Appeal - Moreno 04-04-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

APPEAL OF CODE OF ETHICS ADJUDICATING BODY DECISION DATED MARCH 28, ro-R, 0JN ETHICS COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY JAVIER AND VIVIAN MORENO AGAINST JA Cityc,,if aty Clerk's Office This shall serve as complainants' Notice mf Request for Appeal ofthe decision of the Code ofEthics Adjudicating Body (hereafter, "Ethi|us Cornnmittee°) in response to their complaint filed January 6, 2014, wherein it is alleged that Councilman Steve Adams violated several provisions of the ethics code in his failure tm disclose to other members of the City Council and the pulb||c that certain Ommmd|pesons had engaged in the unlawful conduct of interjecting themselves into the RFP process to unduly influencing the outcome of the process and selection of a contractor. A true and correct copy of the complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. Also contained in the complaint was a list of pre-hearing objections and an alternative disposition for the Ethics Committee's consideration, It is complainants' contention that the Ethics Committee committed clear error and an abuse of discretion in its failure tml) address any of the pre-hearing objections 2) consider the alternative disposition 3) review the video stream and/or audio of either the Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting or Council Meeting referencedin the complaint and readily available in the Clerk's off ice or any City computer terminal and 4) engage in any form of meaningful deliberation. In making its finding of "no ethics code violation", the Committee seemed to imply that it was complainant's burden to provide all evidence for consideration, including tapes of the Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting and Council Meeting. These meetings were clearly referenced inthe complaint and readily available to the Committee. Ironically, in prior Ethics Committee Meeting concerning a complaint made by Jason Hunter, the tape of the Human Resources Board Meeting at issue was not produced by Mr, Hunter, but rather produced by the City for the Ethic Committee's review. This disparate treatment of complainants clearly violates due process and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Moreover, the Committee's failure to make any inquiry of Mr. Adam's representative regarding what exactly Mr. Adams did witness and/or hear was malfeasance. This hearing, like so many others, was clearly pre-scripted and contrived tmensure a finding nf "no ethics code violation". The committee's failure to make any inquiry or engage in any form of deliberation clearly establishes a failure of the substantial evidence test set forth inTopanQa Association v. the County of Los Angeles, 214[A3d1348. The substantial evidence test requires that agencies make findings for all adjudicative decisions in order to "bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision". No such findings were made by this Ethics Committee. The Ethic's Code process is fatally flawed and plagued with layers of corruption, conflict, bias and undue influence. The process is in direct contraction to the will of the Riverside voters in approving the charter amendment creating the Ethic's Code. This City Council's continued failure tnaddress the significant abuses of this process by City Management and staff is in and of itself a violation of the City Charter and a misdemeanor crime.