Thursday, April 7, 2016

Concerned Sierra Madre Resident: ​Is the SMPD Union Trying to Buy The Measure UUT Election?


It makes sense, I guess. “SMPD Security”, formerly known as the Sierra Madre Police Department before 9 of its 20 officers ran for the hills thus requiring it to be a “daylight hours only” police force, does still have a union known as the Sierra Madre Police Association (SMPA).

What I didn’t know is that 2016 wasn’t the first time that the SMPA meddled in Sierra Madre politics as a supporter of Yes on UUT. Kinda ironic, when you think about it, that this union has 100% of its members living outside Sierra Madre (gasp!!)

Proof of the SMPA's $1,500 contribution in 2014 is circled above. We figure it helped to pay the minimum wage guys to litter all our porches with Yes on UUT propaganda. What’s interesting is this contribution wasn’t reported until the next year even though FPPC regulations require any $1,000+ contributions to be reported within 24 hours. That means it should’ve been reported no later than March 26, 2014, not over 9 months late.

I guess the “Queen of Yes,” Ms. Harriet Susan Henderson-Poole-Carter-Whatever, may have forgotten to mention that salient fact when she reported a FFPC complaint had been filed against Yes on UUT 2014.


Interesting fact: The Yes on UUT treasurer in 2014 was Amy Putnam. Wait, isn’t Prof. Putnam also the treasurer for Yes on Measure UUT 2016? It's déjà vu, all over again …

Let's hope our Amy J. Putnam isn't hiding any cop union funny money again this year.

Shall we now flash forward to 2016?

When it comes to increasing your UUT tax bill by a whopping 66% in 2016, nobody is liking that more than the Sierra Madre Police Association. And why not? Get that humongous tax increase and we’ll be able to pay cop raises (66%, anyone?) and keep those CalPERS Platinum Pensions.

Oh, and strictly as an aside mind you, do not forget about those posh City of Sierra Madre employee health care plans you've been paying for.


In the interest of jacking up our taxes, the SMPA has been spending money like a drunken sailor (with apologies to sailors).

So far they have directly contributed $2,000 TWICE so far = FOUR THOUSAND $$ to the Yes on Measure UUT 2016 campaign. That’s enough for at least a couple of frantic Martin Truitt postcard junk mailings.

And the Sierra Madre Police PAC (PP) has mailed 2 pieces of their own tree killing postcards, too! (Funded by the same 9 persons)


From your mailbox and then directly into a bright blue Athens recycling bin. Not very sustainable, I say.

So let’s review: For a local Sierra Madre Campaign, the Police Association union has spent directly (or through its PAC) at least $8,000.

On the February 27, 2016, report, Yes on Measure UUT had raised $ 6,422 not including any of the SMPA contributions.

Always remember the Tattler Money Rule.
Rule #1: It’s always about the money
Rule #2: If you think it’s not about the money, see Rule #1.

The Sierra Madre Police Association, with its part-time police force and whopping 9 members wants you to vote YES so they can keep their jobs, get raises and keep those CalPERS Platinum Pensions. The same pensions that are bankrupting our mountain village.

This election isn’t about the library, weed abatement, capital improvements, and it sure as hell isn’t about any water pipes.

This election is about keeping an overpriced Police Department with the required CalPERS pensions that are eating up our city’s budget. A part-time police department that can’t even protect us 24 hours a day, though they can sure try and buy an election.

That’s why the Sierra Madre Police Association is spending close to $10,000 to get you to vote Yes on Measure UUT.

And to that I say: Hell NO.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

56 comments:

  1. $8000.00 for the YES on UUT campaign works out to around a contribution of $890.00 per police officer in Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They'll get more than that in the first pay raise!

      Delete
    2. It is an investment.

      Delete
  2. Exactly what does the Sierra Madre Police Association do? Their Facebook page is outdated. There is a fairly recent letter thanking people for donations. There are several law suits. So is the main purpose to ask for donations and sue the city? Do they make donations of any kind to community functions? I have heard that they are located in the PD. Do they rent that space? Or is that a perk? I understand their primary purpose is to run interference for their members, but do they give back to the community in any way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They sue us a lot. I'm not certain why the Yes people find that so endearing.

      Delete
    2. only in SM can a police officer freak out, shoot an unarmed man in the back and subsequently get promoted and rack up overtime

      Delete
  3. Is the SMPD half empty or half full?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it's all done.

      Delete
    2. Did any city council member question the UUT tax increase?
      Did any of them fight for a sunset clause?
      If not....Harabian and Capoccia do not deserve your vote and Goss, Delmar and Rachelle need to resign.
      They are not representing our best interest. Only special and selfish interests of unions and big Sacramento centralized governmnt...ie: the politicians whose campaigns are financed by above special interests.

      Delete
    3. John Capoccia, Denise Delmar & Rachelle Arizmendi were against the UUT before they were for it.

      Delete
    4. Wonder what the SMPA has on all of them.

      Delete
    5. Delmar isn't running again. She probably realized what she was up against. Kris Miller Fisher realized it years ago...so did her husband...they left town ..as did the Koerbers last year. Many good people have left town due to the corruption.Kurt Zimmerman another decent guy. Don Watts....McGillivrey tried to keep fighting but the corrupt City Hall cronies slandered her and put in the idiot Nancy Walsh
      The same special interests are behind the Yes om UUT. ..nothing has changed

      Delete
    6. those that benefit financially from the UUT are supporting it

      Delete
  4. Fight back voters.
    Write in Barry Gold.
    Vote NO on UUT tax increase measure
    If the city needs money....they can start managing it correctly.
    They should have put a SUNSET CLAUSE on that UUT measure.
    They did not.
    Vote No.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you write in Barry Gold, be sure to fill in the oval or "bubble" by his name or your vote don't count.

      Delete
  5. Thanks 7:14
    Keep reminding people this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now they are rolling out ads that tug at your heart to vote for their side or form of twisted values (yes-uut) they know no boundaries concerning morality or ethics next I expect to see Smoky the Bear or Bambee making the pitch for never ending taxes for their health and safety also?.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry to say my wife and I had donated $400 (to the SMPA) the previous two years. I should have specified it to be used for non-political purposes

    ReplyDelete
  8. The UUT was born in lies, as any old timer remembers:
    "This is just temporary, to get us in better shape. Honest. We'll just have this little tax temporarily."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. true. we had a busted water pipe and the two utility company lawyers seized upon that to push for the UUT claiming it was to repair water infrastructure so the UUT started from day one with a lie from the city and continued with lies and misinformation even today

      just vote NO.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of water, did anyone on the west side receive their water bill yet? Seems like they are late in mailing. Be sure to count the days of usage on your bill. An extra day could cause someone a possible fine if going over the allotted usage numbers.

      Delete
    3. Another water & sewer rate increase is coming 7/1/2016. This city must think all the ratepayers are retired on Platinum Pensions.

      Delete
  9. Let's remember that Mayor Capoccia has stated that even if this 66% non-sun setting tax passes, it is still not enough money to fund the city's obligations. Maybe we need to cut some of those obligations, like accruing additional CalPers by keeping the police dept. This council and staff just don't want to do the work necessary to bring fiscal sanity to Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. moronic business logic, let's ignore the most obvious debt and long term liability which is CalPers

      Delete
  10. City of Sierra Madre is controlled by
    some very dishonest people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The voters said twice that they do not want a 10% utility tax. The city's response was to hire an outside political consultant and raise $30,000 to push a third vote through. We elected three candidates that claimed they were against raising utility taxes as well, all of whom flipped. Can we say that democracy in Sierra Madre is dead?

      Delete
    2. If the city paid any money to get a tax increase through, please contact the Mod at sierramadretattler@gmail.com with the details.

      Delete
    3. We already know that.

      Delete
  11. Replies
    1. Good point. I have fallen for the bogus claims of our city pols for years. I have nobody to blame but myself.

      Delete
  12. Mobile Web - Business - New Frontier customers complain of internet outages after Verizon transition
    http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/20160406/new-frontier-customers-complain-of-internet-outages-after-verizon-transition


    Thank you Tattler posters who warned us about this last weekend. It's worse than we thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We were cryin' the first two days, but they have totally straightened out the problems. I'm going to give them another week to settle down & then call & see about getting our bills reduced from Verizon's expensive service to Frontier's less expensive plans.
      I am really pleased with the change now.

      Delete
  13. For those who have a fairy tale view of having "our own Police" in Sierra Madre and how their intimate knowledge of the town results in better law enforcement- let me recount my own recent experience with SMPD.
    I reported a crime in progress and gave the correct street address. The SMPD could not find the address on one of the major streets of Sierra Madre. So they knocked on my door. I literally had to walk them to the location and point out the criminal in the act. And after much discussion let the guy off with a warning.He came back the next day for 'more' .I did not bother calling SMPD. I 'dealt' with it. Never seen him since....Keystone Cops is the best term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are really good at lawsuits.

      Delete
    2. Then let's go with LA Sheriff Dept. and let any disgruntled Deputies sue the County. Less legal fees for our city attorney & less staff time wasted with employee HR issues.

      Don't like a Deputy assigned to Sierra Madre? Call the Watch Commander and have them assign someone else. Problem solved!

      Delete
    3. Sadly the SMPD has just become an extortion scheme. The 'protectors' have become the villains.
      Worse, our so-called representatives - the CC have supported their extortion racket.

      Delete
  14. Here is how I voted: Wrote in Barry Gold and CAREFULLY filled in the bubble. Step 1.
    NO on the UUT. Step 2. Voted for both the City Clerk and the City Treasurer so that the tally for those two good folks would be as high as the voter turn out and show the lack of votes for the two incumbents. Never voted for Harabedian, but did for Capoccia because his "story" was a good one then and a big fat lie now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear fellow mayor, the local taxpayers complied with the law, presented a petition and ballot initiative documents to the city hall to remove All UUT Taxes. You failed to honor the wishes of the taxpayer by delaying the legal process and presenting a ballot for taxpayers to vote by some 3 years. we the taxpayers find this to be an unacceptable practice. you need to comply with the taxpayers wishes or their will future actions taken. we look forward to your wimpy reply....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Not to beat a dead horse... But as we can all remember 1) the UUT tax was agreed by all to be a temporary tax to help the city get their act together ( the taxpayer & city council) 2) after 20+ years city hall has Never got it together 3) city council has lost their UUT ballot toincrease taxes for years 2012 and 2014 4) now co po co is singing like a canary that city hall will wait to discuss reduction of expenses and hiring the sherriff until the taxpayers vote the 3rd time as to no more UUT taxes 4) John wake up, you have failed to do your job, hire the Sheriff's and reduce those expenses and further more put together a petition and ballot to let the taxpayer vote to remove those Pensions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have only recently moved to California and I am flabbergasted by the influence that government employees (police and firefighters) are seeking in this election. I have never seen something like this before.

    It is clearly not ethical. My question is: Is it legal? Are there any laws that specifically address what I thought is common for all government employees, i.e.; to be neutral and not use government positions for personal gain.
    Or have they just found a legal loophole by creating these associations?

    Any information would be greatly appreciated, including links that I can study to learn more about this phenomenon.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia.

      Delete
    2. Hard question to answer. This is California after all. Money talks. The union's use their money for candidates and propositions that will benefit them. The represent a large voting group. The politico's. Want to stay in office-they need their vote. I can offer no links. Is it legal? Not sure, but no one has been brave enough to fight it. Many people are just waking up to it now. That old adage,"You can't fight city hall" came from somewhere.

      Delete
    3. The public employees should never have been allowed to unionize. Its much different from unions in the private sector because the public sector unions have a monopoly on services - with the police and fire, its life and death services. That's why the prison guard union is one of the most powerful lobbying organization in California. What are you going to do, fire them all.

      Delete
  18. New "Yes" postcard is out. I am rendered speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good idea 5:46. I can't wait to hear exactly which laws were broken and how.

    Meanwhile, why don't you give us a citation to the laws that "specifically address what [you] thought is common for all government employees..." and facts showing that those laws have been broken. And also what ethical canons do you believe have been dishonored when you say "[i]t is clearly not ethical."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laws and Regulations can be found here:
      https://www.justice.gov/jmd/summary-government-ethics-rules-new-department-officials

      "It prohibits participating in matters that affect your financial interests as well as those of your spouse, minor child, or a general partner; an organization which you serve as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee;"
      "The standards of conduct address matters that do not affect your financial interests but which could reflect on your impartiality. You may not participate, without a waiver, in a particular matter involving specific parties which you know is likely to affect the financial interests of a member of your household. You also may have to disqualify yourself from a matter if someone with whom you have a personal or business relationship is a party or represents a party to the matter. This would include a former employer, even without a continuing financial interest, your former clients, an organization you worked for actively in the last year and your spouse's employer. 5 CFR 2635.501 & .502."

      https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Laws+and+Regulations/

      Financial Conflicts of Interest are addressed here:
      https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Financial+Conflicts+of+Interest
      Use of Government Positions and Resources
      https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Use%20of%20Government%20Position%20and%20Resources


      Delete
    2. The Code of Federal Regulations provision you cite applies to federal, not local officials. Even if it did and even assuming a similar law applies locally, you have recited no facts showing that the exercise of 1st Amendment right somehow violates such a law.

      Delete
  20. 6:49, you're a jackass. That is all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, civility at its finest.

      Delete
    2. Sure, 8:25, no law, no facts showing a violation. But you know best.

      Please don't ever sit on a jury.

      Delete
    3. Emotions are high on The Tattler today.

      Delete