That I’m disappointed in the Kern County Grand Jury’s Cities and Joint Powers Committee’s (Committee) “Tale” about the City of California City, is a monumental understatement.
This report isn’t about who we are and, neither is it about what we do. We are much better than we are being portrayed. As a result, the Committee appears to have been an un-witting participant in a witch hunt.
In my opinion, this witch hunt is by people who do not want the cannabis industry here. It is also stoked by folks who don’t want anything to change, further suppressing economic development. Some do not like the changes being made to improve our community. Some are used to the bad old days when folks didn’t have to follow rules. They did what they wanted, and got free this and free that; or in the case of water… some simply stole it.
But in order to improve our city and bring in standards that other cities have effectively and successfully employed, there are those who still want things a “certain way” and push back. They employ tactics to provide a distraction from these improvements. As one tries to peek behind the curtain to fix problems, we are told ‘move along, there’s nothing to see here.’
Our city has been in decline for many years now and I, as the Mayor, recognized this and tried, working through the council to change or eliminate poor habits that have been practiced during that time and some still today. I am convinced it is due to the attempt to cease the “good old boy practices” that favor only a few, coupled with the dislike that some folks have for our current administration that led these folks to feed the Grand Jury complaints. Probably lots of them in order to distract us from making necessary quality of life improvements for our city.
Our city, is being attacked by agencies, groups and individuals who are against the cannabis industry. And as for transparency…one of the loudest voices on that subject doesn’t even have a valid city business license and is performing contractor type activities without a contractor’s license. Another critic of the city council owes the city over $30,000. How hypocritical is that?
Through a review of the findings and recommendations of the Committee I see disgruntled individuals, employees who may have been disciplined and some opposed to the Cannabis industry who may have swayed the Grand Jury to believe California City is corrupt.
Do we have some room for improvement? Absolutely. Are we corrupt? NO!
I was truly saddened and disheartened by the statements made. And, I know who made most of them. Not because the Committee told me; they are sworn to secrecy. I’ve read them in the correspondence from J.M. Powers, an individual who has failed to identify himself by his real name but hides behind a pen name. (Note: Powers’ latest submission for the April 24th council meeting, read like he wrote portions of the Grand Jury report himself). In addition to him, other members of the public and some employees of the city, there is the social media forum.
We’ve been told by several people that those behind a particularly damaging Facebook page have stated to members of staff that even if they don’t have any facts, they will just make them up. That is the kind of information posted out there and also the kind of information that portrays staff and council in a very bad light. Those who are not attending council meetings or who are not current on what’s going on in the city will read this stuff and take it as gospel.
What recourse does the city have for this false and misleading information? Probably not much.
The Committee’s report does significant damage to our city and its elected officials. It seems to be focused on certain individuals on council and persons in the cannabis industry. That could lead anyone to assume that the real issue is that the Committee and others in opposition to the cannabis industry are fixated in a negative way to destroy opportunities for economic growth in California City. Opportunities, I would add, that will take us off of supplemental parcel tax dependency.
Using the word “if” followed by recommendations which presume the council violates the Ralph M. Brown Act is like handing the council a verdict without a trial.
I’m going to address some, not all, of these finding. Some will not like what I am going say, but I refuse to stay silent.
In the very first “Finding” the Committee addresses allegations about me and the council members. It states that I visit City Hall on a regular basis, outside the scheduled City Council Meetings. The report leads you to believe that as Mayor, I spend 40 plus hours per week at city hall. They asked how much time I put in weekly as Mayor, not how much time I spend at City Hall. The inference is ridiculous and false. That statement alone made me suspect on several of the other findings.
The first recommendation from this is “The City of California City’s Mayor and Council Members should refrain from meeting with the City Manager outside scheduled City Council Meetings. This appears to be a violation of the City Code of Ordinance and/or the Ralph M. Brown Act.” Isn’t the Committee’s responsibility to investigate and determine whether what they report is a violation?
It appears the Committee believes citizens may inquire or discuss and present information to the City Manager, but city council members are not allowed to do so. That’s ridiculous. How else would council members bring citizen concerns and other matters to the City Manager in a timely manner? Do they want us to just sit on our hands, or worse go directly to department heads and direct them to investigate? (by the way that would be a violation of our code of ordinance).
Just because the City Manager may speak with any council member outside of a regular council meeting does not mean that directions are being given, nor does it mean that the same discussion was being shared amongst the other council members. The “appearance”, does not make it a fact. It does not mean that any laws were broken. This seems like an opinion over facts. What is most telling and continues throughout the Committee’s report is that not one fact supports the “if’s” and “appearances”.
There are six findings (27% of all findings) that address cannabis (marijuana or hemp) in this report. In charges ranging from unnamed City Officials removing red tags from a building; to directing the Fire Marshall or Code Enforcement not return to some locations; to asking these same employees to leave certain properties alone they paint a picture without any basis for the charges.
What the Committee failed to learn or perhaps chose to ignore is that the building they focused so much attention on is the subject of a civil dispute between two individuals who have tried to use the city to reinforce their position prior to litigating their concerns by filing numerous complaints extending over at least two years.
I was taken aback when asked why I didn’t get involved in this matter. I’m confused, does the Committee want me to follow our Code of Ordinances or would they prefer I insert myself in into matters, and do what’s contrary to our code? Council should not involve themselves in these matters.
In one of the findings the Committee stated “the Committee visited one location more than ten times, over a five-month period and observed people and vehicular activity.” In their own report, the Committee states in the “Process” section “The Committee first visited the City on November 14, 2017, followed by eight more visits to conduct interviews and inquire into various important locations.” That totals nine visits to California City. How can the Committee visit “one location more than ten times, when their own report states they were here nine times? Which is it?
Speaking about Code Enforcement, in all cases where citizens try to get me involved with matters such as the ones described in some of the findings, I refer them to Code Enforcement, the Fire Department, Fire Marshall, Fire Chief, Building Inspector and/or City Manager. These are the employees responsible to handle such matters. Any inference to the contrary is a false. If I find code enforcement related issues I do report them. I am also a citizen of this city and have the same rights. As a council member, according to our Code of Ordinances, I am allowed to ask questions of city staff.
Statements made in other findings are incorrect or incomplete. One states that a property grading issue was turned over to Fish and Wildlife. Upon review of the code enforcement report on this property, that was not documented. This property and the others were owned or operated by folks in the hemp or marijuana industry.
Finding 10 states “Approximately, 7,000 of the 54,000 parcels in the City, are owned, managed or under the control of one person and/or his companies. Code Enforcement officers were again given a directive by City Officials not to inspect some of these parcels.”
I don’t know of any one individual who owns 7,000 parcels or has control over that many. Without factual information, I can’t believe this finding. I am only assuming that this is tied, in some way, to the cannabis industry or it would not have been in the report.
Finding 13 concerns our delayed council minutes. The city council meeting minutes are delayed. There are many reasons for this. It isn’t willful. What may be a willful is the steady flow of public information requests to the city in order to slow the production of minutes. Such requests, cannabis industry duties, issuance of business licenses and many other tasks take lots of time. We are talking about a one-person department. Other city employees have aided in completing the minutes yet we are still behind. These employees have important work to do too. Efforts are focused by the clerk to complete these minutes in a timely fashion; often those efforts become overtaken by other events.
Regarding the hiring of the City Clerk, Finding 25 is incorrect. The Mayor and Council do not hire the City Clerk. Sec. 2-3.303 of our municipal code states, “The City Manager shall appoint the City Clerk with the advice and consent of the Council.”
I would continue commenting on more of the Committee’s report, but the city will be providing an official response soon enough.
I fear that the media feeding frenzy generated by this report has done significant damage to our city. What recourse do we have? Probably nothing.
I do want to thank them however, in Finding 25 concerning the community’s perception that I have hired friends as city employees, dismissed employees that oppose the Mayor, and issued Cannabis business permits to friends as being unsubstantiated. As Mayor, I have no authority to hire or dismiss city employees or issue Cannabis permits. I don't do those things. I just wish they would have spent more time investigating the long history into the hiring of friends and family by some employees of the city.
I reiterate my disappointment. I have very little faith that we will be provided a fair evaluation of our management and council.
The City of California City does take matters like these seriously and will be providing an official response to the Grand Jury.
April 30, 2018
Mojave Desert News
By Jennifer Wood, Mayor, City of California City
No comments:
Post a Comment