Here goes nothing. Hand delivery tomorrow or Friday…
January 16, 2011
Dear Ms. Kang Schroeder:
Looking back over the work many of us did over the last couple of years preventing the sale of the Orange County Fairgrounds, we see that there are many loose ends left to be tied up.
To cut to the chase, this package is a belated – but not overly belated! – response to the comment you made to the Voice of OC in the wake of your department’s exoneration of Senator Dick Ackerman for illegal lobbying, and our subsequent discovery of documents strongly suggesting his guilt. What you told the Voice of OC one year ago was this:
“The evidence we had supports the findings we made. If anyone has further evidence that is contrary to the evidence we have, we’ll be glad to look at it. And it may bring us to a different result.”
At the time, those of us involved in saving the Fairgrounds felt it was enough that this evidence was published on the Voice of OC website. But now, months later, seeing no results, I would like to take you at your word and put the new evidence directly in your hands, in hopes that you will decide to pursue justice in this case. (By the way this isn’t too late because the four-year statute of limitations on Mr. Ackerman’s alleged crime doesn’t run out until July 2013.)
*
To jog your memory, back in mid-2009 there were certain forces both in Sacramento and within the OC itself, who for their various reasons wished to sell off our publicly owned Fairgrounds to a private entity. One such interested group consisted of the majority of the Fair Board itself, who formed themselves into a non-profit “Foundation” to attempt to buy the property for themselves.
But first they had to make sure it was going to be sold, which entailed persuading the state legislature to pass the enabling legislation, known as ABx22. To help make this vote happen successfully, which it did on July 23, 2009, they utilized the services of former State Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman. This politician, who had just been termed out only 6-7 months earlier, was legally forbidden to lobby his former colleagues until the end of the year, under the section of the state Political Reform Act known as the Milton Marks Postgovernmental Employment Restrictions Act (Gov. Code section 87406(b)).
When it was discovered that the board had paid the ex-Senator tens of thousands of dollars of public money, and after he carelessly admitted to the press that he had helped facilitate the passage of ABx22, it was pointed out by many that Ackerman’s actions constituted illegal lobbying. And so, euphemisms began to be heard from Ackerman and his apologists: he was “only gathering information,” he was “preparing legislative language,” he was only a “liaison,” he was only talking to the Governor’s staff, not to his fellow legislative colleagues.
But the perception that what he was really doing was lobbying was strong enough that your department launched an investigation into the matter, overseen by Mr. Bill Feccia. After a year’s work, the Feccia “investigation” concluded that indeed, what Ackerman had been doing was not lobbying, but all those euphemisms instead. The more uncharitable labeled this “investigation” a “whitewash.” The yet more uncharitable dubbed it “collusion.”
*
And soon after this exoneration, a couple of members of the OC Fairgrounds Preservation Society, and Mr. Santana, managed to locate the documents I include in this package. They located them without the aid of subpoena power, government money or staff, armed only with shoe leather and tenacity. These documents strongly suggest that lobbying his former legislative colleagues for pay is EXACTLY what Ackerman was doing in July and August. And this is the evidence that I hereby present to you on a silver platter.
Attached, please find:
- Ackerman’s (back-dated) contract with the Fair Board. This shows that, as you would never know from the DA report, one of the services Ackerman was specifically contracted to perform was to act as a “liaison with elected officials.” (I am sure that with your resources you can obtain a more easily legible copy of this contract from the Fair Board than I have here; Feccia’s investigators never asked for one.)
- Ackerman’s Billing Records to the Fair Board. In which he specifically bills the Fair Board (the public) for telephone calls he made to eight legislators days before and after the ABx22 vote, including his successor as Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth, and key OC Democrats Senator Lou Correa and Assemblyman Jose Solorio. These billing records are voluminous; I include only three pages of them. The complete collection should not be hard for you to obtain – Mr. Santana has it all.
- You’ll notice that Ackerman submitted his billing records not to the Fair Board, but to an obscure, now-defunct, land-use contractor known as CCA (California Construction Authority) – and CCA did not bill the Fair Board directly either, but instead went through yet another land-use contractor known as LSA who did bill the Fair Board. It’s hard to see how this convoluted method of billing was intended as anything other than to conceal an unpopular and controversial use of public funds from the public – I wouldn’t have thought it would confuse the District Attorney’s office though! So, as an added bonus for a department interested in violations of the law, I’ve included a four-page argument for “Misuse of Public Funds and False Claims” on the part of the Fair Board. I would think that would also be of interest to an alleged Justice Department, but in any case it’s important to understand even if your investigation is confined to Mr. Ackerman.
- And as the crown jewel, I include our annotated version of Mr. Feccia’s report. This will really be worth the perusal of whomever you choose to lead the follow-up investigation – hopefully that will be someone a little more motivated and inquisitive than Mr. Feccia.
*
It’s really hard to discern what was actually done in the yearlong investigation, besides determining what Ackerman’s side of the story was and jotting it down. And Mr. Feccia himself seems strangely eager to disclaim responsibility for the report he signed off on. Not only were the above crucial documents apparently not even looked for, but nobody involved in the scandal who might have said anything critical or illuminating was even contacted.
For one thing, Senator Lou Correa and Assemblyman Jose Solorio were crucial players in the drama. As Orange County’s only Democratic lawmakers, their yes votes on ABx22 convinced most other California Democrats to go along. Later, responding to fierce public outcry, both men came to regret their votes and fought against the sale, drafting legislation to reverse ABx22 and even joining in a lawsuit to stop it. And we know now that Ackerman talked their ears off on the phone and charged us for it – Solorio on July 15 and Correa on July 24. Yet, both men have told the Voice of OC that neither of them was ever contacted by your investigators. If we are looking into who convinced these smart men to make this foolish vote and how, it might be good to at least ask them what happened.
Senator Correa can be reached at 714-558-4400 or 916-651-4034. Asm. Solorio can be reached at 714-939-8469 or 916-319-2069.
Assemblyman Jim Silva, the only sitting OC legislator to resist pressure and vote against the sale, told me in a 2009 interview that he was “under a lot of pressure” from various people to vote yes, but he had the rare horse sense and real estate experience to see what a stupid and crooked idea it was. It would be nice to know if Senator Ackerman was one of those people pressuring Silva. We know now through these billing records that Ackerman at least called Silva, and charged us for it, on August 1, just after the vote (and there is such a thing as follow-up lobbying.)
And – surprise – Assemblyman Silva has just informed me that your “investigators” never tried to contact him either! Well, Mr. Silva can be reached at 714-843-4966 or 916-319-2067.
Were any lawmakers at all contacted during this yearlong investigation into lobbying lawmakers? Or were the only ones contacted the ones who could be counted on to minimize Senator Ackerman’s actions?
Another important source that Mr. Feccia’s investigators never tried to contact was Dave Padilla, the one Fair Board member who dissented from the sale, and fought against it as best he could until being fired by Governor Schwarzenegger. I imagine he would have a lot of enlightening things to say about all this. Mr. Padilla can be reached at 714-966-1937.
Given all of the above, it may be a good idea – don’t you think? – to assign any future investigation to someone – if not more aggressive – at least more inquisitive than Mr. Feccia. I am told that the principled and conscientious Assistant DA Mike Lubinski could be counted on to do a much better job.
*
Maybe you disagree that this case is very important. But without Senator Ackerman’s alleged illegal lobbying, there is a good chance ABx22 may not have passed, and the County would have been spared untold expense, hassle, and bad blood throughout 2009 and 2010. I can vouch that those of us opposed to the sale put in thousands of volunteer hours, and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars that we’ll never get back, just to retain this jewel for our grandchildren.
There is good reason for the law which Senator Ackerman allegedly violated, the Milton Marks Postgovernmental Employment Restrictions Act which was passed by an overwhelming majority of California’s citizens. It was to avoid exactly these corrupt or apparently corrupt situations. At this very moment a Sacramento politician is likely considering breaking that law, taking into account that Ackerman apparently broke it with impunity, and gambling that the Act is a paper tiger that he or she can also violate with no consequences. Do we want that happening?
We are encouraged by your department’s action on the Kelly Thomas murder, bringing charges against police that we never expected from the Rackauckas DOJ. Let us not succumb to Anacharsis’ cynical dictum that “Written laws are like spiders’ webs, and will like them only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.” We don’t want Orange County to be like that, do we?
I’m happy to be of assistance, and please keep in contact.
Sincerely,
Vern P. Nelson
ChezVern@aol.com
www.orangejuiceblog.com
Did someone around here just ask if OJB was dying? I would say: no.
This is extremely interesting and well-done. (I’ve known that Vern was out there working on something about Ackerman, but I had not looked at any of this before. This is very solid. I wonder why others haven’t looked into this before now?)
I also wonder if there are qui tam (private Attorney General) provisions for this sort of situation. Maybe I’ll just go look it up.
Excellent job, Publisher!
Thanks comrade. Tomorrow I’ll get up my “Are Corporations People?” skit and publicity for Occupy the Courts. Then I’ve gotta check out something wild going on in Costa Mesa – “Pot Rift on the Right?”
Greg: I believe there are qui tam provisions for any sort of situation the AG’s office would normally pursue, but I’m also thinking the IG might also be interested. I need to look it up, too.
Vern: Impressive work!
Hmmmm…. Trying to decide whether to ask Vern to take down this story while I review the evidence!
Nah, it seems an in camera review is all you need to discern the real evidence. I do hope the Ackerman investigation is re-vistited. There is nothing more offensive to me than a shoddy investigation. It would be so much fun if the OJB was the entity, via its talented publisher, to light up the truth!
Magisterial. Profound. Bulls eye.
Nice work, Vern. I imagine our follow-up emails to Ms. Kang Schroeder should start hitting early next week?
Thats what were talking about Vern.
Excellent investigative reporting comrade Vern.
The OCDA all ready found that guy innocent.
Why don’t you go to the state AG?
You never read the damn articles you comment on, Cook.
THIRD PARAGRAPH, ALL IN BOLD.
And actually I do have friends who are taking this to Kamala, but it’ll be nice to see how the T-Rack people try to dismiss this again, after asking for the new evidence.
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for taking the time to request an investigation into Dick Ackerman and his dealings. Ackerman currently practices law with the firm of Nossaman LLP. This firm files hundreds of lawsuits on behalf of the Foothill Eastern Transportation and San Joaquin Hills Transportation agencies to collect “ALLEGED” toll road violations and penalties.
Strangely, as a non-attorney, I was told that both agencies are not government agencies; however, the Nossman LLP firm has figured out a way to sue files thousands of civil lawsuits against unsuspecting citizens for alleged toll violations and penalties, without paying court filing fees upon initiation of the lawsuit, then taking a default judgment within days without any type of prove-up or evidentiary hearing, following assignment of the money judgment to another corrupt attorney…. won’t mention names.
This firm’s attorneys, specifically Michael Shonafelt, Esq. and E. George Joseph, Esq., have the toll road SCAM down pat…. and reports of wrongdoing and judicial fraud have been ignored by the OC District Attorney, the OC Sheriff and the Orange County Board of Supervisors for many years. Nossaman also led some type of toll road class action that also raises potential self-serving financial and/or quid pro quo dealings (personal opinion of course).
I hope your letter request to Kang Schroeder generates an investigation, but most importantly, I hope someone in the State of California takes CORRECTIVE ACTION. Ackerman’s law firm and its representatations of multiple clients with potential adverse interests include a wide range of lobbyist activities and denial of the fair administration of justice. Check out the article below…. just another example of Nossaman pulling the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public: http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x1569723240/Lack-of-information-for-lobbyist-before-City-Council-meeting-criticized.
Can you or have you already submitted your complaint to:
CA Fair Political Practices Commission?
CA Attorney General?
FBI?
Let’s see…
FPPC has been investigating this for a year. That sounds insane, but I understand it does take that long when the suspect is uncooperative, as tricky Dick obviously is. I HAVE just heard through the grapevine that they are on the verge of an announcement on the Dick front.
I’ve got some friends who are taking it to Kamala, I believe.
The whole thing of bringing it to our generally somnolent DA is – first, it would be great if they actually did their job and looked into it properly, and second, if they don’t, they’ll really be demonstrating how useless they really are and how lawless this county is for the powerful and well-connected. Either way, it’ll be useful…
Elections have consequences…….Unfortunately for this one, first is cleaning up The Governators and fellow corrupt rogue Republicans messes. It takes time.
First on Moonbeams list is fixing a $20 billion deficit that republicans did NOTHING about.
The bells and whistles of actually getting functioning oversight committees and regulating bodies working again will take a little bit.
Republicans love when they break down……..hurts cronyism.
It will happen…….Democrats aren’t like Republicans. We like Government to work, and we work to make it better.
The Republican Party Machine that makes up the OCGOP needs a house cleaning…..The County D.A.’s office isn’t the disease,…..it’s just a parasitic symptom.
Past OC DA’s prosecuted over 70 past members of local municipal governments. This offices current regime has prosecuted ZERO. Are we to believe that this county magically became “uncorrupt”?…..
I agree, mostly. But wouldn’t the first task be repealing Prop. 13? Getting rid of the ludicrous supermajority required to pass tax legislation — the legislation held up by Republican anti-tax boobs? And bringing our property taxes more in line with actual property valuation? California’s broke, and Prop. 13 is the reason. Think about that next time you’re waiting in a long line at any grossly understaffed DMV.
vern,
do you think you will get a response from the DAs office?
We in the “Qui Tam Lawsuit Battalion” sort of hope that he doesn’t….
On that “Qui Tam” thing, I think that is answered in the 3rd, bolded part of this passage from a lawyer friend of Bushala’s, someone who specializes in this sort of thing. I’ll just copy everything he told Tony:
I have reviewed the newspaper articles and the DA’s Report regarding the Ackerman issue, and I have researched the applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act. Briefly summarized, here are my conclusions:
1. There is pretty good evidence that Ackerman did indeed violate the Milton Marks Postgovernmental Employment Restrictions Act (Gov. Code section 87406(b)), which is the part of the state Political Reform Act that prohibits former legislators from “lobbying” the Legislature for one year after leaving office. Specifically, Gov. Code section 87406(b) prohibits a former legislator from being compensated to “represent any other person by making any formal or informal appearance, or by making any oral or written communication, before the Legislature, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any present Member of the Legislature, or any officer or employee thereof, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing legislative action.” According to the Fair Political Practices Commission’s (FPPC) regulations, a communication is considered to be “for the purpose of influencing” if “it is made for the principal purpose of supporting, promoting, influencing, modifying, opposing, delaying, or advancing the action or proceeding. An appearance or communication includes, but is not limited to, conversing by telephone or in person, corresponding with in writing or by electronic transmission, attending a meeting, and delivering or sending any communication.”
Contrary to the conclusion in the DA’s report, it appears from Ackerman’s own billing statements that he did indeed have communications with one or more legislators that related to pending legislation authorizing the sale of the Fairgrounds. Although there is no direct evidence that those phone calls were principally made for the purpose of influencing that legislation, the timing of the communications and the circumstantial evidence certainly suggests that was the case.
2. The statute of limitations for a violation of the Political Reform Act (PRA) by Ackerman has not yet passed. Pursuant to Gov. Code section 91000(a), a “knowing and willful” violation of any provision of the PRA constitutes a misdemeanor, which must be prosecuted within 4 years of the date of the violation. Ackerman’s communications with legislators allegedly occurred in July 2009, meaning that the statute of limitations for a criminal prosecution would not run until July 2013, at the earliest.
Similarly, the PRA allows for the possibility of a civil prosecution, which also has a four-year statute of limitations (see Gov. Code section 91011), or an administrative enforcement action, which has a five-year statute of limitations (see Gov. Code section 91000.5).
3. The problem, however, is that there does not appear to be any private right of action that you or another interested person could bring to enforce Government Code section 87406 against Ackerman. Rather, the District Attorney is authorized to bring a criminal action for a “knowing and willful” violation pursuant to Gov. Code section 91000; the District Attorney could bring an action for civil penalties against Ackerman under Gov. Code section 91005.5 (seeking a penalty/fine of up to $5,000 per violation); or the FPPC could bring an administrative enforcement action against Ackerman under Gov. Code section 91000.5 and Chapter 3 of the PRA, again seeking fines of up to $5,000 per violation. Although the Political Reform Act allow private citizens to bring “citizen suits” to seek penalties for violation of certain provisions of the PRA, the section allegedly violated by Ackerman is not one of those provisions. Thus, the only entities that could seek to bring an action against Ackerman would be the County DA or the FPPC.
According to the last news article, it appears that the FPPC has indeed launched an investigation looking into the matter. Those investigations typically take quite some time, unless the subject of the investigation is willing to acknowledge a violation and stipulate quickly to pay a fine, which I very much doubt Ackerman would be willing to do. Unfortunately, beyond waiting for the results of the FPPC’s investigation, I’m not sure there is much more that you can do at this time to pursue this matter further.
I’d be glad to discuss this issue with you further at your convenience.
Sadly, the ideas I just e-mailed to you (for Tony’s eyes as well, if he’s interested) are too good to publish for all eyes at this time.
Please define Qui Tam. And what if the alliance of citizens that formed the opposition to the sale of the fairgrounds? can they as an entity file a civil suit to enforce?
The Wikipedia page on this is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_Tam. That will answer your question better than I would on the fly.
No, I don’t think that they’d have standing to sue. This is a crime by statutory enactment; the statute would state whether there are what are called “private rights of action.” (Apparently here there are not.)
thanks Greg. You guys hear about Assemblyman Tim Donnelly getting off with a midemeanor for trying to bring a LOADED gun into an airport in ontario? Anyone else would be in guantanamo by now.
Hey Vern,
Sorry for always playing the devil’s advocate, but in the spirit of “who watches the watchmen” I always find myself drawn to scrutinizing self-appointed protectors of the common good since they are often as sketchy as those they are monitoring.
That being said, while we are tangentially talking about fairground business, I have been to a couple of the more recent Fair board meetings and have noticed Jennifer Muir from OCEA and a guy a believe is an OCEA lawyer in attendance.
My question is: since, during board meetings, Berardino is not representing OCEA and OCEA does not represent Fair employees, is it a misuse of union funds to have these to OCEA staffers at the meetings? Are they off the clock (then fine)? Otherwise, why is OCEA paying people to be at meetings that have nothing to do with OCEA members? Are OCEA members aware that they dues are being used for non-OCEA business?
Thanks for listening. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Are you under the impression that the OCEA people you mention are being paid an hourly wage rather than a salary?
Could be, I suppose, but I doubt it.
Either way, while they are on OCEA’s dime, why are they doing non-OCEA business. OCEA has nothing to do with the fairgrounds and Berardino is not on the Board representing OCEA. So, why would his staff be there?
Just asking. When I worked, my boss would have never let me take half a day to do non-work related business unless I was taking personal time.