Rezoning Scandal : Councilman Bob Botts closely tied to Developer Partner

 .

9/5/13 –  .Almost daily, more and more ugly details emerge about the highly controversial Housing Element rezoning issue. In this article we will take a closer look at Developer Jeffrey Burum, who is currently under indictment in the largest  bribery scandal ever to hit San Bernardino County. Our focus will also be directed at Councilman Bob Botts and his close ties to a key player in this ongoing saga. So fasten your seat belts as we follow the money and connect the dots.

.

BENEFICIARY OF REZONING  : “DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC OPPORTUNITY FUND”

Benefiting from the Council’s recent rezoning decision is primarily one entity : Rancho Cucamonga developer Diversified Pacific Opportunity Fund , LLC.

Its chairman and founder is Jeffrey S. Burum  (source) . The Diversified Pacific Opportunity Fund lists as one of its projects the 800 acre Rancho San Gorgonio project located South of I-10 in Banning.

Within the boundaries of the proposed Rancho San Gorgonio project lies the 60.35 acre parcel that Banning just rezoned  to Very High Density Residential – VHDR (view developer brochure). It was supposed to be only 26 acres.

The owner of record of the 60 acre parcel is a “Banning Land Fund, LLC” with an address identical to that of Diversified Pacific Opportunity Fund in Rancho Cucamonga. Even though LLCs doing business in California are required to register with the California Secretary of State,  there is no record of a “Banning Land Fund, LLC”.

.

CRIMINAL INDICTMENT

Some Banning residents have suggested that Diversified Pacific founder Jeff Burum has a “bad reputation”. This, however, may be the understatement of the Century.

Burum is a key figure in San Bernardino County’s largest bribery scandal on record. It involved a fraudulent litigation settlement of $ 102 million, paid by the County of San Bernardino to one of Burum’s many companies, Colonies Partners.

Here is a KCAL 9 news clip – (video begins after a 30 sec. commercial)

.

.

In May 2011 Burum was indicted for conspiracy and charged with 9 counts of bribing a public official ( PC Sec. 165) and  15 counts of aiding a legislator to receive a bribe ( PC Sec. 86 ). The full indictment can be found by clicking here. Burum is currently free on $ 500,000 bail, but is restricted from leaving the State and had to surrender his passport. The case is ongoing.

The following video shows Jeffrey Burum ( last of 4) in shackles and handcuffs at his arraignment:

.

 

2011 : FEDERAL AGENTS RAID OFFICES OF DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC

 

In September of 2011 the Rancho Cucamonga offices of Diversified Pacific were raided by FBI and IRS agents.  All affidavits in support of the search warrants remain under seal. The raid was connected to Burum’s involvement in both Diversified Pacific and Colonies Partners. Burum’s residence was also searched.

.

DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC PARTNER RUSS BOGH – A LIFETIME FRIEND OF BOB BOTTS

Beaumont resident Russ Bogh is a former member of the California State Assembly and was a candidate for State Senate in 2010, when he lost to Bill Emmerson. Bogh’s 2010 “Statement of Economic Interest”  shows Bogh having an investment in the Diversified Pacific Opportunity Fund, (view Bogh Form 700 snap shot and full doc). Russ Bogh could not be reached for comment.

The Boghs are lifetime family friends of Bob Botts. Russ once stated to this author that Bob Botts used to change his diapers when he was a baby.

Russ endorsed Bob Botts when he ran for Banning City Council, while his father, Allen Bogh, was a member of the 2010 Committee to re-elect Bob Botts along with Russ’ mother, Lynn Bogh-Baldi.

With this said, there can be little doubt that the Boghs and the Botts are “joined at the hip” !

.

BOB BOTTS AVOIDS VOTING ON THE REZONING ISSUE

It is interesting to note that Councilman Bob Botts did not vote on the rezoning issue. Botts said he had scheduled surgery on his right hand at the time of the critical meeting. However, since the beginning of time, Banning City Council meetings are held on 2^nd and 4^th Tuesday of each month. Why would Botts schedule his elective surgery on the day of the most controversial vote in years ?

One possible answer would be, that if Botts did not vote on the issue, he would not have to explain his personal ties to the Boghs  nor be obligated to point out that Russ was invested in the property that was to be rezoned. After all, the Council did not have a real choice

anyway and Botts’ vote was not needed for the measure to pass. All Botts needed to do was to work behind the scenes and “engineer” the year long delay. Botts is up for re-election next year, so what better way to avoid a political controversy than to not participate in the actual decision ? As the old saying goes : “There are no coincidences in politics”.

.

REZONING  “EMERGENCY”  AND A MILLION DOLLAR LOOPHOLE FAVORING THE DEVELOPER

Not since 2007 has Staff found it necessary to address the State mandated Housing Element rezoning. They waited until it turned into an “emergency” that needed to be dealt with immediately. No doubt, the owners benefited immensely, to the tune of  an estimated one million dollars in increased property value.

Then, after the rezoning passed a few weeks ago, the Banning Informer broke the story of the City rezoning 60 acres instead of 26 (story). As one would expect, City Staff offers no explanation for the situation, which – if not caught- would have more than doubled the number of apartments allowed. It would have also created additional benefits to the owners worth another one or two million dollars. To close the loophole, a revised resolution will be introduced at the next City Council meeting on September 10 @ 5 PM.

At a very minimum, all this points to gross negligence, i.e. incompetence on the part of City manager Andy Takata and his seemingly clueless staff member, Development Director Zai Abu Bakar. Alternatively, in light of the bribery charges against the developer in San Bernardino, one can’t help but wonder if similar payoffs have since spilled over into Banning.

.

RED FLAG : BOB BOTTS PRAISES STAFF FOR A JOB WELL DONE

Now that we know that Bob Botts has a personal friendship with a partner in the development, the following video is a dead giveaway that Botts has ulterior motives.

Listen to Botts actually blaming the public for the 7 year delay – and praising staff for a job well done “in a timely fashion”! Who is this guy kidding ? Knowing what side of the fence Botts is on, his pathetic rant actually makes sense :

.

.

CONCLUSION

So here we have a Developer who has been indicted for bribing San Bernardino County officials, yet we are supposed to believe that no bribery ever occurred in Banning. Really???

Come to find out, this Developer’s partner happens to be a lifelong family friend of one of Banning’s dirtiest politicians, Councilman Bob Botts, who – you guessed it – fails to explain this relationship to the public.

Then we have a City Staff that conveniently delays a State mandated rezoning for 7 years, so the Council has a gun to their head and must rezone. That same Staff then creates a multi million dollar loophole in the developers favor, when they rezone 60 acres instead of 26 in such a way, that not even real estate professionals catch it right away.

With all this in mind, is there anyone left who believes that the game is not rigged in Banning ?

 .

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

Botts attacks L.A. Times reporter – at taxpayer’s expense !

.

10/22/10 – Documents obtained by The Banning Informer suggest that City Attorney David Aleshire aimed to protect the public image of Mayor Bob Botts when he complained to the L.A. Times about a recently published article. The October 1st front page story (view) pointed to Banning as a prime example for the abuse of redevelopment funds . For his services Aleshire normally bills the Banning taxpayer an hourly rate of up to $ 190.00, (view typical billing statement).

.

BOB BOTTS USES PUBLIC FUNDS TO PROTECT HIS CAMPAIGN INTERESTS

Undoubtedly, the L.A. Times article did severe damage to Botts’ campaign for re-election. However, rather than picking up the phone himself and complaining to the reporter, Botts used the “intimidation factor” of the City Attorney’s office to bring his point across. At least two emailed letters were sent by the City Attorney to the L.A. Times regarding this matter (view correspondence).

By masterminding such a stunt, Botts – once again – also shows complete disregard for taxpayer rights and for the City’s finances. Knowing full well that the City of Banning is in financial distress, Botts has the Banning taxpayer pick up the bill for this self-serving escapade.

Nobody shall dispute Bob Botts’ right to complain. But why should the taxpayer have to pay for it ? It could not be more clear : Botts  decided to use taxpayer money to protect his campaign . Is this how we want our taxpayer funds to be spent ? How does this make Banning different from the City of Bell ?

.

. “NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION”

The emailed letters by Aleshire do not indicate that they are sent for any public purpose. At no time does Aleshire allege that the City of Banning’s image or that of the Redevelopment Agency have been damaged by the article ;  his correspondence primarily emphasizes how Bob Botts was supposedly treated unfairly by the reporter, Kim Christensen.

The lack of public purpose of Aleshire’s letters is further evidenced by his statement that what he is writing is “not for public consumption”. How do Aleshire’s letters possibly serve a public purpose if they are “not for public consumption” ?

Who was it that City Attorney Aleshire represented when he sent this correspondence ? Did he represent the citizens of Banning , like he is supposed to, or did he represent the campaign interest of Mayor Bob Botts, who – after reading the LA Times article – saw his campaign in deep trouble ?  Draw your own conclusions.

.

CITY ATTORNEY DAVID ALESHIRE: ATTORNEY FOR THE PEOPLE OR LAPDOG FOR A CORRUPT CITY COUNCIL ?

When City Attorney David Aleshire took office in Banning over a year ago, he started out as a true attorney for the people of Banning. Oftentimes he would take the side of the “underdog” and oppose the Council’s plans. Late last year, when Bob Botts wanted to give tens of thousands of dollars to the Haven coffee house without proper documentation, Aleshire stopped him and told Botts in open session that he could not proceed in this manner.

When this website sought documentation on Council member Don Robinson bouncing several checks to the Banning Utility (story), it was Aleshire’s office who produced the relevant information.

Ever since then, City Attorney Aleshire has made a complete “180”.  He now seems to protect the interests of the Council over those of the citizens. When the City Council issued their outrageously defiant response to the Grand Jury, it was Aleshire who aided and abetted the Council every step of the way.

Recently, when angry citizens accused the City Council of engaging in illegal activities when they diverted millions of dollars from a water bond for the police station , Aleshire scolded them for making such a suggestion. All this leads to one question : Did Bob Botts and/or the rest of the Council threaten Aleshire’s job if he did not cooperate ?

We don’t know the answer, but here is what we do know : With his letters to the L.A. Times and similar recent escapades, David Aleshire seems to suggest that he is no longer an attorney of the people of Banning, but serves the interests of his political masters on the City Council. Once we get a new City Council, Banning may be well advised to get rid of this lapdog and look for a new, truly impartial City Attorney.

Bob Botts : “Progress” anyone ?

.

.

.

9/15/10 – With his re-election campaign already underway, Bob Botts claims that we should vote for him so we can continue our “Progress”.

Doesn’t he know that Banning is facing one major crisis after another ? Or is Bob Botts just trying to insult the intelligence of Banning voters ?

.Here is a reality check :  the following 10 examples go to illustrate some of the “Progress” Bob Botts has created :

.

“Progress” # 1 :  Utility Rates out of control  – City in fiscal crisis

Botts’ fiscally irresponsible policies cause a major financial crisis and force City Staff  to propose water rates to rise up to 75 % over the next 5 years (view chart).  As of  9/14/10 the issue remains unresolved.

One of the problems : on June 24, 2008, Bob Botts with the rest of the Council votes to spend 15 million dollars of water bond money on the new “Taj Mahal” police station ( construction cost over $ 500/sqft.). The bond was placed in 2005 without the vote of the people and spending it on a police station violates constitutional law (Prop. 218) – view story. If this money would have not been spent, no shortfall would have occurred in the Banning water utility. As a consequence of the spending, interest payments now begin to overwhelm the  City’s finances.

Massive rises in electric rates are also part of Botts’ legacy. Since Botts was elected in 2006, City Hall is now closed on Fridays, massive layoffs of City employees have reduced services to a bare minimum, talks of closing the Senior Center,  Community Center and swimming pool are all evidence of fiscal mismanagement. Yet at the same time , Bob Botts orders a $ 65 filet mignon and charges it to the taxpayer (receipt) ; he also repeatedly stays at luxury hotels and uses Valet Parking (story).

.

“Progress” # 2 : Buying property without appraisal

In 2009, Botts along with the other 4 Council members vote to purchase the defunct All Star Dodge dealership for $ 1,200,000 without an appraisal. The Grand Jury faulted the Council for this (see report), but ALL Council members replied that they WILL CONTINUE to buy property without appraisals (view reply) ( full story)  !

Amount spent  : $ 1,200,000

Estimated loss to taxpayer : $ 600,000 +

Monthly payment on Promissory Note : $ 7,307.60

Jobs created : 0

Sales Tax revenue generated : none   – no property tax revenue due to City ownership.

.

“Progress” # 3 : Accounting Irregularities discovered

During Botts’ term, independent auditors find “significant deficiencies” in the City’s accounting for FY 08/09. The audit ( view ) also indicates that account balances for the General Fund and Redevelopment Fund had to be “restated”. Translation : money has disappeared from the City’s coffers and nobody has any idea where it went.

…

..

“Progress” # 4 : Ignoring  Grand Jury Recommendations

In February of 2010 the Riverside County Grand Jury issues a report on Banning (view). Botts, Hanna and Robinson ignore the Grand Jury’s recommendations. They waive a valid claim for repayment of $ 162,000 + interest ( = apprx. $ 180,000) against the Banning Cultural Alliance.  They also ignore further Grand Jury recommendations to “cease and desist” doing business with the Banning Cultural Alliance and instead give them even more money ! – another $ 111,500 went to the Cultural Alliance only 2 months ago ( story ).

Cost to the taxpayer in 2010 alone : about $ 300,000 – Total funds paid to Cultural Alliance to date:  almost One Million Dollars, with no comprehensive accounting available for the vast majority of this money !

.

.

“Progress” # 5 :  “Art” instead of Jobs

In 2008 Botts buys an art gallery with taxpayer money. Price tag : $ 450,000 . The City vastly overpaid – the building is pretty much a piece of junk. Botts now has authorized money for an architect to draw plans for a complete remodel of the gallery  – anticipated additional cost to taxpayers : between $ 250,000 and $ 500,000 ( story )

Estimated loss to taxpayer : $ 250,000 to date

Jobs created : 1

Tax revenue created : No significant tax revenue from sales ; no property tax revenue due to City ownership

.

“Progress” # 6 : Key industry leaves town

Between 700 and 900 jobs are lost when the Deutsch plant closes in 2009. Deutsch was Banning’s largest private industry employer.  No redevelopment funds were used to keep the plant in Banning. Since Botts took office, Banning utility rates have skyrocketed ; with  rates 30 % higher than surrounding communities, Banning can no longer compete.

Jobs lost : 700-900

.

“Progress” # 7 :  Spending millions on useless land – without any plan whatsoever

Botts loses at least 2 million dollars in  taxpayer money after he and the rest of the Council purchase  40 acres of unimproved land at the airport for $ 2,854,550.00 in 2007 (  source /Scharff property / APN 532-130-008).

Botts , nor anyone on the Council,  ever had a plan for this land : it is just as useless today as it was on the day he bought it.  The property once belonged the developers of a (failed) drag strip project. Who benefited from this outrageous transaction ?

.

Amount spent : $ 2,854,550

Estimated loss to taxpayer : $ 2,000,000 +

Jobs created : 0

Tax revenue generated : none ; no property tax revenue due to City ownership.

.

“Progress” # 8 :  Bringing us the Liberty Energy  toxic sludge  Incinerator

Botts threatened the health and safety of Banning residents when he tried to bring us the Liberty Energy Sludge Incinerator project. He spends $ 430,798 in taxpayer money to purchase land for the project to locate on ( source / seller : Banning Airport Assoc., APN 532-180-034 ). Again, there was no appraisal.

This shows that he  – and the entire City Council at the time ( Botts, Salas, Hanna, Machisic, Franklin ) – were all in favor of bringing this insane project to Banning. Only due to the leadership of Ed Miller and Lyndon Taylor could the project be stopped when over 4,300 signatures were collected against it. However, the citizens of Banning now are stuck with yet another useless piece of land that creates no revenue whatsoever – with no plan whatsoever.

Amount spent  : $ 430,798

Estimated loss to taxpayer : $ 230,000

Jobs created : 0

Sales Tax revenue generated : none  : no property tax revenue due to City ownership.

.

“Progress” # 9 : Allowing Haven Coffee to operate without any permits ; 1.2 million in taxpayer dollars spent on the location

Botts , along with Hanna, Robinson and Machisic, funded the building as well as the Haven coffee business with a total of approximately 1.2 Million dollars in taxpayer money. No credit checks, references or personal guarantees were ever obtained. Botts knew that the Haven opened and continued to operate without any of the required permits : there was no health permit, no safety inspection and no business license ( story ).

But Botts pushed for the opening anyway – he apparently figured that the average voter would never find out.  He was wrong. The taxpayer’s total return on investment (ROI) on 1.2 million spent : one job *! (the Haven is volunteer operated *)

Amount spent : $ 1,200,000

Jobs created : 1

Sales Tax generated : no significant sales tax revenue

* according to a Press Enterprise article of September 10, 2010, the Haven now is no longer volunteer operated – however, claims of creation of additional jobs could not be verified

.

“Progress” # 10 :  The “Banning Business Center”

The Banning Business Center is a 150,000 sqft commercial project that is located on 4^th and Lincoln St.. On November 28, 2006 the City of Banning funded the project with $ 500,000 in taxpayer money. Since that time the project has remained unfinished ; the 2-story structure has no windows and weeds are now engulfing the property everywhere.

At the time the project was represented by Michael Bracken, the same individual who also acted as President of Liberty Energy 23 (sludge incinerator). During Bob Botts’ entire 4 year term the project was never completed (no building code or OPA contract enforcement). Banning  taxpayers are now faced with a loss of their entire investment in the Banning Business Center ( $ 500,000). Botts – and the rest of the Council – failed to safeguard the investment.

Amount spent  : $ 500,000

Loss to taxpayer : $ 500,000

Jobs created : 0

Sales Tax revenue generated : none

.

CONCLUSION : Botts so-called “progress” has cost the taxpayer millions and has enriched special interest groups who received millions in City funding . Seeing his chances for re-election diminishing, Botts is now trying to sell the voters a bill of goods : “Progress” anyone ?

Botts, Hanna, Robinson : “Smoke and Mirrors”

.

8/20/10 – Would City Council members Bob Botts, Barbara Hanna and Don Robinson ever use outright lies and deception in order to justify their actions ?  Let’s take a look ….

We all know that the Grand Jury asked the City Council to “cease and desist” providing any more funding to the Banning Cultural Alliance. But  Botts, Hanna, Robinson – acting as an “arrogant trio” – have indicated that they will not abide by any of the Grand Jury recommendations : only a few weeks ago they gave yet another $ 111,500.00 of your hard earned tax dollars to the unaccountable Banning Cultural Alliance, while at the same time considering to cut police officers.

It has long been established that all three have close ties to this parasitic, ACORN-like organization (view previous article). Mind you, the Cultural Alliance pretends to be focused on “art”, but in reality has a political agenda which is focused on supporting the candidacies of Bob Botts, Barbara Hanna and  Don “taxdodger“ Robinson .  The Banning Cultural Alliance functions as a taxpayer funded “shadow government”, without providing any checks and balances.

.

FALSE AND DECEPTIVE CLAIMS

As their favorite justification for funding ( a total of almost $ 1,000,000.00 went to the Cultural Alliance to date) the three are quick to point to the newly planned Banning Court facility : Hanna, Botts and Robinson all have supported claims that the new Court facility would not have located to Banning if it wasn’t for the efforts of the Banning Cultural Alliance.

Listen to Barbara Hanna stating that she is “certain” of the this :

By default, anytime Botts, Hanna or Robinson state that they are “certain” of anything, the Banning Informer takes a second look.  As you would expect, a research of public record now exposes this claim as yet another complete hoax.

.

THE SOBERING TRUTH

The government agency that is responsible for the construction of Court facilities is the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, located in San Francisco, CA. We contacted  them and asked them for any documentation that would support that the Banning Cultural Alliance contributed in any way to the Administrative Office’ decision to locate to Banning  (view request for public records). The State agency has responded to our public record request (view agency response). The response by the  administration indicates the following :

.

• There is no record of even a single phone call at any time between anyone from the Banning  Cultural Alliance and the State of California, Administrative Office of the Courts

• Not a single letter, email , fax or any other form of written correspondence has ever been exchanged between the Banning Cultural Alliance and the Administrative Office of the Courts

• Not a single meeting has ever taken place at any time between representatives of the Banning Cultural Alliance and representatives of the Administrative Office of the Courts

• The State of California has no record whatsoever that would indicate that the Banning Cultural Alliance has influenced their decision to locate the Court to Banning

Apparently the only time the Banning Cultural Alliance was ever involved in anything related to the Banning Court was when a Alliance representative attended one single online “web conference” in 2009. However, the “web conference” was not hosted by the Administration but rather by the Architect of the building ; it was open to all interested parties and had 17 attendees. There is no record of the Alliance making any contribution whatsoever to the “web conference”( view conference record ). Other than this attendance the record shows that the Banning Cultural Alliance had absolutely no involvement.

.

CONCLUSION : Given the evidence, it is nothing short of preposterous to suggest that the Banning Cultural Alliance was somehow instrumental in bringing the Court to Banning. All Council members know full well that the Court would have come to Banning with or without the Banning Cultural Alliance.

But Barbara Hanna says she is “certain”.  If anyone can be “certain” now, it is the public :  once again, they have been played for suckers by this arrogant trio .

Bob Botts : Banning’s greatest liability   . –  an editorial by Lyndon Taylor

.

6/18/10 – I read with amazement a recent article in the Record Gazette announcing that Bob Botts is running for re-election to the Banning City Council, and collecting money to further his cause.

This is the same Bob Botts who championed the Liberty Energy Project and threatened the health and safety of every citizen of the greater Banning area.

This is the same Bob Botts who only turned away from Liberty Energy after the citizens of this community challenged the City Council by circulating a petition with over 4,300 signatures which then made it impossible for Botts to pursue the project.

This is the same Bob Botts who most recently led the City Council in ignoring the recommendations of the Grand Jury to stop funneling taxpayer money to the Banning Cultural Alliance. (view Grand Jury report)

This is the same Bob Botts who ignored the recommendation of the Grand Jury to demand that the Cultural Alliance pay back to the City $ 162,000 (plus interest) for work the Alliance never accomplished, while at the same time threatening to close the Senior Center, the swimming pool, and other civic facilities.

This is the same Bob Botts, who, with colleagues on the Community Redevelopment Agency, purchased property using taxpayer money with no appraisal prior to purchase.

This is the same Bob Botts who has ignored the needs of the eastern portion of Banning while lavishing money on the downtown area in highly questionable projects.

This is the same Bob Botts who misused (i.e. stole) bond funds earmarked for the Sun Lakes reclaimed water project and spent them on a $ 14 M police station in violation of the California Constitution ( Prop. 218),(view Banning Informer article of 3/20/10).

This is the same Bob Botts, who, as Mayor, had oversight of the City’s general fund that was found by the auditors to have significant deficiencies and misstatements.

This is the same Bob Botts who has – so far – ignored the considerable needs of the City of Banning for a reopened Animal Shelter.

This is the same Bob Botts who publically chastises members of the public who do not happen to agree with him by arrogantly suggesting they  ” leave the room” ,(view recent Banning Informer article of  6/10/10).

This is also the same Bob Botts who has so little regard for the financial condition of Banning that he orders a $65 steak dinner and charges it to the City while favoring the layoffs of City Staff and maybe even police officers ( listen to “PASS POLITICS” radio show of 2/10/10 and view Banning Informer article  of 2/1/10)

This is the same Bob Botts who was reported to have held secret closed-door meetings with the Cultural Alliance with some of his fellow City Council members ( a fact which he vehemently denies) , with the public not invited, without a report of what happened at the meeting, or why they were being held (view Banning Informer article of 4/1/10 ) .

All things considered, does it take courage or just sheer arrogance for Bob Botts to even consider re-election?

In view of all of this, does  anyone – other than the Banning Cultural Alliance – still believe that Bob Botts constitutes an asset to our community ? I believe there can be no doubt that Bob Botts is Banning’s greatest  liability.

Dictator Bob Botts’ idea of free speech : “leave the room”

6/10/10 – He does not like to be criticized and has long had a pattern of interrupting speakers critical of the council (view video here and here).  But now it gets even worse : with an attitude reminiscent of that of a dictator, Mayor Bob Botts recently suggested that speakers who disagree with his point of view ought to “leave the room”.

.

RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY

In a CRA ( council) meeting held on May 11, 2010 the Council discussed their response to the Riverside Grand Jury Report (view report). It was the intention of the majority of the Council to snub their collective noses at practically all Grand Jury’s recommendations. In particular, Bob Botts, Barbara Hanna, Don Robinson and John  Machisic failed to ask the Banning Cultural Alliance to return $ 162,000 which the Grand Jury determined the Alliance owed the City. The Council also ignored  a “cease and desist” recommendation regarding their involvement with the Cultural Alliance.

The reader should be reminded that the Banning Cultural Alliance has received over $ 800,000 from the City in just 4 short years, and has also benefited from another $ 450,000 that the City spent on an Art Gallery  which the Alliance occupies rent free to this day, (view article), ( note : the Gallery building is NOT to be confused with the Women’s Club Building owned by the Alliance).

The Cultural Alliance has never produced comprehensive detailed accounting on how over $ 800,000 in taxpayer funds were spent. All they ever produced was a limited accounting for one fiscal year ( out of 4 years ).

Have perhaps some City Council members been paid or received other benefits from  the Banning Cultural Alliance ?  If this was the case, there could be no doubt that this would constitute a conflict of interest. Is the Banning Cultural Alliance possibly a convenient money laundering operation for the benefit of a select few ?  We are being kept in the dark. The attitude of the Alliance (and the Council) has been that the public has no right to know any details.

To make matters worse, the Alliance Executive Director has recently been caught lying to the public about the use of taxpayer money ( read our story here). The bottom line is that the Banning Cultural Alliance can only be viewed as a shady organization, one that operates with smoke and mirrors, and one that has proven to completely lack integrity as well as accountability.

.

SPEAKER DOROTHY MC LEAN ADDRESSES BOTTS’  CLOSE TIES TO CULTURAL ALLIANCE

Those and other points were brought forward by Banning resident Dorothy McLean when she addressed the Council. She pointed to the personal relationships of Botts – and other Council members –   with the Alliance, hinting at a conflict of interest. In this context she mentioned the highly controversial “Hang the Politicians” event, an event that the Banning Cultural Alliance misrepresented to the public as NOT having been funded by taxpayer money (to read more about “Hang the Politicians” click here ).

Please listen :

.

BOTTS DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS – AND STATES THAT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH HIM  OUGHT TO “LEAVE THE ROOM”

Here is how Botts responds – admitting but playing down his long standing close ties with the Banning Cultural Alliance. He also tries to make us believe that it is “silly” to suggest that the “Hang the Politicians” event was a campaign effort for him and Don Robinson.

What else would you expect ?  He obviously cannot admit publicly that he indeed received a personal benefit in form of an undeniable “propaganda value” of the event.

.

.

BOB BOTTS  =  ARROGANCE OF POWER

IT IS OBVIOUS : BOTTS IS RUNNING A DICTATORSHIP IN THE CITY OF BANNING. CRITICISM AND DISSENT ARE NOT WELCOME IN HIS KINGDOM. TO TELL CRITICS TO “LEAVE THE ROOM” IF THEY DISAGREE IS THE MOST ARROGANT COMMENT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN POSSIBLY MAKE. WHAT COUNTRY IS IT THAT WE LIVE IN ?

BOTTS’ STATEMENT SHOWS CLEARLY WHAT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN : “POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY” , (Lord Acton (1834-1902)).

.

CUI BONO   –  WHO BENEFITS ?

WHO REALLY BENEFITED  FROM “HANG THE POLITICIANS” ?  WAS IT THE CITIZENS OF BANNING LIKE BOTTS WANTS US TO BELIEVE ? OR WASN’T IT BOB  BOTTS AND DON ROBINSON WHO REAPED THOSE BENEFITS ?  WASN’T “HANG THE POLITICIANS”  NOTHING BUT TAXPAYER FUNDED POLITICAL PROPAGANDA PIECE ? WHY ELSE WOULD THE CULTURAL ALLIANCE TRY TO COVER UP THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS INDEED USED FOR THE EVENT ?

.

FOUR  MORE YEARS OF BOTTS DICTATORSHIP ?

IT IS A FACT : COME NOVEMBER,  BOTTS  WANTS  YOUR VOTE TO CONTINUE TO ACT AS BANNING’S HIGH AND MIGHTY DICTATOR FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. SHOULD HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO  BERATE THE PUBLIC IN THIS MANNER DURING A SECOND TERM  ?

DO YOU WANT BOB BOTTS TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT SAY IN BANNING ? SHOULD WE TOLERATE ARROGANT POLITICIANS LIKE HIM TO BE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ?

WE DON’T THINK SO.  COME NOVEMBER,  YOU, THE CITIZENS OF BANNING, WILL BE ABLE TO SEND HIM A MESSAGE : BOB BOTTS,  IT IS  TIME THAT YOU LEAVE THE ROOM !

“High on the Hog” : Mayor Botts orders $ 65 Filet Mignon

2/1/10 – City employees are being laid off.  Due to  a severe budget crisis Banning  City Hall remains closed on Fridays  .  But Mayor Bob Botts doesn’t seem to care  : on an all-expense-paid trip to Washington D.C. in 2009 he ordered a Filet Mignon for $ 64.95 at the plush “Ruth Chris”  Steak House  – and charged it to the Banning taxpayer ( view ).  Way to go, Bob !

During a time when many Banning residents are struggling to pay their taxes , lose their jobs, receive food stamps and are desperately trying to make ends meet,  Mayor Bob Botts shamelessly lives “High on the Hog” at taxpayer’s expense.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

NOT AN  ISOLATED INCIDENT

During the same trip to Washington D.C.  Botts stayed at the luxurious “Marriott  Wardman Park” and raked up a $ 1,512.96 hotel bill ( view bill ). During fiscal year 08/09  alone, Botts has charged a whopping $ 5,315.14 to the taxpayer , mostly for travel, lodging and food.

Another luxury hotel stay occured when Botts stayed at the high-end “Westin Long Beach”. The hotel bill ( view ) describes his room as

“Deluxe”, with a “Heavenly Bed”, as well as a “Heavenly Bath, Elegant Decor, Spacious Well Lit Bathroom, Minibar and Safe”.

In light of all this luxury, Botts apparently felt that self-parking his car was  inappropriate , so he chose Valet Parking for an extra $ 18.00 a day instead. The invoice shows that two guests occupied the room ( him and his wife ? ) . In total, the taxpayer forked up $ 467.74 for this 2 day hotel stay.

Other than raking up expenses, what exactly did these extravagant trips accomplish for the City of Banning ?  The short answer is :  nothing !   Come November, it may be time to vote this clown out of office  …..

LOCAL MEDIA SILENT

Why is it that we never read stories like these reported by our local media ?  For several months now, The Banning Informer has uncovered and documented many issues that are  of utmost concern to the community :  CRA Chairman Don Robinson not paying his taxes yet getting re-confirmed, the City Council violating the Constitution (Prop. 218) by using a water bond for the new $ 13 M police station, the Banning Cultural Alliance being unaccountable and violating clearly defined contractual obligations to the City, Barbara Hanna’s shady “campaign contributions” from beneficiaries of  CRA  funding , the Redevelopment Agency funding projects that have turned into complete disasters –  all those issues are well documented on this website , yet  the local media consistently looks the other way.

When you read the paper, why does the reporting always seems to indicate that everything is just fine ?  What happened to “investigative journalism” ?  Why is it that private citizens now have to do their own research in order to get to the bottom of these major issues ?  Isn’t that the job of the media ?  Instead of being the community’s “watchdog”, have the Record Gazette and Press Enterprise finally turned into harmless “lapdogs” , out to please their masters ?  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it  ……..

Video : Botts and Hanna interrupt  critic of City Council

During City Council meetings public comment is allowed for 3 minutes on items not on the agenda and 5 minutes on those that are on the agenda.

During the public session of October 13, 2009  Banning resident Chuck Katz, an activist who helped defeat the Liberty sludge plant, addressed the City Council. He was cut off by Bob Botts acting in concert with  Barbara Hanna ( who you can hear on the video talking to Botts). Botts interrupts Katz by saying   “this is  not relevant to this issue”.  In other words, Botts and Hanna appear not in the least interested in listening to what Katz had to say.

.

The agenda of October 13, 2009  reads :

“Cooperative Agreement between the City of Banning, the City of Beaumont and the County of Riverside to share the cost of a Fire Engine Company”. This agenda item is intimately connected to ballot measure “L” which – we are told –  will fund Fire, Police and City services . So Katz’ comments on measure “L”  were very much relevant to this agenda item.

Don Smith speaks right after Katz. Watch how he relentlessly pumps measure “L” yet he does not get interrupted. What Don Smith says apparently is “relevant to the issue” yet what Katz says is deemed “not relevant” ?  Doesn’t this show bias on the part of Botts and Hanna and  point to double standard ?

CONCLUSION : In watching this video it becomes clear that Mayor Botts and Councilmember Hanna actively engage in discouraging public comment. They seem to have no genuine concern for what the speaker is trying to address.

Are Botts and Hanna  the type of people we should have on the council ?  Do they really want to serve the public or are they just self serving opportunists?  Do they have a right to be there if they don’t care about what the public has to say ?

.

10/29/18 – There is a good reason people call the paper the “fishwrapper”: The Record Gazette just endorsed a convicted criminal, Colleen Wallace, for Banning City council.

Court documents indicate that District 5 City council candidate Colleen Wallace’s criminal record includes multiple convictions, felony charges, as well as probation violation.

In 2011 Wallace was charged with a felony for defrauding a Cabazon outlet store, after she was allegedly observed paying for merchandise with a counterfeit Visa traveller check.

.
.

.

WALLACE LYING TO POLICE OFFICER, SUSPENDED LICENSE, NO INSURANCE, PROBATION VIOLATION, ARREST WARRANT

Fast forward to 2018 – Court records show that candidate Colleen Wallace has been convicted of lying to a police officer about her identity, driving on a suspended license and driving without registration and without insurance, (San Bernardino Superior Court case # 604773CW) .

For these criminal offenses the court granted her probation in 2001. Wallace violated her probation within only a few months, when she wrote a bad check to the San Bernardino Superior Court (view court docket entry).

In 2008 a bench warrant was issued for Wallace’s arrest, which resulted in her arrest and arraignment, (view court docket entry).

.

.

.

2011 : FELONY CHARGES FILED AGAINST WALLACE FOR TENDERING A FAKE TRAVELLER CHECK AT CABAZON OUTLET CENTER

The following affidavit describes the felony charges brought against Colleen Wallace for passing a counterfeit traveller check to a merchant:

.

.

CHARGES DISMISSED

Wallace has denied being at the Cabazon Outlets that day. She claims she had lost her drivers license. This stands in sharp contrast to eyewitness accounts, who positively identified Wallace as being the person who passed the fraudulent traveller check. Also, according to the police affidavit, the signature on the check matched that of Wallace on her drivers license.

It appears that there was ample evidence to convict Wallace. But due to prosecutorial negligence, more than 60 days lapsed between hearings. This lead to Wallace’s right to a speedy trial being violated. For this reason, the court dismissed the case in 2011.

.

.
UNEMPLOYMENT/WELFARE FRAUD ? – JUDGMENT BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST COLLEEN WALLACE

In 1996, the State of California entered the following judgment against Colleen Wallace for “benefit overpayment” :

.

 

.

This type of judgment is usually entered against individuals who receive State unemployment or welfare benefits, when they are not entitled to them. Did Wallace try to defraud the system? It sure looks like it.

.

.

CRIMINALS FREQUENTLY ON THE BALLOT FOR BANNING CITY COUNCIL

Convicted criminals seeking office in Banning are nothing new.

In 2012, not one, but two convicted criminals were on the ballot. One of them was Adam Buchanan, a lowlife who at the time had two DUI convictions with weapons charges pending in Idaho (see story).

At the time Buchanan ran for City council, he was also wanted for arrest in Idaho as a fugitive from justice.

Despite (or because of?) his criminal record, three corrupt Banning City council members embraced Buchanan with open arms and endorsed him: they were Bob Botts, Barbara Hanna and Don Robinson.

During the same election, a second candidate, Larry L. Tucker, had been convicted of check fraud. In addition, Banning PD was alerted that Tucker was wanted for lewd acts with a child under the age of 14 by the State of Oklahoma.

When Banning PD tried to question him, he had already skipped town.
.

.

.

CONCLUSION

There are no laws preventing convicted criminals from running for office, nor are there any background checks required for candidates to qualify. As a consequence, three convicted criminals have been on the ballot for Banning City council over the past 6 years.

What does the endorsement of a convicted criminal tell us about the credibility of the Record  Gazette? And what does this say about their other endorsements, for example David Happe for District 4? It tells us that the Record Gazette is either completely ignorant , or they want to destroy Banning for the benefit of ruthless developers. Either way, this is just awful. It may be time to cancel your subscription.

One thing is for certain: To wrap a dead fish in the Record Gazette would be a disgrace – to the fish!

 

 

..

---

Fair Use Notice

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, and social issues concerning the citizens of Banning, CA. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information see: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK

.

9/1/18 – The swamp is doubling down, and they’re doing so by insulting everyone’s intelligence: Mayor George Moyer, Art Welch and Debbie Franklin, those longtime gatekeepers of Banning’s corruption, have signed a joint statement, in which they declare that despite a total of 3 Grand Jury investigations, no corruption has ever existed in Banning (view statement).

.

.

The statement reads: “3 Grand Jury reports initiated by Councilman Don Peterson found NO mismanagement nor corruption, nor criminal or illegal activity by the City”.

Say what? Just how stupid do they think the people of Banning are? Quite stupid, it seems.

The statement was made in conjunction with their unconditional support of ballot Measure P, an initiative which asks for voter approval of a tax to be added to Banning’s Electric Utility bills. (view Measure P). While everyone knows that taxing yourself is rarely a good idea, “tax-and-spend” councilmembers Moyer, Welch and Franklin are desperately trying to convince you otherwise.

.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH, AS IT MAY MAKE YOUR BLOOD BOIL!

Now let’s examine the facts:

.

1. Banning is the only city in California to have received 3 Grand Jury investigations (2010, 2016, 2018) in less than a decade. The Grand Jury will not get involved and issue a report, unless malfeasance is discovered. So if there really was “nothing to see here”, why are there 3 Grand Jury reports on Banning? No corruption?

.

2. Councilman Don Peterson did NOT initiate all 3 Grand Jury reports. At the time of the first (2010) Grand Jury report, Peterson did not even live in Banning. Until 2012 his place of residence was La Mirada.

.

3. 2010 Grand Jury Report

The 2010 report (view) found that the Banning Cultural Alliance received $162,000 from the City as compensation for fictitious services. During their investigation, the Grand Jury discovered that none of these services were ever performed. This finding, all and by itself, shows that backdoor dealings and therefore corruption exist in Banning. A legitimate city would never pay for services that nobody renders.

In fact, this was a covert scheme to funnel money to friends of the city council. In 2005, Councilman Bob Botts had founded the non-profit Cultural Alliance, together with his campaign treasurer, Charlene Sakurai.

Shortly thereafter, it was none other than Art Welch who authorized the first $250,000 payment to the brand new organization. Ultimately over 1.3 million taxpayer dollars were funneled into this shady organization, under the pretense of “revitalizing downtown”, but with virtually nothing to show for in return.

The corrupt intent of the city is evidenced by the council’s subsequent refusal to demand a return of the $162,000, as it was recommended by the Grand Jury. Instead, in complete defiance of the Grand Jury, the council authorized an additional 6-figure dollar amount to be transferred to the Cultural Alliance. No corruption?

.

4. 2016 Grand Jury Report

The 2016 Grand Jury report (view) exposed how friends of the council at the Banning Chamber of Commerce were given over $ 45,000 in free utilities. It also pointed out the unethical and illegal Banning practice of undocumented “handshake agreements”. Only $15,000 were ultimately recovered from the Chamber of Commerce. Ratepayers of the Banning utility were left stuck with the remaining $30,000. No corruption?

Again, it was Art Welch who was instrumental in this malfeasance. During the time in question, Welch morphed from President of the Chamber, into its Board member and finally into its “Agent for Service of Process”.

Simultaneously, as a councilmember, Welch looked the other way and never prevented the utilities from being given away, despite the fact that he was entrusted with oversight over the Banning Utility as a councilmember.

No dereliction of duty? No ethical violations? No wrongdoing? No shady dealings? No conflict of interest? No Corruption?

.

.5. 2018 Grand Jury Report

The 2018 Grand Jury report (view) found that the City of Banning performed brush clearing services for a large car dealership, again via handshake agreement and without a written contract.

And again, it was Art Welch, who was at the center of this scandal as well. Welch had received campaign contributions from the dealership before arranging what was likely meant to be a freebie.

Only 9 months prior, Welch had signed a response to the 2016 Grand Jury report, promising that the City would immediately abandon their practice of entering into undocumented handshake agreements. But then it did exactly that. No corruption?

Despite such severe ethics violations, Welch was protected from censure. During the censure proceedings held a few months ago, George Moyer, Debbie Franklin and Daniela Andrade all showed their ugly faces: they created what can only be viewed as a “protection racket” for Welch: without any discussion whatsoever all three of them made sure that councilman Peterson’s motion to censure Welch would die for lack of a second. Their sinister plot succeeded and Welch got away with it – again. No corruption?

The same Grand Jury report also pointed out that the City of Banning gave the same dealership an absolutely unprecedented 28-year sales tax break.

Moyer, Welch and Franklin all had received prior campaign donations from present or former owners of the dealership. No corruption?

.
.

CONCLUSION

You don’t have to be a “conspiracy theorist” to figure out what is going on in Banning. George Moyer, Art Welch and Debbie Franklin, these incorrigible swamp creatures, are doubling down. They try to tell you that there is no corruption – nothing to see here! Is your blood boiling yet?

Fortunately for Banning, Moyer and Franklin will leave the council come December 2018. Moyer terms out, while Franklin has decided not to run again. This leaves us with Art Welch, this prototype of Banning filth, for another two years.

Will Sun Lakes residents finally have enough of having their intelligence insulted by these pathetic liars? Will they finally wake up and recall Art Welch, this corrupt, good-for-nothing drunk?

Sun Lakes, please make Banning a better place: get rid of all your Moyers and recall Art Welch. Do it now! All of Banning will forever be grateful!

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK