Milligan and Penman: Someone is lying

Mr. Rogers,

Your post to this blog certainly sounds like you are soliciting someone in city hall to come forward with information that is, by law, not to be publicly divulged. I am concerned not so much at this point for our city but that someone who purports to be a legitimate journalist would solicit another to commit what you have already admitted knowledge of, that to reveal personal information contained in an employment application without the consent of the applicant is a criminal act. It is my fervent hope that should you be successful in this fishing expedition you and your catch both feel the full weight of our judicial system. It's my bet that your outside the purview of your precious shield law on this one pal.

TO:
Privy City Hall People
FROM:
Inquiring Minds That Want To Know

Do you remember that old Mervyn's commercial with the gal saying "Open-Open-Open"?
Well, that's us!
We're waiting with abated breath to hear the other shoe drop on this one.

I'm not saying post everyone's HR files on Internet, just view and confirm, or deny, to Robert Rogers what the truth is! Please.

Seeing Sunshine, Lolipops & Rainbows On The Horizon This Rainy October Morning!
Susana

Unfortunately, those who know the truth cannot come forward because Ms. Milligan will not sign a waiver allowing anyone in the City to disclose personnel information. How convenient for her to lie to the Sun and then not allow the City to prove the truth!

It's a well-known fact in City Hall that Penman's office conducts their own background checks on their personnel. Penman seems to be saying that Human Resources did it, but that's just not the case. And he knows it, which is why he's hedging a little about who did it.

It's a little scary if the Attorney's Office only background check is an internet search, as Henry Empeno's Point of View column seems to indicate.

More importantly, local government is a small circle of people, and Marianne's reputation is golden. If it weren't, lots of people would know it and the Sun wouldn't have to look hard for people to say so.

Again, I only hope that voters can begin to see through the carefully-crafted veneer that the City Attorney has created for himself.

Mr. Rogers:
I have heard that the employment application at City Hall does not have an area to enter maiden names (or aliases). Can you confirm this for your readers?

If the application does not have an area for this purpose, my question would be how did Ms. Milligan include it on the employment application? As a salaried position I am sure she submitted a resume as well as an employment application. Did her resume clarify that she had verifiable employment history in another name?

If Ms. Milligan did include her name on this application she can request a copy from her personnel file and submit it to you as proof.

This should clear up the confusion.

Thank you.

SB Homegirl

We all know that there is nothing private anymore--you can find out anything you want on just about anyone. When hiring management/confidential employees, it is HR's responsibility to do the background checks on management staff. But, the kicker here is that city attorney office never did anything according to standard protocol. They recruited on their own, hired on their own, they didn't need to follow any protocol. So who flopped here? And, why should Marianne Milligan have to sign anything, waiver, whatever? What happened to the days when your word was enough to make an agreement?

If I recall correctly, the application asks for any other names a person may have had. Seems to me that Ms. Milligan came to the city with very good qualifications--it's too bad that she is being made out to be this terrible person. So what if she had a settlement with another agency--do you know how many settlements the city has made between employees at city hall? And, if asked, the city would have to claim that is confidential, private and personnel information, not to be released by city staff.

I wish the candidates would focus on the real meat of this election without having to badmouth others--competition, yes, is good, but not to the point of slander or maliciousness.

This is a great day in San Bernardino!

Some how it seems to me to be a question
as to whether or not the lady truly and fully represented herself as the exact
true officer of the Courts of the State of California when filling out her employment
application.

Now folks, whether we like it or not.. be it City, County, State or even Private
a Licensed attorney like a Judge is and officer of the Courts... and we must
expect.. the complete truth and all up front information about job history
from them...it is a must!

If their honesty is not going to start right the beginning
then you can right off all the rest of anything else they ever say or will do...PERIOD!
They're out for them self and you and I don't even come in a close 2nd.

Now, I have been wrong so often.. YOUCH! It hurts! But, as I see it...
If the party does not give the immediate authorization to view the necessary records..
And, any and all job background information possibly used to deceive or
mislead or otherwise and let it become available.. for all to know the truth...

Then let it be known that it legally will become
subpoenaed before anyone should be allowed to mis-represent this city as our
representative of the Courts - 'Our City Attorney'

hmm? Makes one wonder what the Mayor
may have done if he'd ever found out when he was a Judge..
that one of his underlings had improperly and knowingly
mis-represented them self to get a position along side of him?

Oh! That's right, I've already received that recorded call.

My, my, my, how strange the silence following the posting by Robert Rogers, MILLIGAN AND PENMAN: SOMEONE IS LYING. Has someone got Joe Ortiz' tongue? Has he finally been left speechless? I don't know much about Ms. Milligan, but I do know there is no one better at lying and manipulation than Jim Penman. It is eerily quiet. Draw your own conclusions. Even if he is not lying, what does this say about his investigative abilities?

Surely, Ms. Milligan's former employer was listed on her employment application and was contacted by Penman regarding her qualifications, prior to extending an offer of employment. Every employer is protected by law when disclosing information regarding a former employee to a prospective employer. The City of Costa Mesa, if they felt Ms. Milligan was an undesirable hire could have easily given that information. They obviously gave her a good recommendation or Penman would never have hired her. You would think that if they blamed the whole demise of the City Attorney's office on her (as Penman states) that would have been disclosed.

I should reply to the caustic comments of KeepingTabs, who is apparently a strong supporter of government secrecy and a guy who is rooting for me to "feel the full weight of our judicial system."

Nice. Do I want someone in government to leak information to the benefit of my readers? You betcha.

Jail? Whatever. Such consequences get ZERO consideration when it comes to doing the job. I can tell you that a trip to the clink would make me more ferocious than ever about extracting government information.

Milligan had every opportunity to set the record straight at the debate. This is such an after thought by the Morris Camp. I agree Milligan can request to have this part of her personnel file released and set the record straight.

Mr. Rogers,

Not rooting for you or anyone else to experience the weight of our judicial system, rather rooting for you to succeed in your quest for the truth by not resorting to lawlessness.
In this game we call life there are rules by which society conducts itself, they are called laws. When we encounter ones that we do not like we are not free to ignore them rather we are free to seek their repeal, at least in this country. Those within an ordered society who would ignore the law for their own personal gain are scofflaws.
Solicitation is in and of itself a crime, it requires only that someone command, encourage, or request another to engage in specific conduct which would constitute a crime or attempt to commit a crime. Your postings here seem to me to have crossed that line but I'm not a lawyer. What is obvious is you care not about how you obtain information only that you do. A journalist with no morals is no better than a criminal with a pen, what they both write is no more than graffiti.
KeepingTabs

The only real reason not to hire someone is if they did not disclose a felony record, and it was discovered after employment, or if it is on the application, it is the decision of the hiring department to determine. Unless Ms. Milligan has committed a felony, even then, she doesn't have to disclose that to anyone but the employer. I am only assuming she doesn't have that kind of record. It's quite obvious that those who want her to come forth aren't for her, so why should Milligan cater to them. Seems to me she has quite a following. Sometimes not saying anything is good enough justification--if nothing is wrong, why respond?

Susana, did it ever occur to you that people have more to do than respond to your "out-of-your-mind" comments? Like maybe they have kids or grandkids or jobs that need their attention. Don't you have two kids? What are they doing when you spend 6 or 7 hours a day on the blog? Scary to think. But anyway, all comments before this one on this topic can rest assured, Ms. Milligan is lieing. I suggest, Mr. Roberts, you take her up on her offer to go look at her employement app. And, Dena, you should know, or maybe that is why you were terminated, not knowing your job in HR and all, there is NO place for other names or aliases. I picked up an app yesterday. Milligan IS lieing, but why should that surprise you. She is doing the Mayor's dirty work to try and unseat honest politicians, because with honesty comes disclosure. Something a newspaper prides themselves in, and well they should. Obviously with all the comments already posted...you have hit a nerve. Mr. Ortiz probably hasn't responded because he knows the truth will set you free. I only hope the real truth comes out in the printed version of the paper so that ALL the voters can know the caliber of person they are getting if they vote for her. HR does investigation of all offices, EXCEPT elected officials employees. Has anyone ever asked the Mayor why a background check never exposed one of his employees of welfare fraud? Did anyone ever consider that Costa Mesa gave her a good rep to get rid of the "Black Widow" ready to pounce on any chance to sue Costa Mesa. Didn't you read that is why she at first wouldn't sign off of the settlement to her boss? Penman NEVER said HR did the background check for Milligan. Maybe both offices should have, but none the less, all this info about Milligan came out when people from Costa Mesa called some insiders and said "be afraid...be VERY afraid". The background check in Penman's office is VERY thorough, but not whenm someone withholds SOME of the facts. Maybe what Mr. Penman is guilty of is being to trusting...like of the Mayor when he said he works well with others in the sand box. And how can Silent Observer say with conviction that Marianne's reputation is "golden". She was DEMOTED from the City Attorney's office for poor performance. I guess when you lie you get demoted. Go figure!

Marianne did speak with Robert Rogers at the gala and said "off the record" (which obviously he did not comply with) that most applications require that you include any other "alias" or names that you have used in the past. Marianne had not yet reviewed her application and that is specifically why she made the statement "off the record" ~ only to now find it on his BLOG. Does he not comport to journalistic ethics? Obviously not.

Marianne did get a copy of her original application but the City's applications does not have a question regarding aliases. Although she would have really liked the application to have had her married name on it, it doesn't.

However, ANY nominal background check using her social security # (which was included on the application) would have brought up her married name. Furthermore, Mr. Penman's own investigator's conduct the background checks so if they didn't turn up something it's a reflection on them.

Although we are all sure he will deny it, Mr. Penman specifically asked Marianne during her interview, why the Costa Mesa City Council had decided to contract out for attorney services. Although she did not go into details, she did say something along the lines that "there had been some serious issues in the CA's office and the CA was terminated and she believed that the Council was just fed up with the issues and decided to contract out." Jim Penman could have very, very easily followed up on this but obviously he did not, instead, he basically offered Marianne Milligan the job on the spot!

Marianne Milligan has invited both Robert Rogers and Chris Richards (PE) to review her personnel file in her presence. To date, neither one has taken her up on the offer. Why? I have no idea.

Anyway, sorry to disappoint but the married name simply is not there. Instead, there is Marianne’s name, Date Of Birth, Social Security Number, and of course, her education and employment histories. Any used car dealer could get to the bottom of things with half that information! That Jim Penman and his hand-picked crew of investigators now say they did not is telling.
Remember, Jim Penman was then aspiring to become our mayor, in one of his other recent bids for making it out the door of the SBCA’s office while remaining on the governmental payroll, and Marianne Milligan was to have been the new SBCA taking his place ~ SBCA Marianne Milligan was to be serving under Mayor Jim Penman as SBCA Jim Penman now begrudgingly serves under his victor, Mayor Patrick Morris.
Does anyone, for an instant, suppose Jim Penman and his VERY experienced and EXPERT team of investigators made an “oopsie” while determining IF Marianne Milligan would meet muster, or not? To be clear, those determinations were made with her NAME, AGE, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, not to mention the other details outlined above. I have better opinions about the skills these fellows possess than that!
Over the years, folk across town have commented how these investigators have checked into work-a-day volunteers for nothing more spurious than offering their time, talents and resources toward local community betterment ~ neighbors have reported back to beginning community leaders, “These suits from the SBCA’s office came around asking about you…” I’ve had my own experiences with them ~ and continue unblemished, thanks to God and clean living!
In a way, it’s OK by me that the SBCA’s office snoops on everyone they feel like for the flimsiest of pretexts. It does offer one way to spot the kooks that appear from time to time.
Looking at this from another perspective, with all the 100+ years of impressive cumulative experience of this cadre of professional investigators, one would expect them to find the details on, of all people, their kingpin’s replacement in the machinery of City Hall ~ especially given that she DID fill out an application and provide all the usual stuff we all do… stuff the guy selling a clunker on the corner can run through and get a full report on in minutes…
After 2 decades, is the latest Penman debacle that his own dearest and closest can’t run a check as well as a used car salesman? There’s no serious mind that would entertain that option!
Or, is it much more likely that Jim Penman’s own office of investigators investigated her fully ~ perhaps even more fully than they do the usual “suspects”, given the position their investigation’s outcome would either endorse or oppose, and they came up wanting Marianne Milligan, too? She WAS approved for the job “on the spot” at her interview with Penman, remember. Moreover, we all know the sequence is Application, FIRST; Interview, SECOND. Therefore, everyone was privy to everything when Penman endorsed Marianne Milligan for the position that eventually led to him grooming her as his successor and now has her poised to become just that.
I would like to read more “insider information” from the long-time city employee in Human Resources, now employed more fruitfully elsewhere and able to expand her many years of local community betterment to the enlightenment of us who read the SBNow Blog. Dena, this call’s for you! Will you please share with the SBNow Blog readership how it has been that Jim Penman would send people in to Human Resources, to become employed in positions there were no official postings for and etcetera. I assure you, many are interested in what you experienced on the other side of City Hall’s corridors ~ where public and press are seldom, if ever, afforded a glimpse into the goings on.
Your Neighbor & Friend, Supporting Local Community & Personal Betterment In San Bernardino,
Susana Atanasova
Please VOTE on 11/06/07 with me for:
CITY ATTORNEY:
Marianne Milligan
CITY CLERK:
Rachel Clark
CITY COUNCIL:
Chas Kelley
CITY COUNCIL:
Rikke Van Johnson
CITY COUNCIL:
Jim Mulvihill

Well, if the employment application used for her asked the question of previous names and she didn't list it would they then consider that lying on the eapplication? Is ommission the same as lying? And couldn't she then be terminated for lying on her application? So one could reason that since they now KNOW she worked under a different name and HAVEN'T fired her for not disclosing it on the application, then she MUST have told them. LOL!

A former mayor wrote a letter that was sent to voters of San Bernardino this week. In that letter, she describes the wonderful qualifications of her choice for the re-election of an incumbent. This part of the letter would exactly describe our City Attorney, Jim Penman for the past 20 years.
The second half of the letter goes on to describe the relatively new unknown opponent. In the second half of the letter the former mayor states “where does this person ( the opponent) come from…who knows??” She goes on to say that the this opponent “was divisive, damaging, and disrespectful”. This part of the letter could apply to Jim Penman’s opponent. Missing from the negative commentary about the opponent are words that could apply such as misleading, misrepresentation, incompetence and shameless type of behavior from her hidden past work history and from the beginning of her bid for election and continuing thereafter.. Don’t vote for the Mayor’s recruit and for his hidden costly agenda. This agenda is as deep and dark as the opponent’s past work behavior.
This second half of the letter that attacks the former mayor’s choice for re-election could very well apply to Jim Penman’s opponent.
Every one needs to make an informed decision when voting. Far too many voters are exhausted from the ruthless everyday grind of work to read about or watch Council meetings. Watching the Council meetings would inform everyone about who cares for the City and who does not. Those who collaborate with the Mayor without question, right or wrong are the ones who impede the progress that Jim Penman, Chas Kelley, Wendy McCammack, and Neil Derry try to implement for their constituents and for the entire City. Vote for Anderson, Derry, Kelley, McCammack, and Penman. They are our only hope for an honest and progressive City. Give them your support, and they will give us back our All American City. Don’t be fooled by the “it’s time for change” rhetoric by opponents. If these great citizen representatives are not re-elected, the setback to our Citizens and the right to voice where their tax dollars go will be disasterous. Don’t let the Mayor’s political machine buy the City Attorney or council positions.

We've got a couple of sophisticated readers taking swipes at this reporter. That's fine. No hard feelings. I am not above critique.

To respond, first to S. Atanasova:
This reporter knows much about journalistic ethics. The abridged credo: Loyalty to truth and readers.
I hear plenty of information every day prefaced by the words off the record, and have always honored them. Marianne Milligan told me plenty that night, much of it prefaced with the words off the record. I am certain that what she said about her application was not prefaced with those words. When speaking to a reporter, public officials know everything they say is a de facto public statement, unless they specifically indicate otherwise. This reporter is loyal to readers, not to what is politically expedient communication for any public officials.

***

To Keeping Tabs: In this experiment we call American Democracy, history is replete with examples of laws that were unjust, oppressive and noxious to the lifeblood of a free and open society. 20th Century examples would include the litany of discriminatory ordinances that truncated African American freedoms as well as infringements on freedom of public information, such as those used unsuccessfully by the Nixon Administration to prevent newspapers from publishing "secret" Vietnam War histories.

Ignoring unjust laws, more nobly called civil disobedience, has a rich tradition in this and other countries.

If there is a law keeping secret a public official's work history, and that history comes into the hands of this reporter, a serious judgement must be made: Obey the law and keep it secret, or disobey the law and publicize it. If this reporter, steeped in the philosophical and ethical studies of his education, deems that obeying the law does more harm to the voters' needs to know than disobeying the law does to himself, the candidate, and the system of laws, then the law will be disobeyed.

Similarly, if a judge, armed with a statute, orders this reporter to divulge information about how information has come to him, you can bet that law will be disobeyed too. The consequences to the ability to gain and relay valuable truth would be too great to comply with such an order.

Lastly, I am not a scofflaw who would ignore law for personal gain, as you have suggested. Actually, that kind of hurt! To get just a touch personal, I think of myself as an idealistic person. I don't seek fame or money or whatever else - I want to do good in the world by contributing to a free press and, by extension, to the ability of everyday folks to be informed, free and able to determine the course of their life, country and community.

Sorry for the righteousness. Anyway, given my aformentioned reasoning, you can be sure that my calculations are rooted in what benefits readers, truth, and American Democracy - Not what is of benefit to me.

Mr. Rogers, it is good to see that you are asking some real questions and not taking the bait that Mr. Penman continually provides during his staged performances. I hope that you are starting to see that most of the "issues" he brings up at Council meetings and other public forums are specifically designed with hopes of getting his name in the paper again...and he usually succeeds because the Sun often takes the bait.

I believe that you are a good journalist and will eventually realize how it appears to many of us that you and the Sun are constantly being manipulated by Penman.

Instead of being reactionary to Penman's constant self-absorbed attempts for attention, it is my hope that you will ask some hard and relevant questions that pertain to the way Penman has (and continues)to run the City Attorney's Office. Many issues have been raised regarding the quality and efficiency of legal service provided to the City by Mr. Penman. Isn't that what this election is about? Is it really about parolees or other "straw dogs" that Penman conveniently uses to divert attention from the true issues pertaining to the City Attorney's Office?

At the last Council meeting, Penman (with the help of his sidekick Wendy McCammack) feigned concern over the issuance of minor contracts to class instructors in the Parks Department. How can it be that he has held the office of City Attorney for twenty years and now claims that he wasn't aware of contracts that, from my understanding, are generated on a routine basis in the Parks Department (and many other departments in the City). Mr. Penman infers that these things occurred before he took office, which was twenty years ago. Is it just this observer, or does it seem incredibly inept for the City Attorney to state that something has gone on for twenty years, and now suddenly, three weeks before the election, he has become very concerned? Of course, how else can you say the phrase "...the Mayor's daughter" over and over again while staring into the camera with a smug, self-satisfied grin?

"Silent Observer" and "Deadly Silent" are right on target. Penman knows he blew it by not checking to see if Milligan put her maiden name on her employment application before he stated his ridiculous accusations. Now, in true Penman fashion he is trying to divert attention or scheme to place blame on someone other than himself.

Mr. Rogers, keep up the good work, ask the hard questions, do the research. You will find the truth bears little resemblence to what the City Attorney would have all of us believe.

FYI.....The City Attorney's office in Costa Mesa was going to be contracted out in any event, just so you know. That office had been in turmoil for years prior to Ms. Milligan working there. There was previous litigation with that "City Attorney" in the 1990's with female deputy attorneys over the working environment and the City paid dearly. The office was very small with virtually all it's litigation being outsourced and the staff attorneys acting in more of an advisory capacity to the various departments. The City Council decided rather than have full time staff attorneys they could outsource the advisory positions more economically. I for one, (as a male) think it is brave for female employees to step forward when working conditions get oppressive, they do it at risking their jobs. Maybe that is why the female attorneys in Penman's office have never complained about the manner in which he runs his office, the bullying, the screaming matches. I have heard first hand stories about the entire office being summoned into his office only to be yelled at over something as stupid as one of his staff attorneys rode in the elevator with another elected official and didn't tell him so he could log it in his minute by minute log that he keeps. Paranoia at it's best! Not a healthy work environment so I hear.

What Marianne told Penman, as insiders that also interviewed her said, was that the City Council felt it was cheaper to contract out the office. Again, she is lieing to someone and obviously, Susana, you are falling for it. Too bad, so sad. And again, Costa Mesa has told many who have called to ask (sitting electeds at that time) and they made it crystal clear, she was a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen. And by the way the law does NOT protect any employer when verifying references. JUST the opposite. You cannot say anything that might impune their ability to get another job. Where do you get your facts? Oh, that's right, from Pat and Jim Morris and of course the liar, Marianne.

Mr. Rogers,

Thank you for the insight into your motivation as a reporter. I remain doubtful that your reflection on what to publish or not publish is as deep as you would have us think nor do I believe that it is as alturistic as you profess.
That said, I would remind you that civil disobedience comes with a price, in places like Mayanmar it gets you shot, here in the good ole USofA it gets you arrested and/or fined, one man's disobedient civilian is another's criminal.
A real player is the one who can push existing rules to the wall without crossing over while at the same time cultivating change for the betterment of all.
In today's world of corporate media it behoove's each of us to question the motives of those who want to tell us what we should know. To think that the mindset of let's generate some controversy, controversy increases readership, increased readership means greater advertising revenue doesn't exist in today's media would be naive. Just as you endeavour to hold those seeking or in pulic office to high moral and ethical standards we the public must similarly hold you to those same, if not higher standards. Everything you publish under the Sun figurehead is subject to censorship from your editors, your publisher, and the corporate owners of your paper, we the public have a right to know the motivation behind those decisions.
Working for the Sun, given its reputation, it should come as no surprise when your motives and methodology are called into question.
The duty to be an informed and responsible citizenry demands we do so, it's not personal.

Proud wife and mother, I would direct you to Civil Code Section 47(c). You are WRONG that a former employer cannot speak candidly and be protected by privilege to a prospective employer. You are the one who doesn't have your facts straight.

Okay, TruthSeeker, try to give information other than "is this candidate eligible for rehire?" and watch the law suits come. I been involved in them and your information re: the Civil Code may say it, but lawyers know how to turn it around to a jury. Trust me on this one. And unless and until you have experienced this type of a situation, the code section alone won't protect you.

In this day and age I find it extremely hard to believe that the women in Penman's office are afraid to say anything if something were going on in the office!

This post is in response to "TruthSeeker" and his/her allegation of sexual harassment in the City Attorney's Office. I am very offended by the statement that Jim Penman is sexually harassing the female employees on his staff. I have worked for Jim Penman for over nine years and I have never seen him sexually harass anyone. You are forgetting that this is 2007 not 1950. All of the female employees in the City Attorney's Office are smart, strong women and none of us would allow sexual harassment to occur in the office and not speak up.
Jim Penman has been cleared on two separate occasions by the State Bar for bogus claims of sexual harassment. It seems at election time his opponents like to bring it up again even though it has been found to be untrue. Your motive seems suspect to me in putting this out there once again. Hopefully next time you will think of more than your misplaced motive to bash Jim Penman and remember that you are also insulting his staff!

A last response to KeepingTabs:

I can't speak for the Sun, its corporate ownership or "today's media." I can say that no one has ever interferred with the content of this blog.

I can only speak for myself, and I have. You are right that our readers deserve a glimpse into the reasoning/motivation behind our decisions as journalists.

I provided mine in the previous response. You said you don't believe me, so that's where we stand.

As for civil disobedience's price, I'm willing to pay it when the stakes are high. I believe the cost is generally far lower than faint-hearted conformity.

I'll just try to win you over - and earn your trust - the right way: By doing a solid, honest job covering our community.

Ms. Grider, re-read the post, there was nothing said about about sexual harassment. There was no mention of a "statement that Jim Penman is sexually harassing the female employees on his staff" in the post as you state. Sorry you were offended by a statement that wasn't made.

OK. Thanks to Robert Rogers for OBVIOUSLY having no agenda but to uncover the truth.
I tend to side with Robert more than either side of the debate.
Regarding this post: Everyone can have a "bad hire" so cut Penman some slack there. It is what you do with the bad hire that matters. He demoted her.
So here are my choices: one who has fought for the city for 20 Years and readily invites all to scrutinize his every action and one who got all caught up in some mess and casually dismissed the importance of it when seeking a job in the office of an elected official... What?
Who is lieing? If we assume Penman is lieing then we are saying he knowing hired a timebomb. Twenty years of protecting the city's legal interests doesn't make that likely. If we assume that Milligan is lieing, then we assume she told half truths to get a job. I don't know her background well enough to make a guess here.
Let's think like laywers and try to apply "reasonable doubt."

So let's dispense with the he said she said and pick a City Attorney, okay?
Oh, you mean we aren't electing some dictator who gets to call all of the shots? To listen to the Anti-Penman rhetoric, that is what we have. Looks to me like we have a City Attorney. They say he is impeding the improvement of our city... How?
Please, indulge me for a second.
The San Bernardino City Council votes to decide what happens in our city. It is pretty clear to anyone watching on Monday nights that the council is divided. Four Council members are closer to Morris and three are closer to Penman. So right now, Penman's "supporters" are in the minority. Let us not forget each council member is an INDIVIDUAL, some more independant than others. Penman doesn't get a vote. Not even to break a tie. Even if he disagrees with policies...even if the council is going to break the law or expose the city to a potential lawsuit...at best he can advise them, but the council still has the POWER to disregard his advice and vote any way they want!
If I am wrong, please correct me.

Let's Be Reasonable,

Of course, on paper what you say is true. In day to day City Hall life, the vindictive and mean-spirited petty behaviors the personality/character of some lend a palpable toxicity to life and progress not only stands still, thwarted, it is often reversed. These events have no benefit for our city being clear detriments.
It is because of pettiness ~ because of petulant pouting by people with power to do more than just cross their arms over their chests, jut out their lower lip and sulk in a chair in the corner while scuffing a shoe that things are as they are in this city. When Jim Penman doesn't feel things are going according to his plan, heaven help you!
You may wonder why I would dare to post such heresy with my own name. I have simply had enough. Someone has to make a stand on behalf of all the people who are being crushed under the weight of Penman's loose cannon rolling all over the city, firing where he will, at whom he will, for reasons that are more often quite obfuscated / obscure, at best.
I most surely do NOT have an ax to grind with Jim Penman personally ~ I have already said many times here that I was once an ardent fan, albeit blinder than a bat, not seeing what some were telling me even then ~ declaring THEM the heretics. Life can be ironic, can't it?
Everyday is a fresh opportunity to do and be all you can ~ to make a fresh start of things! It is NOT too late for San Bernardino! By removing the thorn in the side of The City, infecting it with putrid corruption, lies, deceit, ineptitude, and just a whole 20-year long string of messes that has the city too tangled up to take a step forward in the right direction, we will all be doing something GOOD & RIGHT.
I, for one, cannot in good conscience allow another election to go by without doing everything in my meager little "one voice, one vote" power to make sure that, after Election Day, come what may, my conscience is clear that I did all I humanly could to try and end the tyranny and abuses of power that have me hearing tale after tale of purely despicable stuff tainting the lives of lovely people who have done nothing more than tick off Jim Penman.
I've only got one life to live, I'm living it RIGHT!
Please, vote for Marianne Milligan for City Attorney ~ and do what you can, calling, walking door-to-door on your block, in your neighborhood, volunteering for the campaign ~ YOU NAME IT ~ to make a difference on 11/06.
Together, we CAN make a difference!
Your Friend & Neighbor,
Susana Atanasova

Susana,
At least you acknowledged the truth in my statement. The ranting poetics that followed, however, is precisely the source of my frustration. How can you not acknowledge that Penman has given support to the Mayor (whose supporters have the majority in council) on over 90% of the issues since Morris got elected? He stands firm on illegal parolle homes. To listen to you, I should cry: How dare he?! And yet he has NO VOTE. He has only a VOICE. You call him a "loose cannon rolling all over the city."
I am trying to be rational here...can you show me how and where he is so bad? Or is it only empty rhetoric that spews like propaganda that you have to provide?
THIS IS MY QUESTION: If the Morris fans HAVE THE MAJORITY VOTE, why do they fight so hard to displace anyone who supports Penman? Three council members aren't standing in the way of the majoirty doing what ever they want to "improve" the city.
Is it simply because they want to remove all dissenting opinion? Do they want to get a one-minded government that need not debate and discuss how the tax payers money should be spent? Is this what you want? A City Attorney and City Council that will say, "Yes, Mr. Mayor" on EVERY ISSUE?! What type of government does that sound like?
Oh, you complain about some 20 years in office. You are essentially calling the voters of San Bernardino stupid! I for one don't think that my fellow voters are stupid. I think the majority realize that Penman has been a good City Attorney. And done well to be accountable to the voters. I think that most realize that other elected officials conveniently blame Penman for anything and everything. When you recognize the capacity of the City Attorney as identified in the city charter, you realize that blaming Penman is ignorant. Doing so is irrational. You, Susana, admit: "what you say on paper is ture." I ask you how Penman runs the city?
My perspective is this: Penman answers to the voters, not the Mayor or Council. That is because the position is elected.
There have been attempts in the past to make the City Attorney position appointed. Who drafted that proposal? I was told that it is common knoledge that the Mayor's son drafted it? Please check this and answer me. WHY? WHY? Why would someone not want that position to be anserable to NO ONE BUT THE VOTERS?
This city needs less parolees. This city needs less drug houses. This city needs a Mayor and City Council Majority that will let Penman use the law to make these improvements. Do you really believe that Penman is the hold up? He keeps nicely asking the Mayor and Council to let him resume his sweeps. He can't because the majority says:No. That same Majority that wants Penman gone. Why? Their motives are suspect. Please ask yourself. Please question authority. It is the ONLY American way to be a good citizen.
Susana, I ask that you not respond with some endless diatribe. Just be reasonable.

Truthseeker,
If you weren't referring to sexual harassment, then why did you specifically state "female employees" in your post? Perhaps you were just being sexist in your post rather than referring to sexual harassment. Were you trying to imply that the male employees are not too weak to stand up and speak? To my knowledge, the male employees have not complained about the way the office is run either. The reason none of the employees have complained about the work environment is because there is nothing to complain about!

Truthseeker, you need to change your blog name, Jim Morris, because you are sooooo transparent. If you spent more time cleaning up this city than stirring the pot from the sixth floor down, we might have seen some real progress over the past 19 or 20 months. You are the real problem in city hall. Your Dad calls on you for all his scripting. Too bad, because you are a temper-tantrum filled individual. I HAVE seen that of you when sitting in the council chambers waiting to make public comments. But, no, you are the one who told your Dad, no you don't have to let them speak!

This thread is about how Jim Penman and his cadre of highly expert investigators claim to have not known how to do a check on an applicant that any car dealer can do in under 3 minutes.

WOW!
Susana wants to stay on thread topic?

QUICK! Call Robert Rogers - this is news......

Oh wait! It benefits her agenda! (Silly me - I thought this was serious)