the current

Tag: woolsey fire

  • A Deadly Trifecta: Covid Cases, Violent Crime and Public Corruption Rise Sharply in LA County – How Supervisor Sheila Kuehl “Reimagines L.A.”

    A Deadly Trifecta: Covid Cases, Violent Crime and Public Corruption Rise Sharply in LA County – How Supervisor Sheila Kuehl “Reimagines L.A.”

    You gotta hand it to Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva. The man has some Mad-Max forward-thinking skills.

    Back on July 21st, based on the decisions made by our county leaders, Sheriff V predicted if massive defunding continued, the streets of Los Angeles would like a scene out of Mad Max.

    Well hot damn if that prediction doesn’t look like it’s coming to fruition a lot faster than any of us – even the top cop in charge in L.A. County – could have possibly imagined it would.

    Last week, state and local officials delivered yet another round of sobering statistics due to the COVID19 crisis. And for those of you who are not sober, by all means feel free to take a shot or two before you take in these statistics – because these numbers are ugly – and defunding hasn’t even happened yet!

    Sheriff Villanueva announced in his weekly live updates on December 2nd, that Homicide is up 31.58% YTD. That is not a typo. Homicide is climbing up in double digits and Aggravated Assault is not far behind, almost entering double digit territory at 9.95%.

    I’m on pins and needles waiting to see how high the numbers go this week!

    Last Wednesday, Sheriff Villanueva delivered some trouble crime statistics on his weekly, live social media updates.

    Not to take away Sheriff V’s thunder and all after producing some impressively frightening numbers, but I was able to find even more staggering statistics coming out of Pasadena. Are you ready for this one? (I suggest double shots at this point).

    Pasadena Police Chief John Perez said, in the past year, his city has seen an 80% spike in violent crime when it comes to gun violence.

    For those of you doing the math, we have just 20% to go until gun violence is up 100% – and that’s just in Pasadena – defunding in L.A. County hasn’t even kicked in yet! 

    Pasadena Daily News, December 3rd, 2020.

     

    It was no surprise to already overburdened, understaffed and soon to be drastically underfunded law enforcement, to see a significant increase in crime due to pandemic fatigue and the devastation to the economy from the virus. But, I certainly don’t think anyone “Reimagined” L.A. would be this bad, this fast. 

    Could it be the “visionaries” behind the defund-first-ask-questions later movement, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Civilian Oversight Commission Chair Patti Giggans and their political enforcer OIG Max Huntsman are too busy “reimagining” what their lives are going to look like after the DA finishes their investigation into the LA Metro Pay-To-Play scam and indictments are handed down?

    Don’t worry, The Current Report will be court side when that goes down.

    GIDDY UP

    After throwing all those horrible statistics your way, believe it or not, there is a glimmer of hope in Southern California law enforcement. A few cowboys stepped up as soon as the Stay-At-Home orders were served up by French Laundry fan Gov. Newsome – and they kicked it back to the cook.

    Leading the charge among Southern California Sheriffs is Riverside County’s Chad Bianco who hit rock star status over the weekend making national headlines with his COVID-KICK-THE-POLITICIANS-ASS campaign.

    Sheriff Bianco certainly knows how to deal with how wild, the Wild West is getting. Immediately out of the gate, Bianco opened a serious can of whoop ass on local and state officials – specifically Governor Newsome. Bianco was not at all gentle about the spurs he was shoving back up the Governor’s “hypocritical” ass … and who doesn’t love a cowboy who knows how to use his political spurs?

    Bianco cracked the whip in a publicly released video statement on December 4th, that his office will not be “blackmailed, bullied, or used as muscle” against Riverside County residents to enforce Gov. Gavin Newsom’s coronavirus orders. He admonished the Democratic governor’s “dictatorial attitude” toward Californians, “while he dined in luxury, traveled, kept his own business open, and sent his kids to in-person private school”.  Bianco also called the state’s metrics to justify stay-at-home orders “flat-out ridiculous” and “unbelievably faulty.”

    Now that’s a REAL  cowboy!

    Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

    “Leaders do not threaten, attempt to intimidate, or cause fear; bullies do,”

    – Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco

    THE WRITING ON THE  (BATHROOM) WALL

    Remember all the smoke and mirrors at the beginning of the pandemic when Supervisor Kuehl was calling Sheriff V a “whiner” because the Board was removing him as the head of Emergency Operations?

    Well, at the time, Sheriff V expressed his concern over the B.O.S. leaving him out of important meetings and strategy sessions early in the crisis. Up until March 23rd, neither Villanueva, nor any law enforcement official had been included in any of the LA county press conferences. “This is about taking care of people, not elected officials or politicians,” Villanueva said. Which, in layman’s terms means, long before the lockdown, and the vote to remove him, the BOS was keeping the man in charge of public safety out of the loop to keep the public safe. Get it?

    Fast forward 10-months-two-lockdowns-shattered-lives-and-skyrocketing-crime later, now you can sure as sh*t see what his frustration was back in March.

    It wasn’t the sound of “whining” (as Kuehl puts it), it was the sound of the head of the largest Sheriff’s Department in the country, an elected official, getting some good-old-fashioned-pissed-off. That’s what that was.

    After all, he was witnessing the desecration of an over 70 year old ordinance and dismantling of critical emergency infrastructure – that he was elected to run – especially during a state of emergency (a.k.a. global pandemic).

    Plain and simple, the removal of the Sheriff as head of the EOC was intended to be the first of many steps intended to distance the Board from critical law enforcement oversight. Their goal? To take unilateral control of the county with Kuehl as the puppet master pushing propaganda through her paid media sources focusing on demonizing Sheriff Villanueva.

    Why?

    Because Kuehl is still bitter her political ally, former Sheriff Jim McDonnell, got his ass handed to him by Villanueva in the 2018 Sheriff’s election. McDonnell has the dubious honor of being the first incumbent to lose in the 150-year history of the department. OUCH.

    But trust me, he earned it.

    In this interview for SCPR just days before the vote to remove Sheriff Villanueva from the head of the EOC, Kuehl, states the efforts to remove Villanueva started in January 2019, (coincidentally – and conveniently – when the newly-elected sheriff took office) – however, the county had already been “overseeing” Emergency Operations for approximately a decade.

    “It is a shift of power on paper. ” said Kuehl “But frankly, for the last 10 years there has been an Office of Emergency Management and they have been tasked with overseeing emergencies. Earthquakes etc.”

    If you are following closely, Kuehl and her double talk in that interview outed the County as being responsible for the failures during the Woolsey Fire, not the Sheriff – even though her boy Jim McDonnell was still in charge of the Sheriff’s Department.

    In reality, former Sheriff McDonnell checked out during the Woolsey Fire because the proverbial writing was on the bathroom wall and Villanueva was already picking out the paint color for his new office on the 8th floor at the Hall of Justice.

     

    But, Kuehl was hoping we would miss that critical piece of information while she was informing the radio show host he was “being played” by Sheriff V.

    I mean, how dare a journalist question Supervisor Kuehl about why they would remove the Sheriff from a position the department has held for over 70 years!

    Clearly, the unassuming host didn’t get the memo that you can only interview Kuehl if you are going to exclusively push her narrative, and her narrative only. Kind of like how Spectrum News did for Kuehl pushing her “non-story” after Fox 11 outed her “risky behavior” dining out at her favorite restaurant after voting to close restaurants because they were “the most dangerous place to catch COVID”.

    SHOW ME THE MONEY

    Now, with the removal of the Sheriff as the head of the EOC, Kuehl was perfectly poised to put a new puppet in charge and who better than someone with extensive experience in finance to run Emergency Operations.

    Well, when you know how much Kuehl loves money, her choice, County CEO Sachi Hamai, was hardly a surprise. I mean, it makes perfect sense appointing an accountant to run public safety during a global pandemic, right? Of course it does…NOT.

    “Don’t forget that Kuehl was an actress before becoming a politician,” said a source close to the criminal allegations against Kuehl. “It’s all smoke and mirrors with Kuehl, and she supports bad people doing bad things. Look what has happened with Covid-19. Kuehl turned Emergency management over to Sachi Hamai, and now we are shutting down business for the second time.”

    So, what was Hamai’s first move as head of Emergency Operations of the County during a state of emergency and a global pandemic? As usual, it was all about the money, honey. Hamai decided the first, most emergent move while people are losing their livelihoods, scared to death of contracting the virus and ending up sick- or worse – was to make sure sheriff deputies use their vacation pay while in quarantine due to exposure from the virus while on duty. 

    Talk about priorities!

    While watching this train wreck running Emergency Operations, I got a tip on some hair-raising emails regarding the EOC saga that I needed to get my hands on. So, I made some inquiries.

    Remember all that noise about removing the Sheriff because of lack of transparency? Well check this out this cornucopia of attempted cover-up by the county.

    The art of manipulation by the LA County PIO office responding to PRA requests – especially when they know you are asking for sensitive information that could expose their lies and corruption.

     

    Meanwhile, the county was funneling millions of CARE ACT funds into their COVID “PR” strategy. The powers that be felt no shame using government money that should have been used to support businesses financially devastated by the coronavirus, for their own personal propaganda campaign. The money went straight into the pockets of personal friends and campaign donors who own PR companies.

    Fox 11’s Bill Melugin broke the story of the P.R. contracts now totaling over $1.9million. Shortly after Fox 11’s story, The Current Report  followed up with more dirt on the insider trading committed by one of the agencies – and one who just so happens to be friends with – and contributed to – Supervisor Kathryn Barger’s campaign.

    While I’m willing to give Barger a pass because she voted against the defunding of law enforcement and the inquiry to remove the Sheriff from his position, she really does need to learn how to pick her friends better.

    SHOW ME MORE MONEY

    According to Kuehl, Hamai made “great sacrifices” to put off her retirement to stay on for four months during the pandemic and cockblock, I mean “oversee”,   Sheriff Villanueva doing his job to ensure public safety during not one, but TWO states of emergency.

    Kuehl thought Hamai did such an outstanding job (doing nothing but being a puppet), she decided to give her a bonus of almost two times her salary and label it “harassment by the Sheriff”.

    Ten days after Hamai whined to Kuehl (there goes that word again) that Sheriff V wasn’t being nice to her in a public forum, even though she is a public official and is supposed to address other public officials, and their concerns, in public, Kuehl thought the best way to deal Hamai’s hurt feelings (a.k.a “harassment”), was to write her a $1.5 million check, at taxpayers expense, to make her feel better.

    No formal mediation or litigation. The County just a wrote a check lickety-split and filed it under “It’s the Sheriff’s Fault”.

    What was Kuehl’s solution when she expressed how sorry she was “Alex’s feelings were hurt” in this interview? Stripping the Sheriff of being head of EOC.

    Talk about getting a raw deal! But then again, we all know how much she likes women more than men.

    FROM PANDEMIC PLANNER TO PARTY PLANNER

    One thing we know for sure is politicians sure know how to party. Gavin Newsome seems to be the premier party boy with his high-profile political date night at French Laundry and we even heard rumblings of a co-hosted Christmas party in the works with Pelosi – and this after he handed out orders to close all restaurants!

    Not far behind is Supervisor Kuehl, who “risked it all” to have dinner at her favorite restaurant, Il Fornaio, just hours after declaring restaurants “the most dangerous place to catch Covid”. After refusing to address a number of news channels as to why she was immune to catching Covid at a restaurant, yet everyone else wasn’t and they desperately need to be closed down, Kuehl referred to local news sources as “cartoon networks” (except for Spectrum News who played by her rules and pushed her “non-story”). That was a rich statement coming from a former actress who is no stranger to TV. Could she be hinting a new animated series is on the horizon?

    Not to be outdone by his peers, L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti is refocusing his efforts away from solving the economic devastation faced by the citizens of Los Angeles and has accepted the post of Chief Party Planner of the Biden inauguration. Yep, “Yoga Pants” Garcetti is following his dream in the hospitality industry and headed to Washington DC to plan the biggest party in the nation. So big, it’s only thrown once every four years.

    Meanwhile, rumors are circulating around Los Angeles that Garcetti has reached out to L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl to see if she will donate her Il Forno frequent diner points to the Biden Inauguration Party fund to reduce the cost of catering.

    Believe it or not, there is a light at the end of this political pandemic tunnel as criminal indictments are looming over Kuehl, Giggans, Solis and L.A. Metro’s Phil Washington.

    Kuel’s co-horts, Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger have begun to pull away from their alliances with Kuehl and refused to support Kuehl’s motion to remove the Sheriff. Two out of five ain’t a bad start, we’ll take it.

    Last week, Supervisor Hahn also pointed out that the actions of L.A. County Supervisors are beginning to erode the trust of the citizens Los Angeles.

    “We have to remember that we who are in public office are held to a very high standard as we should be and one of the things I’m realizing with some of these new restrictions is if we can’t garner the trust of the public to be with us in this fight against the virus, then we’ve lost a big battle and I’m feeling that now nine months into this is we’re beginning to lose the trust of the public,” Hahn said.

    I would say that’s putting it lightly Janice, but thanks for the sentiments.

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Shortly after it went live, County counsel sent us an official “non-response” to the PRA published in this article. I never received the document attached to the December 12th email sent me as a response to my article, nor could county counsel provide me with the email showing it was actually sent the day it was drafted.

  • Malibu City Officials Response to the Coronavirus: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

    Malibu City Officials Response to the Coronavirus: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

    By Paul Taublieb

    The erstwhile city of Malibu just released a statement which begins with “(our) number one priority is ensuring the public safety of the community.”  Now, of course, this was in reference to the Coronavirus and the need to put this statement out had to do with rumors, pure rumors, that someone in the Malibu community has tested positive to the disease.   I have no information or insight into whether this is true or not.

    But I can say it’s the kind of mealy-mouthed double speak we’ve come to expect from the City.  See, they put out this statement but the only additional information they share is they can’t share any other information as that’s the responsibility LA County Department of Public Health to dispense information.  So maybe they do know something, and maybe they don’t.  But if, in fact, the “number one priority” is public safety, I think that needs to rephrased “After following rules not of our making, and even if it puts locals in danger, then we’ll say the number one priority is safety but it’s really rule number two, with the real number one following some guidelines which don’t actually put the safety of local citizens first.”

    They also cite privacy laws for not sharing more info, but I think that also misses the point.  I don’t believe anyone, certainly not me, is asking for anyone’s name, but it sure does seem that if the “number one priority” is the safety of the community, the presence of someone in the community with a potentially deadly virus would be of interest.

    Maybe my cynicism is rooted in another odd thing about this supposedly “number one priority.”  I mean, while much city business goes on, from a skatepark to speakers series and so on, note this one thing: we still do not have an approved, in-place evacuation plan.  That’s right. After years of study before the Woolsey Fire, and now a year and half after the Fire, if there is a calamity and there needs to be an evacuation from Malibu, right now, today, they do not have a plan in place and ready to be executed to orderly evacuate the city.  If north and the canyons were to close and we had to flee south, right now, there is no plan to direct additional lane of traffic south, the single most critical choke-point when fire was coming over the hill and cars wre lined up in a parade that an LA County Fire Chief told me, “Except for the grace of God and some luck, we would have had a highway of death and if anyone tells you anything different they don’t know what they’re talking about.”  This is an evacuation described to me, by the way, by both council member Skylar Peak and our City Manager as a “great success” since “nobody died.”

    To err on the side of safety as the “number one” priority of the City, I tend to believe an LA Fire Chief.

    Our safety is in the hands of a leaders on the Council who are made up of two groups:

    1. Those who were in power at the time and involved and were not prepared to deal with the crisis, and believe the City and City Manager did a great job (Skylar, Rick Mullen with Jay Wagner indisposed from fighting the fire and now a lone voice trying to fix things); I would add Mullen told me that of course, if there’s a crisis or fire and a mandatory evacuation is announced you should leave, but in terms of reality, he doesn’t really believe that because he had his son stay and fight, and Skylar’s position is if you stay behind, you’re safety is not only not their number one priority, it’s not their priority at all as it’s your problem for staying and not theirs.
    2. Two new people, Mikke Pierson and Karen Farrer who oversaw the conflicted post-event report (officially not an “investigation”) which still nevertheless incriminated the leadership of the city and then, wonderfully, nevertheless rubber stamped a raise and contract extension for the City Manager, who gave herself an award for the great job she thought she did while the City literally burned and the brave citizens who fought and saved homes were abandoned and left to the own devices.

    Incidentally, wonder what the citizens thought of the City Manager’s performance?  Well, we do know.  The council put out a request for written and spoken comment.  Of the 17 responses sent in and officially recorded by the city of people willing to sign their name and take a public position, 16 of the 17 were negative (or a tidy 94.12%) and of the nine people who spoke publicly in front of the council, 6 were negative (or 66.67%).  Small samples for sure, but the only ones we have – and certainly nothing ambiguous about the results.  But how did the city council, our representatives respond to this data, along with the negative report by the Citys own review firm, not to mention two other independent reviews which also cast strong negative reviews the City’s performance?   Their conclusion – continue her contract and give her a raise, and nary a word of chastisement.  So in other words, don’t believe your lyin’ eyes as to what you saw and experienced during Woolsey, but take solace in the fact your representatives (save Jefferson) were happy to ignore every independent metric of review. 

    And also please be aware that as of today this same leadership has no new plan in place to support people who stay behind after the next calamity with food, water and supplies – and we all know no one is leaving next time – and also no clear plan for policies for who will be let in after an evacuation is announced and blockade set up.   And nothing has changed in the fundamental structure of a City Manager who is not directly accountable to the citizens but has the most power of anyone in the city.

    Safety really the number one priority?  Really?  The more things change the more they stay the same.

    Feeling better now?

     

     

     

     

  • Time to Leave the Party: An Open Letter to Council Urging the Termination of the City Manager’s Contract

    Time to Leave the Party: An Open Letter to Council Urging the Termination of the City Manager’s Contract

    Editor’s Note – This is an open letter to Malibu City Council written by resident, Emmy award winning documentary filmmaker, and contributing journalist Paul Taublieb regarding the City Manager’s review taking place tomorrow at City Hall at 10 a.m.
    Resident participation is vitally important and if you cannot attend in person to participate in public comment, please send your correspondence to city council by 12 pm tomorrow, November 12th, 2019. Email: mpierson@malibucity.org,
    kfarrer@malibucity.org, jwagner@malibucity.org, speak@malibucity.org, rmullen@malibucity.org
    Dear Malibu City Council,
    Regrettably, I am not able to attend the meeting in person (late season south swell – in Mex!). I am not sure, btw, who felt 10 a.m. after a holiday weekend was the optimum time? Along with coinciding roughly with the open-ore of our one year-anniversary of the Woolsey Fire, but both items feel, anyway, to echo the city’s and in particular, the city manager’s disconnect from the community.  And while I asked the city attorney to confirm it was the city manager who picked this both inopportune and insensitive timing, I have not heard back (Christi, you listening? Any reason you didn’t respond to my email with this question?), but I am told by a councilperson it was Reva who selected the date and time.
    But I do want to echo resident and local journalist Sam Hall-Kaplan’s highly-qualified analysis. As he notes, he knows whereof he speaks as a truly knowledgeable person in the sphere of city government, along with being a treasure to a community which he has been kind enough to shine his light of insight.
    “And beyond her indefensible failures as City Manager during the disaster, has been her muddled management in the year since. This has included the city’s plodding rebuild efforts, the contradictory handling of the Airbnb quandary, the questionable leasing of land in the Civic Center to the SCE, the absolving of any responsibility for a dangerous PCH, and the questionable use of consultants in the face of a bloated bureaucracy that continues to be padded.” –Sam Hall Kaplan to City Council on November 10th, 2019
    I will, however, add a few comments which hopefully you will take into consideration.  If the past is prelude, then most likely decisions have been made in private deliberation, but one can hope.  And perhaps the council people will come out of whatever grip or thrall they are being held in, with the knowledge they are going against the desires of many. This will most certainly reflect on their standing in the community, and when they run for re-election. They may get pats on the head from certain interests, but I suspect not from the rank and file who are their neighbors.
    As most of you know, unlike Sam, I have no background or expertise in the ways of city governance.  I do, however, have a small knack of gathering data and learning, hopefully modulated by common sense and some old fashioned journalistic instincts and experience.  Whatever opinions I have they are the result of what I’ve learned and personally experienced, not coming from any per-conceived notions as I can confess that prior to the fire and all that followed, I barely knew where city hall was, let alone grappling with who ran or city, or what obligations or expectations the citizenry could reasonably expect.
    But I can say now, that given our form of government is a “weak mayor/strong city manager”. It’s clear there have been dramatic shortcomings in performance, and given this form of government, the only logical conclusion is the “strong city manager” has failed in her duties and meeting the expectations of the community. (There is a discussion to be had on another day on changing this to a “strong mayor,” but that will have to wait).
    But let me digress (I am wordy, if anything, I confess).  In order to solve any problem, as all of you know, the first and maybe most important step is acknowledging the problem.  And the problem we have, from the mouth of the city manager herself, is that she thinks and apparently believes she did a “great” and “fantastic” job during and after the fire.  She even put herself up for, and received, an award – albeit one from a group on which she serves on the board of, which kind of tells you a lot.
    So while our city manager considers the 5+ hours to evacuate the city a “great success,” — again her words —  while someone more knowledeable than her or I, veteran LA Fire Chief Tony Imbrenda called it “A near disaster, total mismanagement and very nearly a highway of death.”  As someone who stood on PCH and saw a wall of flames descending over the hill above Zumirez, and traffic locked heading south. In many places, cars up against rows of trees seeming poised to catch fire and engulf the stranded motorists, all the while two northbound lanes lay quiet, empty, unused. Only by the grace of a last-minute wind change was a fiery holocaust avoided. My own eyes and thoughts find themselves agreeing with Chief Imprenda, not a City Manager trying to paint a rosy, successful picture.  Or as she might put it, don’t believe your lying eyes. (If you need a reminder of how the city manager tried to explain the problems of the city’s response by saying she had a very busy week the week leading int other the fire – yes, that was the cornerstone of her excuse – you can read about that and a lot more
    The Woolsey Fire evacuation on PCH. Residents fleeing were in gridlock for 5 hours.
    But you’ve already very, very likely read it.  And most likely, almost a handful of you five are willing to look past it all and vote yea.
    You see the core of the problem?  See, she can’t admit it was a near disaster as that would be disastrous to how she sees herself and her job performance.  And I empathize with her – no doubt she does many managerial things quite well – but one is tested when one is tested, and it is in the hot furnace that we must be judged.  Not when things are easy, but when they are hard.  And when things were hard, she failed us – and worse, now, either won’t publicly admit it, or even worse, isn’t even being honest with herself.
    And then the other rub.  The horrendous mismanagement of the re-population.  Again, her words: “The city had no obligation to anyone who stayed behind,” which was echoed in my interview, I need to add, by council member Sklyar Peak.  As far as both of them were concerned, doing anything for the thousand or so people who stayed and fought and per the latest, non-governmental report, should be treated as heroes for the countless homes they saved, were, as has been widely reported and I experienced, were treated like criminals.
    Has there been contrition?  No.  The opposite.  Read her responses the Management Partners report, one she actually was unhappy with, more mealy-mouthed excuses and no self culpability.  There were 53 recommendations in that report, virtually all of them should have — and could have — been addressed before the fire.  They weren’t then, and despite her attempt to amend the document after the “final” was submitted (to no fanfare, as it remained critical of her), most aren’t now.
    You see, if you’re determined to believe you did a great job, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that is not the case, then how can you effectively change things so the past is not prelude the next time fire (or other disaster) visits Malibu.  If the CERT containers weren’t filled with the proper supplies, and the CERT volunteers weren’t able to even activate, who if not the City Manager is responsible?  The buck has to stop somewhere, and in our “strong city manager” form of government, there is no ambiguity here.
    I would also like to share most recent article with you.  but here’s all you need to know:  the sheriff said the city could and should have responded to the recent blackout in the Heathercliff/Paradise Cove/Latigo area.  But instead, the public servant was both incompetent in not fulfilling her duties as well as being.  I would happily take competent and snide, but in the case of this individual, we net neither competency or civilized manners or acting in a respectful, professional manner.

    And to think that right now we STILL don’t have an evacuation plan in place?  Really.

    BTW, Jefferson Wagner and an associate actually wrote up the beginning of a plan and submitted it to the city where it was discarded, and nothing final has been generated and shared with the public.  Fire chief Imprenda (not me, not editor-in-chief Cece Woods, not Sam Hall Kaplan) said it was an egregious failing of the city and the system as a whole that the northbound lanes of PCH were not opened to fleeing southbound traffic, or least one lane.  There still is no plan for this today, at least as far has been publicly disseminated.
    Council members – here is where you say amongst yourselves that I’m naive and don’t understand the complexities of inter agency planning. You probably murmur to each other that I don’t know all that’s going on behind-the-scenes, and maybe even how much Reva is doing to solve this.  But while I may be ignorant, ok, maybe naive, I nonetheless find it entirely, wholly and totally unacceptable that a plan is not in place as we dance around another red flag warning few days.  At the very least, where is our city manager and YOU GUYS screaming from the rooftops this needs to happen NOW?
    In conclusion, let me put it this way.  Have you ever stayed too long at a party?  You know, people are still there but you realize it’s just a tad past the time go to?  I think that’s where we are.  If one doesn’t learn from their past mistakes — which starts by admitting and owning them – then you are doomed to repeat them.  Sometimes it’s just best to leave the party, move on, go to next.  Not only a contract extension but also a raise?  Huh? Really? Asking for it when you know it will be difficult for the community you say you serve and love to come and comment? Doing it in the shadow of dark anniversary?
    Leadership requires people to believe in you, and shows you understand people.  And while yes, she may have the support of some, by most accounts, it’s clearly not the majority of locals.  (Didn’t something like 4000 people sign a petition to remove her right after the fire?)  So it’s time to move on.  Yes, a pain to find someone new, yes, no doubt.  But at $300k a year, plus benefits, somewhere out there there is a person who will take the job and if nothing else, at a bare minimum, approach things with a fresh start.
    A fire cleanses the earth.  We need that in City Hall.  No hard feelings.  Time to move on – best for all involved.
    Warm Regards,
    Paul Taublieb
  • Malibu’s First Taste of Wildfire Season Was a Potential Recipe For Disaster (Again)

    Malibu’s First Taste of Wildfire Season Was a Potential Recipe For Disaster (Again)

    Last Thursday afternoon, wildfire worries became a reality when the Santa Ana season officially swung into action.

    With a single wind shift, not one, but two potential wildfire threats to our area produced monumental concerns for residents just 11 months after the Woolsey Fire devastated our community. Last year’s fire destroyed approximately 1643 homes and 97000 acres burned overall between November 8-10th, 2018.

    Wendy Worries

    Shortly after 7 pm. on Thursday, October 10th, the Wendy Fire, named for its ignition point on Wendy Dr. in Newbury Park, was reported on social media.

    The fire started at 7:11 p.m. near the Wendy trailhead at Wendy Drive and Potrero Road in Newbury Park. The fire burned in a southerly direction, away from homes on national parkland, with firefighters initiating a strong attack on flames. The same area was  previously hit hard by the Woolsey Fire last November.

    Unbeknownst to locals, the efforts to stop the blaze were successful upon its approach to Point Mugu State Park. However, with flames visible in the distance by Decker Canyon residents before 10 p.m., and no guidance from authorities, or the City of Malibu as to wind direction and preparation for residents, those living in the canyon with large animals were not taking any chances and making plans to voluntary evacuate on their own.

    The Wendy Fire was getting dangerously close to Malibu for residents still raw from Woolsey.

    Anxiety reached a fever pitch with residents posting on social media their concerns over the flames visible from the Wendy Fire, and smoke filling the canyons from different directions. The City of Malibu sent out only one alert at 8:23 p.m., and no further updates as flames became more visible from canyons looking down the coastline.

    The City of Malibu’s only emergency notification was at 8:27 stating there was “no threat to Malibu”, however, an hour later flames were visible from the Wendy Fire in Decker Canyon forcing residents to make plans to evacuate large animals.

    The Saddleridge Fire was now raging out of control and fears of yet another fire headed toward Malibu, with similar patterns of the Woolsey Fire, spread through the community fast.

    After a sleepless night with no real updates on the Wendy Fire other than official response on social media that lacked detail, discrepancies over Wendy’s containment sent the community spinning once again. Reports varied between 25% and 90% with local authorities sending out an incorrect emergency notification at 90% when the fire was in fact only contained to 25%. Reports of winds gathering strength once again made residents extremely uneasy.

    The City managed to eek out one tweet mentioning the Wendy Fire, and completely ignored the Saddleridge Fire growing in size exponentially overnight.

    By Friday, more than 1,000 firefighters from multiple agencies were battling the Saddleridge Fire. Eight helicopters made repeated water drops as crews on the ground attack the flames, and two super scoopers and one Erickson air crane join the fight from the air as the fire headed west toward the Ventura County. A slight wind shift could have impacted Malibu similarly to what we experienced 11 months ago

    The Saddleridge Fire raging out of control.

    Too Lazy To Use Fire Liaison?

    In May, the city added a third person to the Malibu Public Safety Department. The new Fire Safety Liasion position was created and filled with Jerry Vandermuelen, a 35 year veteran of fire service experience with the Kern County and Ventura County Fire Departments.

    The Wendy Fire event would have been the perfect opportunity for the City of Malibu to flex this new fire expert’s muscle. Alas, that would not come to pass. It is unknown why the city did not utilize the newly hired Fire Liaison’s knowledge and connections in Ventura, the lead agency in the Wendy Fire, to gather information and properly guide residents during the first fire event breaking out so close to Malibu.

    The combined experience and relationships with Ventura officials that Malibu City Public Safety Director Susan Duenas supposedly brought to the table before the Thomas Fire (but did not benefit locals whatsoever in terms of communication and preparedness), and the added experience of the new Fire Liasion, it would seem the City would be prepared, and communication would be detailed and at the highest level.

    Unfortunately it was deja-vu-in-the-bu, as yet again, City of Malibu officials were embarrassingly unprepared, even after a report ordered by Council last February was submitted with over 50  recommendations regarding Malibu City staff’s failures during the Woolsey Fire that needed to be addressed before the next disaster (Paul Taublieb’s assessment of the whitewashed report on the City’s response to Woolsey).

    Our first taste of fire season was a bitter re-opening raw wounds from Woolsey much too soon.

    Yo Malibu…

    You’re On Your Own.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Woolsey Fire: City Council Accepts Whitewash Report of Malibu’s Darkest Days.

    Woolsey Fire: City Council Accepts Whitewash Report of Malibu’s Darkest Days.

    By Paul Taublieb

    Back in May, I wrote an article for the The Local titled, “I Hope I am Wrong,” expressing grave reservations about the process of selecting Management Partners, and then the decision to hire them, as well.  (It was a follow up to my original article “Woolsey: A Story of What Did and Didn’t Happen”).

    Well, I was right.  It is a debacle, whitewash, embarrassment and disservice to the community.

    It’s filled with outright falsehoods, and more insidiously, it concludes with a mind-boggling 50+ suggestions for “improvement,” which are all, essentially, preventable failures of preparation and execution by the city and its management.  While Management Partners, as I feared, tried to cloak the shortcomings in “government speak”, the framing of this document should have been how the city failed its citizens.

    And I say this acknowledging, as the report is quick to point out, the city of Malibu is not a firefighting or policing organization.  But that is not a justification for the egregious shortcomings in both the City’s preparation and actual performance.

    I can say this.  The City got what it paid for, if not what the citizens expected or deserved.

    Due to manipulation and CYA machinations by the council, most notably Rick Mullen and Skylar Peak, Management Partners (MP), who came into this highly-conflicted as previously reported, was specifically charged as NOT to do an investigation, but a very specifically a “review.” AND  I was personally told by a representative of  MP told they only were planning on making suggestions to do things better, not assign any personal responsibility for any individual’s shortcoming.  There was not to be, by design from the City Council, and then by MP, not to be any accountability or criticism of any specific individual.  I was told by MP, “We are analyzing the performance of the city” – as if it wasn’t made up of humans  – “not of any specific individuals.”

    Or as Mayor Karen Farrer told me, “We are not doing an investigation, we are doing a review. If you want an investigation, go hire your own investigator.”

    The report states that the City takes fire preparation, “quite seriously.”  And it says that in their analysis, the City needs to “improve performance and effectiveness.”  To draw a perhaps effective analysis, imagine if the same came from your doctor – he takes his preparation “seriously” but also needs to improve his “performance.” Would you go back?

    No.

    First, taking something “seriously” speaks not to competence.  It’s how MP likes to frame things rather than calling them for what they are in their report: shortcoming, failings and botched execution.

    This is how the entire report is constructed  – a mild chide, no responsibility assigned for the blatant gap of competency, followed by a cheery recommendation of what actually should be done.

    It is as if, for the most part, the city is a monolithic, computerized, un-human entity where failings are somehow intrinsically systemic, with no actual person responsible for anything.

    In other words, thanks to the gutless charge that MP was given by the City Council, the whitewash we received was inevitable.

    Moreover, a giant failure of the report is their stated, self-imposed guardrail to their inquiry of not analyzing the actions or performance of the LA Fire Department. One would think the actions of a fire deparment in a fire would be germaine. But no, thanks to our City Council, and perhaps at the behest or guidance of city officials. As MP writes in their report, “Many in the community want to understand why firefighting personnel were not able to actively fight structure fires during the event despite fire resources being in the area.” Uh, yeah.  But, “MP was not engaged to evaluate the response or tactics used by the LA County Fire Department, which serves Malibu.”

    In other words, the essential question faced people looking at burned out lots with all those ramifications, they may have looked to our city, the spending of $50,000 to do a “report” to fnd out why did your home burn down with firefighters hanging around? Heh, not our problem!

    As we know, there were other substantial issues around the fire and its aftermath, including “decision making” and “evacuation and repopulation of Malibu’s neighborhoods.” Clearly things the citizens wanted to understand?  That’s there, right?  Nope. “We are unable to evaluate other public safety or first responder agencies who were in the lead and carried out evacuation and repopulation.”

    So in other words, our city council gave the company doing the “review” guard rails that kept them from understanding why houses burned while fire trucks idled, why the police shut down Malibu like a diseased quarantined area, and why the repopulation effort was a fiasco.  Heh, might have been your problem, but not our problem, as far as your city council, and the professionals at city hall, are concerned.

    Complete exoneration wasn’t possible however, regardless of how the City Council kept the report within strict parameters.

    MP writes, for example, there was “(The) lack of pre-planned, mutually-agreed upon coordinated evacuation plan (across all first responders and the City), and agreed upon repopulation efforts…(which) resulted in…. considerable dissatisfaction by the community.”

    Ya think?

    But at the heart of what is missing is simply this:  who is responsible?  Who didn’t have an evacuation plan in place?  Who, specifically and personally, failed and should be held accountable? Does the proverbial buck stop at the City Manager’s desk?  Well, see MP didn’t have to worry about that – by policy, they don’t name names of people who fell woefully, and professionally, short in their duties. See, they were charged with doing a “review”, not an “investigation.”  They never set out to name names because the City wanted it that way.

    Still, despite the safeguards inherently built into this effort, the egregious failings were just too numerous, systemic and important – even for MP to avoid, and they laid out 53 specific recommendations.

    The obvious, however, is not stated:  essentially all of them could have been, and should have been, anticipated and addressed before the fire.  (Whether they are being so now is another question entirely – important no doubt, but subject to future scrutiny.)

    So the first round (of many!) recommendations MP makes – which should all really serve as indictments for not being in place prior, given that fire is by no means a stranger to Malibu, the size and scope of Woolsey, which a factor, is certainly not outside of something that should have been considered.  What are some of these groundbreaking assessments?

    Well, they proposed things like the City needs to be able to communicate better with outside agencies and first responders.  Really.

    And in one of the few pointed notes, they write about better time management by the City Manager, and how she was so busy with elected officials she needs to better use her time for “response issues and organizational management.”  One might also call this being a “chicken with her head cut off” or “overwhelmed” or “incapable of dealing with the crisis,” but those are not the words MP chose.

    The report goes on to make a slew of other recommendations about planning and preparation – implicitly acknowledging none of these things were done prior and should have been. AND no one is held accountable by name or department for not having done so.

    I could go on and on and on. It talks about how CERT kits (the city-managed, but volunteer run existing emergency responding group of Malibu, “contained food that was expired and much of the supplies not useful in a wildfire event.”  Well, who thought of that?  Did MP find out who was responsible at City Hall?  Nope.

    But MP does almost comically suggest, “more tools and support could have improved their effectiveness.”  Oh really, an entirely useless emergency system for a community in a known fire zone could have been prepared?  Who is responsible for this not happening?  No one is named.

    There is, however, some comedy in the report.

    Like “City staff left behind critical information and equipment when the EOC was forced to relocate.” You know, hard to manage and carry, or anticipate the need for, things like “laptops” or “personal contact information.”  So they couldn’t get online and couldn’t communicate with each other, you know, do their jobs.  (Of course, no mention of the fact it would have been easy and safe for someone to run up to city hall and grab the stuff.)

    But one thing the report somehow (I guess not surpassingly)  gets entirely wrong – and should chap the butts of everyone — is this sentence about our city manager:  “(She) remained in Malibu on a daily basis, resolving a number of issues that arose during the event as well as” now get this! “orchestrating the delivery of supplies to Zuma for those who did not evacuate.”

    See, I interviewed Reva shortly after the fire.  And that description is an attempt to post-event rewriting of history.  Or to put it more colloquially, utter bullshit. By her own account to me in my post-event reporting,  she stated on the Saturday of fire weekend, she and the city delivered some supplies to animals and people at Zuma, her own words to me in no uncertain terms was her responsibility was entirely focused on the repopulation, and “anyone who choose to stay behind should have been prepared, they are not the responsibility of the city.”

    Now, I was here for most of the post-fire lockdown, and like other people I’ve asked, not a single person ever saw Reva.   She was never at the Pt. Dume relief center where all supplies were distributed from, and for damn sure she wasn’t at Paradise Cove or Zumirez beach helping to ferry in supplies.

    By her own account, doing anything for the people behind the draconian blockade were not her problem. “Look, there are 12,000 people in the city of Malibu,” she said in our interview, “and helping the one thousand or so who stayed beyond and spending City resources on them would not be fair to those people who left.”

    Now Mikke Pierson, who along with Karen Farrer picked Management Partners, and both were fine with the idea of a “review” and not investigation, says he saw Reva up in Malibu a couple of times.  Well, I believe him I guess, but to say she in any way whatsoever “orchestrated the delivery of supplies” as the report stated, apparently from her account is pretty much like saying when I hum along to some classical music I’m orchestrating the LA Philharmonic.

    In summary, the reports has 53 very specific, mostly very good, virtually doable recommendations. But as I feared, and by design, no one’s feet are held to the fire for e 53 shortcomings. 53 items which could have been, and should have, been anticipated.  53 things which the person in charge, that the City Manager, as she’s where the buck stops, should be held fully and entirely accountable for.

    I hoped I was wrong, but I was right.  The city got what it wanted.  The citizens did not. Time for change.

  • The Local Malibu Exposes Judicial Misconduct and Potential Corruption in Woolsey Fire Litigation

    The Local Malibu Exposes Judicial Misconduct and Potential Corruption in Woolsey Fire Litigation

    by Erik Cooper

    When Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger disqualified law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP from representation of any victims of the Woolsey Fire, The Local Malibu asked why Quinn Emanuel’s affiliated partner, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, were not equally disqualified after drinking from the same poisoned well.

    The well was the affiliation of Quinn Emanuel with Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, a professional association of the two law firms which developed after the Woolsey Fire devastated much of Malibu last November.  Dozens of lawyers and their firms raced to gather as many Woolsey Fire victims as possible.  Their goal? Strength in numbers.  The more clients a law firm represents in the disaster, the more likely the law firm will be appointed by the court to the coveted position of  lead counsel in the inevitable mass civil action those victims would ultimately pursue in court. And appointment as lead counsel equals a percentage of not just the firm’s own clients, but also a percentage of all plaintiff’s proceeds received in the mass action for services provided as lead counsel.  Lead counsel equals big money.

    The poison was the “material confidential information” SoCal Ed alleged it shared with Quinn Emanuel during a December 2017 meeting in which Quinn Emanuel was vying to be appointed as SoCal Ed’s defense counsel for lawsuits the company faced from the 2017 Thomas Fire.

    Since most relationships are based upon honesty and trust, one could perceive that Quinn Emanuel would have shared the material confidential information it learned in those meetings with SoCal Ed (the poison) with its Woolsey Fire partner, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack.  Both law firms played together in the same well.

    We may never know. Judge Highberger apparently did not consider the potential relationship between Engstrom and Quinn Emanuel, and never conducted any evidentiary hearing to ascertain if, like Quinn Emanuel, Engstrom had also been poisoned, whether by actual evidence or the appearance of such evidence of access to that material confidential information, a relevant disqualifier.

    To the dismay of certain advocates, including a Facebook Group and its moderators who hosted a dog-and-pony show of specially-invited lawyers and their law firms to vie for their member’s business in exchange for a substantially reduced attorney’s fee, on June 20th, The Local Malibu attempted to explore the disqualifications of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack by submitting questions to the court for our readers.

    In response, Mary Eckhardt Hearn, public information officer for the Los Angeles County Superior Court, fenced our questions by citing Canon 3(B)(9) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, citing, “A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court, and shall not make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere [emphasis added] with a fair trial or hearing.”

    It appears the only substantial interference is the Court’s own efforts to avoid rebuke and dodge the obvious:  How can Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack be permitted to represent Woolsey Fire plaintiffs when the court disqualified its partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan?  Both firms played in the same well, but only one was poisoned by exposure from SoCal Ed to material confidential information?

    Nonsense.

    Shortly after the court coordinated all Woolsey Fire cases into one oversight case — assigned case number JCCP 5000 — Judge Highberger authorized use of a private, exclusive, and proprietary internet platform — CaseAnywhere.com — “to facilitated electronic serving of litigation documents, calendaring of events and communication.” “Communication,” indeed.

    When The Local Malibu contacted the court for its comment on the poisoned well issue, the court used CaseAnywhere and sent its own message to all attorneys in the Woolsey Fire Litigation case.  That is, a private message.  Not a notice sent to counsel for all parties and filed with the clerk of court in the public record.  Not a comment made by Judge Highberger in open court and recorded by a court reporter.  Not a morsel of a recordable document accessible by the media.  Only a private message accessible by attorneys granted special access to CaseAnywhere.

    Judge Highberger’s private message was kept secret for well over two months, likely by your own attorney if you are a Woolsey Fire plaintiff.

    Only after The Local Malibu demanded disclosure of Judge Highberger’s private message did the message itself surface.  Only after The Local Malibu demanded the court file the private message in the public record with the clerk of court did the court do so — on August 22nd— more than two months after Judge Highberger sent his private message to the lawyers, not to you, and not to us.

    Judge Highberger’s private message suggested The Local Malibu’s efforts to research our story demanding transparency of the court and the legal process constituted “ex parte contact.”  The Local Malibu and its writers are not parties to the Woolsey Fire Litigation case, and if the court were truly transparent, our questions for the court should have been filed in the public record for disclosure not just to the attorneys who subscribe to CaseAnywhere, but to the plaintiffs, to the public, and to the media.

    According to Hearn, “Although a copy of the communication in question was provided to The Local Malibu upon request, it appears the document had not been placed in the court file.”  Surprise!  Hearn continued, “That has been corrected [as The Local Malibu demanded], and staff have been reminded of their obligations in this regard.” Caught.

    Judge Highberger’s oversight of filing his private message with the clerk of court was no error.  It appears the court and lawyers in the Woolsey Fire Litigation have been using CaseAnywhere to communicate privately for quite some time now, since the court approved its use, and continue to use the private CaseAnywhere message board as its communication platform today.

    The Local Malibu has requested all communications either sent or received by the court and all attorneys on the proprietary CaseAnywhere platform. We anticipate sharing with our readers more private messages communicated between the lawyers and the court, but not Woolsey Fire victims themselves, whose best interests remain compromised today.

    In the interim, The Local Malibu intends to report our concerns for judicial misconduct and, quite possibly, for corruption involving Judge Highberger to the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance.  We will cover the Commission’s response to our concerns in our future reporting.

    It seems Woolsey Fire victims face new challenges, caught in the cogs of those wheels of justice.  The court, in all of its actions, must always convey an open, honest, and transparent relationship with the parties, and with the public, for our justice system to work properly as intended.  Otherwise, misconduct, like Judge Highberger’s choice of communication platforms and his omission of disclosure of those private communications with others, creates the appearance of impropriety and secrecy, of backroom deals at the expense of victims, while the wheels of justice continue to crush the Rules of Civil Procedure governing the court’s conduct on the rails ahead.

    Haven’t Woolsey Fire victims already been victimized enough?

    Continue to follow our FireWire coverage of up to the minute news and information to help Woolsey Fire victims recover from this tragic event.

    For more FireWire stories and information, click here.

  • Woolsey Aftermath: HIPPA Law Violations Among Concerns Associated With Voter Intimidation in RECALL Efforts

    Woolsey Aftermath: HIPPA Law Violations Among Concerns Associated With Voter Intimidation in RECALL Efforts

    By Cece Woods, Editor in Chief, co-authored by Dr. Amora Rachelle, J.D., Ph.D., M.D.R., ONE Peace and Restorative Justice Center

    This is the second installment of a multi-part series where The Local Malibu exposes the corruption at City Hall that interfered with voters’ rights to recall two City Council members. 

    Voters must now seek legal remedies against the City to reinstate the voters’ right to due process. Formal complaints have been filed with multiple law enforcement and government agencies.

    There is no question the lack of leadership by City officials during the Woolsey Fire was instrumental in the initiation of recall efforts by community activists to unseat City council members Skylar Peak and Rick Mullen.

    The complete disregard for the safety of residents, put in jeopardy multiple times during the disaster, including a failed evacuation plan and refusal to provide critical disaster relief, were among the monumental failures by City leaders before, during, and after the Woolsey Fire.

    On November 9th, the poorly executed evacuation resulted in a traffic jam on PCH, with cars crawling at a snail’s pace, put many lives at risk as the Woolsey Fire barreled toward the coast. The fire at approximately 14 miles long, with wind gusts that hit up to 70 plus miles per hour, raged over the canyons toward PCH.

    A member of LACOFD (stationed at Bluffs Park during the mandatory evacuations) was flabbergasted by the sequence of events that led to the 5 1/2 hour gridlock as panicked residents fled the fire zone. With complete amazement, he said “we’re lucky we didn’t have another Paradise on our hands”.

    While residents were in a state of shock and desperate for information, there was absolutely no communication from the City.

    Complete silence.

    No information was dispersed by officials to guide residents during this critical time.

    Once community members realized they were abandoned by the City, our publication who was boots on the ground reporting during the fire, along with residents, strategized and organized vital, up to the minute updates, and facilitated disaster assistance (as members of the press free to cross barricades with our press passes) to those in need, in the days and weeks in the aftermath of the fire.

    The Local Malibu was the main source of information during the fire which resulted in over a million hit across all platforms.

    Meanwhile, City leaders continued to deny emergency relief, including food, water medicine, and basic survival necessities. There was a complete breakdown in leadership control, resulting in City Hall closing for 3 weeks.

    Skylar Peak “having a moment” at the Evacuee meeting after the Woolsey Fire with City Manager Feldman looking on. Photo: Daily News.

    Furthermore, city officials abused their power by using resources for their own advantage, refusing to give help to residents, and interfering with disaster relief.

    Council member Peak went on local news stations to caution residents not to access Malibu by boats with disaster supplies, at which time the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department stopped relief boats in the ocean just off shore at multiple locations.

    The new Sheriff of L.A. County, Alex Villanueva, who was sworn in after the fire spoke at a recent Town Hall on May 22nd.  When the Sheriff was asked by a resident about the incidents in the water involving LASD if the same protocol would be in place during the next disaster, the Sheriff answered:

    “That should have never happened, and it won’t happen again”.

    Sheriff Villanueva at the May 22nd Town Hall at Duke’s Malibu.

    Even more egregious, a city commissioner reported that City Manager Feldman “refused resources by land and water including first aid, food, and gas, because she said she did not want to put FEMA funding in jeopardy.” When in fact, FEMA funding was never in question when providing aid during a disaster.

    Mitigation is critical to avoid the disastrous effects of any state emergency, and Feldman is guilty for not doing so.

    Politicians interference during Woolsey was also documented in the L.A. Times article regarding L.A. City Fire’s after-action report.

    Shortly after the Woolsey Fire, a petition was created by residents demanding the removal of the City Manager Reva Feldman and Public Safety Manager Susan Duenas. The petition, signed by more than 4000 residents and supporters was presented to City officials, along with public comment at multiple council meetings. Additionally, Council was inundated with emails from enraged community members supporting the dismissal of City Manager Feldman.

    Council members Peak and Mullen ignored the appeals made by residents to replace Feldman, who runs City Hall dictator-style, doing whatever she wants, with absolutely no oversight from City Council.

    With no options left and no resolution in sight, voters initiated the recall process as the deteriorated relationship between the community and the City, hit its peak after the disaster.

     Voter Intimidation and Harassment by City officials… including a family member!

    On February 11th, 2019 council members Skylar Peak and Rick Mullen were served with the Letter of Intent to Recall.

    Unwilling to accept the will of the voters who signed the Letter of Intent to Recall, council member Rick Mullen, immediately after being served, personally took it upon himself to make unsolicited visits to the proponents’ residences, some as late as 10 p.m. Mullen questioned most proponents in an intimidating manner, regarding why they signed the Letter of Intent to Recall.

    Additionally, Mullen’s wife, a dental hygienist, used the patient database at her employer’s dental office, violating HIPPA laws and breaking patient confidentiality. Mullen’s wife contacted proponents she did not know personally, in order to question and intimidate them. 

    One of the proponents reported these actions to recall organizers and quoted Mullen’s wife as saying: “Do you have any idea what you signed?”

    Mullen and his wife, displayed such disturbing, inappropriate, and aggressive behavior demanding to know why proponents were recalling Council member Mullen, that it pushed some victims to take additional precautions against future interaction in the future.

    A portion of the declaration submitted to authorities regarding voter intimidation by Rick Mullen toward one of the proponents of the recall.

    Council member Peak also displayed similar conduct when he approached a resident who was vocal online regarding the firefighters lack of reponse during the Woolsey Fire. Peak approached him at a well known Malibu venue and said “Firefighters are really mad and I better watch out.”

     

    This behavior from a public official is absolutely unacceptable, and it isn’t the first time we have heard reports of intimidation and inappropriate behavior from Peak.

    These acts of voter intimidation are illegal and caused fear, uneasiness. and in some cases, panic in the proponents of the recall efforts.

    State elections codes states the following:

    “Every person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or tactic of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election …is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to Section 1170(h) of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years. (§ 18540(a)”

    Many burn-out victims of the Woolsey Fire expressed desire to sign the recall petition, however, were afraid of their permits being denied, and/or their businesses being impacted, as well as other possible revenge by the city council members and specifically city manager Feldman.

    As if Woolsey burn-out victims aren’t suffering enough, those who expressed their frustration and spoke out on social media were subject of intimidation from City Manager Feldman. The City heavily  monitored chatter on all platforms post Woolsey, noting residents who were critical of the City and their performance during the disaster.

    One resident reported to recall organizers City Manager Feldman told him directly, “If you go against us, we will make it harder for you.”

    A whistle blower inside the City also reported “Feldman manipulates the order, and the granting of permit applications subjectively, based on who she likes and dislikes.” and residents are aware of and intimidated by this process, all of which interfered with recall efforts.

    Declarations from the victims who experienced this intimidation, and who were brave enough to speak up, are now in the hands of law enforcement agencies.

  • Disqualified: Law Firm Prohibited From Representing Woolsey Fire Victims

    Disqualified: Law Firm Prohibited From Representing Woolsey Fire Victims

    By Erik Cooper

    Victims of the Woolsey Fire can no longer rely upon the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for legal representation of damages suffered from the Woolsey Fire.  The November 8th blaze devastated millions of dollars in properties and impacted every Malibu resident.  Origination of the fire was sourced to the Santa Susana Field Research Laboratory in Simi Valley and, though official reports have still not yet confirmed, the cause is believed to be due the negligence of SoCal Edison’s electric service equipment.

    Shortly after the smoke cleared, victims of the Woolsey Fire filed their insurance claims and began looking for legal representation to help them recover from their staggering losses.  Malibu resident Kenneth R. Chiate, whose home reportedly survived the catastrophe, attended informational meetings hosted by a local newspaper and its recovery team, shared legal advice with attendees and suggested that he and his law firm, Quinn Emanuel, were not planning to represent any victims of the Woolsey Fire since Chiate and his firm had defended utility companies in lawsuits stemming from earlier wildfire events.

    In a motion to disqualify Quinn Emanuel filed in early May, SoCal Edison argued Chiate had participated in a December 2017 meeting and learned material confidential information about SoCal Edison and their strategy to defend claims filed by victims of the 2017 Thomas Fire.  SoCal’s motion implicated Chiate as a participant in strategy discussions and defense arguments during post-meeting follow-up calls, and though SoCal Edison did not hire Chiate or Quinn Emanuel as defense counsel, the confidential information disclosed to Chiate and his firm created substantial concerns for SoCal Edison’s defense of Woolsey Fire claims.

    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger agreed, issuing an order Thursday disqualifying Quinn Emanuel from representing Woolsey Fire victims after finding SoCal Edision had made a “persuasive showing” of concern.

    Shortly after lawsuits began filling the clerk’s desk at the courthouse, the court sought to coordinate all lawsuits to avoid clogging the court system with numerous lawsuits heard and tried in various courtrooms before various judges at various times and with various outcomes.  The coordination of all related Woolsey Fire lawsuits reduced the logjam through the court system and the varying possibilities of win-some / lose-some outcomes in the trials of numerous cases.  Once coordinated, attorneys representing Woolsey Fire victims have appeared before Judge Highberger in numerous pretrial matters — the most significant, the matter of Chiate’s and Quinn Emanuel’s conflicts of interest representing Woolsey Fire victims after having “abruptly switched sides,” as alleged by SoCal Edison.  Judge Highberger agreed.

    In objection to SoCal Edison’s motion, Quinn Emanuel argued the firm should not be disqualified because its meeting with the utility lasted less than one hour and nothing confidential was disclosed. Quinn Emanuel also claimed SoCal Edison waited too long to seek disqualification, and that the firm had already partnered with Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack and had worked on the Woolsey Fire case for five months.  In his order, Judge Highberger found Quinn Emanuel’s witnesses opposing disqualification of the firm to be unpersuasive.

    Following disqualification of Quinn Emanuel from representation of Woolsey Fire victims, the question now remains whether the firm’s partner, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, will also be disqualified.  If confidential information may have been shared, as the court suspected, from SoCal Edison to Ken Chiate and staff at Quinn Emanuel, such confidential information was also likely shared from Chiate and his Quinn Emanuel team to key lawyers and staff at Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.  The likelihood of SoCal Edison pursuing such disqualification seems inevitable.

    Continue to follow our FireWire coverage of up to the minute news and information to help Woolsey Fire victims recover from this tragic event.

    For more FireWire stories and information, click here, and follow us by subscribing here. 

     

     

  • In the Wake of the Woolsey Fire: What’s In Your Backyard?

    In the Wake of the Woolsey Fire: What’s In Your Backyard?

    By Cece Woods, Editor in Chief

    Nove 9th, 2018. Photo by Addison Altendorf.

    Since the Woolsey Fire devastated parts of Malibu and surrounding communities more than six months ago, questions remain today concerning the risk of nuclear contaminants and other toxins affecting our schools, our neighborhoods and our beaches.  Government officials conducted an initial assessment and issued public reports suggesting everything is fine.  But new evidence and a new look at those reports contradict those official findings, warranting independent studies and a deeper examination to help determine what’s really in our back yard.

    By now, most have learned that ground zero of the Woolsey Fire was sourced to the Santa Susana Field Research Laboratory (SSFL) located in Simi Valley. The site is comprised of 2,850 acres near the Ventura / Los Angeles county border and was once home to a nuclear facility and rocket engine test site before suffering a partial meltdown in 1959.  Radioactive and other chemicals have reportedly been released from the site over the years. Our state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) published a carefully-worded joint report several weeks after the Woolsey Fire, confirming fire had burned through a portion of the SSFL and claiming, in part, that air sample testing results indicated “all the measurements and analyses indicate that no radiation or hazardous materials associated with contamination of SSFL were released by the fire.”  That report, initially published on the DTSC website, is no longer published on the website.

    Victim and first responder accounts of the Woolsey Fire reported thick black clouds of smoke blanketing the canyons, hills and beaches west of the SSFL. Many evacuees choked on smoke while fleeing our community.  Satellites recorded billowing smoke blowing westward from Simi Valley toward Malibu, Channel Islands National Park and beyond.

    Wildfire smoke alone has been determined to be toxic to our health.  Contaminants from structure fires, those structures being our homes and commercial buildings, include toxic chemicals and materials such as pesticides, mercury, asbestos and other pollutants.  But of equal or greater concern to the health of our own and future generations are the risks we face from nuclear contaminants polluting our air, our soil, and our water.

    In January, an investigator we worked with for this story, collected samples to help determine what, if anything, remains in our soils after the Woolsey Fire. Expected results included char, soot and ash, all common elements of wildland fires.  Char alone is known to be carcinogenic and therefore toxic to our health.  But what else would be found within our beach sands and sediment throughout the greater Malibu area?

    Three dozen mason jars, a box of powder-free latex gloves, a large bottle of hand sanitizer and a black Sharpie were used to collect samples.  A map of the greater Malibu region was obtained and various points of interests — popular beaches, local schools, public parks — were selected for sampling collection.

    For each collection, a new and previously unopened mason jar would be used with hands protected by a dab of hand sanitizer and latex gloves.  To avoid cross-contamination of any samples, repeated hand sanitization and a new pair of gloves were used at each collection point.

    Photographs and videos of each collection were produced to help identify the whereabouts of any concerns identified.  Each jar was assigned a number, then placed in a box in the trunk of the investigator’s car before being shipped across the country to a secure location for examination.

    After all, who would want this stuff in their house?  A private laboratory was identified where each of the samples could be tested for any hazardous or toxic contaminants, including, among others, nuclear particulate matter.

    The results?  Each jar confirmed the presence of char, soot, ash, and… nuclear particulate matter. The samples will now be shipped to a new laboratory for an official study to be performed and results released to the public.

    Questions involving the results of this study have been submitted to California’s DTSC and EPA for further reporting.  The Local Malibu will continue to cover this story and share the responses we receive from state and federal officials in future reports.

    Should your property be tested? Absolutely. Especially if your property was in the devastation zone or close to it.

    The level of contamination has not truly been determined yet, but it does brig up a very important issue that needs to be addressed by property owners in the area. Testing and remediation of the soil must be a part of the plan post Woolsey, whether you are a burn-out victim or not.

    After the smoke cleared. Photo by Paul Taublieb.

    For more FireWire stories and information, click here, and follow us by subscribing here.

     

     

  • The City Observed – Reviewing the City’s Woolsey Fire Response with City’s Hired “Reviewers”

    The City Observed – Reviewing the City’s Woolsey Fire Response with City’s Hired “Reviewers”

    By Sam Hall Kaplan

    In its information gathering efforts, Management Partners, the firm retained by Malibu to evaluate the responses to the Woolsey Fire by CIty Manager Reva Feldman and the city government, asked that the interviews be confidential.

    While acceding to the request concerning THEIR comments, I nevertheless replied that in the interest of transparency in public matters I felt free to reveal MY comments made in my extended interview.

    As to the question that Management Partners having a conflict of interest as reported in The Local, employing as it does former city managers and underwriting their professional association in which city manager Feldman is active: I felt as an experienced journalist I would take the firm as its face value, and judge its effort by the anticipated report and recommendations.

    Meanwhile, as I write in The Local and other select websites, there were no surprises in the interview, because actually the questions asked had been raised and answered in my commentaries since the disastrous fire of six months ago that remains a haunting memory for many.

    Concerning history, I noted before the fire the city had been repeatedly urged by myself in print and others that emergency precautions be instituted in the wake of the deadly fires elsewhere in the State and the continuing hazardous conditions. But little was done, by a blithe, neophyte city manager harboring a defensive bunker mentality, which unfortunately persists.

    Then when the fire roared into Malibu, the city not surprisingly proved woefully inept; its mandatory evacuation was a near disaster; it failed to advocate for the city in the county’s chain of command, and egregiously shut down its Emergency Control Center for 16 critical hours in the heat of the disaster. It also impeded and speciously reprimanded residents who stayed to fight the fire.

    I repeated my opinion in the interview that at her bloated salary Feldman was not being paid to make excuses, and then further to not apologize for the city’s blatant failures, while incredulously publicly praising herself and staff.

    I added that her fumbling has continued in the Woolsey aftermath; that the Rebuild effort is a muddle; that in its critical launch period she went to Paris on vacation, only to return to contrive for herself a dubious award as city manager of the year, and then request a raise. That’s chutzpah.

    In concluding the interview, I was asked what three recommendations I would make to improve the city’s governance in the wake of the fire and in anticipation of the next disaster.

    I answered that the first would be the restructuring of city government to create councilmanic districts to improve communications, encourage civic involvement and organize emergency services.

    Second, I would reboot the city’s bureaucracy, to be more responsive to residents and efficient, scrutinize its consultant contracts, and consider establishing an oversight process and hiring an ombudsmen.

    But I added that the city politic was depressed by the fire, divided and demographically skewed, and that it only would begin to heal itself when Reva Feldman resigned or was fired.

    I know that is a tough call, but there is cause, and let’s face it, the Woolsey fire disaster demands it, and no less than the future of Malibu depends on it.