Culver
City Surreptitiously Killed Its Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse ProgramCULVER CITY IS AN ETHICAL DESERT
Former Mayor Alex Fisch and City Council Members (from both the right and the
left), City Manager John Nachbar, former City
Attorney Carol Schwab and/or former Chief Financial Officer Onyx Jones
(now Assistant City Manager) have
not
denied
my
repeated
allegations
of
impropriety.
They
ignore
them.
They
are
invested
with
a
sense
of
impunity,
as
Culver
City
has
no
credible
mechanism
to
investigate
corruption.
Fisch publicly
summarized
the
attitude
by
stating
that
Culver
City
looks
to
the
future,
not
the
past,
i.e.,
in
Culver
City,
no governmental
official will
ever
be
held
accountable.
Culver
City Surreptitiously Killed Its Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse Program
City
Council Member Thomas Small and Culver City Forward
Ethically
Challenged City Council Revoked Long-Standing Residential-Parking Restrictions
Efforts to Suppress Political Free Speech
Fight
Against The War-Wagon As Economic Waste
"[Y]ou can't promote
principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people." --
George Kent, former State Department official, during November 12, 2019 hearings
on impeachment of former president Donald Trump.
One
would think that the issue of fully supporting the prompt implementation of an
independently managed fraud, waste, and abuse program and associated hotline
(FWA Program/Hotline) would be as non-controversial as supporting apple pie and
motherhood. However, that's not the case in Culver City.
Culver City's former Internal Auditor advised that 44% of Culver City's supervisors, managers and director level employees do NOT feel safe from retaliation if they whistle-blow. Approximately 1/3 believe that Culver City suffers a "Moderate" to "High" level of "Fraud Waste Abuse" risk.
Culver City spent thousands of dollars and many years to develop and vet an effective FWA Program/Hotline. On September 9, 2019, the City Council thoroughly vetted and unanimously approved an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline. Independent management ensures that whistle blowers come forward; their tips are treated seriously, and their identities are protected. However, offering one bogus excuse after another, Staff failed and, thus, refused to implement an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline. Within one month after the City Council unanimously approved the FWA Program/Hotline, City Manager Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab and Chief Financial Officer Onyx Jones—potential targets of whistle-blower complaints—secretly seized management for themselves. The current City Council has done nothing to remedy the situation. Staff commands and City Council Members obey. Each believes that you (residents) are so asleep-at-the-wheel that you will not notice or care.
On March 22, 2021, Culver City adopted a FWA Program that is a fraud on the public. It was designed to fail. Culver City is running a scam, leading residents to a false sense of security.
The following information describes how Culver City government lost its ethical compass. (Actually, that assumes a fact not in evidence—that it ever had an ethical compass to lose.) "Why?" is a more difficult question to answer. So far, Culver City's most detailed explanation has been "things changed."
In 2015, Culver City put out a Request For Proposals to hire an Internal
Auditor and, in particular, to design an effective FWA Program/Hotline. Moss
applied. Based upon its wealth of experience, Moss won the contract. By June 30,
2017, Moss made written recommendations for an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline. The heart of
the FWA Program/Hotline is that the answering service receiving tips would report
directly to the Internal Auditor. Culver City Staff responded, "The City is committed to fully
implement a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Program per the recommendations of Moss
Adams." 150716_RequestForProposal.pdf
+ 150813_MossAdamsLLP_Proposal.pdf
+ 151227_MossAdamsLLP-CC_Contract.pdf
+ 170630_MossAdamsLLP_FWA_Program_Report.pdf
At the September 12, 2016 City Council meeting, members of
the public requested that the City Council place the creation of an Ethics
Hotline on its agenda for public discussion. They alleged that a City
Council Member had improperly influenced Staff to rig a study in favor of the
Council Member's constituent. The City Council neither informed the public of Moss's
engagement nor placed the Ethics-Hotline topic on a future agenda. City Attorney Schwab
idly sat on her hands. 160825_CCN_EthicsInQuestion.pdf
+ 160908_CCN_Faceoff.pdf + 160912_CC_Minutes.pdf
+ 160915_CCN_LetterToEditor.pdf
+ 161006_CCO_EthicalDesert.pdf
The FWA-Program/Hotline project remained hidden and languished for years. On April 8, 2019,
after being prodded by my wife and me, the
City Council created the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Internal Controls
(Subcommittee), and appointed
Council Members Thomas Small and Fisch to expedite Staff 's progress through its implementation
of Moss's recommendations. The Subcommittee delegated duties to the Finance
Advisory Committee (FAC). 190408_CC_Minutes.pdf
+ 190409_CCCR_Subcommittee.pdf
At the June 12, 2019 FAC meeting, the FAC fully vetted
the FWA Program/Hotline recommended by Moss and,
by a unanimous vote, passed it on to the City Council. City Council Member Small, City Manager
Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab, and Chief Financial Officer Jones attended the
meeting. Chief Financial Officer Jones stated that either Lighthouse Services LLC (Lighthouse) or another would be
selected to provide FWA-hotline-answering services, with Lighthouse being the most
likely choice. She further stated, in part, "What Lighthouse will do….
They're really just taking the calls. Then, what happens is that they would go
through Moss's program and, then, Moss Adams would then…." (Audio
Recording of 6/12/19 FAC Meeting at 43:29.) Moss was described as a "neutral."
No one raised any objection. Small
was laudatory by expressing "appreciation to the Greenbergs for their
advocacy." The Minutes reflect, "Discussion ensued between staff
and Committee Members regarding ... appreciation to Mr. Greenberg for his
involvement and for his request for transparency and accountability;
acknowledgement that things need to change...." 190612_FAC_Minutes.pdf
+ 190704_CulverCityNews-FWA_Hotline.pdf
+ 191112_LG_Letter_to_FAC_FWA-Hotline_Problems.pdf
If Culver City's Internal Auditor (vis-à-vis Staff) receives tips through
the hotline, Culver City has an absolute defense from disclosing the whistle
blower's identity. Otherwise, one could seek a whistle blower's identity by
serving a Public Records Act (PRA) request upon Culver City and following through with
litigation against Culver City. Use of an Internal Auditor would protect
Culver City from unnecessary litigation costs and absolutely protect the
identity of any whistle blower. GovtCode_53087.6.pdf
+ GovtCode_6255.pdf
At the September 9, 2019 City Council Meeting, the City Council vetted and voted
unanimously to accept the FWA Program/Hotline recommended by Moss. In substance,
Staff reiterated, "The City is
committed to fully
implement a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Program per the recommendations of Moss
Adams." 190909_CC_Agenda.pdf
+ 190909_CC_Minutes.pdf
The next day, Moss reminded Chief Financial Officer Jones that best practices require the
Internal Auditor to manage the FWA Program/Hotline. 190910_MossAdamsLLP_Email.pdf
Within a month, City Manager Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab and Chief
Financial Officer Jones secretly excluded the Internal Auditor from the FWA Program/Hotline and
had all tips
received by Lighthouse directed only to
them. 191004_Lighthouse-CC_Contract.pdf
Within days, Chief Financial Officer Jones arranged to have all FWA Program/Hotline tips
forwarded only to Punit Chokshi, a Finance Department employee inexperienced in FWA-Program/Hotline matters. 191014_CC_Email_to_Lighthouse_PrimaryContact.pdf
+ PunitChokshi_LinkedIn.pdf
Two days later, at the October 16, 2019 FAC Meeting, Chokshi announced that
Culver City had entered into a contract with Lighthouse to field
and forward FWA-Program/Hotline tips. However, Chokshi misleadingly failed to mention Staff's secret switcheroo,
the one that put him in command of the FWA Program/Hotline, and cut out the Internal Auditor. 191016_FAC_Minutes.pdf
On October 19, 2019, still unaware of Staff's switcheroo, I informed Chief
Financial Officer Jones of material problems with Culver City's newly-minted-FWA
website, and offered to meet in person to discuss them. I sent a copy of my
letter to Subcommittee co-Chairpersons Small and Fisch, Mayor Sahli-Wells,
Council Members Eriksson and Lee, City Manager Nachbar and City Attorney Schwab.
No one responded. 191019_LG_Letter_to_CFO.pfd +
191019_LighthouseServices.pdf My letter states, in part:
The
reporting page states, in part: "Reports are submitted by Lighthouse to the
organization's designee, and may or may not be investigated at the sole
discretion of the organization." (Emphasis added.)
This
process seems to render the effectiveness of Culver City's FWA Hotline suspect,
at best. Reports are submitted to the "organization's designee." Who
is the person or his or her title? What are the person's duties except to
receive the reports? "Sole discretion" is not reasonable discretion,
but unfettered discretion, even if the decision is unreasonable or corrupt. The
decision to proceed to investigation seems not to rest with the
"organization's designee," but with "the organization." Who,
within "the organization," makes the decision to
"investigate," and how is that decision made? Assuming an
investigation results in the findings of fraud, waste or abuse, then what?
Until
the aforesaid details are resolved and formal procedures established, employees
and the public might greet Culver City's FWA Hotline with skepticism.
As
you know, my wife and I have a great interest in making Culver City's FWA
Hotline successful. It would be our pleasure to meet with you, at your
convenience, to discuss the foregoing issues. As a former Compliance Director of
a New York Stock Exchange Member Firm, I established and maintained networks to
ferret out fraud, waste and abuse.
Pursuant to a PRA request, I received a copy of the Culver City-Lighthouse contract.
At the next FAC Meeting, I accused Chokshi of misrepresentation by omission, and claimed
that Staff had corrupted the FWA Program/Hotline
recently authorized by the City Council. 191112_LG_Letter_to_FAC_FWA-Hotline_Problems.pdf
+ 191120_FAC_Minutes.pdf
Chief Financial Officer Jones started claiming that Culver City needed to do a so-called "pilot program" before implementing Moss's recommended FWA
Program/Hotline. Supposedly, all tips would be directed to the "City Attorney's
Office." Without further explanation, she claimed, "Things
changed." However, Culver City's responses to my PRA requests demonstrate
that the supposed "pilot program" never existed. Further, Culver City has
no document showing who, if anyone, investigates any complaint or how the
persons are
selected. 191115_MossAdamsLLP_EnterpriseRiskAssessment.pdf
+ 191117_LG_LetterTo_FAC_ERA.pdf + 191205_CCN_ColdWaterOnFWAHotline.pdf
+ 191216_CC_PRA_Response_PilotProgram.pdf
Culver City's FWA-Program/Hotline website contained misleading statements and
false representations. Contrary to the website's statements, Culver City had
neither a "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse unit" nor an Internal Auditor. CC_1_Website_ReportFraudWasteAndAbuse.pdf
+ CC_2_Website_FWA_Program.pdf + 191120_PRA_Response_Website.pdf
+ 200610_CCCR_StealthHotline.pdf
I wrote to and appeared before the City Council, fully informing all City Council Members of the aforesaid facts.
Mayor Sahli-Wells responded (in writing) by stating, in part, that Culver City will "take
appropriate measures to investigate [my] allegations." Culver City has failed
and, thus, refused to do so. It has not denied my allegations. 191205_CCN_ColdWaterOnFWAHotline.pdf
+ 191209_LG_LetterToCC_Complaint.pdf
+ 191209_CC_Minutes.pdf + 191218_CC_LetterReInvestigation.pdf
+ 191231_LG_ReplyLetterToCC+Exhibits.pdf
I forwarded a copy of my detailed reply to Mayor Sahli-Wells's 12/18/19
letter to Council Members Eriksson,
Fisch, Lee, and Small, and to City Manager John Nachbar,
City Attorney Schwab and Chief Financial Officer Jones.
None responded. 200102_LG_Email_CopyResponse.pdf
I kept Mayor Sahli-Wells and Subcommittee co-Chairpersons Small and Fisch fully
advised, stating, in part: "The Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline project has
run amuck. Public trust in the FWA Hotline is at risk. The FAC and the
Subcommittee need to pay more attention to this critical project." 200208_LG_EmailToSubCommittee.pdf
On July 8, 2020, I inquired of current Mayor Eriksson as to the status of
the City Council's "investigation." I stated, in part, "Since
December 18, 2019—more than six months ago—I have not heard further from the
City. Now, you are serving as the Mayor. What is the status of the City Council
'tak[ing] appropriate measures to investigate [my] allegations'? If the City
conducted an investigation, please advise me who conducted it." The email
chain demonstrates that Eriksson hypocritically claims that he
"supports" the FWA Program/Hotline recommended by Moss. A copy was
sent to all the usual suspects. No one responded. 200708_LG_Email_MayorEriksson.pdf
Staff has has only recently
publicly forwarded a copy of the Enterprise Risk Assessment Report, which contains damning findings, to the
City Council. 200808_LGEmail_CC_ERA.pdf
According to former-Mayor Eriksson, Staff is now circulating a "draft policy" that it will eventually
present to the City Council. Culver City does not need a "draft
policy" to appoint an independent manager of the FWA Program/Hotline.
Essentially, Staff intends to cause the City Council to reverse course from an independently
managed FWA Program/Hotline to one managed by Staff. However, the City Council
already thoroughly vetted and adopted an independently managed FWA
Program/Hotline on September 9, 2019. The City Council should not tolerate
Staff's underhanded insubordination. 200830_FWA_Program_Hotline_Status.pdf
Until Culver City assigns a "neutral" to manage the FWA
Program/Hotline that Moss recommended and the City Council thoroughly vetted and accepted on September 9,
2019. Culver City is running a scam on the
public. 200618_CCN_FWA_Hotline.pdf
The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Internal Controls is supposed to monitor and
report Staff's progress (or lack thereof) on implementing internal controls,
including the FWA Program/Hotline. It is missing in action. 200831_PRA-Response.pdf
+ 200929_CityCouncilMeeting_E-Comments.pdf
Staff has engaged in: (1) a secret switcheroo; (2) a bogus "pilot project;" (3) publishing a fraudulent website; (4) conducting a phony "research project; and (5) a suspicious "draft policy." The biggest question—"Why?"—remains unanswered. Why, when we were rounding third base and heading for home, did Staff throw the game? What are City Manager Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab and Chief Financial Officer Jones hiding?
The Culver City Council recently adopted a FWA procedure.
By
providing a false sense of security, a severely disabled FWA program is worse
than no FWA program.
Culver
City Killed Its Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program. 210610_CCN_CulverCityKilledItsFraudWasteAndAbuseProgram.pdf
210607_CCCR_CulverCityKilledItsFraudWasteAndAbuseProgram.pdf
Culver City's Quarterly FWA Reports reveal that the so-called Internal Audit
Manager refers all FWA-hotline complaints to Department Managers to investigate
their own departments. He is Culver City's version of the Maytag Man. 220721_CCN_NeedMajorFWAProgramChanges.pdf
A well-connected real-estate developer provided humongous
campaign contributions to help oust the progressives from power. The three
progressive City Council Members had their last opportunity to cure their failed
version of the FWA System/Hotline to protect Culver City. 221124_CCN_ProgressivesStillHaveTime.pdf
Culver City has issued approximately 85 credit cards to its approximately 650
employees. Culver City City Council Policy No. 4209 (5/13/13) sets forth the do's and don'ts
associated with using credit cards issued to employees.
PCardProcedureNo4209.pdf
Policy No. 4209 states, in part: "The PCard is intended for low value purchases (generally under $500.00 for the total order including sales tax and shipping) that meet the requirements for approved purchases ...." Culver City employees have ignored that purpose. Further, no one is watching the store. After all, it is only other peoples' money.
I detected many suspicious PCard purchases. A few of the most
troubling deal with: (1) $4,000 lunches at Boston Market by
an Assistant City Manager; (2) motel bills amounting
to approximately $15,000 in a very short time for an allegedly homeless persons by the City
Manager; and (3) monthly Orange
County toll-road fees by the Chief of Police. More egregiously, PCards have been used improperly to purchase expensive computer equipment.
(Unless
properly inventoried, those items can grow legs.) That's for starters. Culver
City's responses to my PRA request supplied the raw data. It was a small
sampling of a few employees, but the results should shock a taxpayer's conscience.
In early 2019, I informed the City Council of the Culver City's PCard problem.
190303_LetterToCityCouncil.pdf
The City Council gave the appearance that it was listening. 190411_CCN_NewSheriffInTown.pdf
But the runaway cost of seminars and training sessions that did not
produce one idea to benefit Culver City was another clue as to the depth of the
problem. 190725_CCN_CulverCityNeedsIdeas.pdf
+ 190704_LG_Letter_FAC_MeetingAgendaSuggestions.pdf
+ 190709_LG_Letter_FAC_SupplementalMeetingAgendaSuggestions.pdf
Follow-up research demonstrated that the PCard problem had not abated. 200130_CCN_CC_GovernmentFrittersAwayTaxpayerMoney.pdf
+ 200110_PCard_Spreadsheet.pdf
I advised Subcommittee co-Chairpersons Small
and Fisch and then Mayor Sahli-Wells of the continuing problem. No one responded. 200208_LG_EmailToSubCommittee.pdf
The Finance Advisory Committee washed its hands of the matter by claiming
that its job is not to determine the merits of a matter. 200212_FAC_Minutes.pdf
Years ago, City Attorney Carol Schwab publicly informed the City Council
that she does not determine
whether a City Council Member is biased or has a conflict-of-interest. The May
27, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes state, in part: "Carol Schwab, City
Attorney, discussed instances where a conflict of interest arises; the
appearance of bias; and she clarified that it is up to the individual
Councilmember to make the decision." 140527_CC_Minutes_SchwabEthics.pdf
Council Member Small publicly announced that he: (1) would not seek a
second term; (2) had opened up shop ("last fall") as the Chief Executive
Officer of Culver City Forward; and (3) would move on (after his term expires in
November) from
the City Council. His statements led to my first article concerning his probable
conflicts of interest. 200807_CCCR_SmallStandsDown.pdf
+ 200810_CCCR_DearEditor_ThomasSmallsLegacy.pdf
An anonymous tipster suggested looking into an alleged "Small-Hackman" relationship. A cursory investigation led to a second
article, which sets forth details of the relationships and their
ramifications. Michael Hackman and related entities have large real-estate
interests in Culver City. 200820_CCN_DearEditor_ResignationRequired.pdf
I promptly emailed a copy of that second article to the City Council. No City Council Member
responded. 200820_LG_EmailToCityCouncil.pdf
Another person inquired about source materials.
The Culver City Cross Roads recently interviewed Small. He spoke of
his relationships with Hackman Capital Partners, LLP (Hackman) and Culver City
Forward, and his "extensive discussions" with City Attorney Schwab and City Manager Nachbar. 200409_CCCR_CulverCityCouncilMemberSmallTalks.pdf
Hackman does much business in Culver
City. Hackman_TheCulverSteps.pdf
+ Hackman_TheCulverStudios.pdf
+ Hackman_5500JeffersonBoulevard.pdf
On one occasion, when a Hackman project came before the City Council, Small made no disclosure and
voted in favor of Hackman's request. This contrasts with Mayor Sahli-Wells's
disclosure of her potential conflict of interest. 190826_CC_Minutes.pdf
Culver City has a conflict-of-interest policy against gifts in excess of $25
to Council Members. 960422_CC_CodeOfEthics_ConflictsOfInterest.pdf
Hackman's General Counsel incorporated Culver City Forward and caused other legal work
to be done on its behalf, e.g., he requested that the IRS grant Culver City
Forward tax-exempt status. 200820_CCF_CASectStateSummary.pdf
+ 190301_CCF_ArticlesOfIncorporation.pdf
+ 190524_CCF_CASectState_Hackman.pdf
+ Hackman_BrentDanielIloulian.pdf
+ 200501_CCF_EIN_83-4433775.pdf
Hackman created many other business entities, but none like Culver City Forward.
Hackman_Profiles.pdf
On June 1, 2020, Michael Hackman, Chief Executive Officer of Hackman,
formally relinquished control over Culver
City Forward to City Council Member Small. One could reasonably assume that the value of a good-standing tax-exempt corporation is a lot more than
$25. That's not counting any funds in the corporation's bank accounts or other assets that it
might have possessed, e.g. a leasehold interest, at the time of the transfer of
control. 200309_CCF_CASectState_Hackman.pdf
+ 200601_CCF_CASectState_Small.pdf
According to the IRS, "An exempt organization must make
available for public inspection its
exemption application. … In addition, an exempt organization must make
available for public inspection and
copying its annual return." (Emphasis added.) Culver City Forward and its
representatives have ignored multiple requests for this information. A Freedom
of Information Act request has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
Stay tuned. 200813_CCF_RequestsForTaxInformation.pdf
The search for truth and justice continues. What did: (1) City Attorney Schwab; (2) City Manager
Nachbar, and (3) fellow City Council Members know, and when did they know it?
Did City Attorney Schwab and/or City Manager Nachbar grant a special
dispensation to Small? If so, when and why? Culver City might prefer that we
remain in the dark. 200818_PublicRecordsActRequest.pdf
+ 200826_CC_PRA_Response.pdf +
200827_PRA_Reply.pdf + 200910_CC_PRA_Presponse.pdf
+ 200914_PRA_Reply.pdf + 200818_PRA-Second_Supplemental_Response.pdf
We learned that, on September 24, 2019, the City Attorney, the City Manager and
Council Member Small met to discuss potential conflicts of interest.
By June 1, 2020, Hackman—who
had business dealings with Culver City—had
"funded" Culver City Forward and it was operational. On June 1, 2020,
Michael Hackman relinquished his position as Culver City Forward's Chief
Executive Officer and bestowed operational control of Culver City Forward upon
Council Member Small. Culver City's "Code of Ethics" states, in part,
"'Gift' means anything of economic value, regardless of the form. ... No
Public Official ... shall accept any gift valued in excess of $25 from any
person, firm, or corporation which to his/her knowledge is interested in any
business dealing with the City. ... Violations of the Ethics Policy and
Guidelines may expose a public official ... to a variety of consequences,
including reprimand, removal from office ... Elected Officials: Penalties
authorized by law may be imposed." On June 1, 2020, did operation control
of Culver City Forward—a
prospective economic advantage—have economic value in excess of $25? If so, will Culver
City censure Council Member Small or allow a sense of impunity to continue to permeate
the governmental environment? We filed a Complaint against Council Member Small,
seeking an independent investigation. The City Attorney said, in effect, take a
hike; proving, once again, Culver City is an ethical desert. 200922_Complaint-Exhibits.pdf
+ 201013_CA_Response.pdf + 201013_ReplyToCA.pdf
+ 201020_CA_Response.pdf + 201023_ReplyToCA.pdf
+ 201027_CA_Response.pdf
However, the City Attorney revealed another method by which she hinders
objective-independent investigations. 210127_CCCR_QuestionableMethods.pdf
In addition to representing Culver City, she made Small her "client."
Attorneys run into ethical problems investigating their "clients" or
former "clients."
Would Culver City Forward honor another and publicly advertised request for
its Form 990 be successful? 210405_CCCR_DoesCulverCityForwardDoAnyGood.pdf
One
can obtain IRS
Form 990 filings from ProPublica's website. CCF's 2019 Form 990 contains
much financial information. From March 2019, CCF had only one employee—Chief
Executive Officer Small. On average, Small supposedly worked 40 hours per week
for CCF, and CCF paid Small benefits of $84,973, which averages about $8,500 per
month. CCF took in exactly $300,000. (This is consistent with one giant
tax-deductible contribution by Hackman.) CCF paid no rent, but had total
expenses of $138,037, even though CCF was still "in the process of
forming." $14,819 went toward attorney fees. (Only Hackman's corporate
attorney is identified in CCF's public filings.) A "consultant" got
$20,840, and blessed Small's benefits as "fair and reasonable." (A web
search revealed that Hackman's current Tax Director was formally employed by
CCF's Sacramento-Form-990 "Preparer." The Preparer's website
advertises that it has "specialized expertise" with tax-exempt
organizations.) Schedule B identifies "contributors" and the amount(s)
contributed as "RESTRICTED." Worst of all and consistent with CCF's stated mission of "engag[ing]"
and "address[ing] important issues," CCF expended nothing directly to
benefit those who are not able to care for themselves. 2019_CCF_Form_990-Annotated.pdf
One can readily discern that CCF's 2019 Form 990 information concerning Small's
extensive efforts at CCF directly conflicts with CCF's Secretary of State
filings concerning Small's lack of participation with CCF. Some information is
available on CCF's
Form 990 - flat $200,000 in contributions with $182,292 in "Executive
compensation."
A second supplemental and
broader request for an independent investigation of the Hackman-CCF-Small
relationship has been filed with the City Attorney. 210413_CALetter-NewInformation.pdf
According to Hackman's April 20,
2018 publication, "[w]ith his architectural background, Small worked on the
plan [for Culver Studios] for two years, helping to integrate the architecture
from the old stages." 180420_CulverStudiosCelebrates.pdf
Questions arise. In what capacity did Small "work"? Was Small paid by
Hackman for that "work"?
It appears that Hackman's political contributions continue to influence
additional City Council Members, who appear to be blind to the
conflict-of-interest concept.
230413_CCCR_Real Estate Money and the Appearance of Corruption.pdf
Using questionable tactics, Culver City business interests converted
residents' protected parking area to their parking lot. Culver City government
has no shame—it's business as usual.
Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church enlisted the help of a City Council Member
to revoke its neighbors' protective-parking restrictions. Council Member Andrew
Weissman had both an undisclosed social and business relationship with a Church
VIP.
Years before, the City permitted the Church to build without providing for
any on-site parking. The Church morphed into a business. It rented its
membership-dwindling facility to other organizations and to other churches. 141110_CCN_ParkingDilemmaContinues.pdf
Residents easily demonstrated that arguments by the Church's few supports
were without merit.
Per the City's Procedures, only the Traffic Engineer or the residents could
raise the issue of modifying parking restrictions. Initially, the Traffic
Engineer rejected the Church's requests. Yet, Weissman pressured him to conduct
a bogus "traffic study." The Traffic Engineer warned Weissman that the
"study" was unfair to the neighbors. Further, a member of the
management of the contractor that conducted the "study" was a member
of the Church.
Some Council Members accused the residents of underhandedly opposing their
favorite City-Council candidates. One besmirched the residents on a
private-media website that was managed by another Church VIP (Dan O'Brien), and encouraged
others to do so. The Chamber of Commerce put in its two cents.
After extensive due diligence, the residents presented irrefutable
documentary evidence of the aforesaid biases and shenanigans to the City Council
and to the City Attorney. Both yawned. Culver City is an ethical desert.
We have omitted most information about related litigation and settlements.
We have redacted some articles. None of which modifies the material underlying
facts.
Please see www.LGEsquire.com/Political_Free_Speech.html.
Culver City residents recognize and appreciate services provided by the Culver City Police Department (CCPD). However, that does not mean that residents unthinkingly support the purchase of every toy CCPD wants in its arsenal. Taxpayers' money is tight, and there are alternatives competing for it.
The City
Council declined to authorize the purchase of a
pig-in-a-poke. 190829_CCCR_JustTheFacts.pdf
Discussion at the Culver City Senior Center demonstrated that
fear is a potent motivator. 200212_CCCR_CommunityMeetingOverBearCat.pdf
Culver
City has absolutely NO need for its own Ballistic Engineered Armored Response
Counter Attack Truck (BearCat). The Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department provides the same services without charge. CCPD has
no complaint against LACSD's swat protection. 200218_CCCR_CulverCityDoesNotNeedASWATTeam.pdf
It
might be hard for proponents of CCPD's purposed purchase of a BearCat to
acknowledge the obvious: BearCats—no matter
how fearsome—do NOT prevent emergencies, but respond AFTER an emergency
occurs. 200305_CCCR_WeDoNotNeedABearCat.pdf
|
DISCLAIMER |
The information presented on this website was obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. It is provided solely for educational purposes. It is not intended to be nor should it be interpreted to be the rendering of legal or other advice. The opinions, findings and/or conclusions of the author(s) do not necessarily state or reflect those of anyone else, may not be politically correct and are subject to change without notice.
Last Updated: April 16, 2023
This Website is Sponsored by:
Law
Offices of
LES GREENBERG
###