How serious is Penman's possible transgression?
Two days after The Sun broke the news that a complaint has been filed against City Attorney James F. Penman for accepting and using a gifted membership to an exclusive country club, we tried to gauge just how serious the situation is.
The verdict, from fellow politicians and a legal expert, is mixed: The facts of the case have clearly tarnished Penman's reputation as the righteous lawman, while his legal fate could range from not even an investigation to criminal charges.
"Mr. Penman always portrays himself as the watchdog, but this begs the question of who's been watching him," said 3rd Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker on Thursday. "The people who will have to watch him are the voters, and this is the time to decide if they're OK with this."
A stinging criticism, no doubt, particularly to those who know how fond the 20-year city attorney is of hailing himself as the people's watchdog in City Hall.
Click below for the story in today's Sun, additional analysis and a photo:
For Penman, the revelation is a bump in an election year road that had thus far been relatively smooth. Penman, a man who commands respect not only with his legal title but with his deft, bare-knuckle political style, had seemingly emerged looking pretty after most clashes with Marianne Milligan, his challenger in the Nov. 6 election.
Penman below, in happier times, while debating Milligan on Oct. 10:
In August, Milligan submitted a candidate statement ripping Penman, and was retaliated against by Penman ally and former Mayor Evlyn Wilcox, who sued Milligan using Penman's favorite area law firm. The firm won the case, with the judge ordering Milligan strike attacking language and "false and misleading statements" from her statement.
The Sun revealed that the firm not only worked for Wilcox for free, but Penman claimed their $17,000 or so in legal work as a campaign contribution. Still, criticism didn't seem to stick.
Penman later worked in a winning challenge to Milligan to sign a waiver to allow her confidential employment records with the city to be made public. She declined, and Penman reaped the predictable political rewards.
Then, in October, after plenty of sniping, Penman and Milligan finally met face-to-face in a quasi-debate at City Hall on Oct. 10. Milligan stayed low-key, talking about modernizing and depoliticizing the office. Penman roared out, accusing Milligan of filing "bogus" claims against her former boss, triggering the demise of a city's attorney's office and hiding her past by not revealing a former married name under which she worked.
It was vintage Penman. The opinion-bellwethers at Red County www.redcountysb.com howled that Milligan was "trounced."
While Penman has landed this flurry blows to his challenger, the mixups have also succeeded in helping draw Mayor Pat Morris chest-deep into the political muck. Morris came into office riding a high-horse on erudite rhetoric and a vow to return effective collaboration to City Hall. The mayor constantly spoke of collaboration and the need for partnerships in a complex modern world - while carrying himself with a clear disdain for petty political squabbles.
Today, Morris issues a slew of press releases denouncing Penman, has been spotted out campaigning for Milligan and has even recorded telephone messages dispersed to thousands of local voters, his recorded voice slamming the city attorney and coaxing votes for Milligan. Objectively, the mayor has undeniably shifted course.
Not sure if this revelation will hurt Penman's chances of holding his seat (absentees were sent out last week), but it may have marred his reputation. 4th Ward Councilman Neil Derry, a Penman ally, seemed unconcerned with Penman's country clubbin' when this reporter spoke to him Thursday.
Brinker, however, issued a very strong denunciation. Brinker may not be a Penman ally, but he isn't a solidly pro-Morris councilmember, either, and he hasn't endorsed in the city attorney's race.
The legal question may prove more interesting. Based on what Dana Reed, an election law expert, said Wednesday night, Penman isn't even close to being out of the woods with the FPPC. Reed said a year elapsing before the FPPC reaches their suspect - Penman says he hasn't been contacted - is normal for a complaint filed against a local official.
Penman doesn't seem particularly worried. He enjoyed a fundraiser at the Arrowhead Country Club - yes, this is not a misprint - on Thursday night, before the last print copies of today's articles about ill-advised membership had become birdcage liners.
This reporter should also note that he called Marianne Milligan twice to give her an opportunity to deliver a kick to the "watchdog" who has pummeled her with his independent, sterling-probity rhetoric. She didn't return calls.
So here's the story below.
******
Robert Rogers, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/18/2007 07:19:55 PM PDT
SAN BERNARDINO - One day after the revelation that a complaint has been filed against him with state investigators, City Attorney James F. Penman is at a crossroads.
His prospects for re-election on Nov. 6 look fairly solid, but his future is uncertain.
Penman has drawn a complaint - filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission in October 2006 - for having and using a free membership to the prestigious Arrowhead Country Club.
The free membership - typically costing between $2,000 and $4,000 annually for access to the club - may be a violation of the Political Reform Act, a state law prohibiting elected officials from receiving gifts in excess of $380.
Penman acknowledged Wednesday that he held an "honorary" club membership for years until discontinuing it in March 2006.
But Penman has said he did nothing wrong because his membership entailed fewer benefits than the standard $2,000-plus pass, a defense that former and current club members say is untrue.
"The worst-case scenario is that this could be criminal," said Dana Reed, a Los Angeles-based attorney specializing in election law. "If it was deemed a willful violation of the Political Reform Act, the DA could bring criminal charges."
But Reed added that while possible, that scenario is unlikely. If found in the wrong, more probable would be $5,000 fines per violation, Reed said.
Penman on Wednesday said he had not been contacted by the FPPC and denied wrongdoing. On Thursday, a brazen Penman benefitted from a fundraiser held at the same country club.
Leaders at the private club have declined to comment.
In interviews with four past and current members, all expressed skepticism at Penman's claim that his membership could have been valued at under $400 annually.
Penman, who doesn't golf, said he never used the tennis courts, skeet shooting range or other amenities, only the dining area.
"Based on what I was told when I was given the membership, it was my belief and still is that there is a significant difference between the honorary and social memberships," Penman said.
Still, those interviewed said the honorary membership included full access to all the club facilities and is tantamount in value to the priciest memberships, which run roughly $4,000 per year.
Regardless of legal outcomes, Penman's self-portrayal as a righteous watchdog - critical for the person serving as the city's top legal official - may be tarnished.
"Mr. Penman always portrays himself as the watchdog, but this begs the question of who's been watching him," said 3rd Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker. "The people who will have to watch him are the voters, and this is the time to decide if they're OK with this."
Penman emphasized Wednesday that he has not been contacted by the FPPC in the year since the complaint was filed, but Reed said the delay is consistent with FPPC investigation procedure.
Reed added that the FPPC has four years to file complaints and gather evidence by doing extensive background work and interviews before contacting the investigation's subject.
Reed said there is a chance Penman could face a charge for criminal violations, most likely focusing on his statement of economic interest in 2005.
In that document, obtained by The Sun, Penman reported a $150 country club membership for the year, a number he arrived at by determining that the membership was worth $300, divided between him and his wife.
There is no direct evidence that the FPPC is investigating the complaint against Penman.
It has been substantiated that he held and used a membership, and sources said the membership was similar to those valued at $2,000 to $4,000.
"Every time I've run for office I've been accused of some horrible activity and after every election I've been cleared," he said. "So pardon me if I don't lose any sleep over this one."
17 Comments
Leave a comment
About SB Now Blog
Andrew Edwards. E-mail Andrew here.
Too bad, Mr. Rogers, you have made a conscious choice to not print the facts, as noted in your first paragraph. You have not printed the facts because you could only get people to speak as "unnamed". So to print that the "facts" have tarnished his record is an editorialized statement, not fact. Please find the truth about those memberships, and also the truth about ALL of the past and present city, county, state or federal officials who have those memberships. If Mr. Penman is a "criminal" than you have even bigger fish to fry. Including some of Morris' closest allies. He didn't "rat" them out, did he?
Mr. Joe Penman, or is it Mr. Jim Ortiz?
The facts to date:
1. In the wake of his wild accusations toward his opponent and the Mayor, Penman now, according to the Sun, finds himself the subject of a complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission. The charge? Penman, the "watchdog for the people" has, apparently for the last decade, been enjoying a free membership to the Arrowhead Country Club. Mr. Penman claimed in his statement of economic interest that the annual value of this membership is $150. Members of the exclusive club more accurately put the value of the membership somewhere in the range of $2,400 to $5,400. In 2006, the same year the complaint was lodged, Penman discontinued his free membership. With a salary of over $145,000 annually, why would he compromise his ethics and the trust of the citizens he professes to protect for such gratuities...one wonders what might have been offered in return. Most hardworking citizens know that there are no "free" rides.
2. Recently Penman attemped to damage the Mayor's reputation over a minor City contract. However, this stunt backfired and now Penman must explain how an office under his control could be totally unaware of a practice that appears, by Penman's own admission, to have been in place since before he took office, which was 20 years ago!! How long does he get to play the "that was before me" card? True to form, Penman creates convoluted "legal" issues so that he can push his political agenda, which right now is getting re-elected.
3. After leveling outrageous and misleading accusations against his opponent during a televised debate, Penman is now left to explain why, if the accusations are true, did he hire and then promote her? Since it is common knowledge that Penman hand picked Milligan to replace him as City Attorney when he believed he would win the mayoral race, it takes a big leap of faith to believe that these accusations against Milligan have any merit.
More likely, the truth appears to be that Penman failed miserably in the mayoral election and then Milligan became a threat to him (so she had to go).
Incredibly, in an attempt to reconcile this contradictory situation, Penman attempted to explain that he did not know everything about his opponent's background when she was hired. His reason? According to Penman, when the background check was done (by his office) they were not aware of his opponent's prior married name. Now it seems to most people that basic "investigation 101" would dictate that you find out whether the applicant had a prior name, especially for women who's names often change due to marriage and divorce. It seems that this basic information would be easily attainable. If this is the kind of due dilligence that Penman claims his office does, I wonder how he handles other legal issues for the City?
Penman doesn't have to worry about mudslinging from others, he's doing an admirable job of slinging mud on himself. I wonder if the "free" facilities at the Arrowhead Country Club have been used in the past for political fundraising events by Penman or his political allies?
Mr. Rogers, as I previously said, keep up the good work, ask the hard questions, and do the research. The truth, as you are learning, is not as Mr. Penman would have us all believe.
To all those who have a passion to use Marianne Milligan as a crusader to effect “change” in the City Attorney’s office, check the record of what was or was not being done before Jim Penman took that office.
If she is elected as the City Attorney, she will take us back to 1987, the days before Penman took office. Do you want a hint of what she will do?
Before Penman those that can remember the Hampshire Flood case will know that in the failure of the previous C.A. office to obtain releases from the homeowners that were compensated by the City by buying their homes, those homeowners turned around and sued the City and received over a million dollars in that verdict. Does that sound familiar, Marianne? Remember how Penman handled the Muscoy disaster? You do not know? His quick and immediate on the scene actions did not cost the City a dime. Marianne, How will you handle a disaster? How fast can you drive from Orange County to check one out?
Before Jim Penman took office, the C.A. office failed to use the Nuisance Abatement Act, Narcotics Abatement Act, and the Red Light Abatement Act against a variety of gangs, prostitutes, and dope dealing scum. Do you know that those ACTs existed, Marianne?
Before Jim Penman, the C.A. farmed out 100% of the cases brought against the City. This resulted in extraordinarily high charges by out side law firms. Does this sound good to Marianne and her new APPOINTED assistant? Sure it does, after all, she only has two years vested in the City, and only because she was enticed to stick around by the Morris machine by APPOINTING her to the position she now holds. How much did the Judge cost the taxpayers by adding her new position to our city payroll? Was it $50,000, $60,000, $70,000,$80,000 each year??? Of course, the Judge doesn’t care, it’s only taxpayers’ money and the City is already taking care of his son and daughter(was this off the books or was it legally done? Who knew? Apparently only Papa Morris did. Boy, did he point the finger,(you which one) at Mrs. McCammack and Mr. Penman for saying “excuuuse me, but you did not divulge these no bid antics to the taxpayers or to anyone else”
I'm confused Pen Name. This article is about Jim Penman, not Marianne Milligan, why is your post directed to her???
I don't think commuting from Orange County is an issue because I thought I read that she bought a house and lives in San Bernardino???
In what I have read, I have never heard Marianne Milligan state that she was going to contract out all the litigation cases, did I miss something???
I find your attack against the Mayor completely disingenuous. From everything I have seen he is deeply committed to the City and it's taxpayers. And enough already with the contract and the Mayor's daughter, geesh, that was put in place before he was Mayor and evidently done with a contracting practice the City Attorney's office wasn't aware of and should have been by the accounts I have read.
The thing I find the most disturbing is Jim Penman's quote in the article, "So pardon me if I don't lose any sleep over this one." I am not a lawyer or a politician but the FCCP takes these things very seriously and he should be concerned. His statement was smug and cavalier, very disturbing indeed.
I also have a comment regarding a post by one of his employees who said Jim Penman has undergone TWO State Bar investigations for sexual harassment, I didn't know that. Other people might have known about it but I didn't. That is a very serious thing for someome to report something to the State Bar for investigation, due to the fact that the outcome could affect someone's livelihood. The employee stated that both were unfounded but TWO separate complaints?? And now this FPPC complaint and investigation, WOW.
Hopeful: it looks like you have finally gotten it. Penman will always be investigated, no matter who brings up the made-up dirt, Morris, Valles, Edwards, Hernandez (dead), Pope-ludlum, etc. You name it, if Penman caught them with their hands in the cookie jar, they WILL make something up to sway your opinion, even if it is FALSE. The first bar complaint, in case you haven't kept up on your reading was waged by a man (a sitting Councilman Penman was investigating for corruption), not a woman, and NOT in a court of law, but it always more headline grabbing if you send a complaint to the Bar. Anyone can do it about ANY lawyer, whenever and for whatever reason they want. Just like judges have complaints sent to the judicial council about them ALL the time. Has anyone checked how many went to the judicial council about Morris. Several! But no matter, that mud wasn't slung during the Mayoral. But again, make sure the info you are swallowing is indeed fact. In this case, if Penman is guilty, so is Valles, City Manager, and many other city officials who of course NEVER reported anything. At least Penman reported it. Give him that much at least. And Milligan forced the City of Costa Mesa to sub out ALL of their work when the City Council shut them down...for poor performance...of course she says it was because they wanted to save money. Go to Dailypilot.com under Marianne reger costa mesa and you will find ALL of the FACTS. No rumors, no stories, just the facts. Happy researching!
I did some research and found an article containing:
"The lawsuit was based on a series of events starting in July 2001 when Milligan, then known as Marianne Reger, made a written complaint against Scheer containing a number of accusations. Scheer was cleared of those allegations by an independent counsel and
investigator, but his troubles with the city persisted.
In September of 2002, he was put on administrative leave, pending
an investigation. He was reinstated that October and returned to work
but couldn't fulfill his responsibilities since he wasn't able to log onto his computer, according to the lawsuit."
So, if Jim Penman had researched the name of Marianne Milligan it was in the articles, not concealed as I keep reading. Also, it says she filed a complaint and he was cleared, not unlike Jim Penman it appears. But it appears this litigation was not over her original complaint but things that happened after, most importantly Brown Act Violations and workplace issues that Marianne Milligan had nothing to do with. The City Council erred in placing him on administrative leave as a result of a subsequent investigation. Interestingly, one of the other numerous defendants was a City Councilwoman who is now one of the most respected Superior Court Judges in Orange County. So I am even more convinced all the bashing regarding the Costa Mesa litigation is another Jim Penman tactic. Why can't the guy play fair, it is really troubling for me as a voter.
All I see is his constant manipulation of the facts to his benefit and constant attempts at mud-slinging. He will never have my vote, sorry.
I also found information regarding problems in that City Attorney's office going way back. I would not be surprised that the City was looking at contracting all attorney services, which they evidently did with all their litigation anyway according to the information I found.
The most troubling thing with Jim Penman, in my opinion, is that he has spent all his effort on his opponent rather than the issues. By the way, are you his wife? I have seen lots of your blogs and they clearly emotional and defensive. Just wondering? And thanks for the research information it made things even clearer for me.
To The Aliases Here That Write So Very Alike And Post Nothing Even Remotely "Dangerous",
As a long-time writer of your particular brand of commentary here, you will recall the former San Bernardino Assistant City Attorney - (Jim Penman has the 6th floor teeming with assistants, by the way - always has had for at least as long as he accepted the country club honorary membership, became "a fixture there", then, reported to FPPC the value was $12.50 a month - less than the cost to use the Jerry Lewis Swim Center every weekend day, once a day) - Paula is her name and here is the link to her first-person volleys with Jim Penman, from 8A-5P, on the workday indicated on the date stamps. Happy re-reading!
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/2007/10/joseph_turners_candidate_debat.html#comments
FYI, I couldn't locate the link indicated in Penman's first post at the link above... I'd be interested to know if anyone else was able to locate it here. It is supposed to lead to Paula's first post here.
This is sent to help you see for yourself that Jim Penman does NOT deserve the credit for these things you list in your commentary above, (RE: "Before Jim Penman took office, the C.A. office failed to use the Nuisance Abatement Act, Narcotics Abatement Act, and the Red Light Abatement Act against a variety of gangs, prostitutes, and dope dealing scum. Do you know that those ACTs existed, Marianne?"), instead, Jim takes the time to spend a weekday on the taxpayer's tab (salaried, but surely with better things to do that join us here... ), and blog back and forth with the person rightly known all over the nation, not just here, for her successes with these things... I will try to find her original post for you...
Copied below, for your ease of reference, and verifiable at the following link, is the original post that got Penman to blog here from 8A-5P, on a weekday, from Paula herself, lest you suppose me to be inventing as I go along:
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/2007/10/crime_stats_tell_puzzling_tale.html#comments
I stumbled upon this blog inadvertently as I continue to stay up to date on the happenings in San Bernardino. The City holds a near and dear spot in my heart. But I felt compelled to correct a mis-statement by Mr. Ortiz regarding his representation that the City Attorney represents the City in court.
I was a Deputy City Attorney in San Bernardino from May 1997 to September 1999 when I chose to leave for personal reasons. I researched, authored and obtained the very first two gang injunctions in the Inland Empire. I also researched, authored and obtained the very first prostitution injunction of it's kind in the Country on Baseline. I also closed the drug house known as Norman Manor which was directly across the street from San Bernardino High School. These were all projects I initiated and was solely responsible for. During my time in San Bernardino I had the pleasure to work closely with the police department. The officers I worked with had a true commitment to better the City and worked tirelessly with me on obtaining the various abatement actions. Then Captain Michael Billdt was extremely supportive in offering resources and manpower in an effort to help me. On December 4, 1998 I was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for the work I did. While Mr. Penman was extremely supportive and allowed me carte blanc to move forward with projects, he did not argue the cases in court. In fact, during my employment there I don't believe he argued any case in court, his staff attorneys did that.
Similarly, the City Attorney for the City I have worked for since 1999 does not go to court. The litigation attorneys are assigned litigation matters and make the requisite court appearances. Therefore, Mr. Ortiz' commentary regarding Ms. Milligan's ability to represent the City in court is without merit.
Finally, I have known Ms. Milligan for 17 years. I have seen her in court numerous times and even argued together companian cases involving our respective police agencies at the Court of Appeal. She is an outstanding litigator and highly thought of in City Attorney circles in Orange County. I also had the pleasure of writing to the California Supreme Court on behalf of the entire League of California Cities asking them to grant a Petition for Review she authored to the Cal Supremes. Her writing and analytical skills were outstanding. I was troubled by all the negative comments being posted regarding her legal abilities and felt compelled to speak from first hand knowledge.
This election shouldn't be a smear campaign but rather a focused effort to address the issues the City faces. When I was there I felt like the City was making some giant strides at innovative problem solving and I hope that can once again occur. I am aware that the City is undergoing rough times. I wish the citizens could experience first hand, as I did, the commitment of the San Bernardino Police Department to make things better. The City of San Bernardino will always have a very special place in my heart and I am proud of and thankful for the work I did there.
Posted by: Paula Coleman | October 2, 2007 12:04 PM
Robert Rogers, how interesting that you did not follow through on the rest of the story. How many honorary awards have there been in the past and who received these? Would the reason be that maybe you did not have any recent photos of Valles to post? Or is it maybe that the bias your paper shows is too irristable to let go?
Why did we not get a photo of the Mayor's "no bid contract" daughter. Her under the table episode with PaPa Morris
hiding this action costs the taxpayers real money.
This, along with the OP Phony project and the neglect of the real voters in other parts of the City are what you should look into.
Now, Susana, you have lost it. You could NOT have possibly known Marianne for 17 years, having heard companian cases with her, IF she has only been an attorney for 13 years. Okay, this is where the facts get muddy, I mean, your facts, Susana. Let's stick to the truth. This blog will have much more credibility if you did. And as far as Costa Mesa having their issues, yes, they had, with Marianne being involved according to her, for many years as the contract and in house attorney, you might wonder if she was the cause of them back then, also? The red light camera fiasco that she boched costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars? I am sure you read that also. And when you searched two years ago, the Daily Pilot did not have that info posted yet. You will notice the posting date on their web site. So, again, you all are quick to find fault with Penman to validate your choice for City Attorney. Well, let's hope for the sake of the survival of this community's long term health, Marianne does NOT win. I spoke with someone who has worked in City Hall for 20 years today, NOT in the CIty Attorney's office, and what they say is that without Penman, things would have been so much worse, family and friends being hired over qualified choices. The problem, they say is power hungry Mayors. The Mayor has SOOOOO much power and some know how to weild it. Morris and Holcomb (with Shauna's help) were two. But Morris doesn't do it alone. He needs Jim Morris. Penman is powerful in the sense of knowing when and how to cry "FOUL" when that power is being abused. So crucify him for that. The stories of bullying Mayors go way back. With no vote or veto, it is hard to imagine, unless you have stepped over the legal or appropriate bounds, that Penman has ANYTHING to do with this city's ills. And no I am not his wife, just a long time friend from way back, having watched him experience all of the trash thrown in his way, only to watch him survive the most vicious undeserving personal attacks. You try it sometime and see if you don't learn to admire someone with that kind of love for this city to continue taking all of this crap for less money than private practice lawyers.
PW&M,
It would be helpful if you could copy a sentence or two of the text you are replying to, in order to have the continuity. As it is, I am at a loss as to what you are writing about my "17 years" & "muddy facts". Please, try again. As far as I can recall the number "17" is only used once in the entire SBNow Blog ~ in reference to how long an attorney of national acclaim has known Marianne Milligan, before giving a very detailed and glowing professional opinion of her as relates to her abilities as an attorney. Maybe you got confused and thought that commentary from an attorney was mine? By posting what you are writing in reference to, this will all become clear.
It's nice of you to share your perspective in posting pro-Penman commentary. Thank you for that. It is part of what I envisioned occurring in SBNow Blog ~ a virtual community.
I resent your insinuation that I have ever posted so much as one untruth. Please, post each, every and any examples you think are demonstrative of me writing something untrue.
The words you toss about in reference to Marianne Milligan, an accomplished attorney, highly regarded by her peers, do not correlate. "Fiasco" & "Botched" are not the words attorneys professionally associated with Marianne Milligan use in relation to her. Instead, these are the words of experience with Marianne Milligan in the legal field, "...Finally, I have known Ms. Milligan for 17 years. I have seen her in court numerous times and even argued together companian cases involving our respective police agencies at the Court of Appeal. She is an outstanding litigator and highly thought of in City Attorney circles in Orange County. I also had the pleasure of writing to the California Supreme Court on behalf of the entire League of California Cities asking them to grant a Petition for Review she authored to the Cal Supremes. Her writing and analytical skills were outstanding. I was troubled by all the negative comments being posted regarding her legal abilities and felt compelled to speak from first hand knowledge..."
The entire commentary from this nationally famous attorney ~ the attorney that successfully achieved the first prostitution injunction in our country, among much more, at:
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/2007/10/crime_stats_tell_puzzling_tale.html#comments
What is your point about Daily Pilot and their backlog in uploading archives to the Internet? Is that supposed to be some excuse for your long-time friend, Penman? If so, FYI: Nobody's supposing Penman's cadre of highly skilled investigators didn't make sure Penman knew all there was to know about Marianne, and then some, before he decided to train her to become his replacement. Everyone completely understands Jim Penman knew ALL about the fellow graduate from his school of law alma mater before he hand-picked her to be his replacement in City Hall. Or, would you have us all believe that was a supreme coinky-dink?
Everyone completely understands Jim Penman had Marianne elevated to the very pinnacle, poised to assume his duties ~ doing his duties while he was otherwise occupied campaigning citywide for mayor, most unsuccessfully ~ then, when he lost by an embarrassing margin and your friend saw, yet again, the voters weren't going to allow his poison to be unleashed upon this city, as they say down South, Penman snatched that rug right out from under Marianne so fast her head was spinning.
Being among the brighter bulbs lighting our way in San Bernardino, Marianne did the smart thing and began working in a capacity where her talents would be allowed to benefit San Bernardino, not be hidden away behind thick layers because your long-time friend, Jim Penman, has some paranoia issues with every employee in City Hall. Or, are you disregarding the numerous commentaries throughout SBNow Blog by current & former City Hall employees stating precisely that? There have been instances when City Hall has come to a stand still due to your friend.
Can't you be his friend, and also understand the he isn't the best person for the job? That's not mutually exclusive, is it?
You say you spoke to a 20-year employee at City Hall (outside the Office of City Attorney), and "things would have been so much worse, family and friends being hired over qualified choices..." Neither me, nor anyone I know would disagree with you about that. Our opinions diverge when you begin to imply that this is some mystical quality only Penman brings to the office, when, in reality ANY person worth their weight in salt in the office would do the same. Moreover, we continue our divergence of opinion in that, on my side of the ballot, Penman has kept a chokehold on progress, growth, the ability to thrive of this community. He has a successful model: Highlight problems at election time, make sure nothing gets accomplished until election time rolls around, again. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. For 20 long years, repeat.
How else can you explain the mayoral piece listing an illegal facility and, to this day, NOTHING being corrected by Mr. Tough On Crime ~ FOR YEARS & YEARS...?
Your friend may be charismatic & personable, when he wants to be, but he is NOT our best option for the office of San Bernardino City Attorney ~ that is undoubtedly Marianne Milligan.
You go on to imply that Mayor Morris having Chief of Staff is somehow or other a bad thing. It is a very common position in administrations. We're especially fortunate that Mayor Morris' family has a long history of giving to the community, allowing the current Chief of Staff's salary to be waived, as in the example first set by Governor Arnold. We're fortunate to have the caliber of person we have as mayor, and as Chief of Staff.
There are MANY fine people leading our city. Many of them are exquisitely frustrated from decades of seeing the city spiral downward since Penman first came into office. Or, do you suppose it to be yet another inconvenient coincidence that The City has continued to become progressively worse, despite a wide variety of mayors in the 20 years since Penman first began honing his political machine?
As for your closing remarks, that Penman loves San Bernardino and continues to campaign so much with no regard for the money he could be making in private practice ~ had that comment arrived prior to the news that Penman has spent over half his time in office becoming "a fixture at the country club", and has reported the value of his top-of-the-line honorary membership at a whopping $150.00 a year, maybe it would have held a bit of sway. As things stand at this point in history, Penman is certainly not being recalled for his altruism, that's for sure!
As for your long-time friend Penman being able to make more than his current six-figure salary if only he'd set aside his bleeding heart and think of himself for a change: HA! You have GOT to be kidding! Do you have any clue how many cases he's tried in court ~ before a jury ~ how many amici curiae he's presented ~ how many ANYTHING he's done, besides showing up for two things, (three if you count the dinner bell at the country club):
1. every other week he's at the city council meetings, to make his TV appearance
2. every chance he gets, he's in front of the press, or a camera ~ or, a group of neighbors/service group/associations ~ anywhere he can "see & be seen" ~ ever the campaigning politician, never the worker bee, earning his keep in San Bernardino.
I don't want to close without the very most heartfelt thanks to Henry Empeno and all the many other attorneys actually getting the work done in the city attorney's office. Without them, we'd be lost. I am very sorry they are kept hidden away like they are ~~ and I am VERY thankful to Paula for exposing the way these "almost anonymous" attorneys "Git 'er Done", while Penman swoops by to collect all the credit. Bless them for the thankless jobs they do!
With Marianne Milligan at the helm of Office of City Attorney, San Bernardino will make strides toward regaining the illustrious status of "All American City" and more! Until then, trying to gain positive ground is an uphill battle, with Penman blocking the path in every direction.
Like I’ve written before, I was once an ardent supporter of Penman ~ and I have no ax to grind with him. He’s just NOT a good city attorney, for all the reasons listed above. I can totally see how you could enjoy being friends with that side of him. Then again, I’m not sure I’d maintain a friendship with a person after learning what’s been learned about Penman this week…
By the way,
You say you spoke with a 20-year employee today. Well, among many other things, today I visited with a lovely family recently relocated (within the last 5 years), to SB. They have Penman signs in their yard, and felt compelled to speak with Mayor Morris, their city councilperson and others to explain they are leaving the Penman signs in place as a “commitment” for the help they perceive Jim Penman to have provided them in a certain matter that was actually settled when the applicant failed miserably at presenting a convincing case. Just another example of fine folks being misled by Penman…
Read between the lines, Penman REPORTED this membership himself. I am more interested in the dozens of others who did not report their membership?
All I hear are......crickets.
Re-elect Jim Penman for City Attorney
Well, you've got it half right, Penman DID value each year's gift of a free membership to the country club himself at what he claims as "fair market value" of $150.00, (The full $300.00 value he arbitrarily placed upon the membership for him and his 3rd wife being split to $150.00.).
But, you are wrong in my eyes for wanting a man who saw fit to claim "fair market value", Defined for this purpose at:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/forms/700-06-07/refpamphlet06-07.pdf
as being, "Fair Market Value:
When reporting the value of an
investment, interest in real property, or gift, you must
disclose the fair market value – the price at which the
item would sell for on the open market. This is
particularly important when valuing gifts, because the
fair market value of a gift may be different from the
amount it cost the donor to provide the gift. For
example, the wholesale cost of a bouquet of flowers
may be $10, but the fair market value may be $25 or
more. In addition, there are special rules for valuing
free tickets and passes. Call the FPPC for
assistance.
A man, Jim Penman, who, for over half his time in office - for over a decade - claims - signs an oath swearing - the $2,000.00 minimum membership up to the $5,000.00 country club membership to have, to quote the FPPC, "the price at which the
item would sell for on the open market", of $150.00 is, without a doubt, NOT the best person to head San Bernardino's Office of City Attorney. The very best candidate for that position, with ZERO blemishes on her record, with the enthusiastic support of judiciary and municipal attorneys of wide acclaim is:
MARIANNE MILLIGAN FOR CITY ATTORNEY!
Mary Sue:
I know your idea of a good time is a dirt yard, a jug of moonshine, road-kill stew bubbling on a pot in the yard, and your favorite hat with overalls and bare feet.
While the Arrowhead Country Club has nice amenities it certainly isn’t worth what you claim. I know that manicured lawns, fine dining, tennis courts, pools, skeet shooting, and well dressed people are beyond you reasoning.……stick to your side of the tracks, honey.
YEE HAW!
How sad that Susana has to make up anoymous "people" to support her.
Is it just me or is anyone else completely confused by that long drawn out attack on some unknown person? This sort of thing will make me and others stop reading the blog!
I am not really sure what the rantings of sweet dreams is about, it does seem very off topic and disorganized. I don't see the need to try and degrade people to get your point across. In fact, it really weakens your message.
I don't see that Penman did anything wrong. He reported it, I am not sure that any of us are qualified to put a value on a honorary membership. It does seem the membership is very limited and therefore can't possibly be valued like a full membership. I believe Penmans' valuation was fair and equitable. This is the worst "dirt" that Morris can muster up?
Moving forward.