AContra Costa Grand Jury Report (GJR) recently found that the County’s First Five Commission had serious issues in its management and oversight, alluding to possible influence peddling. The GJR in fact recommended that Commissioners leave the room if contracts that impact them are being discussed. This recommendation alone clearly implies that improprieties were taking place.
Many observers here on Halfway To Concord feel that the other shoe has not yet dropped on possible legal action given how the First Five report was written as compared with other reports issued.
Some people posting here wrote to the Board of Supervisors (BOS). At least three people have stated that they received the same response letter from Supervisor Bonilla, herself a First 5 Commissioner, stating that she would rely on the input of two other First 5 Commissioners (plus David Twa), in their capacity as County Department heads, to suggest ways of implementing the Grand Jury’s results. Fox and henhouse hijinks have ensued as many question why Bonilla can’t decide on her own and why, of all people, she picked those two First Five Commissioners to guide her.
Then this coming week we have one of those very two First Five Commissioners, Department Head Joe Valentine, recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they approve his suggested panel of “citizens” for the FACT Committee. It should be no surprise that every single one of the proposed panel members is in some way connected to First Five, including a current employee and a current Commissioner.
Well for me, it was a total shock to see what Max had uncovered (see comments). There are—and I am positive because I know such people—many other very experienced and qualified people to sit on the FACT Committee that have nothing to do with the First Five Commission, but yet, here we have a First Five Commissioner, using his position as Department Head, to load this obscure committee exclusively with First Five commissioners whose conduct has already been questioned by the GJR.
Why? Max may be a little conspiratorial, but then again, maybe not.
According to the Grand Jury report, the Commissioners knew as far back as the fall of 2009 that First Five was being investigated. In reading more on First Five, the Commission has to have a BOS member on it by statute. This would mean that at least one BOS member would have a built-in apparent conflict of interest in this situation. Mr. Valentine and Dr. Walker would know that Supervisor Bonilla would be in this position. Bonilla would know she would be in this position and they all had to have known they would be in this situation for some months now.
So, let’s pretend that some or all of these folks know how to play politics better than me. Well, that’s no stretch, but if I’m a Supervisor who is seeking higher office and knows some funny business went on under her watch, then perhaps I try to ensure that I cannot be held 100% accountable for how I am going to vote.
So, did the BOS tell her to write that response letter on behalf of the rest of them? Why did she decide to write a letter in response and not them? She’s the only one I got a response from. If she did nothing wrong, and she’s knowledgeable about children’s issues due to being a Commissioner, then it seems to me there is no need for her to ask for help, but, if she really feels she needs a political shield, then, as I said in a post before, ask for help from another county.
I think it’s worth it to push Max’s inference a step further along the conspiracy track: Let’s pretend that Bonilla knowingly asked Joe Valentine and Dr. Walker for help precisely because they are First 5 Commissioners.
So beyond the ‘political shield’ motivation, perhaps she knows they were involved in some improprieties and wants them to have to carry the load on it OR in the alternative, she’s involved with whatever influence peddling or other improprieties that were going on and wants to protect the herd. Either way, she is no political dummy, so there is some reason for it. Time will tell. Let’s just hope she does the right thing for everyone, not just politically connected people.
So now, we go back to Mr. Valentine. Why would he load this little FACT Committee exclusively with First Five people?
Valentine may still have some legal problems should the allegations that were not explicitly addressed in the Grand Jury report result in indictment or other legal problems for him. He knew that Bonilla’s going to be in a tough spot and he probably guessed that she would refer out to him and Dr. Walker for their “expertise” to get the heat off her. Assuming Mr. Valentine knew some improprieties would be raised in the Grand Jury report, it’s clear he had plenty of time to figure out a game plan for himself, and—agreeing with Max’s conspiracy theory here—I’d say he figured he might be able to refer the “expertise” request from Bonilla to this FACT Committee, until perhaps, of course, Max broke the story.
What’s slightly humorous in an arcane way, is if you look at the exit dates for several of the seats: they are only for the period of time in which the BOS must come to some decisions about the First Five Commission – God’s coincidence? Well maybe, but I doubt Joe Valentine has ignored those dates. If Supervisor Bonilla allows Mr. Valentine and perhaps Dr. Walker to suggest that the FACT Committee be the source of the advice given to her, in my opinion there is a serious conflict of interest here that was not built-in by the First Five statute or explainable by anything but personal and/or political calculus.
No matter what, it generates a lot of opinions in me:
First, Mr. Valentine does not think what he does is very traceable to the public.
Second, it implies arrogance in the use of his position: Valentine apparently does not think it is improper that he should have anyone but First Five people on this (his?) Committee. One question that comes to mind is: how is it proper to appoint a First Five employee to the Committee when Mr. Valentine could find himself, theoretically, involved in human resource decisions about such a person in his role as a First Five Commissioner?
Third, Mr. Valentine does not seem to care that someone might figure it out and/or that BOS members may see what he’s doing and still be expected to approve the panel; maybe he might have the procedural process down to such a fine point that he knows he only needs Bonilla (his First Five Commissioner colleague) to push this idea as being the best way to claim that they are all being transparent; he perhaps has calculated that the rest of the BOS may just bend to what Bonilla wants in this situation because they feel sorry for the political position the First Five law puts them all into: maybe it goes like this: “We have to serve on the Commission, Bonilla’s only doing what I would do in the situation.”
Finally, and I suspect Max may like this postulation best, I have pondered whether Mr. Valentine may have calculated that he’s on the way out and so is loading the FACT Committee with people who might be in a position to help him get another job later. What does the FACT Committee do anyway? Advise the BOS? Well, if so, there’s another reason why the proposed panel should be in question.
That all said, the only fact that I can state with certainty about this situation is that we still do not know if crimes were committed or people will be indicted and so, if or until anything happens—or resolves into nothing) on that level—it seems to me whatever any First Five Commissioner says to the public or offers to the Board of Supervisors should be met with the highest level of scrutiny possible.
If nothing else, the FACT Committee proposal reeks: it indicates to me how deeply into the County a level of influence peddling by a small group of people, some of whom may have done some improper things, may have already penetrated.
In sum, the facts suggest the BOS should decline Mr. Valentine’s slate of FACT Committee/First Five Commission members. The First Five Commission is under serious scrutiny for how it deals with its employees and how it conducts business. The First Five situation is still an open item on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda. Beyond Mr. Valentine, it is also not clear if all of the proposed FACT Committee members are free of wrongdoing.
As such, until the response report on the First Five Commission is completed by the Board of Supervisors, I believe it should not approve the slate of FACT Committee members proposed by Mr. Valentine, as all have First Five Commission-connections and thus clearly represent a conflict of interest. It is the only transparent action the BOS can take at this time.
I also would encourage people to write to the BOS this weekend to make their feelings known about this turn of events.
Bill Gram-Reefer is Editor & Publisher of Halfway To Concord, founded in 2004. Halfway To Concord is the leading online source for community-driven political news, events, and opinion for Contra Costa County and the San Francisco East Bay.
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
Should you be interested in sending letter to support putting First 5 up again on the ballot, the chief of staff’s email for Sen Hernandez is
tim.valderrama@sen.ca.gov
Reasons why you might be interested:
> Mike Ruane the Exec Dir of OC is now making $327K in total comp
> First 5 still will produce no eval reports proving they make a measurable difference
Here’s some links – far more shift towards making the re-direct permanent – yeah I’ve been busy, but dang it – they just suck, IMO:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/04/first-5-agencies-sue-to-block-jerry-brown-budget.html
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_firstfive08.27ffe25.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/04/04/2337287/first-5-to-sue-state-over-funds.html
http://discussions.latimes.com/20/la-ed-prop10-20110407/10?sort=desc
~ EDITOR NOTES — You are welcome to send us notes from the field when facts warrant. Thanks. As always the goal is for the community to report. Get to work.
No need to argue…I’m trying to understand why such calculated attacks against people you
supposedly don’t know? All the talk about suing people…sounds PERSONAL to me…another reason I think Lisa V is on to something…all the jargon sounds as if its for personal gain.
Maybe I need to clarify myself…Frankly I think Lisa V is on to something. You people or should I say “person” should get a life or how about volunteer and make a difference in the life of a child. If you believe you have proof of any wrong doing quit hiding…it lacks credibility and it’s very cowardly.
Let’s go ahead and argue that perhaps Lisa was onto something, and, for the sake of argument let’s assume a good number of the posts could be from one person who does not like First5 for whatever reason and call that issue a day.
What is true is that there have been a huge number of posts responding to at least 5 articles (3 blog and 2 CCT) on the topic. We will never know just how many people have been participating in the overall dialogue. Said simply, it is not a crime to use “nom de plumes”, so I think one can safely suggest to you to get over it.
BUT GETTING BACK TO THE POINT: I believe from Lisa V’s email that it is pretty clear that only First5 personnel or Commissioners could have been the “sources” who leaked CONFIDENTIAL personnel information about a former employee, and that is AGAINST THE LAW. Again, whether or not the person was fired or quit, in either scenario, it is confidential.
Lisa clearly believed that it was true information from her “sources”, enough so that she was compelled to check out voter records on 8 people, and where she probably has only proved that some people dumped landlines in favor of cell phones.
But, we can comfortably assume that what Lisa said was exactly what she was told, right? I for one believe it was exactly what she was told, because though I am not a Lisa fan, I do not think she would lie.
So there you have it. Even with all your assumptions, the only FACT I see right now is that First5 is probably now in a bigger heap of trouble than they were before. The FICTION is that they have never done anything wrong; the Grand Jury report clearly shows the fiction to be untrue.
You know, amazingly, but only when it gets hot for them, someone comes along who magically helps First 5 deflect attention away from the Grand Jury report: first it’s the CCTimes publishing two stories lauding their work the very week the GJ report came out, then it’s Rick Radin’s misguided attempt at “reporting accurately” on the GJ report, then it’s Lisa V’s activity chasing down email addresses, and now it’s you, trying to set a fire under the smoke and mirrors. Who will it be next?
~ EDITOR ASKS — How many more times must this horse be beaten?
I cherish the freedom of expression, but when opinions are intermingled and confused with facts, credibility suffers… sounds like a good book to me.
Agree – which is why people have criticized the Times’ coverage.
After a restless night, I sent the Lisa Vorderbrueggen email exchange to the Board of Supervisors this morning, with the following cover letter:
Dear County Supervisors,
I have written you before on your process about the Grand Jury report on the First 5 Commission. I again request that you follow the Grand Jury recommendations, particularly given recent events that I describe here.
Attached is an email exchange (start from bottom up) with Lisa Vorderbrueggen of the Contra Costa Times who makes the admission that her “sources” have (illegally) revealed confidential employee information about a former First 5 employee. For starters, whether the accused person quit or was fired is protected information.
Even as a bystander, it’s clear to me that really only First 5 people could be the “sources”: they have strong motive, access to the employee information, and opportunity, as three of them were quoted in the Times in articles this weekend:
1. Sean Casey, Executive Director,
2. Joe Valentine, First 5 Commissioner and
3. Susan Bonilla, First 5 Commissioner
As a taxpayer, I am outraged that public employees and/or figures would do stoop so low as to blame their Grand Jury report and the resulting criticism on one person, but since the Grand Jury found that First 5 management does not know the employee handbook, as said elsewhere, it is not a real big leap to think they are less than acquainted with the employee privacy laws in California.
Please note that Ms. Vorderbrueggen did not respond to my final email, though I sent it with plenty of time for her to do so. I ask that you request the DA’s office to investigate and, where illegalities are found, to bring charges against the people who leaked the former employee’s confidential information.
Sincerely,
EVegan
It sounds like whoever thinks they’ve been harmed by any alleged illegalities should engage an attorney instead of pleading their case on this site.
Comments should advance discussions concerning policy and the issues not personal litigation.
I completely agree with you BGR. I posted it because I feel the Times has mishandled the story and I think some illegalities have clearly occurred.
Again, First 5 is a PUBLIC agency and I feel it is appropriate to call them out on this issue. It would not have occurred had not the Grand Jury report occurred, so it belongs in the discussion.
Our tax dollars at work? Hmpf!
I don’t hear anyone pleading a case here Bill. I think people are just exposing what they feel in their hearts is an agency on the run, doing whatever it can to try to deflect attention off of themselves.
This is just the latest attempt to minimize the GJ findings and to avoid whatever they are trying to avoid. So, as one person put it a while back: “game on” – we are on to them and I for one don’t have much intention of letting up.
So if there is a case, and probably there is, I believe most observers would agree that the person does not need to do anything to make the case, as it looks like Lisa already secured a win for them (and us too).
Not only did Lisa V’s letter (and I got one from her too) reinforce for the public that the Grand Jury’s finding that the First 5 management does not know its own handbook was right on target, an average person now believes that the First 5 management or “sources” also do not know the employment laws of the state of California.
I feel sorry for the employees there. The dots are close enough together to me to ask the GJ to start a new investigation on who talked to LisaV about the “disgruntled employee”.
If whomever they were pointing the finger at quit or if they were fired, it is still protected information.
Now Lisa spouting that people are telling her this sort of information is worse than what Bonilla did as it was clearly illegal.
My guess is that Lisa may find herself in the witness chair sometime in the future.
As for Lisa’s letter, my response back as that I do not trust the Times given Radin’s twisting of the GJ report, but if she wanted some info, to send it as written questions in an email so that I could control the words in such a way that she would not be able to twist them.
If Lisa sent me a letter like that, I would not be willing to talk to her on the phone either.
Hello Supporters,
I trust this msg finds you well.
Since so many of my volunteers will be out of town this w/end, we are postponing the BBQ till 7/17/2010 from 4PM – 7PM.
Hope you too will be able to attend. Have a Blessed Independence Day week.
VF.
http://www.fullerforcongress.org/
Why don’t you take on a local cause Virginia, like this First 5 fiasco, so we can get to know what you stand for?
You all know me by now, I like to go researching, unlike the Times.
DH got me thinking about those litigation conferences, and guess what I found: a breach of contract lawsuit was filed a couple weeks ago against First 5! Think they got any comments on that. See link below.
Well, I did more searching and it looks like it is from a former employee. Why would they have a contract with a former employee? Their not union, so it would not have been that.
And if the person had been fired or something, how would they have a contract? Well they would not, would they? Any ideas, folks?
http://icms.cc-courts.org/iotw/CIVIL/civilnames.asp?deflastname=CONTRA+COSTA+CHILDREN+AND+FAMILIES&bus=Y&courtcode=A&filedatefrom=&filedateto=&limit=50&dsn=
This is the person they listed in around about January’s agenda as having filed a complaint. Looks as though First 5 did not settle it quietly – that seems kind of dumb, doesn’t it, given they knew there would be a GJ report.
I’d say that Lisa’s sources might have some credence about one person trying to make this whole thing explode if the lawsuit was for some big amount or if I were a fictional being, but I am not fictional and if the lawsuit is not for millions, then Lisa’s been sucking on the syrup too long.
Gee – maybe the problem really is with First 5’s management, as the GJ report said; where have YOU ever worked where the management does not know the employee manual? That’s just ridiculous, and if not competent in knowing the manual, then questions legitimately can be raised .
I looked into some of this since I posted on the litigation conferences: people have 6 months to file a lawsuit against a govt entity, so whatever the breach was about clearly happened after the Robinson woman no longer worked there.
I also don’t use my real name on the blogs nor do I give my real email addy – make me an object of fiction? Not.
As a lurking CCC employee: if this woman is a former employee holding any kind of agreement, they would not have been fired. It just does not happen that way around here.
If they knew the lawsuit was coming, maybe they wanted to be able to blame someone when the GJ report came out, so they did not settle on purpose … so far, that would be in line with their PR campaign as far as I can see it.
Knew someone who worked there – said the employment manual is just the tip of iceberg.
Also: individual person here – not fictional.
First 5 sources emerge leaking confidential employee information to the Times? You decide. My response is below. Yeah I know, I told her I would wait, but then I decided there was no reason to if they plan to crucify some unsuspecting person with yet another pro-First 5 story.
___________
Ms. V,
Thanks for responding. Here’s why I want to talk with you on the phone: I suspect that all the emails I have received about this issue are from the same person. My sources are telling me that nearly all of the complaints and emails have originated with a single, disgruntled fired employee.
Of the eight emails I have received since June 10, none of the names appears to be traceable to an actual person; of the four names that exist in the voter registration database, none of the phone numbers are still connected. Three others are not in the database at all. One, Jose Garcia, is listed but it is a common name with 22 registered voters.
That’s why I want to talk with you on the phone rather than exchange emails, which could be written by anyone. I am trying to ascertain whether these email requests for coverage of this story have actually been sent by multiple people or if it is an attempt to appear as though many people are concerned about First 5.
My deadline is the end of the day Tuesday as I will be out of the office on vacation starting Wednesday until July 12, so I hope you can give me a call on on Tuesday and put my suspicions to rest.
Thanks,
Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Political writer/columnist
Contra Costa Times/Bay Area News Group/MediaNews
lvorderbrueggen@bayareanewsgroup.com
http://www.ibabuzz.com/insidepolitics
2640 Shadelands Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598
925-945-4773 (work)
925-674-5101 (pager)
________________________
Hi -
Wow! That’s quite a theory. Not sure why you feel you need to tell me all about it when I’ve already told you I will call you. But thanks for the heads up, as I thought the point of the call would be to ask about how I see the First 5 situation, not be investigated myself.
I may change my mind now about calling you, but as of this morning I will stick to my promise: you’ll get a call but it will be short and sweet and you do not have permission to record the call or use a speaker phone. You have presented your interest in me somewhat under false pretenses and I am unhappy about that. I have not written but one letter to you. I am willing to confirm that by phone and that is all.
But – as I said in my email I might not be able to do it by end of today. I just do not live by your deadlines and I’m cramming this in as I head out the door.
What I can tell you now is that in my wine tasting club alone, I know 10 people who are upset about the First 5 / Bonilla situation. Not all of them write to the paper about it and not all of them live in Contra Costa (e.g. Alameda, SF, retired to Reno but kids live here). So, maybe that’s why you are not “finding” them where you are looking – people could be writing the paper from New York – still their request to the paper could be valid.
Also, have you taken a look at the blogs on this topic? There are literally hundreds of posts on it and two or three separate articles. For myself, I can not believe for one minute that anyone has that kind of time to do have done as you’ve described. Many posts clearly have been written by people from different walks of life.
This morning as I was thinking about what to write back is that what rang true is that the Times “sources” have done a really good job of deflecting away from the real story of a public agency run amock.
Instead of really questioning the behavior, , of the Commissioners or even reporting that the GJ wants to turn them into a county department, your other reporter investigated the story of one of the commentators, clearly to discredit him.
And now, here you are chasing down voting records; well not every one is registered to vote and not everyone is listed in the phone book, and quite frankly, not everyone uses their complete name in their emails – perhaps they wish to have a little privacy when they write a newspaper. All legit. Unfortunately, more and more I am feeling people are right about you at the Times: you seem only interested in protecting your access to Supervisor Bonilla and so forth.
Finally, I am not a lawyer, but as my husband pointed out, if you go ahead and publish this theory from your sources, who he said clearly must be people at First 5 who would have ILLEGALLY leaked human resource information if their contentions are true, then you are just asking for a libel lawsuit against the Times if the person in fact resigned, forced out or not.
There is clear case law on this sort of thing he said. I tell you now that if you libel that person without knowing for sure if they quit or were fired, and print either the lies being told you or the rumors being floated by the very people under investigation, then I for one will have no respect for you.
Just asking: How can you assume the worst of one little citizen without you even interviewing them, because it’s clear you have not. Do you have proof to link these letters to the Times to this one person? My husband says you better have concrete proof of it, especially if they are a person with credentials and a good resume.
I’m not going to discuss this today with you, but your sources better be quotable because I will happily “leak” your email to me to show that you were acting without proof when you went ahead with whatever you seem to have planned for end of today.
I guess I just can’t understand how it is that First 5 seems to have convinced you that they are victims. That’s truly laughable for a government agency to have been able to convince a newspaper of such a thing.
Again, I intend to call you this afternoon, but I do not control when my supervisor calls me in for meetings and we have some large deadline driven projects underway.
EVegan
OMG – my research did it again – what a coninkydink with EVegan’s post!
well, if the Times think the person who filed the lawsuit is the person sending letters, I doubt it, because they would have sued for wrongful termination and they would not have had a contract that could be breached… so if that’s where they led her, hopefully Lisa is tired of sucking on the First 5 lollipop – it ain’t all sugar Lisa Baby…
If it’s true that First 5 “ILLEGALLY leaked human resource information” to LisaV, all the more reason to have the DA or AG look into this.
Should you be reading, many people are concerned about the Grand Jury’s report on First 5, Ms Vordenbrueggen.
There have been nearly 200 posts on this blog and East Bay Daze. People have asked others to write to the Times right here in the first article. That you received 8 is no surprise to me. I personally thought you would receive more, but 8 is no surprise. It’s also no surprise that people use email addresses that are fictional, while they themselves are not. The history of the “nom de plume” is centuries old, protected by the First Amendment, and central to our freedom of speech. People have legitimate reasons to use them as employers do more and more to seek out the opinions of those they may hire in advance of them being hired. That’s why I use one.
Well, now I know why Lisa V is widely considered to be an uncaring person with little respect for anyone – she’s known as the “Who Cares?” person of the CCT. I did not believe it until I read it here. Thank you for posting that EVegan.
I think it tells what is really going on between First 5 and the Times: the Times clearly is a shill for First 5 and its Commissioners, and probably behind this, unfortunately, is Susan Bonilla and/or Joe Valentine and/or First 5 PR staff.
As I read it, Lisa is already working on a story, intends to submit it today, and is basing her “facts” on “sources” who clearly would be breaking HR laws that are supposed to protect people.
She states that she believes these “sources”. Why would she if the “sources” are First 5 people? She should instead be concerned about their honesty given the Grand Jury report, as they are the ones with clear motives to deceive or deflect the criticism of the public.
Has she even talked to the person she has obviously already accused and convicted? Why not? Like EVegan, I bet she has not talked to the person, mainly I think because that would be real journalism and we can’t have that around here, now can we?
In my opinion, if the Times publishes what Lisa has planned, then not only could they be slanderous/libelous, but if things are what they appear to be, then they are no better than the National Enquirer or the Star.
Disgusting! Blatantly targeting someone solely on the basis of rumors from those the Grand Jury found were acting improperly, or at least, not transparently.
I do not feel there could have been any other source for that information about the supposedly fired and disgruntled ex-employee than the First 5 staff people or Commissioners, whether or not it is true that they have been actively sounding off. People don’t go around telling folks they were fired, so if true, I doubt the disgruntled employee or friends would have been “sources” – note the plural.
What we have here: Lisa has completely outed someone on the First 5 staff or Commission in the violation of employee privacy laws, and I doubt Lisa would be willing to sit in a jail cell under the First Amendment for anyone.
Good going Lisa! We knew you were good for something, because fair-minded investigative reporting is not one of them. I for one will be sending your letter here and the corresponding comments to the DA for investigation.
” My sources are telling me that nearly all of the complaints and emails have originated with a single, disgruntled fired employee. ”
I ask how would they know that?
Jasmine: It was a way to try to get people to talk to her. I doubt they could know if just one person complained or sent letters to the Times – in fact, if they could know that, it would have to be illegal too, as no judge would give an agency under scrutiny a warrant to put in listening gear on someone.
So – it’s “spin” – in my opinion very mean and illegal spin – to get attention off First 5 so that the public does not ask any deeper questions, like: Why exactly is that guy Casey in charge if he does not know the employee handbook? He’s at least in charge of the other managers, so he’s responsible that they do not know that handbook – they aren’t the 0 to 5 years olds, now are they?
I think it’s clearly an attempt by people at First 5 to get the Times to see them as “victims”.
But taking a step back, let’s list who has clearly been in contact with the Times that we know of and so was in a position to tell the Times confidential and legally protected employee information since they were quoted in the Times articles this weekend:
1. Sean Casey, Executive Director
2. Susan Bonilla, County Supervisor and First 5 Commissioner
and
3. Joe Valentine, County Dept Head and First 5 Commissioner, and one of the three men (two of them First 5 Commissioners) who has been asked to help Supervisor Bonilla how to make a decision on the Grand Jury report about First 5. How cozy is that?
I’d lay odds on it having been Casey. Two cents and counting.
It’s not really a big deal, but I only just got home from work a while ago, and I did not have time to call Ms. V today – so she can think whatever she wants about that. I won’t try again until she is back, but my guess is the Times will publish whatever they think they got tomorrow – whatever First 5 has on them to do it is beyond me.
I think all the newspaper articles do is to clearly ask us to do more to see that this situation does not get swept under the rug.
Write your supervisor, twice if necessary. Call the FPPC re Bonilla’s commitment to relying on Valentine and Walker.
Print out all of the comments and the GJ report and mail them to the AG stating your concerns (they took on the AIDS project down in Monterey in recent times – perhaps they will see that the Prop 10 law creates an inherent conflict of interest for our BOS.)
This situation is clearly worthy of an independent panel – perhaps write the EOC too, as BGR suggested, and ask them to assist as they did per the CSBG funds.
Even if no indictments come down, there is clearly a manipulation going on by Bonilla, Valentine, First 5 and the Contra Costa Times.
Maybe the Times has been threatened with not getting access to Bonilla or Valentine if they had taken a more research oriented approach. If so, all the more reason for an outside panel, as that would mean that the public will never get the truth from the Times in order to assess the situation or their potential state representatives.
Isn’t it a sick day in the world when it becomes clear that a newspaper that used to be so well regarded as an even handed voice of the community makes it clear to its educated readership that it has no interest in examining facts or presenting a balanced view of the First 5 situation?
I think it was a very sick day, and it was June 27, 2010.
~ EDITOR ASKS — Why give the Contra Costa Times the credit in the first place of ever being anything but another money grubbing business with its own agenda, whether in 1990 or in 2010?
Wishful thinking and cloudy memories and other forms of idolizing the past of some organization one knows very little about gets in the way of true fact finding. Maybe, just maybe, it’s always been this bad. Prove me wrong.
The first article:
http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/grand-jury-first-five-commission/
just want to make sure folks know about the first article because we’ve sort of moved to part 2
Good work BGR for getting this out there!
Better than Facebook Fishbowl on front page of Sunday’s paper?
Talk about irrelevance
right on man, way better than Fishbowl Fantasies any day –
As I see it: this First 5 thing matters for my kids. The CCT not taking care in their reporting – it matters for my kids. It matters for their kids.
Maybe other people do not get that, but I do.
I don’t agree with you on everything, but you do us a real service Bill, keep it up!
Thank you Halfway for breaking this story!
I read it in the Times today, along with the Grand Jury supplement about all of their reports.
Too bad the NEWSPAPER does not do their job and actually PRINT all of the Grand Jury reports.
This article and the other really have my hackles up.
Attention First 5 Commission: I will be writing to the Supervisors and calling the State AG this coming week. I am sick and tired of being railroaded by people like you – you are in it to win it – but only for yourselves.
What Grand Jury supplement?
Another red herring?
The insert with the doberman on it … Not a bad way to get the word out I thought, but not sure how many people would have read it..
It was there – the doberman insert.
Here’s another great article that confirms they have funded belly dancing:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/Features/2009/Prop-1D-Called-Hobsons-Choice-for-Voters.aspx
Here’s the Novick quote:
“I’d love to talk about belly dancing,” said Sherry Novick, executive director of the First 5 Association of California. “That’s an excellent example of how First 5 can be very effective.”
Or wasteful and not what voters thought they were going to be paying for. .. but pays for Novick’s $100K+ salary doesn’t it?
well, you sleep in and look what the dog brings in.
The Times of course slacks left on it, ignores the Bonilla-Valentine conflict of interest even though they know that Bonilla’s running scared and sending out letters to constituents, and generally tries to white wash the complaints – claiming that the Grand Jury did not find any wrongdoing on all of those other complaints – um, that’s not what the report said.
Please Radin, get a brain man. When you are older and wiser you will be able to read between the lines of a report like this: it potentially means much more is to come.
So what do you do instead of finding out if there really were other problems at First 5: you do some investigating, but you do it OF THE WRONG PEOPLE! I think you are a knucklehead: Cox and his staff are not under Grand Jury investigation here: First 5 is.
Get it?
I am so disspointed in the newspapers people. They not telling it like it is.
I’ve held my wife’s tongue for long enough on this topic:
Per the CCTimes articles today –
Fund belly dancing or yoga or neighborhood park equipment or trips to Jelly Belly – - – - – OR – - – - – pay for child abuse workers? Not a hard call for a thinking person.
Allow people on the Commission with expertise? Sure makes sense. Allow them to receive funds? NOPE. How this Commission got an exception to the conflict of interest laws that govern EVERY OTHER COMMISSION IN THE STATE was simply a future lobbyist run amuck.
People were intoxicated by the allure of the Reiner campaign – it’s time we all stopped sucking on that popsicle.
My question: if they really EVER cared about “prevention” then why did not they not create programs that would have readily available data to show that their programs really make any sort of long term difference? Then, once they proved they had made a difference, they would have been able to go back to the public and ask for more.
Instead, there obviously was no big time evaluation plan implemented to prove that all that money prevented later problems and hence we all should change the state’s total approach to childhood funding.
That’s what you would have expected from the initial push and that’s what they promised us from this tax! See any difference in your community amongst the First 5 kids? You should be able to. But no!
Instead, the Fresno First Five Commissioner’s comments, those of First 5 Commissioner Doug Ose’ in Sacramento, and the data from the now-failed CARES program prove that First 5 has always been a money grab for people who make $100K plus salaries.
So, let’s put it this way, if they had been successful in making any changes, you would be getting pitched with solid numbers 10-12 years after the launch of it. Instead, all you get is a bunch of quotes from people who are under FIRE by a truly INDEPENDENT Grand Jury for insider influence activities.
Who you going to believe? For my money, I’ll choose the Grand Jury.
YOU NAILED THEM!
What a lame article:
It is just not true to state that the Grand Jury found no wrongdoing when all the report did was not comment on those topics.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_15385376?source=pkg
Also, compare the tone of Raid in this article as compared with the human interest First 5 stories of a couple of weeks ago – clear whose side he is on. Advertising dollars anyone?
The First 5 lunchroom? LOL!
Jasmine, you are a blessing!
Glad you got this fixed editor – Ms. Bonilla sent me a letter then I sent one back on this FACT.
Ms. ZZZZZZZZZ,
Appointments to the FACT committee are governed by specific policies and procedures that had been previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The 5 appointments that appeared in conjunction with # C35 on the consent agenda are to fill specific areas of representation as stipulated in the committee’s policies. These areas are: First 5 Commission, Education, Child Development, Child Abuse Prevention, and Mental Health. 4 of these 5 appointees are existing members of the FACT committee and the Board Order was simply updating their membership. When the FACT committee was combined with the Family and Children’s Advisory Committee back in 2005, the MADDY book was never updated to reflect the membership on the new combined committee. This Board Order cleans that up.
The other members that were appointed to the FACT committee today – agenda item #C37 – were “at large” appointments recommended by the Board’s Family and Human Services Committee. Back in December, we published ads in newspapers and sent notices to Supervisors’ office encouraging applicants for these positions. Only a few persons ended up following through on applying.
The remaining 5 seats on the FACT committee are appointed directly by Supervisors. To date, only 2 Supervisors, Supervisors Bonilla and Glover, have forwarded names. Ruth Rodriguez is the appointee from Supervisor Bonilla.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to write our office. And I hope that I have answered your email.
Robert Quinonez
Field Representative
Office of Supervisor Susan Bonilla
THEN I WROTE:
Hello Mr. Quinonez,
Well your letter mean only one person could have filled the First 5 spot then, and the rest could have been from other areas, and NOT from First5 and Mr. Valentine he surely know that. I not that educated but I can figure that out from your writing here. See this is what we all on the blog been saying: Mr. Valentine could of picked people who not on First5 but are experts. Where he put up his signs? In the First5 lunch room? And who says they need to be re-approved? Why not get new people? Hmm yeah, I thought so.
You not convinced me that things is on the up and up young man. I saw them at large people too. I looked all them up on the Google and not one was on First5 anything, so that mean that people out there if they’d knew about the 5 seats of Mr. Valentine they done would have signed up like you say. You advertise and they done showed, so that mean Mr.Valentine not done no advertising, don’t it? Or it mean he already picked before any one else showed up.
You all not fooled me with this fancy letter. Guess why I have no reason to believe you, no I don’t?
I ask so who is Ruth Rodriguez? I just looked her up and it say here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zDzrt5ixmbQJ:www.firstfivecc.org/index.php%3Fpage%3Doctober-2009-news+Ruth+Rodriguez+First+5+commission&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us>
“Ruth Rodriguez, the director of the Monument Community First 5 Center”
So you must think I’m a dumb old woman. So that is SIX people from the First5 and that leaves 3 places open right? I don’t know that math for certainly but I think that mean 15 – 3 = 12 real people in the spots. And 6 from First5. I think that mean half them from First5. So Bonilla in it to help make it all First5 people who tell the Sups on where money goes? Says so to me.
You all need to take those 5 spots away from Mr. Valentine. Ms Bonilla need stop thinking she should take Mr. Valentine advice and make her life more distant from this First5 – she should be picking someone not from First5.
Jasmine
Now it is 6 admitted First 5 people on the FACT committee and yes, I got that letter too, and you are right Jasmine, that makes it 50% of the FACT Committee who are without a doubt First 5 linked.
Not good, Mr. Valentine and Ms. Bonilla, not good.
What I keep wondering is if Ms. Bonilla is not worried about how this looks, why does she/her office keep writing people letters?
Why not issue a press release to claim a position and be done with it? Waiting for the Times to write something first, I suppose.
“as I said, Max may be a little too conspiratorial”
DUDE! You blaming me for this in and out thinking you got going on – yeah I think JoeV is probably pretty calculating – all pols are. We’re going to have one heck of chess match next time.
As I said elsewhere, the point here is that Mr. Valentine’s judgment has been called into question due to his appointing ONLY First 5 linked people to the FACT committee. The point also is, knowing that, how does Susan Bonilla dare to try to rely on his judgment?
How is it that three current First 5 Commissioners (Bonilla,Valentine, and Walker) are in a position to influence the response to the Grand Jury report?
The BOS members should do something about that but that requires something that perhaps they lack.
They practiced at this kind of thing then? I think they just do not care about what we all think out here.
I can see what you saying bout them knowing for a while now they had time to think on what to do.
Ms. Bonilla asking the other First5 Commissioners to help her then just a move. She a player.
I for one do not like being played. Call that FPPC place. This First5 have not a thing to do with kids anymore as I see it.
Errata Clarifications, since this article was written before BGR got back in town:
RE:
“to load this obscure committee exclusively with First Five ”
“Why would he load this little FACT Committee exclusively with First Five people?”
More info shows that it is 5 of 15 whom Joe Valentine has control over. As Max said at 4AM or so this morning, It does not matter if it is 33% or 100% of the Committee, JV has completely loaded the part of the Committee that is under his authority with ONLY First 5 linked people.
Also, they passed it as a consent item on Tuesday; and Bonilla was not in attendance at all. Any surprise?
Also, JV has stacked this portion of the Ctte for some time, so he’s got no excuse in terms of claiming that he did not know.
Big time conspiracy – as I said, Max may be a little too conspiratorial, but it is still a clear conflict of interest and I recommend people check out the Fair Political Practices Commission website on reporting conflict of interest actions – in this case Bonilla and Valentine – as was posted elsewhere:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=498
{ 3 trackbacks }