HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/18/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 00 VOLUNTEER
(Ps.
ALM SPRINGS,duy iaagond dayfo wluMeeringli,,sand edu..W.emd..¢ .euofpubfesufefy
w X.Iuntee'Palmsprings.org PS Cares P. O. Box 5803 Palm Springs. CA 92263-5803
January 18, 2017
TO: Mayor Robert Moon; Council members Foat, Mills,Roberts, Kors
RE: P.S. Cares public safety roll out—Wednesday,Jan. 25`h
Public comments—City Council Meeting—January 18, 2017
You are cordially invited to attend the public roll out of VPS's new P.S. Cares public safety
program.
Where: Intersection of Sunrise Way/Ramon Road
Time: Noon — reception to follow immediately at the Mizell Senior Center
(reception: 12:30-1:30 approx.)
he Volunteer Palm Springs public roll out presentation of our P.S. Cares public safety program will
include showcasing our custom-designed reflective safety vests, LED flashlights and custom doggie
vests. A core element of the program is our `Your SAFETY matters!'brochure which highlights
safety tips for pedestrian, traffic and bicycle safety.
Our program is dedicated to saving lives and preventing injury through education and awareness of
public safety. Not only is this program timely it is tailored to appeal to residents, visitors, hotel
guests, vacation rental guests, etc. to be more responsible for their safety on the streets of Palm
Springs.
Coming up: `Living the Modern' home tour and fundraiser for P.S. Cares during Modernism
Week— Sunday, February 19tb —9— 7p.m. The home tour is a private home in the Movie Colony
never open to the public before. This fundraiser will allow us to kick-start the program and raise
funds to provide vests (both adult and doggie vests) to senior citizens, people in need and dogs
when they are adopted/rescued at no cost.
P.S. Cares recognizes that there is nothing more precious than a human life. If we can prevent one
accident or pedestrian death our program will be a success. We appreciate your help and support.
Regards,
David Carden,jr., Chair
Volunteer Palm Springs is a 501(C)(3)non-profit organization Tax LD. #27-38A261
dedicated to volunteerism,education and awareness of public safety /rltb `CJ
1.1`a •1� 'N�tc�i v�
Judy Deertrack U
1333 South Belardo Road,Apt 510
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Wednesday,January 18, 2017
To the City Council
Palm Springs, California
S.D. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CROWELL MORING TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES FOR
THE CITY: RECOMMENDATION: Approve an agreement with the law firm of Crowell Moring to provide legal services for the
City in an amount not to exceed $60,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
To the Honorable City Council:
Firstly,this proposed contract is less than transparent, being Item 5D under New Business, very easy to miss, but better than the
Pacheco Incident. This time, at least, the matter was not illegally placed on Closed Session with a failure to report out.
Unfortunately, I find a lot of troubling resemblance in what I consider to be significant violations of the public interest, regardless,
and I equate this series of mishaps to the cty's stubborn refusal to recognize there are still persons in the system making key
decisions, and almost the exclusive decisions, on matters that are directly related to the investigation, with every probability that
the city's decision makers are within a range of either indictment or witness, if only because of the critical public positions they
held during the time of the alleged acts against the public interest.
Of course, leaving staff and council with these dual interests in office will create chaos and further conflicts, and that is what I
see happening. A person cannot worry about their awn vulnerability and clearly represent the public interest in remediation at
the same time. By saying this, I make absolutely no personal statement about anyone's conduct, guilt, or innocence. None of
us have sufficient information to know what has happened, but we know this is a serious and long-ranging investigation, if only
from the FBI receipts themselves,the volume of material produced, and number of officers involved in the raids.
(1) Crowell Moring (Jeff Rutherford) is a prominent firm renowned for its representation of white collar criminal criminal defense.
His own website states, "Mr. Rutherford places a particular emphasis on the representation of individuals and entities in high-
profile, high-stakes political corruption/public integrity, ....matters." So, why does the firm propose all in the same letter of
agreement to represent the city in its potential future claims against employees and city officials at the same time the firm
reserves the right to represent potential criminal defendants still within the system? This is quintessential conflict of interest. It
does not lead the city out of deep waters; it enmeshes the city in further controversy.
(2) Three members of the sitting City Council were decision makers on potential GC 1090 conflict of interest claims that may be
associated with the current FBI probe and ongoing investigation. How can they propose to vote (given the GC 1090 restrictions
against voting on one's own financial interest) on a matter that will provide them a legal defense in the future coming from public
funds? That is voting on a matter of personal financial interest!
(3) Why is this use of funds (commingled with defense representation) not a gift of public funds, given that the profile of the FBI
case leaves the victim as the public interest? Looking at City of Bell v. Robert Rizzo:
"We then consider the statutory provisions governing public entity indemnity for criminal prosecutions and
conclude that, even if the City had contracted to provide Rizzo a defense to criminal prosecutions, such an
agreement would be unenforceable, as the City has no statutory power to make such an agreement."page
f f City of Bell v. Rizzo
"Public policy necessarily rejects the concept that a public entity allegedly victimized by a corrupt employee
must provide that employee with a defense to those charges.". . . . .
"Moreover, to the extent that we are concemed with the provision of a defense to criminal actions, a contract
could not require that result, even if the parties had intended it."page 33 City of Bell v. Rizzo
The City's staff report has not reported anything on the presence or absence of a Tort Act Indemnification Clause within the
employment contracts of any parties who may potentially be under investigation. If nothing else, since no indictments have been
obtained, it is premature to discuss defense against criminal acts arising out of the contracts of the involved individuals.
This whole proposal was shocking to me; and I believe it will be shocking to the general public; this is not a proper use of public
funds.
Judy Deertrack, Resident
ATTACHED: PEOPLE V. ROBERT RIZZO l CITY OF BELL V. ROBERT RIZZO