Jeeze...I thought a month or so ago, all was "settled", but in the corner of my mind, something kept bothering me about the final result of the case. Now it surfaces. When anyone, be it an individual or a group, act with assumption of risk in their municipal positions, making decisions and discernment's which are truly against state, county and local rules of management, the law so states, ignorance (per se) is no excuse. Why? Due to the very fact/s there are rules on the books...and even in cyberspace which could have provided equitable and immediate answers prior to any such act/s (secret meetings, texting, phone calls, in the performance of municipal duties be made), and therefore, the councilor's in question avoided the statutes flagrantly. If I'm not mistaken, there was one council member who warned the three active council member's NOT to continue with these meetings and that state statutes were being violated. Pure and simple. The three council member's disregarded the warnings and laughed-off the interference.

If the circumstance of "res ipsa loquitur" in negligence (cases) this aids the plaintiff in proving the elements of a negligence case by circumstantial evidence. So, in other words, the person whom brings the formal complaint to court against the council, may win the case by this form of evidence if he/she has proven it.

If the Fillmore attorney or others (et al) have experienced "errors in judgement", as well as many other levels and regulations of law, which must carry a burden of proof - as preponderance herein, in all cases, and to prove, without doubt with evidence presented, that rules have been abridged - which apparently they have been. Now, if the person bringing those charges against the City of Fillmore already had a lost case owing Los Angeles County or Los Angeles City more than eighty thousand dollars, you cannot win or lose all cases. This cannot be compared to any other cases because only ONE case and evidence is presented, but could be referenced by the plaintiff or defendant attorney group if comparisons are equal. Well, looks like the beat still goes on, and on, and on, and on! This never goes away, does it? All because of sheer dopiness and incompetence on the part of the original Katzenjammer Kids and their campaign manager, few supporters and lapdogs.

Does it seem apparent that the City Attorney found it in his scope of practice to protect the WWWB Convention, (in some manner) in the shadow of "trying to save Fillmore thousands of dollars more than already spent-out and further embarrassment?" Attorneys generally take a case whether or not the case is anticipated to be "lost" or "won". They get paid for their services anyway; and they do conspire with each other. Known fact. No accusations intended, either.

Frist of all Cre8 that (11:20) post was very confussing. I can follow you most of the time but...What were you trying to say?
Now on to my reason for blogging today. This Rich character suing the city again. The Mayor seems to be incapable of saying she was wrong. That is all it would have taken to stop this guy. But I started to wonder about the budget for the City Attorney. So I went to the city web site , down loaded the budget and read it. I have not looked at a budget for a while so someone may show me I'm wrong but, Actual budget exspense for the City Attorney contract is listed as follows: 06-07 actual spent $120,500, 07-08 actual $135,000, 08-09 actual $290,000, 09-10 (budget this year) $620,000. That sure is a large increase of funds in a depressed market where little is happening...accept legal battles I guess.

Johny Walker

Hi, JW...thanks for the question. I'm speaking probably over the top in legal terms and the entanglements of law here (not really knowing your professional background), but if things APPLY to the fact of a case, certain rules can be recommended or brought into play (more from what aforementioned) to bring the case to bear on the defendant (the City Council members who allegedly abridged the Brown Act). Sorry for the confusing rhetoric...I think I'm causing confusion like Obama does when he talks people to death with his own double-talk and filibuster methods - which are against the law anyway for federal law-makers!

Ya...seems this person bringing suit against the City of Fillmore has a definite agenda to prove. Well, so be it, if he can make the case stick to the wall with the velocity of the evidence he says he has, maybe he can have a suit that is applicable. We will see. Given my estimation so far, and with the information I can assume from my point of distance and information received, there just may be more coming that the three members of the Council in question (and most likely others who do not wish to be entered to witness obligations) will have to atone for.

Like I said, attorneys assume cases whether they win or lose, based solely on monetary gains and personal biographical interests. The bottom-line is financial assumptions and legal interest for future elevations of position. But, I would say, put this city attorney on the witness stand under oath to answer a few questions of his actions and reasoning and see what can be ascertained. The people of Fillmore do not have to accept legal counsel that fleeces their very bank accounts!

There reaches a time when a City has to consider bringing an attorney on as a full time employee...when you contract with a legal professional, you're gonna pay for EVERY little thing she or he uses, whether it's paper, envelopes, postage, mileage on a personal vehicle...EVERYTHING! And you'll pay for their time by fifteen minute increments...say, for instance, that the attorney makes a four minute phone call that's City related...boom... right there is a fifteen minute billing...

So, there CAN be savings in having your attorney as an employee...it just depends, but if the City is into that range of legal billings, seems like it ought to be considering doin' that now...trouble is, when you hire a City Attorney, generally, you're gonna be hiring a legal assistant/clerical staff, etc, so...who knows if there will be a savings...I'm not privy to any of this stuff, and I don't feel like lookin' it up, but maybe JW might take a look...he quoted some facts and data the other day that might could point toward this...in years past, you couldn't justify hiring one, if this FY's budget continues for, say, four or five years, then yeah...

Let me comment on this one. To be completely clear I am speaking for myself as a citizen. I do not represent any other person. OK, now that I've got the disclaimer on record let me get to it. It would be a wrong assumption to think that the entire legal budget is being spent on Brown Act suits. We have spent some funds defending ourselves against a law suit. As has been reported the initial suit was settled with several conditions, admission of the violation, training requirement, payment of legal fees ($6,000.00) which was the right thing to do given the facts in my personal opinion, and was the least costly way to deal with the issue.
In this very edition of the paper (2/4/10 edition) both sides put out Press Releases. After reading both releases one is fact based and one, in my opinion, is not. The end of this story isn't written.
As for the large budget expenditures for legal fees in this budget and kudos to JW for being able to extract information from the budget, we have other large legal issues which we're fighting. The largest being the tax appropriation issue. The city was sued by two cities who believe they had claim to our tax money. The court ruled in Fillmore’s favor. The cities asked that the Judge reconsider his decision. He quickly tossed out the request. Not only did Fillmore prevail based upon facts the Judge ordered the cities to pay for 100% of Fillmore’s legal fees. Our City Attorney represented us very well.
We continue to work through the issue at the state level, but I believe results will be the same, eventually. As a city we hired the best of the best in sales tax legal realm, and that isn’t cheap. Why you ask because once the sales tax allocation is resolved in Fillmore’s favor our city will be fiscally well grounded. More can be written on this issue and probably will.
What I’ve written is fact. I’m satisfied that the City Attorney and his partners are representing Fillmore professionally. I suggest those who want to light the bonfire settle down.
And my closing shot is this? Who among you wouldn’t spend $1.00 to make $100.00? Don’t get spun up on the legal budget until you know all the facts.
Have a good day. The rains are here so stay dry and drive safely.

Steve Conaway

True that...my comments were simply aimed toward personnel and budget issues, and according to figures that JW brought up it's not time to panic yet!!! One thing that we citizens gotta realize is that the City Attorney can't, and isn't, caught up in personalities on the Council...it's his job to represent the City, and sometimes he agrees with the issues, sometimes he doesn't, but it's not his job to pick and choose...and Ted's apparently done a good job of that...He seems to get criticized from time to time in representing the City thataway, but that's the nature of the beast...

Obviously, Steve, the legal fees the City has recovered, or will recover, aren't gonna be on that side of the budget, ie the $620,000 that JW referred to...that would be on the revenue side...and the bottom line would be much lower than that $620,000 figure...

Good deal, then, thanks for clarifying that...

Thanks Steve, I did not try to find money coming in to the city to off set last years expenses. And I was not saying anything negative about Ted, He is one of the smartest attorneys I have met. However the budget line item was named "contract services" and I took that to mean the cost of Ted's contract. The believed that the sales tax issue was being handled by another firm. I guess the city has not received the money owed by the other cities as it is not shown on the graph on page H6. Is there some where the citizens of Fillmore can find out what the extra costs were for fighting Rich Mckee instead of the Mayor just saying "I am sorry and we will not do it again"? Which is what McKee says is all he asked at first. You know open and transparent government.

Johny Walker

One thing to keep in mind is the budget document you referenced is not "live", meaning it was what was approved (split vote on that one) at that time. The courts ruling came after the budget was posted so it's not referenced in any of the documents.
The Tax allocation is being handled by the CA and outside specialized counsel. To address the cost of fighting McKee's suits I would say the total amount is around $20,000.00, which doesn't account for Staff members time or council time (hey, we work pretty cheap).

So, what is apparent here is that McKee is stating the Brown Act abridgement against the City of Fillmore has not come to closure; so now Fillmore is not out of the frying pan as yet? Did the City of Fillmore not satisfy the judges' ruling the first time around on the penalty phase of the judgement? I was led to believe all was over with. After the Council (those directly involved with the error) side-stepped the truth (again for eight weeks) and frustrated the legal process; then on second thought, finally admitted, through Ted Schneider's appropriations, the "City" was wrong and did violate the Brown Act! Okay...got it from there.

At some point after the judges' decision, the Council again held an in-session meeting to discuss the case against them...and the alleged judgement...but at this time the litigation (judges legal decision and entire case) had been over with eight days previous...so why the discussion on the issue now? This case was already working into the penalty phase and the people in-question were to begin detention until their "penalties" were satisfied (complete). The California Attorney General has simply said that, in essence, it's not over, until the fat lady sings...in other words, until the entire penalty phase of the judges' jurisdictional decision is completed, the case still pends and the case has not been "tried or heard" in it's entireity - not "released" through the State of California legal process - ...according to McKee? So, it is not the local judge who deems the case over with...it's the State of California Attorney General who decides this, and as it is a State of California abridgement of state laws, I understand the levels of jurisdiction are with the state.

Somewhere in the mix, both the City Attorney and the few Council person's made a mistake (or more than one), according to McKee's article, paragraph's 6, 7, and 8. Doing a "bad job" per the City Attorney's blame per the article, brought me to the jest of my comments following JW's financial archaeological dig-up. What the City Attorney gets paid, is up to those management people deciding his contractural salary and status (contracted or staff employee), but poor performances (if any) on the part of anyone (as those described in the article) has ultra meaning. Yes, whenever you outsource any consultant or firm, the time-and-expense matter turns into an issue oftentimes, but when you breakout all the "time-and-expense" factors, I see it costs more than a hired person on-staff...the concern is performance, as the article stated originally. I think what is not being totally revealed is what did Ted Schneider do to make those "bad decisions" in the first place. This entire controversy dealt with "transparency" and openness of government, and still, the details cannot be revealed?

Steve, how much did it cost us for you to have lunch by yourself with Ted at Elkins Golf Course?

Agent 86, isn't that a little picky? Charging the city for a hamburger at Elkins is ludicrous. I don't think either of them would be that stupid. Come on get to the real gist of the matter. Has the council broken the law or not? Why is this guy, Richard Mckee, involved? What is his agenda? How was he made aware of the possible violations? Where does the Gazette come into the situation? Does their obvious far out right wing bias have anything to do with why they have taken the stance they have taken against the council, though, I agree the City may never be able to recover from their misdeeds. The new Manager may be able to alleviate some of the problems. Think positive. Life is good don't let negativism interfere with it.

I have to agree with Bill on this one; at least in a major part of his statement. I think Richard McKee and his legal (attorneys) representation of CalAware has something under the legal process that can incriminate the City Council and probably Ted Schneider for handling and fallout of the case from the beginning. We may just have to see what transpires with this one...and I think Mr. McKee and his staff are also monitoring this website just to get a taste of the commenting public's temperature.

Bill, I think the Gazette is just following its program of reporting news, and this is news as it affects all citizens of Fillmore (both sides of the issue - pro and con) and the City Council members directly involved in this issue, as well as the City Attorney (under contractual agreement) which also affects the legal and financial bottom-line. I really doubt, Bill, Yvonne Quiring is in any position to alleviate anything herein, as she came in as a latter-day addition to the City of Fillmore operations and does not have (much, if any) authority in after-the-fact decisions, because of her political and administrative level under the City Council. But, you do have a good point here!

Vorschlag86...for goodness sakes...for once...can you stick with the article itself, stay on-stream with it and comment in an appropriate manner?

Burger and drink at Elkins about $6.50. Agent86 trying to be funny, priceless.
I paid for my lunch. The CA paid for his lunch. The CA didn't charge city for his time. Cost to you 86 = $0.00.

Steve Conaway

All the way from Bangor Maine!!?? Who wants to guess who this is? Hope this is on topic for you CPR. The last paragraph makes your lot in life very clear to me (Blog Troll). You have ABSOLUTELY no credibility...I won't embarrass you with your MANY other posts of contradictions of your persona that you want us to believe. (unless I have to)

On 11/15/09 at 6:58 PM, SantiniSpagoandSpike wrote:

Tending to agree with both comments wholeheartedly above, and reading through this article, I was thinking of Bangor's City Charter, and the remodeling that could, most likely, be necessary therein, as 'pjramsay' articulated, should come sooner than later. It seems that questions will always arise as the Council (et al) had been kept mostly in a gag-order of sorts over Ed Barrett's dismissal "request". Could be a possibility of some internal embarrassment to either Mr. Barrett or the Council; or both, if it were revealed the real reason/s.

But, this does not stop the potentials I see, in the Bangor City Councils overage of Council members appropriated for a city of about 30,000. This is the figure of population average I even remember back in the 1950's! Bangor has not grown in population much, just spread outward a little. So, why the exorbitance of seats held on the Council? This is a good question.

There is something to be mentioned about "Dynasties", too. People get too deep-seated in their offices in public administration sometimes. Names just keep being voted-in. Time and time again; over and over. Doing a 'good job' does not necessarily equate to a voter voting for this person into office another time for another term. It is always good for fresh ideas and new exuberance to come into play often enough. Seems the intimidation levels run high in Bangor Council, as the deep-rooted ones get their say...like pecking order in the chicken yard, the older, bigger ones get to peck first and deserve that right.

In one township south of Malibu, (Fillmore, CA) has about 6 City Counselors. The Council is in total disarray, because three of these Councilors are on a triumvirate agenda together against the other remaining Counselor's. There were four or so well-placed City position's who simply vacated their positions due to the Charter changes made by this trio (called, "Katzenjammer's), the City budget has gone to hades in a hand-basket, and even with the old City Manager picking up, packed his bags and left, the new CM, a woman, is unbiased and sees what the problems are; albeit nothing can happen with the threesome Counselors, who have met in secret sessions and made false reports. We have a State Law out here called, "The Brown Act", which, in part, prohibits any City official of conducting secret, private, clandestine, meetings through face-to-face, email, phone, texts or regular mailing through USPS. Recently these three Councilors were accused by CalAware, a group which monitors Councils and is a City Council Watchdog Committee, a State of California agency, and brought a lawsuit on these Councilors. A trial was held, in part...and there are accusations and warrants issued as a result. If Maine has such a rule on what the City Council is doing, let it be brought to legal action. I think I really see some major problems within the Council as it has been.

Report abuse

...and, Agent86, what was your point? I lived in Bangor as a child, as my close friends did and now reside in California. I come from Brookline, Massachusetts, and left Bangor at the age of 21 years old (returning for very brief periods/vacations). It is nice to see what's happening in that city, and also in all those other cities I resided in the US. Bangor has New England appeal to it, David, but if you have never visited the city and learned before you arrive, the great history this city has had since the 1600's and beyond, it cannot be appreciated; just like some of the folks of Fillmore speaking in terms of the historical of Fillmore since its inception or incorporation as a town then a city, people are reminded of their family's honorable beginnings. If you forgot, everyone in Fillmore's family history originated from someplace else, mostly European countries and came to the US in the northeastern coastal states like New York, then migrated outward, mostly the years of 1607 through 1802; 1803 through 1844; *1845 through 1866; 1867 through 1898; and 1899 through present time, the country developed in increments with westward movement and expansionism and land purchases.

Yes, Bangor does have a serious city council problem, (name ONE town or city where everything is perfect without issues) and somewhere within their news service archives and present-day comments, many people who live in this city and surrounding areas continuously and vehemently criticize their city council (more than I can see the few for Fillmore making comments who are not afraid of their elected officials)...who, in Bangor, (and yes), have held dynastic or incompetent positions for a long time. The current city management has about four or five people who wish to manage everything (there is a list of about eleven major items) and has failed on nearly every count. Their "New Vision" (actually a degrading 'agenda') caused great unrest in this city, and "fired" their long-standing and (honest) effective CM (for one act); however a much larger Maine city hired Mr. Barrett (Lewiston) and all is well at this time for him - not for Bangor, however. But the city council are having major issues to deal with, which they themselves caused in both open and closed meetings at city hall and also in the homes of these counselors off-record. No problem in explaining the correlation vice-versa, either, David, and comparing Bangor to Fillmore; (two different worlds with one similar problem) but the problems and sources of the problems remain the same. If you want to research I can make your life much easier and provide you with a list of the 26 cities I resided in in the USA and add another list of those 23 places I resided in overseas during my lifetime, to include military and civilian residences.

One thing you ongoingly tend to ignore, Dave, is the fact anyone can read blogs, comment on the articles, seek information on any news source and research computer ID's and all or get that information wholesale through other sources or people. By the way, the article comment you pulled out was not from me, but I admit the information supplied for it was mine, as I have friends who posted that one who live in California near Fillmore and also come from (Portland) Maine. You seem to think in very small, concise "dump-and-run" tactics, (like you do with Mr. Conaway, Laurie Hernandez, The Fillmore Gazette and article writers, and today, in my case) which in the big picture, does not mean anything to anyone, life or history. You could be discrediting your own self in the long run. I have also researched your background (and also have much better and more effective sources) and I will not make any motion to print it publicly (it would be nonsensical and rude to do that) - although I have nothing to hide in anything I do or say. Your attitude is such that attempts to discredit people no matter who they are can get you some sort of recognition and attention you never had in life. You are one piece of work, Dave Roegner, if that's your thought process. In any case, we all try hard to make our points...and by the way, Martin and Scott already know I do blogging with the Bangor newspaper, as I referenced this in a former email through Scott one time, so there is no clandestine-ness being made here at all. But Bangor and Fillmore news is all me and my friends seem to have time for, fortunately for you, or else you would be trying to chase me all over the US and the world catching up to me to see what I, or someone else commented on today. I truly have more to do but sit in front of this 42-inch monitor and communicate with the world all day long, or so does anyone else I personally know of. Thank God I have more productive time and efforts on my daily calendar than sheer idleness as some have.

(*California's growth period) Do you not have any REAL newsy things to comment on...like what is happening right in your County of Ventura or in the city in which you reside...Fillmore? Why leave it all up to me, David Roegner? This is one reason why I attempt to give you reports on what's happening where I live - as requested by Martin to me one time. Commenting is a wide-open game, David.

Crickets? do I hear Crickets? CPR?... Whats my point "shrimp boat"? I think you are a fraud (and always have). It's interesting how you came up with your name "SantiniSpagoandSpike" you used the same line on us with "Cre8PalmRoyal" I think you derive some sort of kink when people tell you to go away and stop screwing up their "local blogs". I had so much fun laughing while reading the residents of Bangor responses to you.(they have much more leeway than we do here). Hey Filipino John... or is it Malibu Malarkey? I told you to be careful what you wish for. Remember, I'm a Special Agent...I detected BS... uncovered it...and there you were! Thats what i do. I think you should return you boomerang and disappear now. I hope Martin and others FINALLY see what i have been saying all along. Now if you will excuse me, I have a shoe phone conference with an Agent in Malibu.

http://camdenrockport.maineville.com/detail/125317.html
http://hermon.maineville.com/detail/129059.html
http://lincoln.maineville.com/detail/129978.html
http://bdn.new.adqic.com/detail/126978.html
http://waterville.maineville.com/detail/135904.html

PS...BTW you have a potty mouth.

Years ago when I sometimes used unsavory language, I often used the expression "Bull S***." As I grew up a bit and discovered it was not necessary to use such crude language, that expression became "BS."

What did I really mean when I used those expressions? I meant that something was ridiculous, or idiotic or a half truth or just stupid. It covered any number of negative formats. The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially: foolish insolent talk...

I have decided that I no longer will use either of those expressions in the future. When I have a need to express such feelings, I will use the word "CPR." Let me use it in a sentence. "That's just a bunch of CPR.." I encourage you to do the same (unless of course, you were part of the hoax) hmmm...I won't go there ;)