New allegations of Brown Act violations by Barstow's Council; latest revelation also related to $15 million sewer treatment contract

1.13.08

Council dinner may have violated Brown Act, group says
Four members met socially with firm they later awarded contract

By Jason Smith, staff writer

BARSTOW — A dinner attended by four City Council Members and paid for by a consulting firm could be seen a violation of California’s open meeting law, according to a watchdog group.

While attending the California League of Cities Conference in Sacramento in early September, council members attended a private dinner paid for by consulting firm Bureau Veritas.

Council members and representatives of the company said the dinner was an strictly an introduction to the firm and no city business was discussed. Still, because a voting majority of council members was present and the event was not publicly posted beforehand, it could potentially be a violation of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, said Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a group advocating open government.

“Where you have a dinner attended by a majority of the City Council as well as the city’s redevelopment director, in my mind that can only be interpreted as city business as indeed here where the company got the business a month later,” Francke said.

He said that the Brown Act allows for a majority of council members to attend certain purely ceremonial or social events, but this case did not qualify.

“There may be situations where the entire council or school board may be invited to a ribbon cutting or groundbreaking,” he said “The word ‘purely’ in that phrasing really demands in my view that these be situations which in no sense is city business being discussed.”

He said that he felt the issue was not that the consultant paid for the meal or was later awarded a $34,000 contract, but that members of the public weren’t aware what was going on.

“I guess the bottom line is that under the Brown Act, companies wishing to make a collective presentation should do so out in the open and shouldn’t be able to essentially buy a private audience by paying for the dinner,” he said. “If that were the case than anyone who wanted the council to go a certain way on something could just take them out to dinner.”

Other groups said they could see where the paid dinner could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

“The appropriate thing to do would be for the city council to pay for the dinner,” said Bob Stern, President of the Center for Governmental Studies. “That would remove the perception of influence buying.”

He said that consultants and lobbying groups frequently host events for attendees at municipal conferences as a way to network.

“There’s a lot of wining and dining going on, but it’s usually for a larger group not just a City Council,” he said.

Frank Vanella, deputy district attorney with the county’s Public Integrity Unit, declined to directly address the dinner, but agreed with the statement of City Attorney Yvette Abich that the gatherings are allowed if they are strictly social.

“Generally speaking City Council members can go to dinner with whomever they want as long no city business as discussed,” he said. “They’re free to go to any event, private or public event. They’re free to socialize with whomever they like as long as city business as not discussed.”

Council member Joe Gomez who did not attend that dinner said he was uncomfortable with the idea of a majority of the council and staff members meeting in a private session even if the event was social.

“My concern is I don’t know what they discussed so I don’t know how they came to the decision,” he said. “If the city’s paid for them to go to the conference, that’s all they should be doing.”

Council members who attended the dinner said that the invitations came while they were at the conference and the event was not pre-planned.

“It was a social dinner, it was nothing about their company or the city,” said Council Member Steve Curran. “How can you agendize a conference out of town?”

Curran said that Bureau Veritas was chosen for the consulting job over another engineering firm and a law firm because it was the lowest bidder for the project.

On Oct. 4, the council unanimously chose to award the contract to Bureau Veritas although city staff had initially recommended that the city award the contract to the Willdan firm.

“In my looking at the proposals, firm Bureau Veritas appears to be the best whether it’s low or not,” said Mayor Lawrence Dale. “It appears they have a better understanding of the project regardless of what the other two show.” Abich, the city attorney, also recommended the contract be awarded to Bureau Veritas due to fears that the other consulting firm would require additional costs.

“My concern is the amount (Willdan) proposed is actually possibly more than they’ve quoted because a lot of the things they assumed have happened haven’t happened,” she said.

On Jan 7, the council voted 4 to 1 to approve a new contract with Bureau Veritas for up to $160,000. The firm will review the qualifications and proposals of interested firms for the wastewater project and help the city choose a contractor for the project.

The dinner with Bureau Veritas is not the first time concerns have been raised over council members potentially violating the Brown Act. Also during the League of California Cities Conference on Sept. 6., four council members met with Cynthia Bryant, the governor’s deputy chief of staff, who handles Indian gaming issues, to discuss the issues holding back Barstow casino compacts. A complaint was filed with the district attorney’s office that the meeting violating the Brown Act. No determination has been made in that case, the district attorney said.

Contact the writer:
(760) 256-4126 or jason_smith@link.freedom.com.

San Bernardino County DA investigating allegations of corruption in Barstow

Several reliable sources have informed TVT that the Public Integrity Unit of the San Bernardino County's District Attorney's Office is conducting an active investigation, yet again, into allegations that Mayor Lawrence Dale and some members of the Barstow City Council may have engaged in unethical activities and even possibly criminal violations.

According to the District Attorney's Web site:

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos campaigned on the issue of restoring public integrity to San Bernardino County. Within the first four months after being elected, Mr. Ramos fulfilled his promise to the electorate and created the Public Integrity Unit.

The unit, which is comprised of two attorneys, three investigators and a secretary, handles complaints involving those people holding public office. Some types of issues might involve: The illegal use of campaign funds; residency violations; and, open meeting/Brown Act violations. The Unit will be responsible for monitoring City Councils, elected Boards and Commissions.

Several years ago, following complaints that Mayor Dale had lead the Barstow City Council into various Brown Act violations related to the BarWest casino scheme, the District Attorney required Barstow's City Attorney to conduct a public workshop on ethics and California's Brown Act for the Mayor and members of the Council.

In September, Mayor Dale and a delegation of three of the four members of Barstow's City Council scheduled a secret meeting in Sacramento with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's aide to discuss plans for BarWest casinos in Barstow. When rumors of that meeting began to surface, Mayor Dale and Barstow's City Attorney Yvette Abich attempted to cure that obvious violation of the Brown Act's opening meeting rules by disclosing and providing a veiled report on the meeting after-the-fact.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Web site also indicates:

To insure open government, it is our expectation that there be strict compliance with the Brown Act. Our goal here will be compliance and not prosecution. Complaints and violations will be brought to the attention of an agency alleged to have violated the act. They will be monitored for compliance. Only aggravating circumstances or repeat offenses will result in prosecution. We also have the authority to file civil actions to prevent or nullify actions done in violation of the Act, and we will do so in appropriate cases.

Desert Dispatch archives on "Brown Act" related stories:
City manager's loss due to his integrity - 12.10.07
Council accused of violating Brown Act over casino meeting - 9.18.07
Who watches the watchdogs? - 9.18.07
Editorial: Getting to the hat of the matter - 12.07.06
Meetings spark debate - 8.10.05
Activist details alleged Brown Act violations - 5.09.05
Public needs to know facts about development of Indain casinos 5.05.05
Keeping the word 'casino' off council agenda may have been violation - 7.31.03
Brown Act violation claimed by city councilwoman - 4.11.01

Corruption? in Barstow: Mayor Lawrence Dale, Bureau Veritas and Micromedia Filtration, Inc.

On August 20, 2007, the Barstow City Council adopted an agenda item approving three firms that could provide future contract inspector services and directed Mayor Lawrence Dale to enter into a Professional Service Agreement with any of the three firms when the City's workload required the services of a contract inspector. Bureau Veritas was listed as one of the three contractors.

During the week of September 3, 2007, Barstow's Mayor Lawrence Dale and Councilmembers Steve Curran, Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre and Tim Silva traveled to Sacramento for the Annual California League of Cities Conference. On September 6, all four members of the City Council met with Governor Schwarzenegger's aide Cynthia Bryant to discuss Barstow's desire to host an Indian casino. Barstow's City Attorney has already attempted to cure that Brown Act violation.

TVT has learned that during trip to Sacramento, the City's contractor Bureau Veritas reportedly hosted a dinner meeting with the same four members of the City Council. There has not been any formal disclosure of that meeting. Following that dinner meeting, and after controversy erupted about the Mayor's attempts to award a $15 million sewer treatment facility contract to Micromedia Filtration, Inc., without conducting a formal open review of experienced bidders, Mayor Dale executed an agreement with Bureau Veritas to "screen" firms that would be awarded the contract.

The Sacramento dinner meeting with Bureau Veritas appears to have been yet another violation of California's Brown Act and raises serious ethics questions. One must wonder what other meetings took place that week that have yet to be made public.

When was this contract (assignment) with Bureau Veritas executed: before the hosted dinner meeting or after? What was discussed at the meeting where four members of the Barstow Council were present? Why was Bureau Veritas selected by Mayor Dale to oversee the process to award the $15 million contract and not one of the other two pre-approved contract providers? Did the Council members also meet with the other two pre-approved providers?

Barstow's former City Manager Hector Rodriguez raised concerns this Fall about Mayor Dale's attempt to ensure that the Mayor's preferred candidate Micromedia Filtration, Inc. be awarded the $15 million contract. Shortly thereafter, Rodriguez would leave his job at the City. Upon Rodriguez's departure the Desert Dispatch reported the Mayor as saying:

“I did not direct the City Manager to create an RFP that would eliminate potential bidders for the wastewater facility upgrade project,” Dale wrote in an e-mail. “In fact, the City’s consultant Bureau Veritas is now moving forward with an RFP process that will be advertised with all potential bidders.”

The question is, did Mayor Dale indicate his preference to hire Micromedia Filtration to his consultant of choice Bureau Veritas? Did Mayor Dale attempt to influence Bureau Veritas in the RFP process which he suggests is underway. Was this assignement for Bureau Veritas discussed at the dinner meeting in Sacramento in which four members of the City Council were present?

What motivates Barstow's Mayor to play such hard-ball and and undertake such risky behaviors in order to strip this important contract from one provider (HDR Engineering Inc.) and award a $15 million contract to neo-phyte Micromedia Filtration, Inc., a firm with little track record of experience? Was the Office of Congressman Buck McKeon aware of any of this prior to submittal of a new $500,000 earmark for funds that would be directed to the Barstow sewer treatment plant upgrades and possibly into Micromedia Filtration's bank account?

Meeting in Governor Schwarzenegger's office violated Brown Act

What or who compelled Cynthia Bryant, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's director of the Office of Planning and Research to meet behind closed doors with four of five Barstow City Council members (including Mayor Lawrence Dale), Barstow's City Manager and Barstow's Director of Economic Development in Sacramento on September 6, 2007?

Bryant's participation in the meeting raises questions about other possible Brown Act violations that may have occured in the Governor's office. Is it possible the Governor's Office of Planning and Research isn't familiar with provisions of the Brown Act?

The closed-door meeting in the Governor's office was clearly understood to be a violation of the Brown Act as now acknowledged by Barstow's Mayor Lawrence Dale, City Councilwoman Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre and Barstow's City Attorney at this past Monday night's City Council meeting.

It is now clear that item #31 on the September 17, 2007 City Council meeting agenda (a report on the 9/6/07 meeting with Bryant) was meant to "cure" the Brown Act violation that had occurred more than ten days earlier in Sacramento. However, the published agenda item failed to acknowledge the Brown Act violation. The published item also failed to clearly acknowledge that the Mayor and three of four other council members were present at the meeting with Director Bryant.

Also concerning, the City's official report apparently "misconstrued" what Director Bryant had said at the meeting. Bryant was compelled to fax a letter from the Governor's Office on Monday, 9/17/07 clarifying what she said at the meeting. Apparently Bryant requested that the Mayor read her letter at the Council meeting to make things clear.

At Monday's City Council meeting, apparently no one requested the Mayor or three members of the City Council who participated in the Brown Act violation to disclose what was said or represented by City Officials at the meeting in the Governor's office or at any other meetings that took place the week of September 3, 2007 in Sacramento with a majority of the Council present or in back-to-back "serial " meetings. While the meeting in the Governor's office has been reported in the press as a meeting where the four members of the Council simply received information; that representation has yet to be verified with each of those present.

No one asked publicly what was said by City officials at the meeting; or what may have been conveyed by those present to Bryant or other policy makers after the meeting.

No one asked if the Council members present had reached any sort of concensus or had conveyed their feelings or position to Bryant during or following the meeting.

No one asked if any of those present represented any "official" position of the City nor what that might have been.

No one asked who if anyone else other than the six officials from Barstow and Bryant were present during the closed-door meeting (other administration officials, lobbyists, Barwest representatives, tribal leaders, etc).

And given Mayor Dale's recent unauthorized letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and his portrayal of personal opinions as official city positions, these sorts of questions are most appropriate and the answers are quite relevant to determining exactly what, if any, more serious violations of the Brown Act may have occurred.

Editor apologizes and recognizes City's Brown Act violation; raises questions about what else has been going on

as posted 9.18.07 at the Desert Dispatch blog "The Editor's Desk:"

Who watches the watchdogs?

It looks like I owe Manuel “Gil” Gurule an apology.

He called me at the end of last week about the casino happenings (and lack thereof) in Sacramento. His intention was to point out to me that the meetings between the governor’s staff and four City Council members may have been a Brown Act violation. The Brown Act is California’s public meeting law, which is intended to make sure that local governmental meetings and decisions (with some exceptions) happen in a public forum, with the community appropriately notified.

I blame casino outrage fatigue for not listening, though it’s really a lousy excuse. City Council members aren’t supposed to gather in large enough numbers to define a quorum — three or more in this case — without public notification of the meeting. Their meeting in Sacramento is most likely a Brown Act violation, though they amended the situation by reporting out the content of the meeting at the subsequent City Council meeting Monday.

I was dismissive of Mr. Gurule’s call, because I’ve grown tired of folks on both sides finding ways to pick pick pick at their opponents and trying to get the newspaper involved. I’ve also been made increasingly aware by our readership that most folks out there don’t care about the squabbling, just the results.

But while this particular Brown Act violation was fairly mild — they were just there to receive information, it appears, not to plan anything — there are potential serious repercussions when this happens. What other meetings could have taken place in Sacramento without our knowledge?

Could there have been strategy sessions to deal with opposition to one project?

Could they have discussed dumping the city’s agreement with one tribe or the other? These are all potential discussion subjects that are obligated to happen in public.

So I apologize for letting my frustration with the nature of this debate cloud my perception about what is happening in Sacramento. Gurule was absolutely right to be concerned and I appreciate his call, in retrospect.

Council accused of violating Brown Act over casino meeting

9.18.07

Citizen files legal complaint; council reveals details of gathering

JASON SMITH, staff writer

BARSTOW — At its Monday meeting, the City Council disclosed that members held a closed-door meeting earlier this month about the Big Lagoon/Los Coyotes casino compacts, leading some to believe that the council violated California’s open meeting law.

While attending the League of California Cities Conference on Sept. 6., four council members met with Cynthia Bryant, the governor’s deputy chief of staff, who handles Indian gaming issues, to discuss the issues holding back the Barstow casino compacts. City Manager Hector Rodriguez and the city’s Economic Development Manager Ron Rector also attended the meeting. No agenda was posted prior to the meeting as is normally done when more than two council members are present.

Barstow resident and frequent critic of the council, Larry Halstead, announced at the Monday’s council meeting that he had filed a complaint with the Public Integrity Unit of the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office. He accused council members of “corruption” and was upset at what he called city lobbying for a private developer.

"We paid you guys to lobby on behalf of your special interests, that’s what this was," Halstead said.

The Brown Act, the section of state law which governs how government agencies hold public meetings, states that no more than two council members can gather together outside of a scheduled meeting. Three or more council members at the same meeting would constitute a voting majority and is not allowed under the law except when the event is previously placed on a public agenda or under special circumstances.

Council member Joe Gomez, the only member not to attend the conference, said he was disappointed that the council decided to meet as a group.

Gomez said he chose not to attend the conference because he had attended similar events in the past and said he felt the event was "a waste of taxpayer money." He accused the Mayor Lawrence Dale of leading the council into violating the Brown Act.

"You clearly led this council, which consists of several new members, to violate the Brown act. … You met without posting a meeting. You met behind closed doors and this clearly violates the Brown Act," he said.

Council member Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre defended the council’s actions saying that the meeting was not pre-planned and was the result of a last-minute scheduling change

"We had 20 minutes to drop everything to see her,"Hackbarth-McIntyre said.

She said that due to the complexity of the issue and differences of opinions among council members, she felt it was important that all members had the same information.

"There was no vote. We just received information. It was very important for all of us to hear what was discussed by Ms. Bryant," she said.

Hackbarth-McIntyre said that council members were aware they would have to disclose what was discussed.

"We’re here tonight to let everyone else know what was said and done to cure what went on in that meeting," she said.

City Attorney Yvette Abich said at Monday’s council meeting that the Sacramento meeting should have been handled differently.

"Should an agenda have been posted? Yes. But it wasn’t. But the Brown Act has a mechanism to cure situations like this," she said.

She pointed out that the Brown Act has a provision that allows for closed door meetings to be disclosed after the fact, "curing" the violation.

Frank Vanella, Deputy District Attorney with the Public Integrity Unit acknowledged that Larry Halstead’s written complaint of the council’s actions had been received and said his office will review the allegations to determine if further investigation is needed.

He said that assuming the violation was not intentional than a warning would be the most likely penalty that council members would receive. He said that though his office did not keep statistics over Brown Act complaints for individual cities, violations were a common occurrence mostly done by officials unfamiliar with the law.

"There’s a history of Brown Act complaints in almost every city and every board," he said.

Did Mayor Dale set up another Brown Act violation? And worse yet, is he violating the Governor's code of confidentiality?

Did Barstow Mayor Lawernce Dale lead his council colleagues and city staff into a Brown Act violation when he arranged a meeting for City leaders with Governor Schwarzenegger's aide Cynthia Bryant while supposedly at a League of Cities Conference in Sacramento?

While on a boondoggle to Sacramento, the Mayor and various other Barstow city officials took advantage of being in Sacramento to lobby various state officials for the Barwest gaming compacts which parties had been told a week or two earlier were virtually dead for the 2007 legislative session.

Now, by nature of an agenda item (#31) on the Council's Monday night agenda (9/17/07) , it appears as though the Mayor is attempting to "cure" a Brown Act violation before anyone can inform the District Attorney or Attorney General of the Council's illegal actions.

Further, the item appears to be yet another of the BarWest propoganda machine's missives put forth by Mayor Dale aiming to protect his political hind end.

Given the confidential nature of discussions between the Governor's office and those seeking gaming compacts either the Mayor is blatanltly violating rules preferred by the Governor's office or manufacturing his version of the truth. Violating the Governor's code of confidentiality doesn't seem like the way to win the Governor's support.

Read the agenda item carefully and then put the meeting reported in context with other reports that were made in the media and by TVT at the end of the legislative session.

Recall that the day after this meeting apparently took place things changed significantly. Senator Patricia Wiggins, the author of SB 157 (the vehicle by which the Barwest gaming Compacts were to have cruised through the approval process), gutted the bill -- she abandoned any hopes of getting the Compacts through the legislature more than 10 days before the Compacts' deadline extensions were set to expire.

It's also interesting that rather than publish the agenda on Thursday, it was posted after it was feasible to contact the Governor's office on Friday for a response or reaction to the Mayor's characterization of the meeting.