Who Taught City of Bell How to Raid City Treasury, Rig Elections?

May 22, 2011No Comments

SANTA MONICA PAVED THE WAY
FOR CORRUPTION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

 

RETROACTIVE PAY RAISES & BONUSES FOR ELECTION OFFICIALS
You can read the report that includes the documented proof of how City Officials conducted local elections and the reasons why the L A County Grand Jury, the DA and AG were asked to investigate the obvious conflicts of interest. This report covers a Santa Monica Municipal election that became highly suspicious when retroactive, post election pay raises and bonuses were awarded in a closed, unrecorded meeting to the very officials involved for conducting the election.

Read the full Report here: SMElectionReport

SUMMARY:

The Santa Monica municipal election issues on the ballot were red hot and promised to increase voter participation. A voter revolt was sparked when the City Council approved major commercial and hotel developments, including a Santa Monica Airport development agreement, which became a catalyst for citizen initiatives and startled well-entrenched “renters rights” incumbent officeholders.

UNPOPULAR DEVELOPMENTS
Political alliances were threatened as the City Council continued to approve massive development projects. The prospect of luxury hotels lining the beach and on Ocean Avenue was increasingly unpopular and citizen efforts to curb development was a driving force behind initiatives to be placed on the ballot.
STREET CRIMES ANGERED RESIDENTS
Voter activism grew as the Council members and specifically the City Attorney’s refusal to prosecute misdemeanor crimes that was blamed for street crimes and violence among the derelict population that resided on the beaches, pier and in the commercial shopping district adjacent to Pacific Palisades Park. Most of the derelicts coming to Santa Monica were provided with meals and shower facilities, and the agencies assisting them encouraged this transient population to register to vote, using the city’s shelter facilities as a residence address. According to Santa Monica Police Officials at one time there were 2,000 outstanding arrest warrants that had been issued for persons using the address of the City facilities for transients. It was reported that many were parolees at large.

JOB GENERATOR

The transient population inadvertently became a job creator, generating the need for more city workers and of course the need for more funding toaccommodate this new and growing population. New City workers were enthusiastic supporters of the Council members and the City Attorney who appeared to be more sympathetic with the transients than with the residents of the City.

STREET CRIMES

The Citizens Protection Act of 1990 ballot initiative was sponsored by Santa Monica voters who opposed the City Council’s support for a City Attorney who refused to prosecute public drunkenness, trespassing, urinating in public, shopping cart theft and panhandlers who were becoming increasingly aggressive and intimidating.

LOAD UP THE BALLOT

Following the qualification of four other citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives, the City Council, with advice from their City Attorney, implemented a political strategy to place five additional issues on the ballot, as alternatives. This was seen as a major reason why it became necessary to divide the election into two separate elections one, City Controlled and the other conducted by the County. Strangely the City officially voted to “consolidated” the elections to be conducted by Los Angeles County.
PECULIAR GOVERNMENT PROCESS

However, without official authorization by the Council the election concerning City ballot initiatives were taken away from the County and placed under the total control of the local city officials. The City Attorney and his staff provided oversight of the election that included a controversial Charter Amendment initiative to eliminate his appointed position and made it an elective position. A hand-picked election contractor was hired, without a bid or contract as required by the City’s Charter nor was there a Council resolution of approval. The Contractor instructions for the Election Board conflicted with the county election being held on the same day by the same Election Board. Two separate elections being held at the same time created a great deal of confusion and inability to reconcile the ballots on the precinct voter rosters. Read the FULL REPORT with links to the official documents.

Leave a Reply

Make a