Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury City of Patterson Case numbers 11-01c, 11-02c, 11-03c, 11-04c, 11-05c, 11-06c,

Published: June 28, 2011 12 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 3 findings

F1
The IPM was not an actual resident of the City of Patterson during the 2008-2010 terms as Mayor. The IPM, spouse and family lived in the home, outside the city limits and was occupied in 2007. The IPM made written admissions that establish the IPM ineligible to serve as Mayor of Patterson and misled the community members as to his/her actual place of residency. • On 10/26/2009, the IPM (nor any other council member) never reviewed a verification of legal expenses prior to voting to pay attorney fees, which is a gift of public funds. Factual and procedural statutes outlining gifts of public funds are located within the California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. Besides the lack of knowing/viewing any verified funds, the council cannot give public money without a properly filed lawsuit, verification of funds, court order, contract or statutory authority. • Money paid to the developer was absorbed through the City of Patterson’s general fund account.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The IPM shall reimburse the City of Patterson his/her salary of $300.00 per month, from the time of admitting the fact that he/she was not a Patterson resident and was not eligible to run for office ($9,300.00). The IPM knowingly failed to follow established statutory laws and policy by residing outside the city limits of Patterson. The California Government Code stipulates that the position shall become immediately vacant and thereby voided any voting privileges or other powers of the Mayor during the 2008-2010 years of elected service (2.12.020 (b) Patterson City Municipal Code). • The Patterson City Council shall review all votes that the IPM rendered during the term of 2008-2010. Specifically, the votes that were 3-2 (deciding vote(s) that were a common theme during the 2008-2010 time range) which had a direct impact on city business shall be examined. This review of votes cast by the IPM during this term of ineligibility shall be done during a public City Council meeting.
F2
Between 2008 and 2010, the IPM was not in compliance with the mandated AB 1234 ethics training required under the Political Reform Act of 1974. The IPM’s vote to gift the developer took place during the time of non-certification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
All Patterson City Council members shall post their AB 1234 Ethics Training results on the City website to ensure compliance. The City Clerk shall monitor this requirement and place upcoming AB 1234 expiration dates on the public agenda. Members who fail to remain in compliance of AB 1234 shall be mentioned at open meetings until they complete the certification by the City Clerk.
F3
Violations of Patterson Municipal code and City Council handbook. • Failure to follow the proper chain of command as it relates to approaching city employees to request information, expedite permit processes, manipulate city policy, and request the waiver of fees owed to the city. • The IPM was presented a letter authored by a business owner who was in the process of obtaining a conditional use permit. The letter indicated that all of the requirements had been met. The IPM approved and signed this letter, representing the entire City Council. When the letter reached the Community Development Department, it was found the business had not satisfied all of the requirements to be issued this permit. The letter was brought to the attention of the IPCM and the process was stopped due to non-compliance on behalf of the business owner. (Refer to attachment #1). • The IPM, Council member A, and Council member B were instrumental in the resignation/termination of the IPCM and the CDD. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Any City Council business correspondence or actions by individual members of the City Council must be approved in advance by the City Manager. (Patterson Municipal Code § 2.16.040). REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Codes. • California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code (§ 2.16.040). 9 • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C, and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. 10 11 12

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Patterson City