HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1LFrom:Brenda Pree
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Request to Provide Copy of My Letter
Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 8:55:36 AM
Attachments:Norm"s Kings Comments on CIty Council June 13, 2024 Consent Agenda.docx
image002.png
From: Norm King <normanrking@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 4:17 PM
To: Brenda Pree <Brenda.Pree@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject: Request to Provide Copy of My Letter
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Ms. Pree
Could you please provide a copy of the attached letter which addresses an issue on the Consent
Calendar for the June 13 Council Meeting prior to this meeting to the Mayor and City Council
Members, the City Manager and the City Attorney.
Thank you very much. I would appreciate a note to confirm you did receive this.
Norm King
909 520 1083
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Date: June 13, 2024
To: Palm Springs City Council
From: Norm King
Subject: June 13 Consent Calendar Item: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
– ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT
FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING A HIATUS FOR THE CITY’S HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Please consider the following remarks in regard to the June 13, 2024 Council
Meeting Consent Calendar item concerning City Commissions.
I support the establishment of Code of Conduct for city boards and commissions.
Though I would not advocate permanently terminating the Hunan Rights
Commission a review of its past operations and the relationship of council
members to that commission is clearly appropriate.
If such code of conduct had been in effect and honored three years ago the entire
mess created by the HRC’ discredited “City Hall Monument Report” regarding
Mayor Frank Bogert and Section 14 would not have occurred.
To review briefly. In April 2021 the HRC approved and forwarded the Monument
Report to the City Council. The report was not written by city staff. The report had
no named author – though everyone knows who wrote it. Furthermore, as we
discovered through a request of public records, there was direct involvement of the
Mayor at the time putting pressure on the chair of the commission to build a case
against Frank Bogert. The Report itself was recommended to the Commission by
the Commission’s Executive Committee but after we requested information about
when the Executive Committee had met to recommend the report we were
informed the Executive Committee never met on this issue.
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
The Monument Report was considered by the City Council in September 2021.
The Report was not adopted by the City Council because of the documentation
submitted by Friends of Frank Bogert demonstrating the scores of fallacious
allegations make in the Report. (If the council wishes additional proof of such
falsehoods read Tracy Conrad’s Section 14 article in last Sundays Desert Sun.) In
spite of this the Report has been cited by some members of the city council and
others as the rationale to remove Bogert’s statue and to claim that the city’s actions
in assisting the Tribal Council to cleanup Section 14 were racist. The report has
also been cited by countless media throughout the country – giving Palm Springs
and Frank Bogert an undeserved racist reputation.
If a code of conduct existed at the time it is likely none of the above would have
happened.
Finally, it should be noted that the HRC Commission has not dealt forthrightly
with the charges of plagiarism which were filed with the HRC Commission in
regard to some of the material in the Monument report. After discussing this item
at two Commission meetings last year, with a promise to continue discussion after
consulting the city attorney, the item has never been discussed again (at least in
public) a – in spite of requests made by Friends of Frank Bogert. To date there has
been no information forthcoming from the city regarding the status of the
plagiarism charge or why the item never again appeared on the agenda.. If there
has been resolution of the issue the public has a right to know. And if such
resolution involved changing the wording of a report that was never adopted by the
city council something is clearly amiss.
I would suggest adding two items to the code of conduct:
1. That a commission or a board report submitted to the city council must indicate
who authored the report. Additionally, anonymous reports and/or letters should be
prohibited from being admitted into the record of any commission or board
meeting.
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
2. That any commission or board report submitted to the city council also indicate
the name of the city staff person who has reviewed the report if such report was
originally authored by someone other than city staff.
Thank you for your consideration.
Norm King
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
From:David Christian
To:City Clerk; Brenda Pree
Subject:Information for tonight"s City Council Meeting
Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 1:38:31 PM
Attachments:June 13 Cover Letter.pdf
January 17th HRC Special Meeting Letter.pdf
Importance:High
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hello, Brenda,
Would you please distribute the attached document and cover letter to all members of the City
Council prior to tonight’s meeting and enter it into the record for tonight’s meeting.
Thanks very much for your assistance on this.
Best regards
David
david christian
431 villaggio north
palm springs, ca 92262
m: +1 760 285 2220
duczupa@gmail.com
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
June 13, 2024
RE: 1. Consent Agenda Item L.- City Boards and Commission-Code of Conduct and Human
Rights Commission Hiatus.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
For more than 3 years, Friends of Frank Bogert has warned the City Council about the
problematic manner by which the Human Rights Commission (HRC) conducts its business.
As evidenced by the attached letter and supporting documents I submitted for public
comments at the January 2023 HRC Meeting, we have specifically objected to and raised
concerns about the production of the falsified HRC Monument Report (Report) written to
justify the removal of the Bogert statue—a Report that also now cited in a financial claim
against the City. Our concerns about this Report and about the HRC were repeatedly ignored
by the City Council.
The following are just some of the numerous issues with the HRC and the Report we’ve raised
and brought to your attention over the past few years.
We warned you that the Monument Report was not factual and was intentionally falsified to
justify the statue’s removal as part of what former HRC Chairman and now Mayor Pro Tem Ron
deHarte called a “political eXort”. We were ignored.
We warned you that the Report extensively plagiarized a graduate student’s opinionated essay
and presented those opinions as independently researched facts. We were ignored.
We warned you that the Report’s production process possibly violated the Brown Act, raised
concerns about the HRC Executive Committee’s secret meetings, and questioned why former
HRC Chairman deHarte was polling Councilmembers prior to the Report being placed on an
agenda for public comment. We were ignored.
We warned you that Councilmember DeHarte admitted in a private email to former
Councilmember Ginny Foat that there were “gaps” in the City’s case to remove the statue and,
with oversight from former Councilmember GeoX Kors, proceeded to fill those gaps with
blatant falsehoods to justify the statues removal. We were ignored.
We warned you that it was problematic and a conflict of interest for a sitting Council member,
GeoX Kors, to be pressuring the HRC behind the scenes to build the case against Bogert and
to be directly involved in the production of the report. We were ignored.
We warned you that the fallacious Report and the HRC’s eXorts to smear Bogert as part of the
aforementioned “political eXort” were flagrant violations of the Commission’s stated goal “to
promote and protect the diversity of our community and to improve human relations through
education and community awareness.” We were ignored.
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
We warned you that the Report was oXensive to Tribal members, who called it “disgusting”
and “appalling ” and we asked why the Council had not granted their requests to have their
families’ names removed from the Report. As you guessed it, we were ignored.
Because the Council systematically ignored our well-founded concerns over a three-year
period, the HRC continued to operate in the same problematic manner on other items
unrelated to Section 14. This has now necessitated a suspension of the Commission and
required the implementation of a Code of Conduct. More importantly, the Report has caused
widespread financial and reputational damage to the City.
City Council members enabled HRC issues by failing to address concerns and by promoting
the falsified Monument Report
Not only did the Council ignore our concerns over a multiyear period but, even worse, some
Councilmembers continued to promote the fallacious Report as the basis for taking “formal
action” on the statue and Section 14 reparations. Even after not approving the Report due to
its falsehoods, Councilmembers continued to tout it despite being presented with conclusive
evidence that it was not factual and was politically motivated. Examples of this include:
Councilmember Christy Holstege: At a November 2022 press conference in Los Angeles,
Councilmember Holstege touted that “Our human rights commission issued a report
documenting the atrocities that happened on Section 14. And we have voted and taken
formal action as a city council to vote to move forward with a reparations program.”
Councilmember Lisa Middleton: In November of 2022, then Mayor Middleton cited the
Monument Report’s resolution in a press release as evidence that the City was “committed to
equity, social justice” and that the City had “set out on a course aimed at making right what
happened during that (Section 14) period.” Six months earlier in May 2022, she told the Desert
Sun that "All of our actions in this (Bogert statue) matter have been conducted in public”— a
statement which is verifiably false. The City will not disclose who wrote the Monument Report
(although public records show Councilmember deHarte was the primary author, with
oversight from GeoX Kors) and the City has not publicly addressed multiple allegations of
plagiarism despite the HRC voting twice to add the Report to its agenda for discussion. The
City has refused to allow the HRC to add the plagiarism item to its agenda not once, but twice.
Councilmember Ron deHarte: In June of 2022 deHarte told the Desert Sun, “Even though
the city council voted not to accept the report, it still brought attention to the pain and hurt
caused by the statue which led to it being removed.”
The Council’s repeated failure to retract the Report and to address issues with the HRC in
general has had devastating consequences for the community
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
While the genesis for this proposed Code of Conduct has been the HRC’s problematic
handling of the community service awards, the HRC’s Monument Report and “political eXort”
have had much more significant and damaging consequences for the community.
Indeed, the Council’s failure to rectify the Report’s falsehoods or retract it altogether has
needlessly divided the community, maligned the City’s reputation, falsely raised
reparations expectations, threatened the City’s tourism revenue, and subjected the City
to a multibillion financial claim.
Recently released correspondence between the Survivors’ attorney and the City Attorney
prove that the falsehoods promoted in the HRC’s Report were cited as evidence of the City’s
wrongdoing in the 1960’s, used as justification for up to $2 billion in damages sought against
the City, and raised unrealistic reparations expectations for Survivors. The Survivors’ attorney
stated the following in letters to the City Attorney in 2023:
● “The violations of (Survivors’) rights and resulting harm are well documented in… the
2021 Palm Springs Human Rights Commission report.”
● “The city had all the facts it needed based on the HRC (report)”.
● “The HRC report that squarely establishes (the City’s) culpability.”
● “The (HRC’s) report is the first time the city's actions were revealed in their entirety.”
● “The racial trauma (Section 14 residents) experienced…is so vividly outlined in the HRC
report.”
After councilmembers – specifically Councilmembers Holstege, Middleton, and DeHarte –
promoted the falsehoods in the HRC Report for more than 2 years as the basis for taking
oXicial actions with regards to the Bogert statue and to reparations, the correspondence
shows that the City began to distance itself from the Report in July of 2023. The Survivors’
attorney told the City Attorney, “My clients were shocked to hear for the very first time that the
city is refusing to accept its own April 28, 2021 Human Rights Commission (HRC) report for the
basis of resolving this (reparations settlement) matter.
This sudden reversal by the Council understandably upset Survivors and their attorney, who
subsequently launched the “Know Before You Go” campaign to tell the “story” of how the
Council broke a promise to Survivors, who claimed they were “used and leveraged for the
purpose of accomplishing a goal…with a total disregard for the racial trauma (they)
experienced and which is so vividly outlined in the HRC report.”
The HRC’s falsified Report is front and center in the campaign as evidence of the City’s
“culpability” in Section 14 and used to educated tourists on the City’s “true history”. The City
characterized this campaign as an “attack”, a campaign which has undeniably maligned the
City’s reputation nationally and threatened tourism revenue.
This “attack” however, was clearly self-inflicted by the Council, who had every
opportunity over nearly 3 years to retract or fix the HRC Report when we frequently raised
serious concerns about its production and false contents. But we were ignored.
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Ultimately the failures of the Human Rights Commission reside with past and current City
Council members. The current Section 14 controversy, and the resulting reputational damage
and financial liability it has caused to the City, is the direct result of some councilmembers
weaponizing the HRC as part of a “political eXort” and is the result of ALL councilmembers
who failed to address concerns about the HRC and Report that we and others have raised
over a multiyear period.
Friends of Frank Bogert supports the adoption of the Code of Conduct and requests that the
Council abide by its own Code of Conduct by retracting the Monument Report.
Friends of Frank Bogert supports the adoption of a Code of Conduct. The adoption of a Code
of Conduct is a good first step to preventing the issues that arose with the production of the
Monument Report. We also fully support the HRC and its stated mission, but only when this
mission is followed and is not weaponized as part of a “political eXort”.
Merely preventing future incidents like this from occurring however, is insuXicient. The
Council must also rectify past wrongs related to the HRC and Report, especially because
current councilmembers were directly involved in these wrongs and because these wrongs
(mainly the Report) continue to have present day negative ramifications for the community.
Accordingly, and while the HRC is suspended for the near future, we request that the Council
consider a formal retraction of the Monument Report – a report which is emblematic of the
issues that necessitated a Code of Conduct in the first place and which has had a devastating
impact on the community far beyond the removal of the Bogert statue.
Continuing to allow this falsified, politically motivated HRC Report to be cited by the public,
media, and Survivors as a factual representation of Frank Bogert and Section 14, does not
align with the Code of Conduct. The City Council can set an example and create a standard
for its appointed boards and commissions by retracting this Report.
Furthermore, the Monument Report directly contradicts “Fact Sheets” recently posted to the
City’s “Engage Palm Springs” website. In eXect, by not the retracting the Report, the Council
is promoting two very contradictory narratives about Section 14, making it nearly impossible
to resolve the Section 14 controversy and furthering misconceptions about the City’s history.
We hope the Council will finally listen to our concerns about the Monument Report and HRC
in general, take the necessary steps to prevent such issues from arising again, and most
importantly, rectify the wrongs of the Monument Report by retracting it altogether.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Christian for Friends of Frank Bogert
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
January 16th, 2023
Dear Chair Loyola and Members of the Human Rights Commission-
It comes as no surprise to Friends of Frank Bogert that Dr. Ryan Kray recently wrote a letter to
the HRC calling out the commission’s plagiarism of her work. More than a year ago, we
highlighted the rampant plagiarism in the HRC’s “Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report” in
our rebuttal to the commission’s fallacious report (see rebuttal summary in Appendix pgs 1-3).
In fact, on September 28th, 2021, I personally emailed former HRC Chair Ron deHarte and other
HRC Commissioners, asking why the report was plagiarized and pointed out numerous
problematic issues with the report (see Appendix pgs 4-6). I received no response.
We were astounded then to see item 8(B) on the agenda – the commission’s consideration of
appending the “Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report” per Dr. Kray’s request. For more
than a year multiple parties, including Friends of Frank Bogert and Agua Caliente Tribal
members, have requested that the HRC append its report due to its numerous falsehoods and
its intentional distortion of the historical record to defame Frank Bogert. The HRC has ignored
all such requests.
Why is the commission now suddenly considering requests to append the report but has
ignored all such requests in the past? Such selective consideration further indicates partiality
and provides further credence to our assertion that the report was written to push a specific
agenda instead of educating the community with a factual review of historical events.
The HRC has an obligation to append its report by correcting its countless falsehoods and to
honor the wishes of Tribal members who requested that their family names be removed
As a reminder, our rebuttal and findings from our public records request confirm that the
report was not an attempt to objectively assess the historical record. Rather, it was an
intentional hit-piece with the objective to carry out a pre-defined political agenda (see
Appendix pgs 7-10). This hit-piece resulted in a report that made countless verifiably false
claims, claims that the HRC has refused to correct despite numerous requests by Friends of
Frank Bogert.
At the September 29th, 2021 joint meeting, the city council chose not to adopt the HRC’s report
and accompanying resolution due in part to these numerous falsehoods and misrepresentation
of Frank Bogert’s actions during the events of Section 14. Council members even criticized the
report at this meeting and spoke positively about Bogert (see Appendix pgs 11-12).
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
In a private email obtained through a records request, former HRC Chair Ron deHarte admitted
to former council member Ginny Foat that, “There are gaps in our case to remove the (Bogert)
statue.” Because the historical record never supported the commission’s desire to remove the
statue, deHarte then proceeded to fill those “gaps” with outright lies about Bogert and with
countless falsehoods about Section 14 (see examples in Appendix pgs 13-16).
Nearly 2 months after his email to Foat, deHarte confirmed the political motivation for the
commission’s decision to remove the statue. On May 5th, 2021, then Chair DeHarte stated
publicly, “Some may feel that the recommendation to move the (Bogert) monument is a
political effort made to appease one other group. Well, they are indeed correct.”
Furthermore, the HRC’s report was insulting to the difficult journey the Agua Caliente Tribe
endured to become self-sufficient and to improve the dire financial condition of its members.
Shamefully, the HRC took quotes from Tribal Elders out of context in its report to vilify Bogert –
Tribal Elders who were some of Bogert’s closest friends. This prompted the Tribal families of
Richard Milanovich and Pete Siva to call the report “appalling, disgusting, and slander(sous)”.
At the September 29th, 2021 joint meeting, Trista Milanovich (daughter of Richard Milanovich)
asserted, “The city uses us as pawns in the game of identity politics, then casts us aside when
we are of no use, and do not fit the political agenda.” Both through public comments and in
emails to the City, they requested that the HRC remove their family names from the report and
in efforts to defame Bogert (see Appendix pgs 17-19). Inexplicably, the HRC has ignored these
requests by Tribal families.
Should the HRC proceed with appending its report by properly citing Dr Kray’s essay, we also
request that that commission take the following two actions in a future meeting:
1. Correct the report’s numerous falsehoods and issue a retraction for its false accusations.
We specifically request that the commission correct two of the report’s most egregious
falsities:
a. That Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by (Section
14) the evictions.” This baseless accusation served as the basis for the report’s
recommendation to remove the statue. We provide an extensive timeline on
pages 24-31 in the Appendix detailing Bogert working “tirelessly” to help Section
14 residents – this timeline discredits the HRC’s false claim, a claim the HRC
makes on 15 separate occasions in its report. Not only is this claim verifiably
false, but the HRC intentionally omitted examples of Bogert helping Section 14
residents (see example Appendix pg 20).
b. That Bogert was part of a “scheme” to “dispossess” Tribal members of their
lands. Statements and quotes from several former Tribal Chairs and their
families directly discredit this untruthful and ludicrous accusation (see Appendix
40-43).
2. Removing all the report’s references to Richard Milanovich and Pete Siva, as requested
by their respective families.
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
The problematic nature of the HRC’s report warrants apologies to multiple parties
Plagiarizing one’s work is a serious offense. Should the HRC apologize to Dr Kray for plagiarizing
her work, we request that the commission also issues apologies to the following parties for
equally serious offenses:
1. To the Bogert family: For defaming Frank Bogert, for falsely accusing him of actions
during Section 14’s clean-up campaign, and for falsely maligning his reputation.
2. To the Milanovich and Siva families: For using quotes from Tribal members out of
context and for ignoring requests to remove their family names from the HRC’s report.
3. To residents of Palm Springs: For violating the Commission’s stated goals of educating
the community and for deliberately spreading disinformation about Section 14.
a. The report’s countless falsehoods and intentional distortion of the historical
record clearly violated the HRC’s stated goal of “improving human relations
through education and community awareness." Former Commissioner Terri
Andrade highlights that the report’s “character assassination” of Bogert conflicts
with the Municipal Code governing the HRC in a letter attached in the Appendix
pg 44.
b. Additionally, the community is now grossly misinformed about Section 14 and
Frank Bogert due to the HRC’s rush to defame Bogert and spread falsehoods to
justify the statue’s removal. To this day the Report is extensively quoted by the
press and others, creating a false image of Frank Bogert and Section 14. Just last
month, the Desert Magazine apologized for parroting several of the false
claims in the HRC’s report after we pointed out these falsehoods and provided
supporting documentation. KESQ deleted excerpts in an article after we pointed
out falsehoods in its reporting with regards to the HRC’s resolution. Pages 45-52
in the Appendix include supporting material we provided to Desert Magazine as
well as the magazine’s apology letter in response.
The HRC and Ron deHarte continue to obfuscate who wrote and researched the “Palm Springs
City Hall Monument Report”
Despite numerous requests by Friend of Frank Bogert, the HRC and former Chair deHarte,
continue to obfuscate the report’s authorship. In a letter of thanks to Dr. Kray on November
28th, 2022, you state the following:
Her work supplemented and complimented our independent research and consistently
provided original and corroborating evidence to support many of the assertions and
historical facts referenced in our City Hall Monument Report.
Notwithstanding the fact that our rebuttal thoroughly discredits the “assertions and historical
facts” you reference above, your implication that multiple members contributed to the report
brings into question the report’s authorship again. Your letter echoes what deHarte told the
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Desert Sun on June 2nd of last year when he stated the report was “compiled by the members
of the Human Rights Commission.”
However, neither the HRC nor deHarte have produced any evidence whatsoever that the report
was indeed compiled by multiple members of the HRC. In fact, findings from our public records
request directly contradict the claim that multiple members of the HRC worked on the report.
All evidence points to Ron deHarte as the primary author, with research help from Ginny Foat,
Denise Goolsby and the Democratic National Committee.
In fact, in an email to Ms. Goolsby just one week before the final report was released, deHarte
states, “You and I are the only ones working on this”. Emails from former HRC Commissioner
Terri Andrade also contradict claims that multiple HRC members “compiled” the report (see
Appendix 55-58). As you are aware, there should be public records if indeed multiple HRC
members met to work on the report. The former city clerk and former city manager have
stated that there is no record of such meetings. Therefore, if deHarte is telling the truth, that
Commission members “compiled the Report,” this would be a violation of the Brown Act –
meeting in secret on matters related to an upcoming the HRC agenda.
In the interest of transparency and accountability, we again request that the HRC disclose who
wrote the report and to provide evidence that anyone outside of former Chair deHarte was its
primary author. The report’s authorship is especially relevant should the HRC append the
report and issue an apology for plagiarism. If indeed deHarte is the primary author, as all
evidence points to, will the entire commission accept blame and issue an apology for the
actions of one individual?
To conclude, the HRC’s Monument report has done a great disservice to the community. We
hope that under new leadership and under a different political environment, the commission
will rectify the wrongdoings of the past by apologizing to affected parties, amending the report
to correct its countless falsehoods, and disclosing the report’s author(s).
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Christian
(Submitted on behalf of Friends of Frank Bogert)
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
APPENDIX
06/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
SUMMARY OF THE REBUTTAL TO THE HRC’s REPORT
The full Rebuttal can be found at https://friendsoffrankbogert.org/rebuttal/
•A thorough fact check of the Human Rights Commission’s (“HRC”) Report found over 100
falsehoods, misleading statements, quotes taken out of context, intentional omission of
refuting evidence, and attempts to untruthfully associate Bogert with the wrongdoings of
other individuals and/or institutions. (see examples on pgs 64-69)
•Significant portions of the Report are plagiarized (see examples on pgs 70-71).
•Efforts to remove the statue are politically and ideologically motivated as confirmed by
Ron deHarte, the HRC’s Chairman, who said: “Some may feel that the recommendation to
move the monument is a political effort made to appease one other group. Well, they are
indeed correct.” (pg 5)
•The Report is rampant with ideological language such as “whiteness, white privilege, and
anti-racist values”. The HRC cites numerous radical and polarizing sources, including
publications that promote Critical Race Theory. The Report is neither an impartial nor
apolitical review of Bogert or Section 14 - instead the HRC retroactively critiques Bogert
through the lens of a present day, polarizing ideology (pg 6).
•The contents of the Report and the process by which the Resolution to remove the statue
was conducted, were strongly criticized by HRC commissioner Terrie Andrade. In a series
of emails and letters, Ms. Andrade states that the Report “gave the appearance of character
assassination tactics to achieve a political goal ” and asserts that the vilification of Bogert is
“an embarrassing account of trial by media in spite of legal documentation to the contrary”.
Additionally she criticizes the commission’s approval process to remove the statue and
asserts that the entire effort to remove the statue contradicts the Commission’s own stated
goals of unifying and educating the community. (pg 5)
•The HRC justifies its resolution to move the statue under the premise that
Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by (Section 14) evictions.”
Not only is this premise completely false, but the HRC on numerous occasions intentionally
omits evidence that would have directly refuted its very premise to remove the statue (pgs
4, 57-64)
•The HRC ignored the human rights of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in its Report.
Clearing and redeveloping Section 14 was critical to lifting Tribal members out of dire and
impoverished conditions. The HRC disregards this crucial fact in order to vilify Bogert. (pgs
10-13)
106/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
• The Report was insulting to the Tribe and the HRC took quotes out of context from Tribal
Elders who were close friends of Bogert's. This prompted prominent families of the Agua
Caliente Tribe to call the Report “appalling, disgusting, and slander(ous)”. The families of
Richard Milanovich and Pete Siva, both former Tribal Chairs, requested that the
HRC remove their family names from the Report and in efforts to defame Bogert. Thus far
the HRC has ignored these requests. (pgs 9-10)
• The HRC misrepresented Bogert’s conservatorship of Pete Siva . Bernadine Siva, Mr. Siva’s
widow provided a lengthy statement setting the record straight and said, “I believe the
statue should not be removed or destroyed. Frank Bogert was an Honorable and Honest
man.” Despite Chair deHarte’s public assertions to the contrary, Bogert was never “found
guilty” of any wrongdoing with regards to his Conservatorship of Mr Siva, nor was any
corrective action ordered against him. (pgs 7-9)
• Both investigations cited throughout the Report were thoroughly refuted
and discredited by numerous individuals and by the Desert Sun. A series of articles by the
Managing Editor of the Desert Sun lambasted the Deputy AG’s report (pg 14) and the
Rebuttal highlights numerous other falsehoods in the AG’s “findings” (pgs 73 -76). The
Department of Interior’s Investigation was also discredited by numerous individuals who
testified under oath at a Congressional hearing in 1968. (pgs 14 -16, 76-81).
• Section 14 relocations and evictions were the inevitable consequence of nearly a century
of ill-conceived federal laws which prohibited the Tribe from developing its valuable land.
(see timeline on pgs 71-73). Upon taking office in 1958, Bogert and the city inherited an
unprecedented and complex municipal housing crisis due to these federal laws. During his
tenure as Mayor, a confluence of events outside of the city’s control (and to no fault of
Bogert’s) had culminated to a point where clearing and redeveloping Section 14 was
unavoidable, vital, and inevitable. (pgs 16-22)
• The Desert Sun at the time described Bogert as working “tirelessly” to secure low-cost
housing for Section 14 residents and to ameliorate the effects of the relocations and
evictions. An extensive timeline on pages 57-64 details Bogert’s and the city’s efforts to
help Section 14 residents. (pgs 22-23, 57-64)
• Bogert cared deeply about the welfare of Section 14 residents and made numerous public
statements about the need to find housing for those who were relocated or evicted. (pgs
24-25)
• In 1967, the year after leaving office, Bogert partnered with leaders of the Black
community to lobby in Washington DC for low-cost housing for Section 14 residents. (pgs
24)
206/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
•Bogert directly hired the city’s first ever Black employee , Charles Jordan, who
was instrumental in helping the city secure its first federally funded housing project in 1968
-this housing project was prioritized for Section 14 residents. (pgs 25-26)
•Numerous members of the Black community, including former Section
14 residents, supported Bogert for Mayor in 1982 (pgs 25-26)
•The Rebuttal provides numerous examples of Bogert supporting and fighting for
all minority groups, both as Mayor and when he was out of office. A substantial amount of
evidence is provided to refute the baseless claims of racism or discriminatory actions. (pgs
28-32)
•Numerous photos and exhibits from people or events mentioned in the Rebuttal
are provided in Appendix (pgs 36-56)
306/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
QUESTIONS FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The HRC’s report, and Chair Ron deHarte’s overall effort to defame Bogert for political reasons
are both flagrant violations of the HRC’s stated goals “to promote and protect the diversity of
our community and to improve human relations through education and community
awareness.” Concerned residents of the community request that the HRC answer the
questions below at the September 29th joint meeting on the Frank Bogert Statue.
1. Who are the authors of the report? To this day, the report ’s authors have not been
disclosed despite numerous requests.
2. The report contains over 100 falsehoods, misleading statements, and quotes taken out
of context. What fact checking process was taken, if any, to ensure that the report was
a factual account of Section 14 and that it accurately educated the community?
3. Chairman deHarte has stated publicly that, “Some may feel that the recommendation
to move the monument is a political effort made to appease one other group. Well,
they are indeed correct.” Does the commission as a whole support Chair deHarte’s use
of his position for political purposes and does the commission believe that his conduct
and public statements align with the commission’s stated goals?
4. Why did the HRC intentionally omit refuting information from the report, specifically as
it relates to Mayor Bogert working “tirelessly” to secure low-cost housing for Section 14
residents? Several of the citations in the HRC’s Report detail Bogert’s efforts to find
housing for relocated residents and yet the HRC did not include any of these facts in its
one-sided report. Why?
5. The HRC’s most cited source is an opinionated essay written by a graduate student 40
years after the events of Section 14. Does the HRC believe that this source provides a
fair, credible, and objective assessment of the events in question?
6. Why was the report plagiarized? A recent Desert Sun article stated, “According to the
Human Rights Commission report, city officials in Palm Springs from 1958 to 1966
“privileged aesthetics over social welfare” and “deferred to the interests of a wealthy
business elite.” The bolded quotes come verbatim from the aforementioned graduate
student’s essay and with no attribution. Yet the HRC and Mr. deHarte attempt to pass
these claims off as their own. Why?
7. What is the HRC’s response to the families of deceased Tribal Chairs, Richard Milanovich
and Pete Siva, who called the report “appalling, disgusting, and slander(ous)”? More
importantly, why won’t the commission honor the wishes of these indigenous families
406/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
and remove their family members’ names from the report and in efforts to remove the
statue?
8. With regards to potential Brown Act violations, how many City Council members has
Chair deHarte been in contact with regarding the Bogert Statue?
9. What exactly were former Councilmember Ginny Foat and the DNC’s Claire Lucas ’
contributions and/or involvement in the production of the report? Why is Ms. Lucas,
the Deputy National Finance Chair for the DNC, involved in a local municipal issue?
What is Denise Chappelle’s involvement in the report’s production?
10. What other parties - outside the HRC, Councilmember Kors and city officials - were
involved in the production of the report?
11. In the attached email to Chair deHarte, Commissioner Andrade states that “the
proposed resolution and supporting documentation (report), upon which it relied, were
not presented in tandem for a reasonable comment and review period.” What is Chair
deHarte’s explanation for this? Why weren’t commissioners provided access to t he full
HRC report until after the proposed resolution to remove the statue was approved by
majority vote? Why did the HRC need to do a “do-over” special meeting on May 5th?
12. In the attached email to Chair deHarte, Commissioner Andrade accurately states that
the sources used in the report are “anecdotal and highly opinionated” and says in
general the HRC “cherry picked references” to support its resolution. She correctly
criticizes the reports inflammatory and unsubstantiated language. Despite
Commissioner Andrade’s objections to the “anecdotal and highly opinionated”
sources, roughly one week later Chair deHarte publicly stated that “careful analysis
was taken to disentangle accusatory language and anecdotal information and opinions
presented in public as fact.” Clearly no such “careful analysis was taken” however and
Chair deHarte mislead the community as he has done throughout the statue process.
Why did Chair deHarte mislead the community and why didn ’t he remove the
anecdotal and highly opinionated sources from the report? Why did he ignore
Commissioner Andrade’s concerns?
13. On April 28th, Mr. deHarte forwarded Commissioner Andrade’s letter to Councilmember
Kors. Did Mr. Kors respond to these concerns from Commissioner Andrade? If so, why
wasn’t this response included in the PRA?
14. In an email to former Councilmember Ginny Foat, Chair deHarte states that he is
“especially interested in documentation that Bogert benefitted financially from his role
in the destruction Section 14.” Why was Chair deHarte focused on this specific piece of
documentation instead of objectively assessing Section 14? Mr. deHarte of course
found no such evidence and yet implied in the report that Bogert profited off of Section
14’s redevelopment. Why?
506/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
15. In a text to Councilmember Kors on March 17th, Mr. deHarte states that he sent an email
to Mr. Kors and to Councilmember Grace Gardner. What were the contents of this
email and why wasn’t it disclosed as part of the recent PRA?
16. In a text to Councilmember Kors on April 11th, Mr. deHarte states that “I just send you
an update for your review to your gmail.” What were the contents of this email and
why wasn’t it included in the PRA? Additionally, why was Chair deHarte sending this
email to a personal Gmail account as opposed to Mr. Kors’ city email?
17. Does the HRC believe that it is a conflict of interest that Mr. deHarte donated to
Councilmember Kors’ campaign (as detailed in the 460 Disclosure), given that Mr. Kors
was active in the production of the report?
18. What basis does Chairman deHarte have to call Mayor Bogert a “direct oppressor” as he
stated in his text to Councilmember Kors?
606/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEMATIC PROCESS TO REMOVE FRANK BOGERT’S STATUE
The HRC’s Report was thoroughly discredited in a comprehensive Rebuttal prepared by
Friends of Frank Bogert
On September 29th, 2021 the City Coucil voted not to adopt the HRC’s “Palm Springs City Hall
Monument Report” due in part to the Report’s issues below.
• The HRC’s Resolution to remove the Bogert statue was based on a fallacious Report that
was not an accurate, nor objective assessment of Section 14 and of Bogert’s actions at the
time in question.
• A thorough fact check of the HRC’s Report found over 100 falsehoods, misleading
statements, quotes taken out of context, and untruthful attempts to associate Bogert to the
wrongdoings of other individuals and/or entities.
• Significant parts of the Report are plagiarized.
• The HRC’s most cited source is an opinionated, sensationalized essay written by college
graduate student 40 years after the events of Section 14. Large portions of the Report are
merely opinionated sections copied verbatim from this essay - the HRC attempts to inject
these opinioned, sensationalized excerpts as irrefutable truth.
• On numerous occasions, the HRC intentionally omits refuting information which would
discredit its premise to remove the statue. Specifically, many sources the HRC cites in the
Report detail to what great lengths Bogert went to ameliorate the effects of the evictions
and find low-cost housing for Section 14 residents. The HRC however , purposely omits all
these facts.
• Bogert cared deeply about the welfare of Section 14 residents and made numerous public
statements about the need to find housing for those who were relocated – the HRC does
not include any of these details.
• Evictions were the inevitable consequence of nearly a century of ill-conceived federal laws
that predated Bogert’s Mayoral term. By the time he took office, relocations/evictions
were inevitable and necessary and the record shows that knowing this, Bogert went to
great lengths to help Section 14 residents. The HRC again omits these details.
• Bogert fought for all minorities, including the Black community. Specifically:
o In 1961, he directly hired the city’s first Black employee, Charles Jordan (a Section 14
resident). Mr. Jordan was instrumental in helping the city secure its first federally
funded housing project which was prioritized for Section 14 residents.
706/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
o The year after leaving office in 1967, Bogert partnered with leaders of the Black
community, including Rev. Jeff Rollins and the First Baptist Church, to lobby in
Washington for funds for low-cost housing for Section 14 residents.
o The Rebuttal lays out Bogert’s contributions to and support for the Black community
as Mayor in the 1980s.
o Numerous Black residents of Section 14 supported Bogert for Mayor in 1982,
including Cora Crawford.
The City’s efforts to remove Bogert’s statue are politically and ideologically motivated
• The HRC and the City had a politically motivated objective to remove the statue. However,
the historical record never supported this objective, as confirmed by DeHarte in a private
email to Ginny Foat saying, “There are gaps in our case to remove the (Bogert) statue.” To
achieve the City and HRC’s desired outcome of removing the statue, DeHarte proceeded to
fill these gaps with outright falsehoods and fallcious accusations, thereby defaming Bogert
and misrepresenting the events of Section 14.
• Ron deHarte, Chairman of the HRC, confirmed that this indictment of Bogert was politically
motivated saying;
o “Some may feel that the recommendation to move the monument is a political
effort made to appease one other group. Well, they are indeed correct.”
• In a letter written to the city, which was obtained through a PRA, HRC commiss ioner
Terrie Andrade states that the Report “gave the appearance of character assassination
tactics to achieve a political goal .”
• Correspondence between city officials and Mr. deHarte obtained through a PRA indicate
the efforts to remove the statue are being coordinated by Councilmember Geoff Kors,
former Councilmember Ginny Foat, and even by the Deputy National Finance Chair of
the Democratic National Committee, Claire Lucas. The Report and the efforts to remove
the statue do not appear to be a good faith, organic effort by citizens of the community
or even by members of the HRC, to enact social justice – instead all indications point to
this being a top down political hit job to push an agenda.
• The HRC’s Report is rampant with ideological language such as “whiteness, white
privilege and anti-racist values.” Additionally, the Report cites numerous radical and
ideological sources, including some who promote Critical Race Theory. The Report and
the statue removal process is not an apolitical, nor impartial assessment of Bogert and
Section 14.
806/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
The process by which the HRC passed its Resolution to remove the statue was not
transparent, was done behind closed doors and without proper procedures
• As of the date of this summary, the author(s) of the HRC’s Repor t is still unknown. A
public records request revealed that Councilmember Kors, former Councilmember Foat
and Claire Lucas were all involved in some capacity in research and production aspects
of the Report. The actual authors of the Report however are still unknown despite
multiple requests by Friends of Frank Bogert for the city to disclose Report’s authorship.
• As corroborated by findings in the public records request, correspondence between
members of the HRC indicate the HRC passed its Resolution to remove the statue
without proper notice and ample time to review the contents of the report. HRC
Commissioner Terrie Andrade stated that “the Resolution was approved by majority
absent the benefit of a full report” and she said she was “unclear as to why the
proposed resolution and supporting documentation (report) for which it relied, were
not presented in tandem for a reasonable comment and review period.”
• The process was so flawed, the HRC needed to do a “do-over” special meeting to pass
the Resolution.
• City officials, including Mr deHarte and Mr. Kors were inexplicably using private email
addresses to conduct city affairs.
• A PRA revealed that Mr. deHarte and city officials may have committed a Brown Act
violation. Concerning texts between Councilmember Kors and Mr. deHarte indicate that
there may have been correspondence between Mr. deHarte and a majority of the
Councilmembers prior to the HRC passing its Resolution and prior to the joint meeting
on September 29th.
• City Officials confirmed that they did not review or fact check the HRC’s Report prior to
its being used as the basis for the commission to pass the Resolution to remove the
statue.
The HRC has insulted and angered members of the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians
• The HRC’s Report is insulting to the difficult journey the Tribe endured to become self -
sufficient and to improve the dire financial condition of its members.
• Took quotes from Tribal Elders out of context in its Report in order to vilify Bogert. This
prompted families of Richard Milanovich and Pete Siva to call the Report “appalling,
disgusting, and slander(sous)”. They requested that the HRC remove their family names
from the Report and in efforts to defame Bogert. Thus far the HRC has not h onored this
request by Tribal families.
906/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
The HRC violated several of its stated goals in efforts to remove the statue
• The HRC states that it aims “to promote and protect the diversity of our community and
to improve human relations through education and community awareness." The HRC
undeniably violated this goal through the drafting of a bad faith, dishonest, and factually
incorrect Report and through the many misleading and false statements made by the
HRC’s Chairman, Mr deHarte.
• Chairman deHarte claims that the Report “is intended to provide an opportunity to
bridge differences and help raise awareness”. The HRC has also violated this goal as
well. In addition to many in the community lambasting the HRC’s actions, Indigenous
Tribal members have called the Report “disgusting, appalling, and slander(ous)” and the
Curator for the Palm Springs Historical Society (who understands the complexity of
Section 14’s history better than most) has publicly stated that the HRC and city council
are “scapegoating Frank”, that “moving the statue is nothing more than a symbolic
gesture”, and that “this is political rhetoric and it does nothing to solve the problem.”
Clearly the HRC hasn’t bridged any differences. In fact, it has done the opposite.
• Another HRC stated goal is to “To bring persons and groups together in common
support of human rights issues.” The HRC’s and select city officials have done the
opposite of bringing “groups together in common support of human rights issues.” By
providing a fallacious accounting of Section 14 and Bogert’s character, the HRC has
sowed division in the community.
1006/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
The Palm Springs City Council, during a special meeting on September 29th, 2021
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJ-Vq4r5x4), heard passionate and compelling testimony
about Frank Bogert’s legacy as a seminal character in our community’s history. They also heard
second-hand of the difficult hurt and pain caused to some citizens of color that were displaced from
Section 14 over 50 years ago. Some council members had complimentary things to say about
Bogert and others choose not to disparage or focus on Bogert. Here are some of the excerpts:
“The amount of heart and soul that went into each and every presentation we received, this is very
difficult issue,” stated Vice Mayor Middleton. [3:36:34].
“I appreciate that many people have come to support Mr. Bogert, I understand he loved Palm Springs and
served the City in many ways,” said Councilmember Kors. [3:33:55]
“I don’t quite know how we got to this big of discussion,” stated Councilmember Garner. [3:27:51]
Several added that this was not about Bogert and focused elsewhere. Mayor Holstege strongly said,
“No comments about Mayor Bogert, his reputation, I’m not planning on litigating a man’s personal
reputation in a public forum.” [4:12:10]
“For me, this is not about Mr. Bogert, not here to have a debate who he is as a person,” added
Councilmember Garner. [3:26:16]
“I don’t think this is about pointing fingers, this is not a personal attack on Mr. Bogert, there is a lot of
love and adoration of Frank Bogert, that admiration is real.” said Councilmember Woods. [3:48:25]
The Council also refused to vote on purpose to confirm or agree with the fallacious and ill-
conceived City Human Rights Commission (HRC) report or resolution. Even asking their own
lawyers, we don’t have to vote on this and it does not have to come back to us?
“When we use words that disparage Frank Bogert as an individual and what he did and he is labeled as a
racist, there is simply too many stories that betray that,” [3:44:28] said Vice Mayor Middleton “Frank
Bogert will always be a man of great warmth and great character generous of individual acts of kindness -
people don’t make up those kinds of stories.” [3:45:40]
“Just want to be clear, some of the report and issues with report, with the facts about Bogert have led to
some of this division over the fact so we can get to a common set of facts. My complaint is with the
city.” said Mayor Holstege [4:13:05]
“It was a difficult situation - started before Bogert was Mayor, was part of the process realized the
situation and delayed for a long time, no doubt this is difficult,” said Councilmember Garner in
reference to Section 14 decisions. “This is native land lease extension and was a very good thing. It
helped to allow the tribe to create better economic prospects.” [3:24:13 and 3:25:00]
Vice Chair Middleton went on to echo, “Frank Bogert worked closely to create the opportunities for
Agua Caliente Tribe of Indians to fully take advantage of the land that has been theirs since time in
memoria. That was a good thing.” [3:40:30]
ERRORS & FALSE ARGUMENTS in HRC REPORT —Some Councilmembers specifically called
out errors and false arguments in the HRC report and some even apologized for the divisive nature
and what had become of the report.
1106/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
[3:43:00] – “I am very taken about comments received through the email from the widow of former
Chairman Siva. I don’t think you can make the case that Frank Bogert betrayed Mr. Siva, not when this
many decades later his widow says no. Frank was who he wanted as conservator.” sited Vice Mayor
Middleton. “Daughter of Agua Caliente Tribe of Indians, Chairman Milanovich, if I were to ask for a
character witness… (I would want) Chairman Milanovich.” [3:43:00]
Even this member of the HRC testified and sent a scathing letter sent to City leadership strongly
criticizing the report and the process.
“Human Rights Council (HRC) organizers executed a pretty effective campaign to divide the citizens of
our City and also remain convinced that we could have mitigated some of that divisiveness by uniting and
educating with more fair and balanced information (which is part of what our committee is committed to
do). As I have said in the past the removal, extraction or relocation of the Bogert statue for me is
secondary to the methodology that was used to achieve the goal. I am still concerned with the anonymity
afforded the creators of the report, I felt like I was asked to vote on something - who produced it? It
seemed to me the antithesis of transparency.” said Human Rights Commissioner Andrade. [04:05:20]
“I am afraid when it comes to the (HRC) resolution, I struggle to agree with everything that is found in
that resolution regarding a Frank Bogert the individual. I don’t think we had to go there,” concluded Vice
Mayor Middleton. [3:47:25]
NEXT STEPS — Then the Council directed the City staff to begin the process to remove the Bogert
statue and consider options to relocate it in additional places in Palm Springs. We heard several
times that the focus was less about Bogert and more about not having any statue in front of City
Hall.
“City Hall does belong to the people. The people are the City. I don’t think any one person deserves to be
highlighted in front of any City Hall,” said Councilmember Garner. [3:27:00]
“I’m in agreement with my colleagues, this is not about Mr. Bogert, about a statue in front of city hall,”
said Councilmember Woods. [3:49:59]
“I concur with colleagues, that a statue of a man in front of our City Hall is not the right thing to do and
we need to respectfully find an alternative location and I think there are alternative locations that we can
find that will allow those for Frank Bogert will always be a man of great warmth and great character to
acknowledge that,” said Vice Mayor Middleton. [3:35:18]
Friends of Frank Bogert believe the Council’s words are a positive step to correcting the record
about Frank Bogert, and we continue to believe the best place for the statue is at City Hall.
1206/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Examples of the 100+ problematic issues in the HRC’s
Report
● The HRC’s Report untruthfully claimed, “A $56,182 real estate commission awarded by the
Superior Court at Indio to a broker in an Indian land lease deal, was later divided with the
Indian’s conservator, former Palm Springs Mayor Frank Bogert. It was one of many reported
cases of ‘fee-splitting.’”1
○ This statement by the HRC is untruthful on multiple accounts:
■ The $56,182 commission figure the HRC provides is grossly inaccurate. In fact, the
HRC overstates this commission figure by a factor of almost 10x. The newspaper
article that the Report cites provides the accurate commission figure ($6,182), and
yet the HRC didn’t get the figure right in its Report.
■ It was not “one of many reported cases of fee -splitting.” The Department of Interior
could only point to a single instance of fee-splitting, and even that instance needs to
be put into context given 1) the circumstances by which Bogert became a
conservator and 2) the problematic nature and inaccuracies of the Interior’s report.
● The HRC falsely states that “In 1968, a $2.5 million housing de velopment by W & N
Development slated for families displaced from Section 14 received approval by the Federal
Housing Administration. Subject to certain government specifications the development
would soon be under construction within a few feet of Palm Sp rings.”2
○ This proposed development occurred in August 1961 while Bogert was Mayor, not in
1968 when he was out of office as the HRC claims.
○ Not only did the HRC get the dates wrong, but two paragraphs later in the same article
the HRC cites, it is stated that this housing project “was the upshot of a previous
request, of several months standing, by Mayor Bogert of (W&N Development) to
seek a solution to the problem of homes for the residents of Section 14.”3
○ To summarize, the HRC claims this housing pr oject was proposed when Bogert was out
of office in 1968, when in reality it was Bogert himself who pushed for this development
when he was in office in 1961. This is one example of many in which the HRC 1)
purposely whitewashes to what great lengths Boge rt went to find low-cost housing and
2) cherry picks quotes to support their false claims, while intentionally omitting refuting
statements from the same article/source.
● The Report falsely states: “The investigation released on May 28, 1968, found that during
his mayoral term, Frank Bogert was found guilty of fee-splitting between a broker and a
1 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
2 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
3 Desert Sun, “The Section 14 Story III, Elation Over Housing Okay Fades as Recession Comes,”
November 15, 1966
1306/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
conservator, splitting by or with fiduciaries. This as well as other similar instances is
improper under California law.”4
○ This is categorically false and indicative of the many untruthful and misleading
accusations made throughout the HRC’s Report and by Mr. deHarte himself. The word
“guilty” is never mentioned once in the Interior’s report with regards to Bogert and no
corrective action was ordered against him . The investigation offered an “opinion” on fee
splitting, which was refuted due to lack of precedent and lack of established guidelines,
but Bogert was never found guilty, let alone charged with any wrongdoing in connection
with his conservatorship. The Report also fails to mention the problematic nature of the
Interior’s report, and the fact that its findings were refuted by numerous individuals under
Congressional testimony.
● The Report provides a timeline that shamefully insinuates that Bogert left office early in
January 1966 due to wrongdoing or to a potential investigation by the Attorney General.5 In
reality, however, Bogert left office to take care of his wife, Janice, who had been diagnosed
with breast cancer. Bogert took a PR job in the private sector to support his family and to
pay for his wife’s mounting medical bills. The Mayor’s position at that time was unpaid.
○ “Bogert gave up the Mayor’s office because he couldn't afford it”6
● Another falsehood in the Report: “Having a substantial financial interest as a conservator
created a conflict of interest for Bogert (while he was Mayor).”7
○ This is false. Bogert voluntarily ended his conservatorship in 1963. City -coordinated
demolition took place beginning in 1965 and early 1966. Thus, there was no conflict of
interest since he was not a conservator during city -coordinated clearing. Bogert did not
profit off the evictions or clearing of Section 14.
○ In fact, in instances where his position as Mayor possibly conflicted with his role as a
conservator, Bogert recused himself from such votes and/or discussions.8
● The Report falsely claims that “While he was leading the Section 14 demolition, profiting as
a conservator, and championing development in Palm Springs, there is an appearance of
conflict of interest when as Mayor, he crafted a multi-million dollar real estate transaction
with another Tribe”9
○ As stated above, Bogert signed off as a conservator prior to city -funded demolition, thus
the first part of this claim is false. Also, the HRC fails to justify how this real estate deal
created a conflict of interest.
○ More importantly, the quote below explains that this real estate deal was immensely
beneficial for the local Mojave tribe — this quote was pulled from the same article the
HRC cites to support its false claim that there was a conflict of interest:
4 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
5 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 17
6 The San Bernardino County Sun, April 20, 1975
7 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
8 Desert Sun, “Council in 'No' Vote On Trailers,” March 13, 1962
9 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 19
1406/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
“And this lease will mean a better life for some 800 Mojave Indians. It will mean an
end to their poverty, a crea tion of jobs and will turn their rich land from idleness to
productive use.”10
○ This is one of many examples in which the HRC prioritizes the character
assassination of Bogert over the human rights of various Indian Tribes. Instead of
celebrating the fact that Bogert was advancing the human rights of a marginalized,
poverty-stricken community, the Human Rights Commission chose instead to falsely
accuse him of a conflict of interest.
● The Report deceptively asserts, “Court-appointed guardians and conservators, or their
attorney levied excessive fees against many Indian owners of 84 estates studied by the
Interior Department investigators. The report said Municipal Judge Eugene E. Therieau and
attorney James Hollowell collected a total of $485,000 in fees over a seven -year period.
Other persons including Mayor Frank Bogert also were criticized.”11
○ The HRC uses the deceptive tactic above throughout the Report, which works as
follows:
1. The Report makes a statement about a ccusations or wrongdoings of other
conservators, judges, and attorneys and then….
2. Places Bogert’s name in subsequent or nearby sentences to mislead the reader into
thinking that he was accused of the same thing, when the truth was, he was not.
● “While Frank Bogert was mayor of Palm Springs, he improperly benefited by serving as a
conservator for individual Tribal Members for land they owned on Section 14.”12
○ Bogert was only conservator for ONE tribal member, not multiple “Members.”
The circumstances by which he became a conservator and the flaws in the Interior’s
report are detailed throughout the Rebuttal.
● The HRC claimed: “They neglected to say that many living on Section 14 had leases and
their rights to due process protections were violated.”13
○ This is false. There would have been legal ramifications for the offender(s) had
residents of Section 14 had their due process rights violated. Two separate
investigations, the Deputy AG’s and the Department of the Interior’s, confirmed no due
process rights were violated. Furthermore, when a Section 14 resident sued the City
for being evicted from his home, a judge ruled that “It is not true that plaintiff had any
property rights whatsoever, and it is not true that the city wrongfully destroyed
the plaintiff’s property.”14
10 The Needles Desert Star (Needles, California), “Mojaves Sign Land Lease,” November 15, 1962
11 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 35
12 Human Rights Commission Report Pending Adoption pg 7
13 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 24
14 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
1506/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
● The HRC ignorantly asks the following rhetorical question; “Facing a human rights crisis,
why didn’t the Desert Sun or city leaders move to upgrade the shacks to improve dangerous
or unhealthy living conditions for tax paying residents?”15 This was not a viable “solution”
due to the following:
○ Merely “upgrading the shacks” would not have been the best use of Tribal lands, would
not have attracted much needed investment capital to develop Section 14 allotments,
and most importantly, would not have generated sufficient income to materially improve
the dire economic conditions of the Agua Caliente People.
○ Accordingly, due to the issues above, upgrading shacks would almost certainly not
have passed zoning guidelines with either the city or the Tribal Council. The 1960s
(specifically from 1962-1965) were a period of much debate and negotiation between
the Tribal and City Councils on zoning guidelines, rights and zoning authority.
○ The HRC doesn’t explain how these upgrades and improvements could have been
financed. At the time, Tribal members certainly didn’t have the resources to fund these
upgrades and this type of development wouldn’t have attracted much investment
interest. These upgrades weren’t within the scope nor budget of the city to finance and
the Report provides no supporting information that state or federal funds could have
been used for this purpose.
○ This solution would have still required relocations or evictions of Section 14 residents.
The section’s structures were in such bad shape and so haphazardly constructed that
most likely a mere “upgrade” wouldn’t have rectified the situation, nor would it have
complied with municipal codes. Therefore, a complete teardown of the shacks and
makeshift structures would have been needed, and residents would have still been
required to vacate the area to allow for a comprehensive redevelo pment.
● In a desperate attempt to find some wrongdoing with Bogert’s actions, the HRC states that
the evictions were violations of the United Nations resolution on forced evictions, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and Title VIII.16 Two separate investigations found no illegal activity had
taken place during Section 14 evictions, thus the Civil Rights Act is not applicable to the
events in question. With regards to the United Nations resolution and Title VIII, both are
also not applicable to Section 14. Eve n if one were to grant that the evictions violated these
laws/acts (which they did not), both were drafted and/or enacted after Section 14 evictions
took place. The United Nations resolution was drafted in 1997 (from the Report’s own
citation) and Title VIII was passed in 1968 (two years after Bogert left office).17 Essentially,
the HRC critiques the evictions by retroactively applying laws and Acts that weren’t even in
place when Bogert was Mayor.
15 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 24
16 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 7
17 https://www.hud.gov/program offices/fair housing equal opp/fair housing and related law
1606/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
1706/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
1806/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
1906/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
SUMMARY OF BOGERT SEEKING LOW-COST HOUSING FOR DISPLACED RESIDENTS
● The HRC concludes that the statue should be removed from City Hall under the premise
that Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by (Section 14) evictions.”
Not only is this premise completely false, but the HRC intentionally omitted evidence that
would have directly refuted its very premise to remove the statue (see housing
timeline). Indeed, the very sources the HRC cites in its own Report provide more than
ample evidence to invalidate many of the HRC’s false accusations. For example, the HRC
cherry-picks information from a Nov. 15, 1968, article in the Desert Sun to support its biased
narrative about Section 14 — however, below are quotes from the same exact article that
the HRC left out of its Report. These quotes, among many others, directly discredit the
Report’s premise to remove the statue. T hus, the HRC purposely excluded this rebutting
information and crafted a one -sided, disingenuous Report:
“Mayor Frank Bogert, long active in trying to solve the housing problems of the
minority groups in Section 14 said he thought the Gould-Crossley project would be a
good thing. ‘I think we ought to stretch a point and let them have the zoning they want,’
he said. ‘Due to the housing emergency at the present time, we have to lean over
backwards.’ Nevertheless, Mayor Bogert emphasized, he wanted to be sur e any
dwellings built for rentals would be good housing. ‘I don’t want to see another slum
area. If someone is going to build a place for these people, it should be good.’…
A $2.5 million housing development which will be used for families displaced from
Section 14… was the upshot of a previous request, of several months standing, by
Mayor Bogert of (the developer) to seek a solution to the problem of homes for the
residents of Section 14.”1
Bogert worked “tirelessly” to minimize the effects of Section 14 evictions and to seek low-cost
housing for its residents
● Knowing that evictions and clearing were necessary and unavoidable, Bogert worked
relentlessly to alleviate the harms associated with these evictions and to make the best out
of an untenable housing crisis (see timeline of Bogert’s actions). While Bogert took office in
1958, city-coordinated evictions did not take place until six years later, in 1964, and city -
sponsored demolition began seven years later, in October 1 965. Although there were
evictions prior to 1964, these evictions were executed by private citizens and without city
coordination or assistance2. Within that six-year period when he became Mayor and when
the city worked with conservators and the Tribal Council to relocate and evict residents in
1964, the record shows that Bogert was resolute on finding solutions to the Section
14 crisis. Specifically, Bogert took the following actions to alleviate the effects of the
inevitable clean-up campaign:
1 Desert Sun, “The Section 14 Story III, Elation Over Housing Okay Fades as Recession Comes,”
November 15, 1968
2 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
2006/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
○ Held off city-coordinated relocations and evictions until 1964 (6 years after becoming
Mayor), despite pressure to do so sooner from tax paying residents, Tribal landowners,
local businesses, and conservators.
○ Worked “tirelessly” to seek low-cost housing for displaced residents.3
○ Secured housing certificates from the FHA which provided relocation grants with 100%
financing to displaced residents.4 (See Bogert and housing certificate photo.)
○ Pursued numerous public assistance programs to fund low -cost housing.
○ Pushed for and supported several privately funded low -cost housing projects (see
clipping for one such project), including that of Lawrence Crossley, a Black pioneer of
the community and a close friend of Bogert’s.5
○ Launched an administrative investigation into Superior Court ordered burnings after
numerous residents had made complaints.6
○ Delayed evictions for six months in 1961 to allow 430 families to find housing.7 (See
eviction delay photo.)
○ Created multiracial citizens committees, consisting of members from the Black
community, to assist with relocation efforts and to communicate the city and Tribe’s
eviction plans with Section 14 residents.8
○ Enacted a bond program in 1961 to purchase land that would partially be used for low -
cost housing for evicted residents.9
○ Ensured that the city complied with all local, state, and federal regulations throughout a
complex eviction and demolition process.
● The Desert Sun described Bogert as working “tirelessly” over the span of 10 years to
seek low-cost housing for evicted Section 14 residents.10 These efforts included him
continuously pushing for numerous publicly and privatel y funded housing projects. As
detailed in the timeline, the HRC purposely omitted these facts from its Report and falsely
claimed that Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by these
evictions.” Select quotes from the housing timeline :
“The Mayor, working tirelessly for a low-cost housing project, had asked
(developers) some months ago if (they) couldn't come up with a solution to the ever-
increasing problem of homes for the scores of people who are residing in Section 14”11
“Mayor Frank Bogert...has sought to promote a minority housing development in
the Palm Springs area”12
3 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
4 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 298, July 14, 1961
5 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15, 1968
6 Desert Sun, “Section 14 Probe Set,” August 14, 1962
7 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, June 27, 1961
8 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 98, November 26, 1968
9 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 161, February 4, 1961
10 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
11 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
12 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 136, January 6, 1961
2106/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
“Since Bogert was elected to the council almost three years ago, (he) has been
working steadily to get private money to build a low-cost rental unit project for
(Section 14 residents)”13
● Bogert even continued seeking housing for displaced residents after his Mayoral term
ended. In 1967 — the year after he left office and with his wife battling breast cancer
— he partnered with his close friend the Rev. Jeff Rollins, a leader in the Black
community, and the First Baptist Church to develop a 250-unit housing complex
adjacent to Gateway Estates14 (see Desert Sun clipping ). He traveled to Washington,
D.C., with Rev. Rollins to lobby the FHA to secure federal funds for minority housing (see
Bogert and Rollins photo).
● Bogert cared deeply for the welfare of Section 14 residents and was extremely vocal in
public forums about the need of low-cost housing for Section 14 residents. The HRC falsely
claims in its Report that “city decision makers focused their energy clearing Secti on 14 for
development instead of addressing the core issue of housing for those displaced.” In
addition to the housing timeline, which provides significant evidence to discredit this claim,
below are quotes from Bogert himself demonstrating that he indeed was focused on “the
core issue of housing for those displaced”:
“There is a great demand for low-cost housing for the working force in the city.
Something must be done for them…There were a lot of fine people moved out of
Section 14.”15
“We do need enough (low-cost housing) to take care of our labor force. There is a
terrific demand for housing for the working people”16
“The biggest scandal is that (Section 14 residents) are forced to live in these
conditions, because we haven’t done anything about it”17
“I don’t want to see another slum area. If someone is going to build a place for these
people, it should be good”18
“I think we ought to stretch a point and let them have the zoning they want...Due to the
housing emergency at the present time, we have to lean over backwards (to allow for
zoning for low-cost housing)”19
13 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 136, January 6, 1961
14 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
15 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
16 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
17 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 108
18 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15,1968
19 Desert Sun, “The Section 14 Story III, Elation Over Housing Okay Fades as Recession Comes,”
November 15, 1968
2206/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
● As Mayor in 1961, Bogert directly hired Charles Jordan, the city’s first Black employee and a
resident of Section 14. Through this hire, and by advocating for minority interests in
general, Bogert directly contributed to the city’s first completed housing project for Section
14 residents. Indeed, Jordan was instrumental in the development of Seminole Gardens in
1968, the city’s first federally funded, medium -cost housing project which was prioritized for
Section 14 residents. Bogert made this unprecedented hire when it was unpopular to do so.
When Jordan returned to Palm Springs after graduating from Gonzaga University, Los
Angeles Times reporter Ken Reich explained:
“It was then Mayor Frank Bogert who gave him a job as a recreation supervisor.
Jordan said he had suggested to Bogert at the time, 1961, that he might not be
accepted by whites in that position. Bogert had been adamant about going
ahead with the job offer, and it was the beginning of a brilliant career for
Jordan.”20
○ Indeed, Bogert’s championing of Jordan, at a time when no Black resident w as
employed by the city, was the catalyst to a brilliant career. After working as a city official
in Palm Springs, Jordan ran the Parks Departments in both Austin, Texas and Portland,
Oregon. He was the first ever Black city councilmember in Portland and the first to serve
as city commissioner. After leaving public office he ran the Conversation Fund, an
environmental non-profit, where he established a land trust for Black farmers. President
Ronald Reagan appointed both Jordan and Bogert to the Presiden t's Commission on
Americans Outdoors, where they worked together to promote nationwide recreational
opportunities for citizens.21 Jordan served as an ex-officio member of a multiracial
housing committee Bogert created to work with and help Section 14 resid ents during
relocations. As the Desert Sun said, “Jordan made tremendous strides toward greater
understanding and respect between all races in Palm Springs and worked toward
greater involvement of blacks in community affairs, helping to bring City Hall cl oser to
the (Black) community than ever before.”22
○ After being promoted to assistant to the City Manager, Jordan was instrumental in
securing funding for and developing the aforementioned Seminole Gardens
housing project.23 Serving on the Palm Springs Housing Committee and active in
community relations, Jordan worked to understand the needs of the Black community
and other minorities and to develop a housing plan for Section 14 residents.
○ In June of 1987 while giving the commencement speech at Palm Sprin gs High School,
Jordan thanked Bogert for taking a chance on him and giving him a job with the
city after college.24
20 http://takebackthetimes.blogspot.com/2006/10/memorable-50th-high-school -class.html
21 The Oregonian, “Charles Johnson remembered: Portland’s first African American commissioner and
long time parks director was “a giant in this city,” April 4, 2014
22 Desert Sun, Volume 43, Number 282, July 2, 1970
23 CVRA Community Working Group — Report to Palm Springs City Council, September 27, 2018
24 Desert Sun, “Commencement speaker: You can go home again,” June 12, 1987
2306/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
○ To recap: Bogert hired the city’s first Black employee, Charles Jordan, when he was
unable to find another job after college. Jordan, who was a former Section 14 resident,
was instrumental in completing the city’s first federally financed housing project,
Seminole Gardens. This housing project was prioritized for Section 14 residents and is
even referenced in the HRC’s Report. Jordan went on to have a brilliant political career
and positively impacted the lives of many Black citizens, due in part to the chance
Bogert took on him in 1961 when others didn’t. (See Jordan photo.)
Low-Cost Housing Timeline
Bogert worked relentlessly to find housing for Section 14
residents and to minimize the effects of the legal evictions
The timeline below is just one example of many in which the HRC purposely provides a one -
sided, dishonest assessment of Bogert and Section 14. Inexplicably, the HRC falsely claims
that Bogert “demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by these eviction s”25 and
makes similar statements on at least 15 separate occasions in the Report. In reality however,
nothing could be further from the truth. Over a span of 10 years, both during and after his
Mayoral term, Bogert worked “tirelessly” to find housing fo r evicted Section 14 residents.
The timeline below confirms to what great lengths Bogert went to secure low -cost housing and
to address the harms caused by the relocations and evictions. It must be stressed that several
of these quotes came from the same articles and sources the HRC cited in its Report. In other
words, the HRC saw these same exact quotes and facts but intentionally omitted this
refuting information in order to support its false narrative that Bogert “demonstrated no
effort to address the harms caused by these evictions.”
● January 196126
○ Bogert asks the city for an “Urban Redevelopment Program” on Section 14.
○ The Desert Sun notes: “Mayor Frank Bogert...has sought to promote a minority
housing development in the Palm Springs area”
○ Additionally, the Desert Sun claims, “since he was elected to the council almost
three years ago, (Bogert) has been working steadily to get private money to build
a low-cost rental unit project for (Section 14 residents), but the location of it has
been the big problem.”
○ ‘'If it is too far from downtown, they can't get into town, and there just isn't any place they
can go downtown,” said the Mayor.
● February 196127
25 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 46
26 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 136, January 6, 1961
27 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 161, February 4, 1961
2406/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
○ Bogert enacts a bond program for the purchase of land used for the airport.
○ Part of the justification for purchasing the land is not just for the airport itself, but for the
development of low-cost housing as well.
■ Indeed, “The Mayor also mentioned that the purchase of the airport by the people of
Palm Springs may solve many other problems which to date have plagued the resort
community. One of these is the initiation of a low -cost housing project eyed for
the north-east corner of the land. According to the Mayor, backers have
approached the city seeking such a project.”
● March 196128
○ “Bogert, in his official capacity as Mayor, has served a request to the FHA and HHFA to
come to Palm Springs and discuss a federal housing program, especially in connection
with their project 221, the replacement of displaced persons...Mayor Bogert said that the
federal representatives have looked at a couple of parcels of land which could qualify
under the requirements of FHA and HHFA.”
● May 196129
○ He later stated that, although the city was rushing the slum clearance of Section 14, the
city council was not interested in persecuting anyone, emphasizing that “The biggest
scandal is that people are forced to live in these conditions, because we haven’t
done anything about it.”
● June 1961
○ Bogert announces a six-month moratorium on evictions and demolitions in order to
buy time to find housing alternatives.30 The BIA had previously issued a June 1961
deadline for Section 14 evictions, but Bogert issued this six-month moratorium given
housing options weren’t yet in place for Section 14 residents.
■ Bogert enacted this moratorium after hearing directly from two residents in Section
14 who said they came back to find their homes in ashes.31
○ “A promise from Federal Housing Authority representatives to the City Council that
action would be speeded to certify city eligibility for financing guarantees for low -cost
housing, both private homes and rental property.”32
○ Additionally, the Desert Sun states:
■ “Councilmen and members of the Planning Commission had been working more
than a year in anticipation of a housing crisis in Section 14 when the June eviction
deadline arrived, ‘I'm pleased to learn this financing could be rushed through,’ said
Vice-Mayor Ken Kirk. ‘It’s shaping up into a definite program and it looks like no one
will be actually displaced without getting a better home’…Kirk went on to credit
Mayor Bogert and Councilman Ted McKinney with spearheading work on
28 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 182, March 1, 1961
29 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 108
30 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, 27 June 1961
31 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan M. Kray.pg 108
32 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, June 27, 1961
2506/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
obtaining housing for families evicted from Section 14. “They've worked very
hard on it.” he said. “It's good to see things moving along.”33
● July 196134
○ Bogert creates a special committee, which he leads, to work on minority housing
problems related to Section 14.
■ Among those named to the committee is the Rev. Jeff Rollins, a Black
community leader and a friend of Bogert’s.
○ This committee had four functions:
■ Inform the community of the substandard conditions in Section 14.
■ Inform the community and those being relocated about the assistance they were
eligible for under Section 221, which provided 100% financing for relocation with only
$200 down.
■ Assist relocated families in finding alternative housing within their price range.
■ Communicate important updates and details to all related parties of Section 14.
○ The city submits a program for community improvement “made in support of the city's
application for federal aid in relocation housing for persons to be moved from a portion of
Section 14 marked a major step toward solving the problems of displacement, caused by
area development”
○ The Desert Sun stated, “As Palm Springs builds for the future, it is working for
adequate housing for its citizens.”
● Mid-July 196135
○ Bogert endorses and pushes for the low-cost housing development plans of Lawrence
Crossley, a Black city pioneer and close friend of Bogert’s. These plans included 150
low-cost, two-story units in Section 20.
○ “Mayor Frank Bogert, long active in trying to solve the housing problems of the
minority groups in Section 14 said he thought the Gould-Crossley project would
be a good thing,”
○ In fact, Bogert even pushed city council and officials to relax zoning ordinances to
enable the Crossley development to proceed as quickly as possible:
■ “I think we ought to stretch a point and let them have the zoning they want...Due to
the housing emergency at the present time, we have to lean over backwards.”
○ Regardless of which low-cost housing projects the city approved, Bogert demanded that
the new dwellings be suitable for the people of Section 14:
■ “Nevertheless, Mayor Bogert emphasized, he wanted to be sure any dwellings built
for rentals would be good housing. “I don’t want to see another slum area. If
someone is going to build a place for these people, it should be good.”
● August 196136
○ Federal Housing Association approves a $2.5 million housing development for families
displaced by Section 14 evictions.
33 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 283, June 27, 1961
34 Desert Sun, Volume 34, Number 298, July 14 1961
35 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15,1968
36 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 12, August 18, 1961
2606/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
○ The development was spearheaded by N & W Development Corp., whom Bogert had
pushed to help find a solution to the housing crisis. Indeed:
■ “The Mayor, working tirelessly for a low-cost housing project, had asked (N & W
Development) some months ago if (they) couldn't come up with a solution to the ever
increasing problem of homes for the scores of people who are residing in Section 14
and who are presently on notice that they must move from their present homes to
make way for a full-scale Indian Section clearance program.”
○ Upon hearing that the FHA and FHAA had approved this $2.5 million plan, Bogert “was
elated. It had brought to an end the months upon months of studying for a solution to a
problem which was only worsening with time.”
○ Unfortunately, the N & W project ultima tely failed as the developers went through a
period of “tight money” brought upon by a recession that had hit the country. This
recession “set back many major housing and building development projects
everywhere,” not just in Palm Springs. Additionally, the recession “was particularly
harmful to the city’s plans for the immediate solution to the problems of Section 14.”37
● September 196138
○ The city and Frank Bogert secure a certification from the “Housing and Home Finance
administrator proclaiming that Pa lm Springs has qualified for Federal Aid in its Workable
Program for community improvement”
○ “U.S. Housing administrator Robert C. Weaver has determined that this community's
program meets Federal requirements….The certification means that Palm Springs can
proceed with its program, under federal assistance, to utilize appropriate private and
public resources to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of slums and urban
blight: to encourage needed urban rehabilitation; to provide for the development o f
blighted, deteriorated or slum areas, or to undertake other activities as may be suitable
employed to achieve the objective of such a program.”
● October 196139
○ Bogert and the city council “rezoned five acres of Section 20 for 120 low -cost housing
units. Developer Robert Gould applied for a low-interest loan for the project and
subsequently announced the city had qualified for it.”
● December 196140
○ Bogert and the city rezone seven and a half acres in Section 34 for 200 to 250 low -cost
housing units. The developer for this project unfortunately died before the project could
get underway and the development was cancelled.
● 196141
○ As detailed earlier, Bogert hires Charles Jordan as the city’s first Black employee.
Jordan would go on to serve on a special citizens’ committee created by Bogert to assist
37 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 89, November 15, 1968
38 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 30, September 8, 1961
39 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
40 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
41 http://takebackthetimes.blogspot.com/2006/10/memorable-50th-high-school -class.html
2706/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Section 14 families with relocation. He was instrumental in securing the city’s first
federally financed housing project in 1968.
● Early 196242
○ “Certificates of eligibility for the Section 221 loan plan were distributed by the city’s
building inspector.” These certificates were to provide financing for relocation for
Section 14 residents.
● August 196243
○ “The Palm Springs City Council last night ordered an administrative investigation and
report on Section 14 burnings carried out under a Superior Court order last month. The
council took the action after emphasizing that the city was not involved in the action, nor
could it legally make payments for personal goods lost in answer to a plea by 72 -year-
old Mrs. Florence Fatheree for city payment for her house and household goods.”
● September 196244
○ City approves plans for low-cost homes in the southeast section of town.
● Mid-1963
○ “A judge struck down a proposed affordable housing project”45
● January 1965
○ When Indian agent Paul Hand stated that city sponsored public housing could be built on
Indian reservations, Bogert asked “Where could you put this public housing?” asked the
Mayor. There was no answer to his questions,” 46 demonstrating the difficulty in finding
land for relocated Section 14 residents.
○ The city council approves 20 acres to be rezoned in Section 20 for 300 low -cost housing
units.47
● September 196548
○ When the city needed to enact a “workable program” in order to secure federal funds for
low-cost housing and when inspections to comply were lagging, Bogert pushed to
accelerate the completion of tasks needed to qualify for the federal program .
○ “Mayor Frank Bogert however, pointed out that this would delay the program about 4
months and asked Aleshire to proceed as rapidly as possible with the inspection using
present staff members...the proposed low-cost housing would be located in the lower
half of Section 34. The city has also met most of its workable program requirements,
including a master plan and zoning.”
42 University of California Press, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2004, The Path to
Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the Making of Palm Springs, Ryan Kray, pg 113
43 Desert Sun, “Section 14 Probe Set,” August 14, 1962
44 Desert Sun, Volume 36, Number 44, September 25, 1962
45 Desert Sun, “‘It was beautiful for the white people:' 1960s still cast a shadow of distrust over Palm
Springs,” September 22, 2016
46 Desert Sun, Volume 38, Number 143, January 19, 1965
47 Desert Sun, Volume 42, Number 99, November 27, 1968
48 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 44, September 24, 1965
2806/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
● November 196549
○ Under Bogert’s leadership, the city created a human relations commission. The
commission was recommended, “partially because it is needed to fulfill provisions of a
“workable program" the city has submitted to the federal government for low -cost
housing aid”
○ Bogert, who was a member himself, appointed a multiracial committee, comprised of
members representing various minority groups, including Rev. Rollins of the First Baptist
Church, Eileen Miguel of the Agua Caliente Tribe, Rabbi Joe Hurwitz, and John
Quinonez.
● January 196650
○ Even up until his last months in office, Bogert was working furiously to secure low -cost
housing:
○ Bogert helped create and conducted a meeting for the human relations commission to
“alleviate problems of minority groups in Palm Springs.”
○ Bogert “outlined some of the aims of the present committee. Among them, he said,
would be its relationship with economic opportunity programs and with the city’s
workable program which would pave the way for federal aid in low -cost housing
developments.
In addition to his constant efforts seeking low-cost housing during his Mayoral term, Bogert
even continued seeking affordable housing options after his term ended in early 1966 .
He did so by partnering with leaders of the Black community.
● May 5, 196751
○ “Backed by city council support, former Mayor Frank Bogert today prepared to go to
Washington in an attempt to obtain federal aid in low -cost housing for Palm
Springs. Bogert, who has been working on a program for low -cost housing for 10
years, received a consensus of approval from the council yesterday at a stud y
session…. Bogert will seek a 250 -unit housing complex adjacent to the Gateway Estates
and will try to get federal subsidies for a ‘Model Neighborhood Program’ which would
include the housing project.”
○ “The former Mayor noted that the city has had a worka ble program for three years, an
FHA requirement for aiding private developers in construction of low -cost housing.
“There is a great demand for low-cost housing for the working force in the city,”
Bogert told the council. “Something must be done for them.”
○ “Bogert pointed out that as a result of the Indian -owned Section 14 cleanup campaign
many of the city’s hotel workers and domestics were forced to move to Banning and to
Beaumont. “There were a lot of fine people moved out of Section 14 ,” he told the
council.”
49 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 97, November 25, 1965
50 Desert Sun, Volume 39, Number 131, January 5, 1966
51 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 235, May 5, 1967
2906/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
○ “(Bogert) said he had conferred with FHA officials in San Francisco on a 250 -unit
housing development. But, he said, they recommended only 60 units. This is far from
sufficient”, he added.
○ “We’re not trying to create a paradise to bring in people fro m Los Angeles,” (Bogert)
declared “but we do need enough to take care of our labor force. There is a terrific
demand for housing for the working people.”
● May 18, 196752
○ The “possibility of getting 180 units of low-cost housing for Palm Springs was described
as good today by former Mayor, Frank Bogert, after conferring with Federal Housing
Administration officials.”
○ “Bogert and a group interested in obtaining low -cost housing for the city returned this
week from Washington where they met with officials.”
○ “With Bogert (on the trip to Washington) was…Rev. Jeff Rollins, pastor of the First
Baptist Church.”
○ “He said the local delegation made the FHA officials aware of the Section 14 cleanup in
which a large number of residents were forced to leave Palm Springs for Banning and
Garnet and other nearby areas.” These residents, Bogert said, still work in Palm
Springs and would prefer to live here.”
● August 196753
○ Rev. Rollins speaks before the city council urging them to pass emergency zoning laws
in order to facilitate Bogert’s proposed development project.
○ The First Baptist Church and the Los Angeles Psychological -Social Center are co-
sponsors of Bogert’s low-cost housing project.
● September 196754
○ Bogert meets with school trustees to push for low-cost housing plans for displaced
residents.
○ Bogert stresses to the trustees that “low-cost development is needed to house the
city’s hotel work force.”
○ Furthermore, “Bogert said he...covered Palm Springs thorough ly to locate economically
priced land for the low-cost development. The only place they could find, he said, was
the proposed location.”
● November 196755
○ City Council all but kills Bogert’s low-cost housing plans.
○ A council member “indicated the federal rent supplement program on which the
development hinged, was untested “and there is no experience on which the city can
rely. Federal Housing Administration regulations call for approval by the city council
before funds will be allocated” but ultimately the city council disapproved of the rent
supplemental program.
52 Desert Sun, Volume 40, Number 246, May 28, 1967
53 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 21, August 29, 1967
54 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 35, September 24, 1967
55 Desert Sun, Volume 41, Number 99, November 28, 1967
3006/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
○ “Former Mayor Frank Bogert, who said he had worked for 10 years or more on
getting low -cost housing for the area, said it was obvious the council wouldn’t
listen to the proposal. Rev. Jeff Rollins, pastor of the First Baptist Church which
would have been sponsor of the development, termed the action short-sighted on
the part of the council.”
Examples of the HRC falsely accusing Bogert of not seeking low -cost housing and not caring for
the welfare of Section 14 residents
The Report whitewashes the crucial fact that Bogert went to great lengths to minimize the
effects of the evictions (specifically by “tirelessly” working on low-cost housing) and also falsely
claims that Bogert, “did not take adequate measures to address the needs of our most
vulnerable people.”56 The housing timeline provides an overwhelming amount of evidence to
refute all of the false and/or misleading claims below made by the HRC in its Report.:
● “City decision makers focused their energy clearing Section 14 for development instead of
addressing the core issue of housing for those displaced.”57
● “During this time, civic and business leaders were focused on commercial development and
maintaining the resort image of Palm Springs without ensuring the residents they displaced
had access to affordable housing or were provided just compensation.”58
● “Regrettably, no low-cost or affordable housing plan was realized to care for Black,
Indigenous, persons of color and other working class families displaced under city directed
forced evictions.”59
● “City decision makers focused their energy clearing Section 14 for development instead of
addressing the core issue of housing for those displaced.”60
● “No city plan for relocation, coupled with racial covenants preventing African Americans
from buying land in Palm Springs, displaced residents were forced to d isperse to the north
part of town.”61
● “Prior administrations recognized access to housing for those evicted was a concern. The
plans developed during Frank Bogert’s term, for demolition and burning of homes, continued
in Palm Springs during and less than two years past Bogert’s mayoral term.”62
56 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 25 -26
57 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report Pg 6
58 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 6
59 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 6
60 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 6
61 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 8
62 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 17
3106/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
● “The fact remains that people of color were banished from city limits and city leaders didn’t
intervene”63
● “No replacement housing was ever constructed. Rather, the residents were simply expelled
through forced eviction and their homes destroyed.”64
● “Facing a human rights crisis, why didn’t the Desert Sun or city leaders move to upgrade
the shacks to improve dangerous or unhealthy living conditions for tax paying residents?”65
● “Our city leaders did not take ade quate measures to address the needs of our most
vulnerable people.”66
● “Bogert’s Positive Traits and Attributes Did Not Surface to Aid Those Being Evicted.”67
● “History documents Bogert was more often found to disregard the values of ethical and
moral principles. His decisions in planning and preparing the community for low -cost
housing and to plan for financial support of the families the city displaced is a demonstration
of behaviors opposite of the positive traits community members have shared at officia l city
meetings”68
● “In our opinion, the reality of Bogert’s decisions and judgement while serving his first term
as mayor was mismatched between his actual behaviour and actions and a community's
perception of the person he was.”69
● “A society based on norms and values expects one with entrenched values would have
acted in good faith and stepped up to stop the eviction process until low -cost housing
alternatives and financial support was made available to the impacted families.”70
● “Bogert demonstrated no effort to address the harms caused by these evictions.”71
● “Low-Cost Housing Timeline”72
○ The most egregious example of the HRC concealing Bogert’s e fforts to secure low-cost
housing occurs in a section titled “Low-Cost Housing Timeline,” whereby the HRC
provides a timeline relating to the city’s efforts to seek low -cost housing for Section 14
residents. This timeline is further proof of the disingenu ous and biased nature of the
Report. Despite a voluminous amount of documentation (including in the same
articles the HRC cites) that Bogert worked constantly to secure low -cost housing,
63 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 15
64 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 23
65 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 24
66 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 25 -26
67 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
68 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
69 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
70 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 45
71 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 46
72 Palm Springs City Hall Monument Report pg 31 -32
3206/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
never once is his name mentioned in the timeline. No mention of him pushing
private developers to build low -cost housing. No mention of him securing housing
certificates from the FHA for displaced residents. No mention of him pushing for and
supporting the low-cost development projects of Lawrence Crossley. No mention of the
multiracial citizen’s committee he put together to study potential solutions to the housing
crisis and to communicate with and hear the voices of minority residents. No mention of
the numerous quotes of Bogert saying the city needed to find housing for the displaced.
No mention of him partnering with his friend Reverend Rollins after he left office to
secure low-cost housing. No mention of him lobbying in Washington with Rollins for low -
cost housing funding. No mention of him searching for and ap plying for numerous
federal assistance programs. No mention of him hiring Charles Jordan, the city’s first
ever Black employee, who was instrumental in securing the city’s first federally funded
housing project which was prioritized for Section 14 residen ts.
3306/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
PHOTO #273
Bogert with the Rev. Jeff Rollins in Washington, D.C., in 1967. Bogert and Rollins went
to Washington the year after Bogert left office to seek funds and approval from the
Federal Housing Authority (FHA) to build low -cost housing for Section 14 residents.
From the Desert Sun: Bogert “said the local delegation made the FHA officials aware of
the Section 14 cleanup in which a large number of residents were forced to leave Palm
Springs for Banning and Garnet and other nearby areas. ‘These residents,’ Bogert said,
‘still work in Palm Springs and would prefer to live here.’”
73 Desert Sun, pg 1, May 23, 1967
3406/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
PHOTO #374
Bogert displaying a housing certification to city officials that he and the city were able to
secure for Section 14 residents. This certificate would provide Section 14 residents with
100% financing for relocation with only $200 down. The “Housing and Home Finance
administrator proclaim(ed) that Palm Springs has qualified for Federal Aid in its
Workable Program for community improvement.”
74 Desert Sun, Volume 35, Number 30, September 8, 1961
3506/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
PHOTO #12
Charles Jordan in 1976.75 Jordan, a former Section 14 resident, was hired by Bogert as
the city’s first Black employee. Jordan was instrumental in the development of
Seminole Gardens, the first federally funded housing project that was prioritized for
Section 14 residents. From Palm Springs, he went on to have an illustrious political
career, serving as Portland’s first Black city councilmember and city commissioner,
running the Conservation Fund, and working with Bogert on Ronald Reagan’s
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. He gave the commencement speech
at Palm Springs High School in 1987 and thanked Bogert for taking a chance on him by
giving him a job in 1961.
76
75 The Astorian, “Former Portland City Commissioner Charles Jordan Dies At Age 77,” April 2, 2004
76 www.portlandpf.com
3606/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
PHOTO #1377.
A Desert Sun article from May 18,1967. Bogert continued seeking low-cost housing for
Section 14 residents the year after leaving office in 1966.
77 Desert Sun, “Low-cost Housing Prospects Good,” May 18, 1967
3706/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
PHOTO #1478
Article from the Desert Sun on June 27, 1961. Bogert and the city issued a six -month
moratorium on legal evictions to allow residents time to seek housing alternatives and to
provide time for the city to explore both private and publicly funded low -cost housing
projects.
78 Desert Sun, “Time-out Called on Section 14,” June 27, 1961
3806/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
PHOTO #1679
Desert Sun headline from August 18, 1961. The HRC claims this development was
proposed in 1968 after Bogert was Mayor, when in reality it was Bogert himself who
pushed for the development as Mayor in 1961. The article states, “The Mayor,
working tirelessly for a low-cost housing project, had asked (the developer) some
months ago if he couldn't come up with a solution to the ever-increasing problem of
homes for the scores of people who are residing in Section 14.”
79 Desert Sun, “$2.5M Apartment Complex Slated for Section 14 Families,” August 18, 1961
3906/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
4006/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Statement by Bernadine Siva (Widow of Pete Siva)
June 30th, 2020
“I have been reading the comments about Frank Bogert and his Statue. I believe the statue
should not be removed or destroyed. Frank Bogert was an Honorable and Honest man. I feel I
must share this with you.
When a few Judges, Attorneys and business men got together and decided that the Indians
were uneducated and not capable of handling their lands and income, which was a potential
gold mine, they created the Guardian and Conservatorship Association. I am not sure but the
Bureau of Indian Affairs must have known about this. There is no justification f or this
Association, most of the Indians had very little income and had to have food on the table and
retain a Tribal Attorney.
My late husband Edmund Peter Siva, a Tribal Member, told me his story. He said ‘The
Attorneys and Business People with the help of the Superior Court were appointing
Conservators like someone in an orchard picking Indians for themselves like they were picking
fruit from the trees.’ He did not want whomever picked to take his estate, which was by the
way very small. He had known Frank for a number of years and he asked him to do him a favor
and take over as conservator to prevent this from happening to him. Frank said you don’t need
a conservator, you are smart and have your father and are capable of managing your own
affairs. Finally, after much conversation pro and con Frank said as a favor to you I will be your
conservator. (He) really did not want to be associated with the group of Lawyers and business
people in this Association, and he never was. The only Conservatorship F rank had was my
husband.
My husband and the Tribal Elders did not like it but the papers were drawn up, taken to the
Court and the Indian’s lives were taken over more or less until 1965. Frank was one of the first
to sign off as a conservator.”
4106/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
“During most of this time I have personally worked as Secretary of the Tribal Council
and for the past two years have been Chairman, so I know to whom credit is due. On
behalf of the tribe, therefore, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the member s of
the Tribal Council who without compensation have given untold hours and incurred
personal sacrifice for the benefit of both their tribe and the City of Palm Springs; in
addition our appreciation goes to: …..
Mayor Frank Bogert of Palm Springs who has consistently demonstrated that he had
both the interests of the Indian people and the City of Palm Springs at heart, and who
has time and time again expended commendable effort in helping find a solution for
some of our problems.”
- Eileen Miguel
Former Agua Caliente Tribal Chair
Book Excerpt,1962
4206/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
4306/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
April 27, 2021
To Whom It May Concern,
Although I did not know Frank Bogert nor did I reside in PS during his tenure, I am
aware of his leadership during the time Section 14 was razed. I am appalled and
saddened by the circumstances surrounding that event and in no way suggest that
they be minimized, discounted or disregarded. I am proud of the City's decision to
issue a written apology to those affected by the actions of past leadership. It should
have happened many years ago when the victims themselves could have benefitted.
The matter of removing Mayor Bogert's statue has, for me, been overshadowed by the
means being used to justify it. The accusatory language in the resolution, the
presentation of anecdotal information as fact, and the weak sources of opinion used as
reference ... were unfair at best and at worst, gave the appearance of character
assassination tactics to achieve a political goal. The substantiating report, which
should have proceeded the resolution vote is, in my opinion, an embarrassing account
of trial by media in spite of legal documentation to the contrary.
Geoff Kors, in his remarks attempted to soften the proposal by saying the city should
not celebrate one individual for the accomplishments of many. I agree. But it is equally
unacceptable to defame one individual for the actions of many. Based on the report
and the proposed resolution, I as a Human Rights Commissioner am being asked to
issue an indictment where I have no authority.
In reviewing the Municipal Code governing the HRC, I am struck by a citation which
can be found at Chapter 2.45, item (c) (1). It speaks to powers and duties and advises
that (we) conduct programs designed to bring groups together to close gaps
resulting from past discriminatory practices and to address proactively current or
ongoing intergroup tensions.
Additionally, as I strive to understand my duties according to our mission, I must also
point to the goal of developing community education programs, as stated in the
Rules of Procedures of the Palm Springs HRC. I feel our impact would have been
stronger and more representative of our charge had we partnered with unbiased
organizations to educate, ameliorate and not persecute. I believe we missed an
important opportunity in our haste toward an action.
Respectfully submitted,
Te rrie Andrade
Palm Springs Human Rights Commission
4406/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
(The following document was provided to Desert Magazine to support a request from Friends of
Frank Bogert to retract false claims made in the magazine’s article “The Millennial Mayor”. The
magazine parroted false claims found in the HRC’s report. Submitted on November 11th, 2022)
***Note: Throughout this document, we reference pages and excerpts from our rebuttal to the
HRC’s report published last year. A link to that rebuttal is provided below.
https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.112.239/vbp.6fa.myftpupload.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/HRCFinalRebuttal 20210913.pdf
The excerpt below from Kent Black’s article “The Millennial Mayor” contains several claims that
are categorically false and unsubstantiated by anything in the historical record.
“One of the sadly neglected chapters of local history involves the city’s decades -long
fight to dispossess the Agua Caliente Tribe of Section 14, a square mile of tribal land in
downtown that was long coveted by past civic leaders such as Frank Bogert . The fight
over it was so vicious that indigenous residents and people of color living on the land
would sometimes came home from work to find their homes bulldozed by the city
because of “a code violation.” – Excerpt from “The Millennial Mayor”
“The Millennial Mayor” parrots false claims from the HRC’s report, claims that are plagiarized
from a graduate student’s essay
Our first objection is that it is evident that Mr. Black’s article regurgitates false claims and
similar language from HRC’s slanderous report. On page 46 of its report, the HRC falsely states
the following:
It is acknowledged that civic leaders, councilmembers and city employees were involved
with attempting to dispossess the Indians of their tribal lands and erase any blighted
neighborhoods that might degrade “the city beautiful.” – Excerpt from HRC’s report
Given the similarities in language between “The Millennial Mayor” and the HRC’s sentence
above, it’s clear that Mr Black is parroting the slanderous claims in made in the HRC’s report,
which have been thoroughly discredited and even rejected by the City Council.
To make matters worse, the HRC plagiarized the excerpt above, amongst many others in its
report, directly from “The Path to Paradise: Expropriation, Exodus, and Exclusion in the making
of Palm Springs, an essay written by a graduate student at the University of Irvine in 2004.
Below is a passage from this essay which is nearly identical to what’s found in the HRC’s report,
and subsequently in “The Millennial Mayor”:
4506/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Palm Springs civic leaders persecuted their lower-income constituents who resided on
the local Native American reservation . Attempting to dispossess the Indians of their
tribal lands and erase any blighted neighborhoods that might degrade “the city
beautiful”. – Excerpt from “The Path to Paradise”
For additional background, Pages 70-71 in our rebuttal provide examples of the HRC plagiarizing
this essay. Disappointingly, the HRC’s plagiaristic and false claims have found themselves in
other Desert Sun articles over the past y ear. For example, in an August 23rd article last year, the
Desert Sun wrote:
“According to the Human Rights Commission report, city officials in Palm Springs from
1958 to 1966 ‘privileged aesthetics over social welfare ’ and ‘deferred to the interests
of a wealthy business elite’ with the demolition of about 200 homes on Section 14.”
Below is an excerpt from the graduate student’s essay, A Path to Paradise:
“In Palm Springs, however, city officials deferred to the interests of a wealthy business
elite. Rather than struggling with the conflicting ideals of “beauty and justice” as in
other cities, Palm Springs officials privileged aesthetics over social welfare .”
The following claims in Mr. Black’s article are verifiably false and not supported by primary
sources nor by direct quotes from multiple Tribal Chairs
False Claim #1 - “One of the sadly neglected chapters of local history involves the city’s
decades-long fight to dispossess the Agua Caliente Tribe of Section 14, a square mile of
tribal land in downtown that was long coveted by past civic leaders such as Frank
Bogert.”
First, the statement that Frank Bogert “coveted” and attempted to “dispossess” the Tribe of
Section 14 is slanderous and unsupported by anything in the historical record. Not only is Mr.
Black’s assertion recklessly inaccurate, but in fact the opposite was true. Bogert was
instrumental in fighting for the Tribal rights and lobbying on their behalf to secure long -term
lease laws which were vital for the Tribe to develop their land on Section 14 and lift its
members out of poverty. This statement should be retracted and re-worded into a factual
statement such as, “Frank Bogert was the only non-Indian Palm Springs resident to actively
assist the Tribal Council to convince Congress to allow tribal members to enter into long -term
leases which would make their land much more valuable.”
We provide quotes in our rebuttal and in this document from 5 separate Tribal Chairs (and their
family members) who directly invalidate Mr . Black’s preposterous claim that Bogert sought to
4606/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
dispossess the Tribe of its land. These Tribal Chairs reaffirm the fact that Bogert was an ally of
the Tribe, an advocate of its sovereignty, and was instrumental in helping Tribal members
secure long sought-after long-term leases.
These quotes from Tribal Chairs and their family members are as follows (along with where
they can be found in the rebuttal):
• Page 13: In 1962 (during Section 14 evictions and clearing), then Tribal Chair Eileen
Miguel stated:
o “Our appreciation goes to...Mayor Frank Bogert of Palm Springs who has
consistently demonstrated that he had both the interests of the Indian people
and the City of Palm Springs at heart, and who has time and time again
expended commendable effort in helping find a solution for some of our
problems.”
• Pages 13 and 42: Long-time Tribal Chair Richard Milanovich said:
o “Bogert’s contribution to regional Tribes is significant …Hotels eventually
developed major properties on the Tribe’s land, Milanovich said. ‘You couldn’t get
long-term commercial leasing from the (Bureau of Indian Affairs) before Bogert
added his lobbying muscle. This was very important.’”
o “At Bogert’s funeral in 2009, Milanovich said the cowboy mayor had been an
inspiration to him growing up .”
• Page 90 and attached in the email: In 1966 after the City and Tribe worked together
on zoning and to clear Section 14, then Tribal Chairman Pete Siva wrote a letter to the
City Council thanking them for their help.
o “The Tribal Council for the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians want you to
know that they commend you for your recent Clean-Up campaign and they ask
that you consider this letter as a note of their apprec iation.”
• Pages 9-10: Family members of Pete Siva and Richard Milanovich called the HRC’s
report and attempts to remove the statue “appalling, disgusting, slander(ous)”
• Attached in the email: In a letter written last year to the City Clerk for public comment,
former Tribal Chair Barbara Gonzales said the following:
o “The Federal Government, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Agua Caliente Tribal Council
came decided that (Section 14) needed to be cleaned up and asked the City of
Palm Springs for their assistance in getting it done…I believe removing Frank
Bogert’s statue is an injustice to him”.
Furthermore, the rebuttal details Bogert’s efforts to fight for Tribal sovereignty and to lobby on
its behalf for long-term leases and equal allotments.
• Pages 10-13: Highlights why developing Section 14 was critical for the Tribe’s economic
well-being and what Frank Bogert did help enable this development.
4706/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
• Pages 13 and 36: Provides details on Bogert working with the all-female Tribal Council
to secure long-term leases.
False Claim #2 - “One of the sadly neglected chapters of local history involves the city’s
decades-long fight to dispossess the Agua Caliente Tribe of Section 14 , a square mile of
tribal land in downtown that was long coveted by past civic leaders such as Frank Bogert .”
Secondly, we object to and seek a retraction of the phrase “The fight was so vic ious ...” There
was no “fight” – unless one would define the actions of the Tribal Council and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to rid their land, the city’s assistance, of a ‘slum’ as a “fight.”
As detailed throughout the rebuttal, the decades long “fight” occurred between the Tribe and
the Federal Government, mainly the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) and the Department of the
Interior. In fact, the City, and specifically Frank Bogert, came to the Tribe’s aid to 1) lobby for
long sought after Equalization and Long-Term Leasing Acts and 2) assist with addressing Section
14 so that the Tribe could develop its land and enhance the economic well -being of its
members.
• The events of Section 14 were a collaborative period between the Tribe and the City,
NOT a combative one. From the rebuttal:
o Page 82: “The city has helped us at different times when we needed help with
their legislators in Sacramento and Washington DC. So it became a good
working relationship that continues to this day” -Vyola Ortner, who was Tribal
Chair when the Equalization and Long-Term Lease acts were passed in 1959.
o Page 82: ‘The continued cooperation between the Indians and the townspeople
is certain and will stimulate progress far beyond the dreams of most
people,’….Vyola Ortner confirmed, “We had a real good relationship between
the two councils at that time.” – Excerpt from “You Can’t Eat Dirt”. Note that
Ortner’s period as Tribal Chair overlapped with Bogert’s term as Mayor in the
late 1950’s and early 1960’s.
o Page 39: Provides a photo of one of the many meetings b/w the Tribal and City
councils to resolve the Section 14 housing crisis.
• Pages 16-20: Details the decades long fight over Tribal lands between the Tribe and the
Federal Government, and how discriminatory Federal laws directly led to the Section 14
crisis that Bogert inherited upon becoming Mayor.
• Page 71-73: Provides a timeline detailing the Tribe’s decades long struggle with the
Federal Government, not the City and chronicles the problematic federal laws that the
Tribe fought so hard to overturn (and eventually did with Bogert’s help).
• Pages 79-81: Details the negative impact that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Department of the Interior had on the Tribe and on Section 14. One such quote on
these pages from Vyola Ortner:
o “I personally feel that the blame lies with the Bureau of Indian Affairs . I feel if
inequity and injustice are being practiced, they surel y must be corrected…The
4806/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Bureau of Indian Affairs does not represent the best interests of the Indians any
longer” – Tribal Chair Vyola Orter at a Congressional Hearing in 1968
False Claim #3 - The fight over it was so vicious that indigenous residents and people of
color living on the land would sometimes came home from work to find their homes
bulldozed by the city because of “a code violation.”
Third and lastly, we object to and seek a retraction for multiple claims in the sentence above.
First, its inaccurate to say that indigenous residents came home to find their homes bulldozed
when indigenous tribal members themselves (through the Tribal Council) came to the city for
help to clear Section 14 and worked with the city for years on zoning and deve lopment plans.
Additionally, claiming that the city bulldozed homes merely for a “code violation” is at best
misleading and a gross oversimplification. The sentence above also implies that residents came
home to find their find their homes bulldozed with out warning. This is false and the historical
record shows residents were provided advanced notice of the Tribe’s plans to clear Section 14
(see page 23 of the rebuttal).
For background, the record shows that in 1950 there were around 5,000 people living in
Section 14 and in 1952 the Tribal Council, at the urging of the California State Housing
Department and the County Health Department and with the support of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, decreed that no more leases would be renewed on the land in Secti on 14 which was
occupied by sub-standard structures. As early as 1953 substandard dwellings – meaning
virtually all existing structures – were ordered demolished unless they could be brought up to
state health and sanitation standards and the deadline was repeatedly pushed back and
standards lowered. The area was referred to as a “slum” by the County Health Department.
By the time the city got involved in 1965 in the demolition of the final structures there were no
more than 200-400 individuals living in these structures. The record shows that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs paid the Sherriff Department to deliver notices of evictions to these last
remaining residents and paid the city to demolish the structures. The Desert Sun stated that
Fire Department records showed that by the time Section 14 had been cleared between 1965
and 1967 that 235 structures were abated which included 92 abandoned structures and the
remaining 143 were evicted by Indian owners. It is unclear how many of the abated structures
were used as housing.
The historical record shows that Section 14 was a complex issue involving tribal sovereignty and
municipal land use, not racism
It’s disingenuous for Ms Holstege to claim that she was “really shocked to have so much
pushback because I thought, ‘Look at Section 14, just Google it.’ There was pushback because
the City and HRC decided to remove the statue under false pretenses , which Ms Holstege is well
aware of. Countless members of the community, tribal members, Section 14 re sidents and the
4906/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
members of the Palm Springs Historical Society all provided public statements refuting the
HRC’s false claims and the City’s purposeful distortion of history to justify the statute’s removal.
While the historical record shows that the clearing of Section 14 was driven by Tribal
sovereignty instead of racism, Ms Holstege and others in the community are certainly entitled
to think otherwise. Where Mr Black’s article falls gravely short though is that it highlights Ms
Holstege’s opinion that Section 14’s evictions were racist but fails to provide both sides of the
issue. Not doing so contradicts the Desert Sun’s principle of ethical conduct, ““We will strive to
include all sides relevant to a story”
Our rebuttal provides substantial, and well sourced documentation supporting the fact that the
evictions were not discriminatory in nature and were instead driven by the Tribe’s long sought
desire for long-term leases to enhance the value of its land and lift tribal members out of
poverty. Specifically, we’d point the Desert Sun to the following which could have been
presented by Mr Black to offer a more balanced and accurate article:
• Page 11 of the rebuttal: “For (Tribal Chair Vyola Ortner), the clearing of Section 14 was
not about race or class…. She addressed the current inhabitants and subpar living
standards on Section 14 from the subjective perspective of Indians as minorities seeking
the freedom to exercise their rights and create economic opportunities for themselves
and their children by preparing for a development project on Indian land that was
conceived and executed by Indians. For her, that was the only racial dimension. She has
said, "It didn't matter what color skin the residents had; they could have all been
purple! The issue was, this was our land and we had a right to develop it."
• Page 27 of the rebuttal: As of 1961, there were almost three times as many white
families (including Latinos) than Black families who lived on Section 14 . The HRC,
however, focuses its Report almost exclusively on the experiences of Black families.
• Earlier this year, the curator for the Palm Springs Historical Society gave a thoroughly
researched presentation titled “A Comprehensive Timeline of Racism, Antisemitism and
Sexuality Discrimination in Palm Springs." After thorough researching Section 14, mainly
reviewing primary source documents, she concluded that “her research suggests the
evictions were more about tribal sovereignty than racism . She also hopes that her
presentation will shed additional light on the struggles the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians faced in being able to use their land and how that manifested in the
eventual eviction process.”
• In an email to the City last year, former Tribal Chair Barbara Gonzales stated, “To
condemn (Bogert) is wrong and the cleaning up of Section 14 was not a racist issue all
the people that lived there were told they would have to leave, Anglo, Mexican
American, African American and Native Americans, all had to leave. Not racism but a
health problem.”
5006/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
(Response from Kent Black after Friends of Frank Bogert requested a retraction and apology for
his article, “The Millennial Mayor” which parroted falsehoods in the HRC’s report )
November 15, 2022
Dear Mr. Evans; Mr.King; Ms. Bogert, Mr. Christian;
We have received your letter regarding the November profile in Desert Magazine, “The
Millennial Mayor” and the objections to a paragraph relating to the history and controversy
surrounding Section 14. As point out in your letter, it is indeed a complex issue and one that
requires greater dissection than a single paragraph affords.
First, I want to make clear that neither myself nor any of our editorial team is invested in
this issue. We are not the Desert Sun; we are an advertising magazine. Our purpose in profiling
people in the November issue was not political; it was purely on being positive role models in
the gay community. Personally, I had zero awareness of the issues surrounding Section 14
before my conversation with Christy Holstege. I certainly have no opinion on the matter.
Unfortunately, my discussion with Ms. Holstege occurred at a moment when I was
unable to record the conversation. I made handwritten notes, but later when I was writing the
piece, I did not feel comfortable directly quoting her. Originally, the paragraph read something
to the effect of “According to former Mayor Holstege…etc. During the editing process that
attribution was cut and because we had no top editor in place to oversee the final drafts of
stories, it slipped through and sounded as if I was sounding a personal opinion on the subject.
As I said before, I was not.
Nonetheless, this is the result of sloppy editing and too few eyes on manuscripts before
they go into production.
I sincerely apologize for this lapse of standards. If it’s any consolation, we now have
three editors in place to ensure such mistakes do not occur in the future. A condensed version
of this explanation and apology will appear on the masthead page of our January issue.
Respectfully,
5106/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
Kent Black
Editor-at-Large
Desert Magazine
5206/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
(The following document was provided to KESQ to support a request from Friends of Frank
Bogert to retract false claims made in a November 16th, 2022 article. KESQ did not respond to
this request, but updated the article and deleted the fals e statements.)
***Note: In this document, we reference pages and excerpts from our rebuttal to the HRC’s
report published last year. A link to that rebuttal is provided below.
https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.112.239/vbp.6fa.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2020/07/HRCFinalRebuttal 20210913.pdf
Mr Reyes’ article quotes the HRC’s resolution (which the city council voted not to adopt) to
remove the Bogert statue. This quote from the resolution is as follows:
"Mayor Bogert and Palm Springs civic leaders persecuted their lower -income
constituents who resided on the land owned by local Tribal Members. Attempting to
dispossess the Indians of their tribal lands, and erase any blighted neighborhoods that
might degrade the city's resort image, Palm Springs officials developed and implemented
a plan that included having non -Indian conservators appointed by a local judge to
manage the Indians land claiming they were unable to manage it for themselves. The
successful implementation of this plan resulted in the removal of the city's people of
color and restructured the race and class configuration of the city.''
First, as we detailed in our email, the resolution’s language is plagiarized from a college
student’s essay. For background, Pages 70-71 in our rebuttal provide additional examples of
the HRC plagiarizing this essay.
The entire resolution referenced in Mr Reyes’ article and the HRC’s entire report contain
slanderous lies and falsehoods. For the purposes of this retraction though, we will focus solely
on the quoted resolution language in Mr Reyes’ article.
The Resolution’s claim that Bogert attempted to dispossess tribal members is verifiably false
and not supported by primary sources nor by direct quotes from multiple Tribal Chairs
Not only is the resolution’s assertion that Bogert attempted to dispossess the tribe of its land
recklessly inaccurate, but in fact the opposite was true. Bogert was instrumental in fighting for
Tribal rights and lobbying on their behalf to secure long-term lease laws. These long term
leases laws were vital for the Tribe to develop their land on Section 14 and to lift tribal
members out of poverty.
We provide quotes in our rebuttal and in this document from 5 separate Tribal Chairs (and their
family members) who directly invalidate the preposterous claim that Bogert sought to
dispossess the Tribe of its land. These Tribal Chairs reaffirm the fact that Bogert was an ally of
5306/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
the Tribe, an advocate of its sovereignty, and was instrumental in helping Tribal members
secure long sought-after long-term leases.
These quotes from Tribal Chairs and their family members are as follows (along with where
they can be found in the rebuttal):
• Page 13: In 1962 (during Section 14 evictions and clearing), then Tribal Chair Eileen
Miguel stated:
o “Our appreciation goes to...Mayor Frank Bogert of Palm Springs who has
consistently demonstrated that he had both the interests of the Indian people
and the City of Palm Springs at heart, and who has time and time again
expended commendable effort in helping find a solution for some of our
problems.”
• Pages 13 and 42: Long-time Tribal Chair Richard Milanovich said:
o “Bogert’s contribution to regional Tribes is significant …Hotels eventually
developed major properties on the Tribe’s land, Milanovich said. ‘You couldn’t get
long-term commercial leasing from the (Bureau of Indian Affairs) before Bogert
added his lobbying muscle. This was very important.’”
o “At Bogert’s funeral in 2009, Milanovich said the cowboy mayor had been an
inspiration to him growing up .”
• Page 90 and attached in the email: In 1966 after the City and Tribe worked together
on zoning and to clear Section 14, then Tribal Chairman Pete Siva wrote a letter to the
City Council thanking them for their help.
o “The Tribal Council for the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians want you to
know that they commend you for your recent Clean-Up campaign and they ask
that you consider this letter as a note of their appreciation .”
• Pages 9-10: Family members of Pete Siva and Richard Milanovich called the HRC’s
report and attempts to remove the statue “appalling, disgusting, slander(ous)”
• (Not in the rebuttal): In a letter written last year to the City Clerk for public comment,
former Tribal Chair Barbara Gonzales said the following:
o “The Federal Government, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Agua Caliente Tribal Council
came decided that (Section 14) needed to be cleaned up and asked the City of
Palm Springs for their assistance in getting it don e…I believe removing Frank
Bogert’s statue is an injustice to him”.
Furthermore, the rebuttal details Bogert’s efforts to fight for Tribal sovereignty and to lobby on
its behalf for long-term leases and equal allotments.
• Pages 10-13: Highlights why developing Section 14 was critical for the Tribe’s economic
well-being and what Frank Bogert did help enable this development.
• Pages 13 and 36: Provides details on Bogert working with the all-female Tribal Council
to secure long-term leases.
5406/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
5506/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
5606/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
5706/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L
5806/13/2024
Public Comment
Item 1L