that the Council members represent the people,
    too. They take an oath and state that they will do the best for the City of San
    Bernardino; not just their own ward. She pointed out that this has been a major problem,
    for if Mr. Penman doesn’t represent the Council, who does?

    Ms. Estrada stated that as the legislative body of this City, the Council is charged with the responsibility of
    creating policy. She pointed out that what Chapter 2.20does, is if the Council seeks another
    opinion because they want to create a policy or whatever, and the City Attorney does
    not agree and does not consent to allowing them the opinion of an outside attorney,
    the Council is strung out and cannot move forward, because they have not received the consent
    to do it.Bottom line,they are the legislative body that is supposed to create the policy
    and the laws for the city, but final decision on whether they can do it or not does
    not rest with them, but with the City Attorney’s office, and she finds that
    a conflict. In her opinion, if the Council members are the policy makers, and they are elected by
    the people they should be able to have the freedom, as the City Fathers saw fit, to follow the
    policy contained in the Charter that gives them this authority.

    City Attorney Penman stated he has never been asked for a second opinion when
    the Mayor and Council’s opinion agreed with the City Attorney’ s opinion.
    The only time they ask for a second opinion is when they disagree, and then what
    they are looking for is not a second opinion, they are looking for a different
    opinion. He reiterated that if a lawsuit is filed against the City because of the letter he wrote
    to Mr.Duran, the City Attorney’s Office would conflict off on that lawsuit as
    they have done in the past, and another attorney would be hired by the Mayor and
    Council. He stated it is a rehash of the issues involved in Measure M, and it looks like the
    issue will be brought back to the people again, because the Council knows their
    ordinance will be subject to a referendum and they will get the opportunity to place it on
    the ballot. He admonished the Council, stating that they were going to cost the City
    more money, for another election, and the public is not going to
    change their minds.

    Lee McConahy, 261 S. Arrowhead , San Bernardino, CA, stated that Charter Section 55 states that the City Attorney shall be the chief legal officer  of the city who shall represent or advise the Mayor and Common Council and City Officers in all manner of law pertaining to the offices. He noted that the key word is “advise.” He stated that he believed the Mayor and Council need to take the advice of the City Attorney, but they also need to be able to seek other opinions. City Clerk Clark provided a full reading of the ordinance into
    the record. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
    Member Lien,that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption.The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada,Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Members
    Anderson and McCammack.

    Then, the meeting turned to the vote to censure the City Attorney for the Valente Duran letter.  The minutes say:

    Council Member Lien stated she would like the Council to consider an
    item that came up after the posting of the agenda–a resolution to censure the
    City Attorney. She stated that she did not take pleasure in this action; however, the
    letter Mr. Penman wrote to Mr. Duran left her no choice.
    Council Member Lien provided background information, stating that Mr. Duran
    and his family and neighbors were turned out of their homes when the City was forced
    to act, and at that time the City and the conununity reached out to do everything they
    could for these families. Nonetheless, under these very stressful circumstances, Mr.
    Duran lashed out, saying that, “In Mexico they treat us better than here.” Ms. Lien pointed
    out that this kind of statement could have been said by anyone in similar circumstances;
    in fact, the Council hears charges against them at meetings all the time.

    Council Member Lien pointed out how fearful Mr. Duran must have been when he
    received this letter that represented the mighty power of the City. She noted that Mr.
    Duran and his family were here legally–four of his children were born here–
    and many of the Latino community were incensed by the letter, which offered a man
    and his family a one-way ticket to leave the country.

    Ms. Lien stated that this was a throw- back to an all too prevalent attitude that unfortunately still lingers, and there is a lot of history that fuels this type of anger in minorities when these things surface. She questioned what could be more offensive than a public official offering a man and his family a one-way
    ticket to leave the country. She noted that the good people of San Bernardino are fighting
    hard to put this city back on its feet, and the Cypress Inn (where Mr. Duran and his
    family lived) is just one example of the physical blights plaguing our city; however,
    far worse than the blight is the image that the City Attorney now
    casts on our city.

    Council Member Lien stated that the City would not easily
    rid itself of this public disgrace, and if the executive and legislative powers of the
    City didn’t take swift and responsible action, they would become complacent
    accomplices to an act of intolerance. She stated she was outraged, livid,
    furious, and heartbroken for Mr. Duran and his family, but most of all she was heartbroken
    and ashamed for the city. She stated that the Council must act today and should
    not leave the Council Chambers before attempting to do so.

    Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez, that the matter arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda.

    The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez.
    Nays: Council Members Anderson, McCammack. Absent: None.

    Council Member Lien provided a full reading of the resolution for the record.

    Council Member Estrada stated that given on the prior issue she attempted to separate the two matters of the letter to Mr. Duran and Section 2.20 of the Municipal Code, she had not had an opportunity to make public
    statements relative to Mr. Duran’s letter, but she felt she needed to let the people of San Bernardino know why. She explained that over the last three weeks she has been on vacation–a couple of days
    one week and three days the next–and she had no idea this situation was developing until she read the papers and got caught with what had happened over the course of the last three to four weeks, going back to
    December 20.

    Ms.Estrada advised that right before Christmas and right before New Years she had come in and gone through her mail; however, there was not a copy of Mr.Penman’ s letter in her correspondence. Council Member Estrada
    stated that she considered Mr. Penman a very smart individual, but what she did
    not understand is why the letter was ever written. She stated that Mr. Penman, due
    to his legal experience, understands better than any one of the Council members, that everyone residing in this country is guaranteed freedom of speech. She acknowledged that as elected officials they may not like what some people have to say, but this country does guarantee everyone the right
    to free speech.

    Council Member Estrada continued her comments, pointing out
    that as elected officials, they do not have the privilege that the general public
    has–when they speak their words they must be very careful, because they have to make sure
    that at the same time they are protecting the taxpayers of the city and that they
    are not committing the City to face liability that they are not entitled to
    commit the City for.

    Council Member Estrada stated that she, too, was elected
    to represent all the people–not just those she agrees with or that agree with
    her. What this issue has brought to light is that we need to develop guidelines on what
    we can and can’t say publicly. She stated that no resident, legal or otherwise,
    should be treated the way this family had been treated, and she pledged to work to
    make sure that this does not happen again. She asked the community to give the
    City a chance to correct this problem, because we must work together to correct it.

    She also addressed Mr. Penman, stating that she knew in his heart he did not want to do anything that would harm the city, and to please be very careful of what he says and does from this point forward, as
    everyone must be. She addressed her colleagues, stating that they were elected to exercise
    leadership, and they must do what is right for the people of San Bernardino– and that
    includes all ofthe people of San Bernardino.

    Council Member Estrada asked for clarification on the censure, stating that she would like to make sure that
    everybody, including herself, understood in what context it is being used.

    Mayor Valles stated that she thought the language in the censure was very clear; it states a series of principles of the City, and certainly of our country, and the fact that the comments, or the infamous letter, are being
    perceived by many in the community as  divisive, and that she and the Council members, as elected officials, as leaders of this community, must make every effort possible to combat continuing prejudices, bias, and
    discrimination to overcome hostility toward immigrants and heal the wounds of racism,
    bigotry, and other forms of discrimination. She stated she was sure that Mr. Penman
    did not intend his comments to be racist; however, that is how they were being viewed,
    and it is incumbent upon City officials, as the leaders in this community, to make sure
    that it does not take a foothold in this community and that it does not divide us any
    further. She stated that she believed that this was the intent of the censure.

    Mayor Valles stated that she also understood that a resolution must be drafted by
    the City Attorney according to the Charter; however, as she read the Charter it says
    that, “he or she ( City Attorney) shall attend meetings of the City Council, draft
    proposed ordinances and resolutions”; however, it does not indicate exclusivity to the
    writing of a resolution to the City Attorney. She noted that this resolution, obviously,
    could not have been written by the City Attorney.
    City Attorney Penman stated that it has been a mark of pride for him in his 13 1/2
    years as City Attorney to be condemned by a previous City Council, a previous Mayor,
    and a City Administrator. He maintained that the right thing was done in writing the
    letter–that if the same situation should arise next week, he would write another
    letter. He stated that the proposed resolution was filled with inaccurate and untrue
    statements.

    Mr. Penman stated that he thought it was very unfortunate that the Council
    had just claimed a few minutes ago that the ordinance to repeal Section 2.20 of
    the Municipal Code was not personal, yet it was brought up orally by Council
    Member Estrada, and then afterwards the so-called censure. He stated that the Council
    had no authority to initiate a censure; however, that did not bother the Council, as
    it was already written, printed, and copied.

    Mr. Penman restated his opinion that this was a personal attack–
    that Measure M was a personal attack and this was a continuation of Measure M.
    He ascertained that the letter was not racist– that it was anything but that. and that
    anyone who knows him,knows better than that–and this Council is not qualified to
    make a determination as to whether Jim Penman has done something racially
    inappropriate or not. He challenged them to cast their votes, stating that he would proudly use
    that vote everywhere he goes to say, as he introduces himself, “This is Jim Penman, the man
    who was called a racist by MAPA and the man whom one mayor and
    five council members, obviously in MAPA’s pocket, agreed with MAPA and passed a
    resolution that they had no authority to pass, on an issue that if they were serving the
    public, they would have taken the same stand as the
    Office of the City Attorney. ”

    Council Member Anderson stated that she was not a person who promotes dissention or divisiveness– that she has tried not to do that–and that she was really very hurt that this was the
    point to which the Council had come.

    Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez,
    that said resolution be adopted. ( Note: The vote was taken following additional
    discussion and comments.)
    Council Member McCammack stated that there were inaccuracies in the
    resolution that could come back to haunt the Council in court at another time.
    Mayor Valles asked Mrs. McCammack to point out the inaccuracies.
    Council Member Anderson stated that the Council did not need to be on such a
    fast track to do things that are going to divide this community–that it was going to
    be hard to knit back together. She noted that San Bernardino is on the cusp of
    being developed by a very good development agency, we are on the cusp of doing some
    great things and getting out of this “hole” that we have been in for the last 10-20
    years, and now we’re sitting up here as elected officials going at each other throats.
    She stated she did not like being a part of anything like this; that everyone should back off
    and have a reality check with each other and stop being so divisive and petty. She
    stated that they were all professionals and it was time for them to start acting that way
    and stop doing this to each other. According to Mrs. Anderson. this
    resolution–with one elected official censuring another elected official–was wrong, and
    a reality check was needed.

    Council Member McCammack stated that she believed that the Mayor should at least talk to someone in the City Attorney’s Office to make sure that there was nothing in the resolution that would cause future litigation with suits going on in this City. She again stated that there were inaccuracies, one of
    them being that Code Enforcement did not cause this.

    The Mayor stated that this could be corrected right now. She thought it started with the Fire Marshall, but eventually everyone got into it, including Code Enforcement. Council Member McCamrnack stated that
    the Council should also find out whether Mr. Penman’ s Office was or was not
    authorized to make that offer, since he had been authorized
    to make similar offers to other individuals.

    Mayor Valles stated that she did not believe thatMr. Penman had been authorized to give people passage out of
    this country or even out of California.

    City Attorney Penman advised that the offer made in the letter was within his purview, under those circumstances, based on past Council actions and based on expenditures that he can make out of his own budget. He indicated that this part of the resolution was also inaccurate.
    The following individuals spoke in support of the resolution to censure City
    Attorney Pemnan:
    Attorney Timothy Prince, 290 North “D” Street, San Bernardino, CA.
    Shirley Goodwin, 3715 Camellia Drive, San Bernardino, CA.
    Gail Fry, 7066 Andes Trail, Apple Valley, CA, whose comments centered
    around what she termed “code enforcement raids” and the right of everyone to feel safe
    and secure in their homes.
    Attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes, 290 North “D” Street, Ste. 805, San
    Bernardino, CA, who pointed out that the First Amendment does allow both Mr.
    Duran, in his criticism, and Mr. Penman, as a citizen, the right of free speech;
    however, Mr. Penman’s comments were made not as a private citizen but as
    a representative of the City of San Bernardino.

    Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino,
    CA. Note: City Attorney Penman took exception to several comments made by
    the above speakers.)

    The following individuals spoke in opposition to the resolution to
    censure City Attorney Penman:

    Pam Zander, 597 East 29th Street, SanBernardino,
    CA.

    James Roe, 325 West Sixth Street, San Bernardino,
    CA.

    Gary Kirby, 1505 Yardley Street, San Bernardino, CA, who stated that
    he clearly sees this as an attack on Mr. Penman because of his opposition to Measure
    M and a desire to promote victimhood by certain organizations who make their living
    by creating victims and attacking people because of a victimhood
    status.

    Dan Walker, Conejo Street, San Bernardino, CA.

    Mayor Valles suggested that before proceeding further, due to the
    conunents made by Council Member McCarnmack and City Attorney Penman, a change should
    be made in the seventh paragraph of the resolution to change the words, “by
    code enforcement actions,” to state, ” because of  health and safety issues.”
    City Attorney Penman noted that the resolution indicated that a copy of the letter
    to Mr. Duran from City Attorney Penman) was attached as Exhibit “A,” yet no copy
    of the letter was attached to his copy of the resolution, and he would want to make sure
    that everyone who reads the resolution is also able to read the letter that he wrote.
    Council Member Lien amended her motion, seconded by Council Member
    Suarez, that said resolution be adopted, as amended in paragraph 7, lines 3 and 4, by
    replacing the words “by code enforcement actions” with the words “because of health
    and safety issues.”
    The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada,
    Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Members Anderson, McCanunack.
    Absent: None.

    On July 5, 2001, Sixth Ward Councilmember Betty Dean Anderson submitted a Request for Council Action to repeal Resolution 2001-007.  In her memorandum of the same date, Councilmember Anderson stated:

    In January of this year, the city government was still living in the aftermath of what had been a bitter November 2000 special city election.  Resolution No. 2001-007 was adopted hurriedly in this atmosphere.

    The Duran letter is also available online in the backup to the July 9, 2001 agenda item, which was tabled by the same vote.  City Attorney James F. Penman and Gil Navarro both spoke on the item.

    While the issue of the Cypress Inn Mobile Home relocations continued throughout 2001, and the EDA helped rehabilitate the park, the issue lay mostly dormant until the HUD investigation.  An abstract of an article dated December 27, 2001 in the Sun by Joe Nelson states that: HUD “launched an investigation into allegations that San Bernardino violated the Fair Housing Act and civil-rights laws when officials evicted dozens of Latino residents from a squalid mobile home park last year.” The same article says that the HUD complaint was filed on December 21, 2001.  If I recall correctly, the HUD complaint came in to the City Attorney’s Office December 26, 2001.

    On June 17, 2001, a professional services agreement was filed between the City and Lewis D’Amoto (and Joseph Arias in particular) to represent the City.

    HUD continued their investigation until October 2002.  The final report, according to the Sun, said that the City did not discriminate against Latinos in closing Cypress Inn Mobilehome Park.

    I never saw that report, and it is not available in the City’s online records.

     

    So far nothing has been written on City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman’s Recall Election campaign, beyond this post.  I strive to remain neutral in these elections; however, I have some observations.

    I have not seen any signs in San Bernardino.  I have not received official campaign literature.  I have not received a fundraising letter from the campaign itself.  I have been informed that there is an October 2nd 2013 fundraiser against the recall.  The flier for the fundraiser has a campaign style sign in the upper right hand corner that says “San Bernardino is Not For Sale NO Recall.

    According to the flier, the fundraiser is cosponsored by former Mayors Judith Valles, Evlyn Wilcox, and Dr. Barbara Flores. Also according to the flier, the honorary co-sponsors are Retired Superior Court Judges Paul Bryant, Stanley W. Hodge, Craig Kamansky, John Martin, and John Wade. The flier says that more honorary co-sponsors are attorneys Joe Arias, Rene Jacober, George Theios, Bradley White, and the law firm of Gresham, Savage, Nolan and Tilden.  More co-sponsors, according to the flier are Sharon Gaitan-Blechinger of the Mexico Cafe, Robert Gastel of Arrowhead Mechanical, Jack Katzman, ABO, Inc., George Kritikos, George’s Burgers, and Jeremy LeClair of The Mug Restaurant. The flier says that it is a partial list.

    In the 2011 election, I said:

    When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I learned a thing or two about San Bernardino politics.   One was that you shouldn’t bother spending money before Labor Day for a November election.  The second thing I learned is that with more voters using vote by mail (what used to be called absentee voting), candidates have to send direct mail earlier, and last minute hit pieces don’t work as well as they used to do.  Typically, a candidate will send a positive mailer first, particularly if they are not well-known.

    What surprises me now, if there is such a thing left as surprise in modern San Bernardino politics, is that I have not received any mail from City Attorney James F. Penman in this cycle.  The first ballots should arrive in in the second week in October.  I do not recall that there was a working James F. Penman website in the 2011 race.  There is not one now, but I would argue that electronic campaign presence is more important now than in the past.  If you look at the 2011-2012 San Bernardino City Clerk’s race, which was so close, a modern campaign must use all electronic means to contact supporters and voters.

    History shows that City Attorney James F. Penman’s  election margins and votes have gone down since 1995.  That can be attributed to a number factors, including changing of demographics, with some of City Attorney James F. Penman’s core supporters either leaving the City, leaving the area, and sometimes ceasing to exist, either by changing from a supporter to an opponent, or shall we euphemistically say, “pining for the fjords.

    What is the support for the assertion that City Attorney Jim Penman is losing support?

    Here are the results by election:

    19870307 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman  No data
    Ralph H. Prince  No Data
    19910305 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman  No Data
    19951107 Primary Municipal Election Jim Penman 9305 72.82 SB Clerk
    Stan Tomlinson 3472 27.17 13,893 ballots cast, 77,185 registered voters
    No Vote Recorded 1116 Not included
    19991102 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman 7560 100 SBROV
    20031104 Primary Municipal Election Jim Penman 7,999 96.11 SBROV
    Write-In 324 3.89
    20071106 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman 7,001 51.46 SBROV
    Marianne Milligan 6,557 48.2
    Write-In 47 0.35
    20111108 Primary Municipal Election James Frank “Jim” Penman 6,447 51.72 ROV/Clerk
    David L. McKenna 6,019 48.28
    No Vote Recorded 489 Not included 12,955 ballots cast

    What does this data mean? Though the population has increased from 1990 (164,164) to now (2012 estimate: 213,295), an increase of thirty percent, Jim Penman’s votes have fallen about 30 percent.

    These numbers should be alarming to City Attorney James F. Penman’s campaign.  The 2011 numbers should also be alarming to Jim Penman’s campaign.  The 489 undervotes, spoiled ballots, or unrecognized write-ins had a potential of changing the election.  Again, the 2011-2012 City Clerk elections shows every vote counts.

    Even more alarming are the reported number of valid recall signatures.  Though a signature is not a vote, as there are multiple barriers to voting versus signing a petition, and even though there were allegations of signature fraud, the reported number of valid signatures is 11,855, just over the required 15 percent of registered voters at the time of the circulation of the petition:

    There were 11,855 valid signatures to recall Penman, out of 77,254 registered voters, according to Hanna. That’s 15.3 percent, just over the 15 percent threshold to put a city-wide office on the ballot for a recall.  The Sun, Ryan Hagen, “Penman, two council members to be on San Bernardino recall ballot,” posted at sbsun.com .

    The Certificate of Sufficiency of Recall Petition of City Attorney is attached to Resolution 2013-259 passed 5-0-2 at the September 3, 2013 Mayor and Common Council Meeting . The Certificate states that 11,588 valid signatures to qualify, which is shown as 15 percent of 77,254 registered voters. 18,070 signatures were submitted, 18,070 were verified, of which 11,855 were found valid, and 6,215 were found invalid.

    It can and has been said that 59,184 voters did not validly sign a recall petition, and that the recall only had 267 more valid signatures over the minimum.  However, in the November 8, 2011 election, only 12,955 ballots were cast in total.  11,588 valid signatures were found by the City Clerk.  Even if Mr. Penman equals the number of votes (6,447) he received in that election, there are still 5,141 more signatures to recall Mr. Penman in 2013 than votes for Mr. Penman in 2011.

    Recalls are sufficiently rare in San Bernardino that voters may need to be educated on how to vote.  The Penman campaign must educate voters that they must vote “No” to retain James F. Penman.  That can be confusing to some voters.  However, that information is to my knowledge not available to voters.

    It has been argued that the replacement candidates are not sufficiently attractive to motive voters to the polls.  However, this is not a single-issue election, and the number of races exceeds the 2011 Primary Municipal Election. Further, there were huge negatives to the last two challengers.  The two replacement candidates are both longtime San Bernardino residents, if nothing else. It would be a mistake to underestimate the replacement candidates.

    Should City Attorney James F. Penman wish to finish the term to which he was elected in November 8, 2011, he should be concerned about the decline in votes, the number of valid petitions.  The first ballots will be in the hands of voters in a few weeks, the election will be over in about a month and half. No doubt he is sufficiently concerned, however, we have not seen that concern translate into outreach, including traditional walking precincts, campaign mail, or new media.

     

    Officially, San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government claims to be neutral on the candidate to replace City Attorney James F. Penman, should voters vote to recall Jim Penman on the recall question on the November 5, 2013 ballot.  San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government is the PAC behind the San Bernardino Recall on the November 5, 2013 ballot.

    San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government public relations consultant Michael McKinney is quoted as saying:

    “We’re pleased that there have been candidates that have come forward out of the community that are running in this historic chance to have seven of the nine office-holders on the ballot,” said Michael McKinney, manager of the recall campaign, referring to the candidates facing recall plus those already up for election that day. “The recall committee itself will be in the field supporting the recall, urging voters to vote yes, but it’s not allowed under its organization to help any of the candidates.”  The Sun, Ryan Hagen, “Eight candidates qualify for San Bernardino Recall Election, posted 9/6/2013 6:40 PM PDT.

    The San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government’s website, as of the writing of this post, does not have any information supporting any specific replacement candidates.

    However, on Twitter, Michael McKinney, slams both City Attorney James F. Penman, and replacement candidate Tim Prince in response to a tweet from Ryan Hagen regarding Gary Saenz:

    1. @SBcityNOW very hypocritical of Penman to throw stones while living in a glass house given the active FPPC investigation.

    2. @MICAPRGA I wasn’t familiar with this investigation until now. Was complaint made by SBRFRG?

    3. @SBcityNOW personal complaint filed 28 May 2013 FPPC file no 13/341. Investigation confirmed 16 August 2013.

    4. @MICAPRGA I’ll get the details tomorrow. Thanks for the heads-up.

    @SBcityNOW along the lines of glass houses. 2008 Congressional candidate’s online bio. pic.twitter.com/JdMQ73RHfn

    2:47 PM – 13 Sep 13

    Image will appear as a link
    1. .@MICAPRGA Interesting. @IEPrince, didn’t you say you understood this to be forbidden?

    2. @SBcityNOW The title is proper in a resume as long as it is not used in a book issued for sale (published). The 2007 excerpt complied.

    3. @SBcityNOW Numerous local attorneys including Penman’s longtime outside contract attorney Joseph Arias http://ariaslockwood.com/joseph-arias  use the term.

    4. @IEPrince I see that Arias does list it; perhaps it is common. Context perhaps different on something intended for legal audience?

    5. @IEPrince “public” still seems to be what “intended for publication” means. Why prohibit using it in resume sold as a book?

    6. @SBcityNOW Use of the title in resumes is acceptable as long as it is not intended to sell books (implying the author is a judge).

    7. @IEPrince hmm, I see. I’ll get your perspective in more detail Monday, but thanks for responding.

     Now, perhaps Michael McKinney is acting on his own, but it is curious that someone who is presumably paid by San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government is slamming Tim Prince.  According to Michael McKinney, as cited above,  “but it’s  not allowed under its [San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government] organization to help any of the candidates.”
    Considering there are only two replacement candidates running should the recall of San Bernardino City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman be successful,  the public relations consultant for San Beranrdino Residents for Responsible Government is defending one candidate (Gary Saenz) while slamming the other replacement candidate (Tim Prince).
    Michael McKinney’s statement that San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government is not allowed to help any of its candidates does not correspond with what their website says:

    What happens next?

    The City needs new and vibrant leadership. San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government encourages qualified replacement candidates to run for office. This committee will support the Recall initiative and may become involved in recruiting and supporting candidates after the petition phase of the campaign.  San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government, FAQs, http://www.sanbernardinorecall.org/faqs/ accessed September 20, 2013 11:18 a.m. PDT.

    Therefore, it can be deduced that San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government is not only supporting the recall of City Attorney James F. Penman, but also supports recall replacement candidate Gary Saenz over Tim Prince.

    In my last post, I described that I did not know much about Gary Saenz, the San Bernardino Attorney running in the recall election on November 5, 2013 in San Bernardino.  In order for Gary Saenz to be elected to fill out the remaining term of City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman, first voters, by a majority, must vote to recall City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman, Gary Saenz must get more votes then San Bernardino Attorney Tim Prince, and Gary Saenz must qualify for the position after his election.

    At this point, September 19, 2013, at 10:33 a.m., I have not found a campaign website for Gary Saenz.

    By searching the membership records at the State Bar of California online, I found this information:

    Gary David Sanez, State Bar Number 79539, is an active member of the State Bar of California, admitted on April 28, 1978 and active from that date on.  His undergraduate school was San Diego State University, San Diego, California, and his law school was University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law.  He has no public record of discipline, and no public record of administrative actions.

    The top result in Google for his law firm is a Facebook result. There are other similar social media sites that are largely devoid of information except for an address and a phone number.  The address of his law firm near 1oth Street and D Street, when run through the Tax Collector’s website, states that Gary Saenz owns the property as a tenant in common, with Ronald Saenz and Robert Saenz.

    This Likedin profile states that Gary Saenz is an attorney at Saenz Realty.

    What about the local media, what do they have to say about Gary Saenz?

    In a post dated September 6, 2013 at 6:40 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, Ryan Hagen of the Sun posted an article named”Eight candidates qualify for San Bernardino recall election.” The article provides the following information regarding Gary D. Saenz:

    “I see a tremendous need for a competent attorney to run as the city attorney,” Saenz said. “I see a need for an attorney whose intentions are to do just that: to be an attorney for the city and not to be a politician.”

    Saenz has experience primarily in real estate law, although some cases have involved representing individuals in bankruptcy court. He said the city should hire outside attorneys who specialize in certain areas — as the city has already done with its bankruptcy case.

    “What a good manager does is rely upon other people who are skilled in administering an office, for example, and who are knowledgeable in areas where I am not as knowledgeable, such as public law,” he said. “It would be my intention to have the right staff person or contract attorney, and make sure everything that crosses the desk is a good fit for the city of San Bernardino.”

    Saenz has lived and practiced law in the city for more than 30 years and has volunteered as a library trustee, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and other charitable organizations as well as a judge pro-tem for San Bernardino County Courts, according to his ballot statement.

    The next online information about Gary Saenz is included in an article posted on September 16, 2013 at 5:09 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, written by Ryan Hagen of the Sun, named “San Bernardino city attorney candidate Tim Prince called hypocritical

    The article has the following to say about Gary Saenz:

    By contrast, a 2007 policy by San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Larry Allen based on state ethics rules specifically prohibits using the term on a candidate statement that is mailed to voters, as Gary Saenz did until instructed to change it by City Clerk Gigi Hanna.

    . . .

    Saenz maintained that using the term was a technicality that should have no bearing on voters.

    “I have to maintain that this is simply not a pertinent issue to this election,” he said in an email. “It wasn’t an issue when it related to me, and I don’t feel any differently now that it involves Mr. Prince.”

    The change to Saenz’s candidate statement was one of four requested by elections officials, including a change to Prince’s statement.

    That story was in response to a story posted on September 12, 2013 at 5:59 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time by Ryan Hagen of The Sun, “San Bernardino city attorney candidate revises statement,” Gary Saenz is quoted:

    “To say this is a trivial matter is an understatement,” Saenz said in an email. “No one expects an attorney to keep up on laws about judges, especially when one is no longer a judge. But that doesn’t stop my opponents looking for minutia to try and create a political issue.”

    . . .

    By Ryan Hagen, The Sun

    Posted: |

    SAN BERNARDINO >> A candidate for city attorney was forced to change the statement that will be sent to voters in the recall election after the current city attorney pointed out that Gary D. Saenz was not allowed to say that for more than 10 years he had served as “judge-pro-tem.”

    Use of that title — or “temporary judge” as they’re now known — in political ballot statements is specifically forbidden on a two-page policy on temporary judges that San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Larry Allen sent to all temporary judges in 2007.

    That was several years after Saenz, who is primarily a real estate attorney, says he stopped being a judge pro tem.

    “To say this is a trivial matter is an understatement,” Saenz said in an email. “No one expects an attorney to keep up on laws about judges, especially when one is no longer a judge. But that doesn’t stop my opponents looking for minutia to try and create a political issue.”

    According to emails, Penman informed the city clerk’s office that the term was not allowed and City Clerk Gigi Hanna on Wednesday asked Saenz to remove it from his candidate statement. Saenz sent a revised statement — the same as his previous 11-sentence statement but without the sentence mentioning he had been judge pro tem — later that day.

    Saenz has said he would use deputies or contract attorneys to offer advice on specialized areas of law with which he was not familiar, and said this incident shows why a non-politician should hold the office.

    “It is politics as usual from a seat in City Hall that simply should not be political,” he said. “It is exactly why I am running – to remove the political gamesmanship from the City Attorney office.”

    I do not have access to the Sun’s archives, but Gary Saenz is mentioned in the following stories:

    The Sun, September 14, 2003, Alan Schnepf,  “Ex-Waitresses order a reunion” about Nena’s in San Bernardino,

    The Sun, April 15, 2005, David Schwartz,  “Library board looking for book budget funds” where Gary Saenz is quoted as the San Bernardino Public Library Board Vice President.

    The Sun, June 5, 2008, Robert Rogers”A symbol of possibility,” a story about Robert F. Kennedy’s visit to San Bernardino on May 29, 1968, which states in part that “When RFK visited San Bernardino on May 29, a then-16-year old Eisenhower High School student named Gary Saenz tailed the campaign, taking photos . . .”

    The Sun, February 19, 2005, David Schwartz, “Proud to be on A-list” regarding restaurant inspections, Gary Saenz is quoted.

    From public records available on the Internet, he was born in San Bernardino County in 1951.  He lives and owns a home in the 7th Ward of San Bernardino, and has lived at his present home since the mid-1990s.

    From the City’s website, he was appointed to the Library Board of Trustees by Mayor Judith Valles, and approved by the Mayor and Common Council at the January 24, 2000 meeting.  Council Member Frank Schnetz made the motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada, and the motion was unanimously carried.

    In the back-up for that meeting, Gary Saenz gave some autobiographical information.  He has lived in San Bernardino since 1951. In 2000, he was a member of the First Presbyterian Chuch of San Bernardino, a Member of the Board of Directors of the Home of Neighborly Service, and a Parkside Elementary School Council Member.  He graduated from Eisenhower High School in Rialto in 1969, San Diego State University with a BA in 1974, and the UCLA School of Law with a Juris Doctorate in 1977.

    Gary Saenz further stated in the application that he has been an attorney since 1978, a self-employed attorney since 1983, a “U.S. Fed. Govt. Fee Attorney for VA since 1986 – present”, a licensed California Real Estate Broker, and a “Judge Pro Tem S.B. County Courts.”

    Gary Saenz made a public comment in the Mayor and Common Council Meeting of August 4, 2000 regarding a proposed charter change (what would become Measure M on the November 2000 ballot).  The minutes, back before action minutes, stated that Gary Saenz “expressed his concerns and opposition to [proposed Charter] Section 1401, specifically the language which provides that any person appointed to the Board of Library Trustees may be removed by the affirmative vote of at least five members of the Common Council, except for purposes of censorship.”

    Gary Saenz was reappointed to the Board of Library Trustees on the September 9, 2002 Mayor and Common Council Agenda.  However, according to the September 23, 2002 minutes, the reappointment was rescinded “due to subsequent clarification showing that MR. Saenz has two years remaining on his current term.”  That vote was seven to zero, Common Council Members Esther Estrada, Susan Lien, Gordon McGinnis, Neil Derry, Joe Surarez, Betty Dean Anderson and Wendy McCammack voting aye.

    According to the current list of the Library Board of Trustees, Gary Saenz is not currently a library commissioner.

    The agenda backup for the December 20, 2004 meeting stated that Gary Saenz’s then-present Board of Library Trustees was from May 2002 to May 2006.  The agenda backup from December 18, 2006 said that Gary Saenz’s term was from May 2006 to May 2010.

    From the State of California Bureau of Real Estate database, it gives the following information on Gary David Saenz.  His mailing address is the same as for the State Bar.  He is a Broker, his license ID is 00884293, and his Broker’s license expires on March 26, 2017.  His Broker license was issued on 3/29/1985 (taken from secondary records), and he has no former names, no current DBAs, no current branches, no current affiliated corporations, no disciplinary actions, an no other public comments.

    Searching the City Clerk’s Business Registration form, which is very difficult to use, I found two current City Business Licenses for Gary D. Saenz

    Business Name Business Address Owner Name Business Phone Expiration Date STATUS
    GARY D SAENZ 1010 N D ST GARY D SAENZ (909)388-8727 10/31/2013 Active

    and

    Business Name Business Address Owner Name Business Phone Expiration Date STATUS
    GARY D SAENZ, REAL ESTATE BROKER 1002 N D ST GARY D SAENZ (909)889-2668 03/31/2014 Active

    As far as Saenz Realty, Inc., (you can see a “Saenz Realty” sign on Google Street view at 1002 N D Street), the agent for service of process is Ronald Saenz, not Gary Saenz.  I could find no other information other than on LinkedIn regarding Gary Saenz’s involvement with Saenz Realty. Corportion Wiki, which I would not deem reliable, says that Ronald Saenz is the president of Saenz Realty, Inc.

    That is the sum total of information that I could find on City Attorney replacement candidate Gary Saenz, beyond some civil court cases which are not interesting or relevant.  The search of the online permit manager at the City’s website was unremarkable, and the database has some issues.

    I am not going to tell you how to vote; this site is neutral.

    However, if you already have an opinion about the Office of City Attorney, or the existing candidates, I am going to run through a few scenarios.

    As my reader(s) know, I worked for the City of San Bernardino as a Deputy City Attorney from February 2001 to January 2006. I first met the current City Attorney of the City of San Bernardino, James F. “Jim” Penman somewhere between 1988 and 1990 at the home of the late attorney Richard R Beswick.  I first met recall candidate Timothy “Tim” Prince in 1999 while either volunteering or working at Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino, Inc.  Though I have worked as an attorney in San Bernardino since 1998, I have never met recall candidate Gary Saenz, nor had any legal work associated with recall candidate Gary Saenz. I have heard the name before, but I do not know Gary Saenz, nor do I know his reputation.  At all.

    I have checked the Internet today, and as far as I can tell, there is no website for the incumbent City Attorney, James F. “Jim” Penman, and as far as I can tell, that includes Twitter, email and Facebook.  I do not know the strategy of City Attorney Penman in defeating the recall.  I have not been directly contacted by City Attorney Penman regarding the recall in any capacity.

    Similarly, I have not seen City Attorney recall candidate Timothy Prince in person, I believe, this year.  We have not discussed the recall.  I do not think we have discussed City politics since the 2011 election at the second City Attorney debate at Arrowhead Country Club.  While he invited me to his congressional announcement in Mentone when he ran against Jerry Lewis, I do not believe that I have ever been invited to any other Tim Prince election event.

    The State Bar gives the following information about Mr. Prince, City Attorney Penman and Mr. Saenz:

    Gary David Sanez, State Bar Number 79539, is an active member of the State Bar of California, admitted on April 28, 1978 and active from that date on.  His undergraduate school was San Diego State University, San Diego, California, and his law school was University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law.  He has no public record of discipline, and no public record of administrative actions.

    City Attorney James Frank Penman, State Bar Number 91761, is an active member of the State Bar of California, admitted on May 30, 1980, and active from that date forward. His undergraduate school was California State University, San Bernardino, and his law school was Western State University College of Law. He has no public record of discipline, and no public record of administrative actions.

    Timothy Peter Prince, State Bar Number 151245, is an active member of the State Bar of California, admitted on December 11, 1990, and active from that date on.  His undergraduate school was the University of California (Berkeley), and his law school was University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. He has no public record of discipline, and no public record of administrative actions.

    The recall is a procedure under the Charter of the City of San Bernardino. In this case, sufficient numbers of registered voters city-wide signed recall petitions to put the recall measure on the November 5, 2013 ballot, which is also a Primary Municipal Election for San Bernardino.  San Bernardino City Charter Section 122 gives the following information about what is on the ballot:

    The ballots used when voting upon said proposed recall shall contain the
    words “shall (title of office and the name of the person against whom the recall is
    filed) be recalled?” and the words “yes” and “no.”

    I have seen neither the ballot nor the sample ballot, but it should read “Shall City Attorney James F. Penman be recalled?”

    Voters then have the option of voting yes or no by drawing a line to complete the arrow next to their choice.

    Next, Charter section 122 states:

    Qualified candidates to succeed the person against whom the recall is filed,
    shall be listed on the ballot, except that the incumbent shall not be eligible to
    succeed himself/herself in any such recall election.
    In any such removal election, if a majority of the votes cast is for “yes” on
    the question of whether or not the incumbent should be recalled, the candidate
    receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. The incumbent
    shall thereupon be deemed removed from the office upon qualification of his/her
    successor. In case the party who received the highest number of votes should fail
    to qualify within ten (10) days after receiving notification of election, the office shall
    be deemed vacant. The successor of any officer so removed shall hold office
    during the unexpired term of his/her predecessor.

    In this election, two candidates have qualified, Gary D. Saenz and Tim Prince. From the language of the Charter, there does not appear to be any ability to write-in a candidate. Should the majority of votes (that is, fifty percent plus one) be to remove City Attorney James F. Penman, then the person who has the highest amount of votes between Gary D. Saenz and Tim Prince will be the winner.  If there is a tie, then the tie-breaking rules of the Election Code would probably prevail.  If neither of Gary D. Saenz nor Tim Prince failed to qualify within ten days after election, then the office would be vacant and would be filled according to the Charter.  Examples of failing to qualify is if City Attorney James F. Penman were recalled, and if either Gary Saenz or Tim Prince had more votes, but moved out of San Bernardino, or lost his license to practice law, he would fail to qualify.

    So, how should you vote in the recall election for City Attorney?

    IF YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. PENMAN

    If you are satisfied with the performance of City Attorney James F. Penman, or in the alternative, if you are supportive of Jim Penman as a leader, you support Jim Penman’s world view, policy choices, approaches, you should vote “No” on the issue of the recall.

    IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. “JIM” PENMAN, BUT DO NOT LIKE RECALLS, OR DO NOT LIKE THIS RECALL

    If you are not satisfied or dissatisfied by City Attorney Jim Penman’s performance, but you do not like the concept of recalls, then you should vote “No” on the issue of the recall.

    IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. “JIM” PENMAN, HAVE NO ISSUES WITH RECALLS, BUT DO NOT LIKE THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT CANDIDATES

    If you are not satisfied or dissatisfied by City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman, have no issues with the concept of a recall, but do not want either Tim Prince or Gary Saenz to be the elected City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino until the next election in 2015, then you should vote “No” on the issue of the recall.

    IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. “JIM” PENMAN, HAVE NO ISSUES WITH RECALLS, BUT LIKE TIM PRINCE, BUT NOT GARY SAENZ

    If you are dissatisfied or not satisfied with the performance of City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman, or you don’t like him personally, or his policies, or his staff, or you don’t like how he handled a particular matter, or you just want to punish him, and you like Tim Prince, but you don’t like Gary Saenz, then you should vote “Yes” on the issue of the recall, and for Tim Prince. You can only vote for one replacement candidate, and if you mark both Tim Prince and Gary Saenz, you will invalidate your ballot.

    IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. “JIM” PENMAN, HAVE NO ISSUES WITH RECALLS, BUT LIKE GARY SAENZ, BUT NOT TIM PRINCE

    If you are dissatisfied or not satisfied with the performance of City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman, or you don’t like him personally, or his policies, or his staff, or you don’t like how he handled a particular matter, or you just want to punish him, and you like Gary Saenz, but you don’t like Tim Prince, then you should vote “Yes” on the issue of the recall, and for Gary Saenz. You can only vote for one replacement candidate, and if you mark both Tim Prince and Gary Saenz, you will invalidate your ballot.

    IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. “JIM” PENMAN, HAVE NO ISSUES WITH RECALLS, BUT CANNOT CHOSE A REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE, OR DISLIKE BOTH GARY SAENZ AND TIMOTHY PRINCE

    If you are dissatisfied or not satisfied with the performance of City Attorney James F. “Jim” Penman, or you don’t like him personally, or his policies, or his staff, or you don’t like how he handled a particular matter, or you just want to punish him, but you cannot pick a replacement candidate, then you should vote “Yes” on the issue of the recall, and you should either pick the what in your mind is the lesser of two evils between Gary Saenz and Tim Prince, OR you can undervote the replacement candidate portion of the ballot.  That is, you pick neither Tim Prince nor Gary Saenz.  Then you can say that you voted to recall City Attorney James F. Penman, but that you are not responsible for electing either Tim Prince or Gary Saenz.  As long as they qualify, one of them has to win, as long as they get one more vote then the other.

    IF YOU VOTED NO ON THE RECALL OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. PENMAN, AND LIKE NEITHER OF THE RECALL CANDIDATES

    This is trickier.  If, despite your no vote on the recall, City Attorney Jim Penman is recalled, it is almost mathematically certain that one of the two replacement candidates will be the next City Attorney of the City of San Bernardino.  The only thing stopping them is if neither of them gets a vote (which is unlikely, because they would likely vote for themselves) or neither qualifies after being elected (which is unlikely). As far as I can tell, any write-in vote will not qualify and will not be counted, and there is always the possibility that it will invalidate your ballot. However, perhaps as a protest vote, someone could write-in a name, that would only come to light if there was an election challenge, like in the Minnesota Senate race where someone wrote in a vote for the Lizard People while simultaneously voting for Al Franken. The other option is to undervote, and then claim that the total number of people voting on the recall question does not equal the amount of votes for the replacement candidates, thus showing that their election was not legitimate, in order to challenge the replacement candidate before the next regular primary election, and in the next regular primary election. If you like to get into arguments on the Internet, this may be the choice for you.

    IF YOU VOTED YES ON THE RECALL OF CITY ATTORNEY JAMES F. PENMAN, AND LIKE NEITHER OF THE RECALL CANDIDATES

    Not as tricky.  You can undervote as described above as a protest (non-)vote.  You can use random chance to pick either Tim Prince or Gary Saenz.  You can possibly invalidate your ballot with a write-in that won’t be counted.

    ANY OTHER OPTIONS?

    You can undervote both the recall and the replacement.  You can vote just for a replacement and undervote the recall.  You can not vote at all so as not to dilute the votes of informed voters.  Ultimately, you alone must chose your path. Even though you have strong opinions as stated above, you can vote against your own interests.  You can vote based on national partisan issues in this non-partisan local election.  You can vote only on this recall issue, and no other issues on the November 5, 2013 ballot.  The choice is yours.

    The City Clerk’s online records now has a “Requested” folder, which I can only guess means documents requested as a California Public Records Act request, which are then put in the Requested folder for the requester, and then anyone else who wants to see it can be referred to the folder.  The folder has the Form 460 for the Recall proponents, the campaign filings of Council members Chas Kelley and Robert Jenkins.  There are three bankruptcy-related resolutions related to the City’s bankruptcy outside council.

    The City Clerk’s Office had a useful Elections 2013 folder that was taken down by the City Clerk’s Office.

    Here is the first website that shows Tim Prince’s candidacy for City Attorney should the recall of City Attorney qualify.  I see that some of the readers of this blog are already connected to the site.

    Regarding this post regarding the Notices of Intention to Circulate Recall Petitions, a media contact from San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government contacted me with the following information.

    I was told that Wendy McCammack and Rikke Van Johnson’s notices of intention have not been filed, but they will be filed shortly.

    The identity of the author of the petition is, as I guessed, Pasadena attorney, Michael Lee Allan.  Mr. Allan was quoted in one of the Press Enterprise articles about the recall. As noted in the previous post to this one, Michael L. Allan is also the agent for service of process for MICA-PR, Inc., the public relations firm for San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government.

    Independent of the recall attempt, Michael Allan’s LinkedIn profile says, in pertinent part:

    Mr. Allan is an attorney representing businesses and individuals since 1989. He has practiced in-house with a Fortune 500 company, was general counsel to a Fortune 1000 company, and currently practices privately.

    Primary Practice Areas:
    BUSINESS LAW, including: Contracts; Intellectual Property; Entity Formation & Counseling; Non-Profit Entities; and Administrative Law;
    ESTATES & TRUSTS; Trusts, Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney, and related documentation; probate

    Professional Highlights
    * Serving as guest legal commentator for Fox News Channel, also appearing on KTTV 11, Univision Ch. 34, Telemundo Ch. 52, and KWKW radio;
    * Serving as general counsel for a $250,000,000 company;
    * Drafting and negotiation of multimillion dollar contracts;
    * Standardizing corporate contracts for a Fortune 1000 company;
    * Assisting standardization of national contracts for a Fortune 500 company;
    * Negotiating and Drafting a nationwide lease of telecom facilities;
    * Obtaining revisions to state legislative bills with language currently enacted, including pro-business amendments to AB 2449 the “Be a Manager Go to Jail” law and AB 2663 “Wrongful Occupancy of Property;”
    * Representing a Fortune 500 company before the California Assembly’s committees regarding Women/Minority Business Enterprises;
    * Coordinating private placements;
    * “Individual Achievement Award” from corporate client;
    * Letter of Commendation for outstanding arbitration skills;
    * Letter of Commendation for outstanding general counsel services;
    * Commendation from California State Legislature for outstanding public service

    Languages: Mr. Allan is conversant in Spanish, and familiar with Italian, German, and French

    Admissions: State Bar of California; United States District Court for the Northern and Central Districts of California; United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

    Specialties

    BUSINESS LAW: Contracts; Intellectual Property; Business Formation, Counseling & Funding; Non-Profit Entities; Administrative Law; & Legislative
    ESTATES & TRUSTS: Trusts, Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney, and related documentation; probate

    Political consultant Christopher K. Jones said in comment to the Sun editorial that posted on May 7, 2013: “Maybe if Scott Beard and Larry Sharp had used local residents, instead of private investigators from Los Angeles County, to deliver their recall notices they wouldn’t have so much trouble making a routine service.” I was also told that it was the Michael Allan’s choice to serve the officeholders.

    Choice of process server can be a very personal choice for an attorney.  When I need to serve someone in another County, I look for someone who has experience in that area.  For example, when I need to serve an out-of-state corporation in Sacramento, there is one Sacramento process serving firm that I use.  I can imagine that Michael Allan has a Los Angeles firm that he likes to use since he is from Los Angeles County.  However, in a political process such as this, the Charter does not require that a process server be used at all. It is my understanding in the earlier attempt, Tim Prince served Chas Kelley with his Notice of Intention personally.

     

    The San Bernardino Recall Site is live.  Who is behind it?  The site says “San Bernardino Residents for Responsible Government FPPC ID: 1356684 A Committee in Support of the Recall”

    Who registered the domain name, and when?

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
    Domain Name: SANBERNARDINORECALL.ORG
    Created on: 16-Apr-13
    Expires on: 16-Apr-14
    Last Updated on: 16-Apr-13

    Registrant:
    MICA-PR

    3831 Zaharias Ridge
    Yorba Linda, California 92886
    United States

    Administrative Contact:
    McKinney, Michael mckinnmw@sbcglobal.net
    MICA-PR
    3831 Zaharias Ridge
    Yorba Linda, California 92886
    United States
    +1.7142990053 Fax — +1.7144852235

    Technical Contact:
    McKinney, Michael mckinnmw@sbcglobal.net
    MICA-PR
    3831 Zaharias Ridge
    Yorba Linda, California 92886
    United States
    +1.7142990053 Fax — +1.7144852235

    Who is Michael W McKinney?

    According to this LinkedIn profile, Michael W. McKinney is the “Managing Director, MICA-PR, Inc.” in Orange County, California  The profile further states:

     

    Government Affairs professional with over two decades experience in a wide-range of direct advocacy and public policy positions at the federal, state, and local levels of government. Core represented industries have included energy, land-use and real-estate development, environmental, construction, finance, and communications. Departmental, intradepartmental/cross-functional and coalition leadership teams have ranged from 4 to 16 direct reports.

    Specialties:Government Affairs, Public Affairs, Lobbying/Advocacy, Regulatory Affairs, Coalition Development, Grass Root Campaign Management, and Communications Strategies for highly regulated industries needing to convey complex subject matters to various constituencies

    What is MICA-PR?

    According to the link on LinkedIn:

    About MICA-PR, Inc.

    MICA-PR, Inc. is a full-service public affairs consulting firm dedicated to successfully providing clients strategic counsel, developing communications strategies, and directly advocating in the areas of government affairs, public affairs, community outreach, market positioning, and crisis communications. Providing creative solutions to complex challenges the firm has assisted clients before the United States Congress, state legislative bodies, regulatory and media environments.

    MICA-PR’s clients include a wide-range of energy (renewables), transportation, industry association, public agency, land-use, clean-tech, technology, and financial services clients.

    Specialties

    Public Affairs, Government Affairs, Public Policy Analysis, Legislative Advocacy, Political Strategy

    What is MICA-PR, INC.?

    According to the Secretary of State’s website:

    MICA-PR INC
    Entity Number: C3356749
    Date Filed: 02/02/2011
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 3831 ZAHARIAS RIDGE
    Entity City, State, Zip: YORBA LINDA CA 92886
    Agent for Service of Process: MICHAEL L ALLAN, ESQ
    Agent Address: 2181 EAST FOOTHILL BLVD, SUITE 102
    Agent City, State, Zip: PASADENA CA 91107