Congressman Jerry Lewis' $30,000 Portrait

Congressman Jerry Lewis has had a change of heart.  Well no, he has not, really.  He is hearing that he may not be a shoo-in for the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee like he thought.  So it seems to be time for damage control and spin.  And spin it is.

According to a story in yesterday’s Press Enterprise:

So how much stimulus money would this affect?  About $12 billion of the $787 billion, a drop in the bucket in comparison to the federal budget.  It is not that we don’t appreciate every effort, we simply don’t appreciate opportunistic behavior by our congressman.

As recently as last week, while appearing at the new county government center in Hesperia, California, which was named after him, Congressman Lewis defended earmarks, better known as pork barrel spending.  Earmarks, which Lewis refers to as a “direct form of democracy,” will far exceed $12 billion.

After Lewis became the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee the first time, Republicans lost control of the House the following term.  The Wall Street Journal dubbed Lewis “The Minority Maker,” blaming his strong support of earmarks, despite the public’s outcry over federal spending, as the reason Republicans lost so many seats.

Lewis has been caught up in a number of scandals and has been under federal investigation for years over his use of earmarks to reward political friends with lucrative contracts.  He has not only assisted those he represents in California, but also in Washington D.C., where is wife owns property.

We hope that the new Republican leadership in the House will not repeat the mistakes made in the past.   Just weeks ago voters across the country sent a mandate to elected leaders on both sides of the isle.  It is time for responsible government.  Tax-and-spend politicians will be voted out of office.

Republicans must listen to this mandate and put a fiscal conservative in the leadership role of the House Appropriations Committee.  Lewis is anything but a fiscal conservative.  He is the wrong choice for one of the most powerful positions in Congress.  Voters will remember two years from now the choices made today.  Let’s not allow the Minority Maker a chance destroy Republican hopes in 2012.

]]> http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/11/15/editorial-2/feed/ 2 http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/11/12/will-national-republicans-promote-a-failure/ http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/11/12/will-national-republicans-promote-a-failure/#comments Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:22:47 +0000 Administrator http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/?p=788 . . .]]>

Ron Nehring

Members of the Republican National Committee have a lot on their plates in the early part of next year when the membership reconvenes for its biannual reorganization.

Chief among the RNC’s concerns—and what will likely remain at the forefront of media focus—is whether incumbent chair Michael Steele will remain in his perch. Steele’s numerous critics have lambasted the national party chief for overseeing party spending at a lesbian-themed bondage club in West Hollywood and a series of verbal gaffes that cast the RNC in a general negative light.

Already, Republican state party chairs from Connecticut and Michigan have expressed serious interest in challenging Michael Steele.

However, an important down-ballot race is brewing that is important for the future of the Republican National Committee.

California’s party chair, Ron Nehring, has signaled his desire to stand for RNC treasurer. For the good of that post and for the hope of good upcoming years for Republicans, Nehring’s ascension cannot happen.

Here is why Ron Nehring must NOT be elected treasurer:

• California’s disastrous election results. While blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York and Maryland were electing new GOP federal officeholders, California elected NO NEW REPUBLICANS to the US House and Senate.

• While there are hundreds of new Republican state lawmakers in statehouses throughout the nation, California actually lost ground. Unacceptable.

• California Republican Party has been deprived of badly-needed finances which illustrate poor leadership from Chairman Ron. He has little relations with the donor community.

• Officeholders in the RNC structure serve as a launching pad for future leadership bids. If Nehring succeeds now—do Republicans really want a NATIONAL chairperson replicating his failures in California?

The time is now to stop a bid by Ron Nehring for RNC treasurer. Republicans cannot afford that level of failure at the national level.

Supervisor-elect Janice Rutherford

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is playing fast and loose with the rules once again.  And this time around it seems they may very well be in such a hurry so to prevent newcomer Supervisor-elect Janice Rutherford, who ran on a platform of ethics reform, from providing her input into a law that will affect her ability to serve her constituents  for her entire term of office and keeping her promises to voters.

Four out of the five current supervisors supported Rutherford’s opponent and now they are pushing through a new county ordinance to transfer authority from the Board of Supervisors to their hand-selected County Administrative Officer Greg Devereaux.  Devereaux appears to have little concern for ethics reform as evidenced by his handling of the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center scandal, which was highlighted this past week with his misstatements to the press and his covering for supervisors who are accused of wrongdoing.  Inside sources say that those supervisors were targeted in the search warrants and criminal charges against them are possible.

Greg Devereaux

Sources also say Devereaux is also behind the extended stay of County Counsel, Ruth Stringer, whom a majority of the Board wanted to terminate over a year ago.   The Board handed her termination process over to Devereaux months ago, but he has been slow to respond.

Stringer has been a driving force in prodding BOS members into misbehavior, often rendering unorthodox, if not bizarre, legal opinions to cover for suspicious actions of those members she has aligned herself with and who have protected her despite the fact she has cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary legal fees and litigation.

Stringer has been responsible for persuading the Board to fund the civil complaints associated with the Hueston investigation of the Assessor’s Office to the tune of $1.6 million and growing by the day.  But more importantly, without Board approval, she violated attorney-client privilege by turning over parts of the Hueston Report over to her friend, District Attorney Mike Ramos, before getting approval from the Board.

Stringer showed her loyalty to Ramos once again when he was accused of creating a hostile work environment by a former employee he had also courted and engaged in a sexual relationship with.  Stringer interfered with the special investigation to the point that the report was gutted to the point of only including information in Ramos’ favor.

We recently learned that Supervisor Paul Biane claims he was given a letter from County Counsel that suggests the free medical services at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center were allowed for county supervisors.   Now that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in the investigation, Stringer’s advice could cost one or more county supervisors their freedom.

Yet, with Devereaux’s help, Stringer remains at the County Government Center, interfering in Board actions and policies.  Perhaps that is because Stringer is also behind the new ordinance mentioned above that will take power away from the Board of Supervisors and bestow it upon Devereaux.  Not only that, but it includes a new non-interference clause that forbids the Board from interfering in Devereaux’s oversight of county departments and staff.  Devereaux knows who has his back.

But the Board has not given Devereaux all the power he wants . . . yet.  They are scheduled to do so on November 19, 2010, with the ordinance taking effect thirty days later, just after Supervisor-elect Janice Rutherford will be sworn in.

We suppose such actions should be expected by this dysfunctional, constantly-sparring Board of Supervisors.  But with several of them possibly facing criminal charges, they should reconsider such an underhanded endeavor, to not only thwart the will of those who elected them, but also disenfranchise their newest member.  If they are serious about reform, this ordinance should be tabled until Rutherford has taken office and given a chance to learn the dynamics of the Fifth Floor.  She deserves a voice in whether this ordinance becomes law or not.

]]> http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/11/08/editorial/feed/ 3 http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/11/04/election-2010-winners-and-losers/ http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/11/04/election-2010-winners-and-losers/#comments Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:53:11 +0000 Administrator http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/?p=729 . . .]]>

Involvement in politics, whether as a candidate, volunteer, staffer, or contributor, is not for the faint of heart. November 2, 2010 saw many winners and losers and some of the biggest losers were not even running for office.

By now almost all of the races have been decided statewide.  We thought we would take a moment to discuss a few of the biggest winners and losers in San Bernardino County.

Winners:

Janice Rutherford—Supervisor-elect Janice Rutherford takes the biggest winner prize in San Bernardino County.  She defeated embattled Second District Supervisor Paul Biane by four points.

Ted Lehrer—As Rutherford’s senior campaign assistant, Ted Lehrer defied the rules and the odds to guide her to a victory.

San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Association— SBCPAA was the only one of San Bernardino County’s four major unions to have common sense enough to endorse and support someone who was not an unnamed co-conspirator in the “crime of the century.”  It chose instead to go with a candidate who was well respected in the city in which she served and who ran on a platform of ethics reform rather than being a subject of an ethics probe.  They donated $100,000 to Rutherford’s campaign.

Acquanetta Warren—If Rutherford took the biggest winner prize in the county, Mayor-elect Acquanetta Warren took the biggest winner prize in the city of Fontana.  She is both the first women to be elected mayor and the first African American.  She will hold the distinction of being mayor of the largest city in the United States headed by an African-American Republican. More important, though, is the fact she is well respected in the community and well qualified.

Cities of Fontana and Upland—Both cities supported Rutherford in her campaign for supervisor and Fontana now has one of their own representing it at the county level.

Chad Mayes—Chad not only scored a victory in his home town of Yucca Valley by being re-elected to the town council, he also was appointed yesterday as Supervisor-elect Rutherford’s Chief of Staff.

Supervisor Neil Derry—Supervisor Derry was the only member of the current San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors who did not contribute to Supervisor Biane’s re-election campaign, and as such, he now has badly needed support from Rutherford for his Ethics Commission and ethics reforms.

Russ Blewett—He was once a mayor in Baldwin Park and will now serve on the city council of Hesperia, which is in need of experienced leadership.

Rick Roelle—Apple Valley Town Councilman Roelle  supported Barb Stanton in her victory.

Losers:

Chris Jones—Easily the biggest loser of all, Chris Jones not only ran the campaigns of losers Chris Lancaster and Don Kurth in the primary, he brought about defeat for Paul Biane and Bea Cortes in the general election.

Tim Johnson—Johnson served as campaign manager for  the losing candidate, Paul Biane. It will be interesting when it becomes public knowledge that he, like his former boss, Matt Brown, cooperated with the district attorney Mike Ramos.  We are not sure how one plays both sides and then finds a job with another politico.  Maybe he should ask Brown for tutelage.  And we are not sure how this will affect his plans for a future city council run.

Jessica Austin—Blonde finally found a winning campaign but sabotaged all those around her.  After claiming she would be Rutherford’s chief of staff, we wonder if Janice will see through her or find her a place on the Fifth Floor.

Bret Henry—With Biane’s loss, San Bernardino County’s Fire Union president won’t have his “close” ally on the Fifth Floor.

Ron Nehring—As California’s GOP Chairman Nehring oversaw a disastrous election cycle, losing both the Republican Governorship and Senate race as well as races throughout the state in an otherwise Republican-dominated year.

Gary Ovitt—Ovitt was one of three supervisors who loaned Biane $10,000 for his losing campaign.  His staffer, Roman Nava, lost his bid for Chino Hills City Council.

Josie Gonzales—Not only did Gonzales loan Biane $10,000, but she was quoted as saying Rutherford is an “extremest” in one of Biane’s campaign mailers.

Brad Mitzelfelt—Mitzelfelt should have known better but also loaned Biane $10,000.  He just can’t say no.

SEBA—The safety employees union, i.e., cops, spent over $200,000 to get their candidate, John Doe No. 5, elected.  But Biane lost.

SBPEA and SB Firefighters—Here are two more unions that backed Biane.

Senator Bob Dutton—The good senator invested $10,000 to secure a future seat for himself but his candidate lost and now he will have to beat out a potentially tough incumbent.

Rancho Cucamonga—Rancho is the home town of  Biane and the only city to support him.

Al Vogler—San Bernardino County’s aluminum foil activist extraordinaire launched a negative campaign against Russ Blewett, Bill Holland,  and Thurston Smith with his infamous “Vote No” signs but the voters said “Yes.”

Greg Devereaux

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is set on Tuesday for the first reading of an ordinance to make a de facto amendment to the Charter of the County of San Bernardino.  The Charter of the County of San Bernardino is the county equivalent of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California, both of which were adopted through a vote of the people.  As such, the law is very specific as to how it can be changed.

The truth of the matter is that according to Constitution of California any change to any county charter must be approved by the vote of the electorate.  It CANNOT be made by ordinance as is being attempted by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

The Constitution of California, Article 11, Local Government, Sec. 3, states:

(a) For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.

We understand that the Board of Supervisors is enacting an ordinance, not enacting a change to the charter, but the effect is the same.   They are changing a key element of the Charter of the County of San Bernardino. And they simply do not have authority to do so.

What the Board of Supervisors is proposing on Tuesday, REQUIRES a vote of the people.  They choose, instead, to violate our right to vote on this change and ramrod its proposal through, hoping it flies under the radar of an uninterested electorate.

The Charter of the County of San Bernardino is very specific, and was enacted with that specificity in mind, as to the powers of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.  From what we have been told, San Bernardino County is the only one of the state’s 58 counties to specify that the Chairman of the Board is the County’s Executive.   It states in pertinent part [emphasis added]:

Duties of the Chairman of the Board

SECTION 5. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors shall be the general executive agent of the Board. It shall be his duty, subject to regulation and control by the Board, to exercise general supervision over the official conduct of all County officers and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the County charged with the assessment, collection, safekeeping, management, or disbursement of public revenue; also over all County institutions, buildings and property. He shall report to the Board from time to time with such recommendations as he shall deem proper. He shall devote his entire time during usual office hours to the duties of his office. He shall keep an office in the room or rooms where the Board usually meets, and shall be in attendance at such office during usual office hours, except when elsewhere engaged in the performance of his official duties.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is proposing to instead to transfer those powers over to the County Administrative Officer by ordinance rather than charter amendment as required by the Constitution of California.

12.0201 Position Established.
That there be, and there is, hereby created the position which shall be known and designated as Chief Executive Officer of the County which position may be designated as “Chief Executive Officer.”

Here are some of the duties they are turning over to him that will be included in Section 12.02.06:

(a) Act as the chief executive officer of the County and, as such, act as the primary administrative advisor to the Board of Supervisors on all matters relating to the efficient and economical administration of County government.

(c) Act on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in overseeing the implementation of authorized projects and programs.

(d) Directly manage all County functions and operations except those committed by law to elected officials or Board of Supervisor appointed department heads of the County and be cognizant of the administration of all departments.

(e) Provide budgetary, fiscal and administrative support, oversight, and direction as it pertains to Board of Supervisors’ policy and procedures for all elected and all Board of Supervisor appointed department heads and their agencies and departments.  [Emphasis added.]

But most disturbing is the addition of this section:

SECTION 8. Section 12.0103 is added to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of Title 1 of the San Bernardino County Code, to read:

12.0103 Non-interference.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Board of Supervisors, as the governing board of the County, retains full authority to take any and all official action authorized for the governance of the County. Except, no member of the Board of Supervisors nor any member of his/her staff shall give orders to or instruct the subordinates of the Chief Executive Officer, either publicly or privately.

This section does not limit a member of the Board of Supervisors or any member of his/her staff from seeking or providing information. The provisions of this Code at Title 1: Government and Administration, Division 1: General Provisions, Chapter 2: Violations and Enforcement, shall not apply, except as to equitable remedies established by law.

The Board of Supervisors has an obligation to the electorate to assure the county is run according to the law.  It is shirking that obligation.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the Board of Supervisors has already given a contract to the County Administrative Officer that is in direct violation of the county ordinances.  That contract requires a 4/5ths vote of the Board of Supervisors to remove the County Administrative Officer.  This new restriction makes the 4/5ths all the more ominous.

This ordinance takes away a board member’s and the Chairman’s ability to correct inappropriate actions made by department heads and their subordinates, especially if the Board member cannot get three other members to agree with his/her position.  The Chief Executive Officer does not have to do anything a board member asks if that board member cannot get a super majority to side with him/her.  That is a very dangerous amount of power to bestow upon someone who is not elected by the people.  In this case, it is also an illegal transfer of power.

We ask once again:  If the Chief Executive Officer is given this amount of authority and power, why do we have a need for a full-time Board of Supervisors?  They are willingly becoming nothing but a ceremonial body and should be compensated as such.

Senator Robert Dutton

Last week’s revelation that Ted Dutton, father of California State Senator Robert Dutton, was one of the  major donors behind Citizens Against Corruption Opposing Rutherford for Supervisor 2010 was barely noticed.  It’s significance is great however.

Senator Robert Dutton has not tried to hide his desire to be elected to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors at some point in the future.  Who would not with the generous salary, benefits, and pension plan?

Sources suggest he would also be allowed to purchase 10 years of service credit in the county’s retirement system for the years he spent in the California Legislature.  He could also connect the six years  of credit he received when he served on the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, which would provide him with a significant retirement when he left county service.

Dutton has already registered the “Dutton For Supervisor 2014″ campaign committee.  He terms out in the Senate at the end of 2012.  He would then be eligible to serve one more term in the Assembly before his run for county supervisor in 2014.   However, unless a seat is created for him during redistricting, he more likely will have to sit out two years as a private citizen before running for the Second District seat.  Originally he wanted to run against Biane this year but decided against it when chosen as Senate Republican Leader and cut the deal with Biane.

No one would begrudge Dutton the opportunity to run for a local post.  We do take issue with what appears to us to be an underhanded attempt to take out a formidable future opponent to preserve his chances four long years from now.

Supervisor Paul Biane

The rumor mill has been very active for months about a deal cut between Supervisor Paul Biane and Senator Dutton that would allow Biane one last term with Dutton becoming heir apparent to the seat in 2014.  Biane has been downright cocky about his ability to keep his seat until 2014 despite being an unnamed co-conspirator in the county corruption scandal.

Biane is better known these days as John Doe No. 5 and a supervisor with a substance abuse problem than an effective leader.  His legal problems opened the door for a serious challenge, and likely win, by Fontana Councilwoman Janice Rutherford.

If Rutherford does in fact win the seat, a Dutton win in 2014 is not likely.  This, combined with political collateral and collaboration between Dutton and Biane, explains the Dutton family’s contribution to the attempt to keep  Rutherford from being elected.

What is most offensive about Dutton’s involvement in the anti-Rutherford campaign is that it shows he does not care what is best for the citizens of San Bernardino County but rather what is best for his political career, and ultimately, his bank account.  Is that the kind of future member of the Board of Supervisors the citizens of San Bernadino County deserve?  We think not.

Biane is one of several supervisors who has destroyed the public trust while exhibiting nothing but greed and selfishness.  We do not need four more years of his elitist attitude and sense of entitlement so that Senator Dutton can replace him in 2012.  It would appear Dutton and Biane are two of a kind.

]]> http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/10/30/editorial-sen-dutton-cuts-deal-with-biane-for-future-bos-run/feed/ 3 http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/10/28/sbgrapevine-proposition-voting-guide/ http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/2010/10/28/sbgrapevine-proposition-voting-guide/#comments Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:12:13 +0000 Administrator http://sbgrapevine.com/blog/?p=680 . . .]]>

On November 2, 2010, California voters will not only be casting a ballot in important races such as such as for governor and United States senator, but also must decide on nine propositions ranging from the legalization of Marijuana to redistricting.  Ballot measures can be confusing, especially with the tactics used by special interests to influence voters.  Yes becomes no and no becomes yes.

SBGrapevine would like for you to consider the following when making your decision:

Proposition 19—Legalize and Tax Marijuana—No Position

Perhaps the most controversial proposition on the ballot, Proposition 19, would legalize and tax the sale of Marijuana, which will be in conflict with federal law.  Arguments against the proposition have bordered on silly with opponents claiming that school teachers and school bus driver’s could light up during their lunch breaks.

It is difficult for us to support legalization of a drug that is addictive  and can be harmful but it is also difficult for us to continue to support the hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year enforcing current laws and jailing those who do not abide by them for a drug that is little different than a similar legal drug—alcohol.  Therefore, we are taking no position on this proposition.

Proposition 20—Congressional District Lines to be Drawn by Committee—Yes

Proposition 20 extends the redistricting reforms voters approved in 2008 when they passed Proposition 11.  The independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will be charged with drawing congressional districts in addition to drawing state legislative districts.  It takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians, who have gerrymandered California’s districts for years.  It will help reduce the number of “safe” districts where the opposing party has little chance of being elected.

Proposition 21—Increase Vehicle License Fees by $18 to Fund State Parks—No

This is yet another tax to add to the burden of one of the highest taxed electorates in the country.

Proposition 22—State Government Prohibited from Taking Designated Types of Local Funds—Yes

State legislators have come to rely on raiding local governments as a means to balance the state’s budget.  Proposition 22 would prevent them from continuing with this practice which has depleted funding for roads, police and fire, and others services local governments are charged with providing its citizens.

Proposition 23—Suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act—Yes

The Global Warming Solutions Act was signed into law in 2006 before the economy sank to near-depression levels.  The act is a job killer in this economy.  Proposition 23 suspends the act until the economy improves and unemployment figures reach 5.5 or less for a full year.

Proposition 24—Eliminate Three Business Tax Breaks—No

Proposition closes absolutely no loopholes nor does it guarantee that a single extra dollar will be spent on education or law enforcement.  It will mean approximately $1.7 billion in extra taxes for consumers and employers each year.

Proposition 25—Allows the State Budget to be Passed with a Simple Majority Instead of the Current Two-Thirds Vote—No

Due to the current makeup of the California Legislature, which is not expected to change substantially in the next decade, this bill will allow one party to control the budget without interference by the other party.  Under this proposition, a state budget could be passed without a single Republican lawmaker voting in favor of it.

Proposition 26—Voters Must Give Permission before Any New Taxes Can Be Imposed—Yes

This measure would redefine many “fees” or “charges” as taxes thus requiring that they be passed by a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority as is currently the case.  It would affect fees both at the state and local levels.  It gives citizens more say as to any new “fees.”

Proposition 27—Return the Process of Redistricting to the California Legislature, Repeals Proposition 11—No

This proposition will take redistricting out of the hands of the Citizens Redistricting Commission and place it back with the California Legislature.  As noted above for Proposition 20, California lawmakers have traditionally gerrymandered district lines so that many Assembly and Senate seats are “safe,” meaning that there is no point in the opposition party mounting a serious campaign.  Legislators like it that way and want to regain that power.  This proposition will give it back to them and take it away from the citizens.

Curt Hagman

Assemblyman Curt Hagman is expected to easily win election to his second term on November 2.  After all, he enjoys a safe Republican seat.  But that doesn’t mean he took it easy in his first two years as an assemblyman representing the 60th Assembly district.  Rather he is known as a hard worker, but more importantly, as a solid Republican and a consensus builder who can communicate with Republicans and Democrats alike.

Hagman was rewarded for his communication skills early on in his career when he became the Minority Floor Leader.  His leadership capabilities became evident the last day of the regular session where he was able to prevent 35 controversial or frivolous bills from being voted on through his management on the floor by using the rules of the Assembly in the voting process.

During his first two years, Assemblyman Hagman introduced a bevy of bills, ranging from the prohibition on taxpayer funding to overturn voter-approved initiatives to the clarification of repossession law.  In most cases it seems his bills are commonsense solutions; however, in the circumstances surrounding  one bill, it was an unexpected need to legislate common sense.

Many of us read about the individual last year who thought it wise to enter the Grizzly Bear exhibit at the San Francisco Zoo.  Being stupid is not always illegal.  Now it is, at least in this situation, thanks to AB1675, which makes it illegal to enter wild animal quarters at zoos, circuses, and aquariums.  We suspect when Assemblyman Hagman signed on for the job, introducing such a bill was not on his mind.

Several more serious themes seem to be apparent in reviewing the bills introduced by Hagman.  He is clearly dedicated to the safety of the State’s residents.  Among the bills he was able to get signed into law was a bill to clarify the booking procedure for misdemeanor defendants as well as a bill to provide a procedure to temporarily revoke carry and conceal weapon permits of retired peace officers who compromise public safety.

Hagman also had two bills related to military members and their families become law.  Assembly Bill 794 “requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to waive all application and processing fees for out-of-state applicants for teaching credentials who relocate to California due to orders received from a branch of the United States Armed Forces that require the applicant’s spouse to relocate to California.”  Assembly Bill 2500 waives the late fees for any type of licensure renewals for members of the military who were deployed when the licenses lapsed.

Hagman also had his share of bills meet opposition.  For example, he introduced a bill to reduce the red tape in the administration of the death penalty that has not been met with enthusiasm from the Dems.

In all, Assemblyman Curt Hagman had ten of his bills signed become law during his freshman term.  That success, combined with his ability to communicate with on both sides of the isle while still holding strong to his conservative credentials, is the reason his name is being bantered about as a possibility to be the new Minority House Leader after the next session begins.   In his true diplomatic style, Hagman will only say he will consider it if offered.  He seems like a good choice to us for both the state of California and the County of San Bernardino!

Supervisor Paul Biane

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.”  San Bernardino County Supervisor Paul Biane forgot these wise words from Sir Walter Scott.  Biane, who has been caught up in yet another scandal, has indeed created a tangled web for himself on the eve of an election where he is battling for his political life.

Biane plead guilty to reckless driving in 2006 after being arrested for driving under the influence in 2005.  He refused to take a Breathalyzer test and claims he only had about a couple glasses of wine.  The arresting officer’s description of Biane’s appearance contradicts the supervisor’s claim, describing him as glassy-eyed with slurred speech and unstable on his feet.  A heavy drinker such as Biane would not exhibit such symptoms after only consuming a couple glasses of wine.

Since news of the arrest broke last week, Biane, rather than accepting responsibility, has downplayed the seriousness of his actions to the point of lying.  Biane claimed he did not know that his license was suspended despite the fact it is indicated in his court paperwork.  He then blamed his attorney, stating his attorney told him that his license was not suspended in California.  Any attorney knows that almost every state has reciprocal agreements on such charges, California and Illinois clearly being two of those states.

Initially, Biane’s reaction to revelation that he had been driving a county-owned vehicle for four years on a suspended license was that he would be turning in his vehicle that day, which was one week ago.  The pay period ended last Friday.  Here we are a week later and the vehicle has not been turned in.  Biane’s excuse?  The payroll clerk told his to wait until the end of the pay period.  The pay period has ended.  Last Friday!  Where is the car Paul?

Biane most recently told the media that the pay period ends November 5.  Well, the NEXT pay period does end November 5.  Biane decided to keep the taxpayer-funded, county-owned vehicle an extra two and half weeks after claiming he was going to turn it in, and blames it on the payroll clerk.  Perhaps Paul, you should take responsibility for your own decisions.  By now Paul you should also know you will be caught when you lie to the media.

We all know what is really going on.  Biane  is buying time.  He wants to know the outcome of the election before turning in his county ride.  If he should win re-election, then what will be the excuse?  If he loses on Tuesday, will he really turn the car in by Friday or keep it until the end of his term?  We bet he never turns in the vehicle except to order a newer version if he is re-elected.

Clearly, Supervisor Paul Biane knew he was breaking the law for four long years, except that he feels he is above the law as evidenced by his behavior.  Biane is an arrogant, spoiled, rich boy with a sense of entitlement.  He has lived the last eight years on the public dole with little concern for anyone but himself.  Biane has violated the trust put in him by the voters.  He does not deserve to be in office.

The Board of Supervisors has a responsibility to investigate Biane’s crimes in office.  Driving a county-owned vehicle with a suspended license for four years is not only irresponsible, it is a CRIME.  Censure is no longer an acceptable outcome.  If the voters do not vote him  out of office due to the late nature of this revelation, Biane should be removed from office.

Supervisor Paul Biane

As details of San Bernardino County Supervisor Paul Biane’s run-in with the law while attending a football game in Indiana come to light, it is becoming apparent a cover-up took place.   For five long years Biane hid his dirty little secret from his colleagues and his constituents.  With the four remaining supervisors each affirming their dedication to transparency, initiating an investigation into Biane’s misdeeds  is the right thing to do.

Two years ago county supervisors expressed outrage when then-Assessor Bill Postmus was accused of substance abuse and violation of county policies.  We now learn that one of those very same supervisors has his own issues with substance abuse and violation of county policies.  Unlike Postmus, Supervisor Biane has already been found guilty of the crime and has offered no proof he has complied with county policy in reporting his arrest and subsequent conviction.

But even more disturbing is the fact that Biane refused to take a blood-alcohol test at the time of his arrest.  This speaks volumes and the supervisors should be concerned over Biane’s lack of judgment.

Mexico

Today we learned that Biane’s abuse of the trust vested in him by those who voted for him has been abused again.  During its investigation into Biane’s drunk driving arrest, the Press Enterprise learned that Biane regularly uses his county-owned Yukon Denali to transport his family to their second home in Mexico.  County policy allows an elected official “incidental” personal use of a county-owned vehicle.  We are not convinced that vacationing out of the country is “incidental” use.  Rather it seems to be substantial abuse.

As we said in the beginning, Biane’s abuses need to be investigated.  He deserves a minimum of a censure similarly to that he lead the cause on just two short years ago.  Where is all the indignant condemnation this time around?