CULVER CITY IS AN ETHICAL DESERT

 

           

            Former Mayor Alex Fisch, City Council Members from both political parties, City Manager John Nachbar, former City Attorney Carol Schwab, and former Assistant City Manager Onyx Jones (former Chief Financial Officer) have not addressed or responded to my concerns about potential misconduct. They have chosen to overlook these allegations. It appears they feel immune from consequences, as Culver City lacks a reliable system for investigating allegations of corruption. In a public statement, Fisch indicated that Culver City's focus is on moving forward rather than dwelling on the past, suggesting a lack of accountability for government officials in Culver City.

   

         Culver City Surreptitiously Killed Its Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program

         City-Issued-Credit-Card Abuse

         City Council Member Thomas Small and Culver City Forward

         Ethically Challenged City Council Revoked Long-Standing Residential-Parking Restrictions

         Efforts to Suppress Political Free Speech

         Fight Against The War-Wagon As Economic Waste  

 

            "[Y]ou can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people." -- George Kent, former State Department official, during November 12, 2019 hearings on impeachment of former president Donald Trump.   

          

CULVER CITY SURREPTITIOUSLY KILLED ITS FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE PROGRAM

 

             It is expected that there would be unanimous agreement on the importance of implementing an independently managed fraud, waste, and abuse program along with a hotline (FWA Program/Hotline). However, there is currently some disagreement within the Culver City community on this matter.

              A report from Culver City's former Internal Auditor indicates that a significant portion of supervisors, managers, and director-level employees do not feel protected from retaliation when reporting wrongdoing. Additionally, a substantial number believe that Culver City faces a notable risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.

              Culver City invested significant resources and time into developing and evaluating an effective FWA Program/Hotline. On September 9, 2019, the City Council conducted a thorough evaluation and unanimously approved an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline. Independent management is crucial to encouraging individuals to report potential issues, ensuring their concerns are taken seriously, and safeguarding their anonymity.

                Unfortunately, despite the City Council's approval, the implementation of an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline was not carried out by the Staff. Instead, City Manager Nachbar, former City Attorney Schwab, and former Chief Financial Officer Onyx Jones, who could potentially be the subjects of whistle-blower complaints, secretly took control of the management. The current City Council has taken no action to address this issue, with Staff asserting authority and City Council Members complying. There appears to be a belief that residents are unaware or indifferent to these actions.

             On March 22, 2021, Culver City implemented a FWA Program/Hotline that has raised concerns regarding its effectiveness. Some stakeholders believe that the program was inadequately designed, potentially misrepresenting the level of security provided to residents.

 

             The following information describes how Culver City government lost its ethical compass. (Actually, that assumes a fact not in evidencethat it ever had an ethical compass to lose.) "Why?" is a more difficult question to answer.  So far, Culver City's most detailed explanation has been "things changed."

 

         In 2015, Culver City put out a Request For Proposals to hire an Internal Auditor and, in particular, to design an effective FWA Program/Hotline. Moss applied. Based upon its wealth of experience, Moss won the contract. By June 30, 2017, Moss made written recommendations for an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline. The heart of the FWA Program/Hotline is that the answering service receiving tips would report directly to the Internal Auditor. Culver City Staff responded, "The City is committed to fully implement a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Program per the recommendations of Moss Adams." 150716_RequestForProposal.pdf + 150813_MossAdamsLLP_Proposal.pdf + 151227_MossAdamsLLP-CC_Contract.pdf + 170630_MossAdamsLLP_FWA_Program_Report.pdf

 

         At the September 12, 2016 City Council meeting, members of the public requested that the City Council place the creation of an Ethics Hotline on its agenda for public discussion.  They alleged that a City Council Member had improperly influenced Staff to rig a study in favor of the Council Member's constituent. The City Council neither informed the public of Moss's engagement nor placed the Ethics-Hotline topic on a future agenda. City Attorney Schwab idly sat on her hands. 160825_CCN_EthicsInQuestion.pdf + 160908_CCN_Faceoff.pdf + 160912_CC_Minutes.pdf + 160915_CCN_LetterToEditor.pdf  + 161006_CCO_EthicalDesert.pdf

 

         The FWA-Program/Hotline project remained hidden and languished for years. On April 8, 2019, after being prodded by my wife and me, the City Council created the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Internal Controls (Subcommittee), and appointed Council Members Thomas Small and Fisch to expedite Staff 's progress through its implementation of Moss's recommendations. The Subcommittee delegated duties to the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC). 190408_CC_Minutes.pdf + 190409_CCCR_Subcommittee.pdf

 

         At the June 12, 2019 FAC meeting, the FAC fully vetted the FWA Program/Hotline recommended by Moss and, by a unanimous vote, passed it on to the City Council.  City Council Member Small, City Manager Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab, and Chief Financial Officer Jones attended the meeting. Chief Financial Officer Jones stated that either Lighthouse Services LLC (Lighthouse) or another would be selected to provide FWA-hotline-answering services, with Lighthouse being the most likely choice. She further stated, in part, "What Lighthouse will do…. They're really just taking the calls. Then, what happens is that they would go through Moss's program and, then, Moss Adams would then…." (Audio Recording of 6/12/19 FAC Meeting at 43:29.) Moss was described as a "neutral." No one raised any objection. Small was laudatory by expressing "appreciation to the Greenbergs for their advocacy." The Minutes reflect, "Discussion ensued between staff and Committee Members regarding ... appreciation to Mr. Greenberg for his involvement and for his request for transparency and accountability; acknowledgement that things need to change...." 190612_FAC_Minutes.pdf + 190704_CulverCityNews-FWA_Hotline.pdf + 191112_LG_Letter_to_FAC_FWA-Hotline_Problems.pdf  

 

         If Culver City's Internal Auditor (vis-à-vis Staff) receives tips through the hotline, Culver City has an absolute defense from disclosing the whistle blower's identity. Otherwise, one could seek a whistle blower's identity by serving a Public Records Act (PRA) request upon Culver City and following through with litigation against Culver City.  Use of an Internal Auditor would protect Culver City from unnecessary litigation costs and absolutely protect the identity of any whistle blower. GovtCode_53087.6.pdf + GovtCode_6255.pdf

 

         At the September 9, 2019 City Council Meeting, the City Council vetted and voted unanimously to accept the FWA Program/Hotline recommended by Moss. In substance, Staff reiterated, "The City is committed to fully implement a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Program per the recommendations of Moss Adams." 190909_CC_Agenda.pdf + 190909_CC_Minutes.pdf

 

         The next day, Moss reminded Chief Financial Officer Jones that best practices require the Internal Auditor to manage the FWA Program/Hotline. 190910_MossAdamsLLP_Email.pdf

 

         Within a month, City Manager Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab and Chief Financial Officer Jones secretly excluded the Internal Auditor from the FWA Program/Hotline and had all tips received by Lighthouse directed only to them. 191004_Lighthouse-CC_Contract.pdf

 

         Within days, Chief Financial Officer Jones arranged to have all FWA Program/Hotline tips forwarded only to Punit Chokshi, a Finance Department employee inexperienced in FWA-Program/Hotline matters. 191014_CC_Email_to_Lighthouse_PrimaryContact.pdf + PunitChokshi_LinkedIn.pdf

 

         Two days later, at the October 16, 2019 FAC Meeting, Chokshi announced that Culver City had entered into a contract with Lighthouse to field and forward FWA-Program/Hotline tips. However, Chokshi misleadingly failed to mention Staff's secret switcheroo, the one that put him in command of the FWA Program/Hotline, and cut out the Internal Auditor. 191016_FAC_Minutes.pdf

 

         On October 19, 2019, still unaware of Staff's switcheroo, I informed Chief Financial Officer Jones of material problems with Culver City's newly-minted-FWA website, and offered to meet in person to discuss them. I sent a copy of my letter to Subcommittee co-Chairpersons Small and Fisch, Mayor Sahli-Wells, Council Members Eriksson and Lee, City Manager Nachbar and City Attorney Schwab. No one responded. 191019_LG_Letter_to_CFO.pfd + 191019_LighthouseServices.pdf  My letter states, in part:

The reporting page states, in part: "Reports are submitted by Lighthouse to the organization's designee, and may or may not be investigated at the sole discretion of the organization." (Emphasis added.)

This process seems to render the effectiveness of Culver City's FWA Hotline suspect, at best. Reports are submitted to the "organization's designee." Who is the person or his or her title? What are the person's duties except to receive the reports? "Sole discretion" is not reasonable discretion, but unfettered discretion, even if the decision is unreasonable or corrupt. The decision to proceed to investigation seems not to rest with the "organization's designee," but with "the organization." Who, within "the organization," makes the decision to "investigate," and how is that decision made? Assuming an investigation results in the findings of fraud, waste or abuse, then what?

Until the aforesaid details are resolved and formal procedures established, employees and the public might greet Culver City's FWA Hotline with skepticism.

As you know, my wife and I have a great interest in making Culver City's FWA Hotline successful. It would be our pleasure to meet with you, at your convenience, to discuss the foregoing issues. As a former Compliance Director of a New York Stock Exchange Member Firm, I established and maintained networks to ferret out fraud, waste and abuse.

 

         Pursuant to a PRA request, I received a copy of the Culver City-Lighthouse contract. At the next FAC Meeting, I accused Chokshi of misrepresentation by omission, and claimed that Staff had corrupted the FWA Program/Hotline recently authorized by the City Council. 191112_LG_Letter_to_FAC_FWA-Hotline_Problems.pdf + 191120_FAC_Minutes.pdf  

 

         Chief Financial Officer Jones started claiming that Culver City needed to do a so-called "pilot program" before implementing Moss's recommended FWA Program/Hotline. Supposedly, all tips would be directed to the "City Attorney's Office." Without further explanation, she claimed, "Things changed." However, Culver City's responses to my PRA requests demonstrate that the supposed "pilot program" never existed. Further, Culver City has no document showing who, if anyone, investigates any complaint or how the persons are selected.  191115_MossAdamsLLP_EnterpriseRiskAssessment.pdf + 191117_LG_LetterTo_FAC_ERA.pdf + 191205_CCN_ColdWaterOnFWAHotline.pdf  + 191216_CC_PRA_Response_PilotProgram.pdf

 

         Culver City's FWA-Program/Hotline website contained misleading statements and false representations. Contrary to the website's statements, Culver City had neither a "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse unit" nor an Internal Auditor. CC_1_Website_ReportFraudWasteAndAbuse.pdf + CC_2_Website_FWA_Program.pdf + 191120_PRA_Response_Website.pdf + 200610_CCCR_StealthHotline.pdf

 

         I wrote to and appeared before the City Council, fully informing all City Council Members of the aforesaid facts. Mayor Sahli-Wells responded (in writing) by stating, in part, that Culver City will "take appropriate measures to investigate [my] allegations." Culver City has failed and, thus, refused to do so. It has not denied my allegations. 191205_CCN_ColdWaterOnFWAHotline.pdf + 191209_LG_LetterToCC_Complaint.pdf + 191209_CC_Minutes.pdf + 191218_CC_LetterReInvestigation.pdf + 191231_LG_ReplyLetterToCC+Exhibits.pdf  

 

         I forwarded a copy of my detailed reply to Mayor Sahli-Wells's 12/18/19 letter to Council Members Eriksson, Fisch, Lee, and Small, and to City Manager John Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab and Chief Financial Officer Jones. None responded. 200102_LG_Email_CopyResponse.pdf

 

         I kept Mayor Sahli-Wells and Subcommittee co-Chairpersons Small and Fisch fully advised, stating, in part: "The Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline project has run amuck. Public trust in the FWA Hotline is at risk. The FAC and the Subcommittee need to pay more attention to this critical project." 200208_LG_EmailToSubCommittee.pdf

 

         On July 8, 2020, I inquired of current Mayor Eriksson as to the status of the City Council's "investigation." I stated, in part, "Since December 18, 2019—more than six months ago—I have not heard further from the City. Now, you are serving as the Mayor. What is the status of the City Council 'tak[ing] appropriate measures to investigate [my] allegations'? If the City conducted an investigation, please advise me who conducted it." The email chain demonstrates that Eriksson hypocritically claims that he "supports" the FWA Program/Hotline recommended by Moss. A copy was sent to all the usual suspects. No one responded. 200708_LG_Email_MayorEriksson.pdf

 

         Staff has has only recently publicly forwarded a copy of the Enterprise Risk Assessment Report, which contains damning findings, to the City Council. 200808_LGEmail_CC_ERA.pdf

 

         According to former-Mayor Eriksson, Staff is now circulating a "draft policy" that it will eventually present to the City Council. Culver City does not need a "draft policy" to appoint an independent manager of the FWA Program/Hotline. Essentially, Staff intends to cause the City Council to reverse course from an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline to one managed by Staff. However, the City Council already thoroughly vetted and adopted an independently managed FWA Program/Hotline on September 9, 2019. The City Council should not tolerate Staff's underhanded insubordination. 200830_FWA_Program_Hotline_Status.pdf

 

         Until Culver City assigns a "neutral" to manage the FWA Program/Hotline that Moss recommended and the City Council thoroughly vetted and accepted on September 9, 2019. Culver City is running a scam on the public. 200618_CCN_FWA_Hotline.pdf

 

         The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Internal Controls is supposed to monitor and report Staff's progress (or lack thereof) on implementing internal controls, including the FWA Program/Hotline. It is missing in action. 200831_PRA-Response.pdf + 200929_CityCouncilMeeting_E-Comments.pdf

 

            Staff has engaged in: (1) a secret switcheroo; (2) a bogus "pilot project;" (3) publishing a fraudulent website; (4) conducting a phony "research project; and (5) a suspicious "draft policy." The biggest question"Why?"remains unanswered. Why, when we were rounding third base and heading for home, did Staff throw the game? What are City Manager Nachbar, City Attorney Schwab and Chief Financial Officer Jones hiding? 

 

         The Culver City Council recently adopted a FWA procedure. By providing a false sense of security, a severely disabled FWA program is worse than no FWA program. Culver City Killed Its Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program. 210610_CCN_CulverCityKilledItsFraudWasteAndAbuseProgram.pdf  210607_CCCR_CulverCityKilledItsFraudWasteAndAbuseProgram.pdf

 

         Culver City's Quarterly FWA Reports reveal that the so-called Internal Audit Manager refers all FWA-hotline complaints to Department Managers to investigate their own departments. He is Culver City's version of the Maytag Man. 220721_CCN_NeedMajorFWAProgramChanges.pdf

 

         A well-connected real-estate developer provided humongous campaign contributions to help oust the progressives from power.  The three progressive City Council Members had their last opportunity to cure their failed version of the FWA System/Hotline to protect Culver City.  221124_CCN_ProgressivesStillHaveTime.pdf

 

   

CITY-ISSUED-CREDIT-CARD ABUSE 

 

 

             Culver City has issued approximately 85 credit cards to its approximately 650 employees.  Culver City City Council Policy No. 4209 (5/13/13) sets forth the do's and don'ts associated with using credit cards issued to employees. PCardProcedureNo4209.pdf   

 

             Policy No. 4209 states, in part: "The PCard is intended for low value purchases (generally under $500.00 for the total order including sales tax and shipping) that meet the requirements for approved purchases ...." Culver City employees have ignored that purpose. Further, no one is watching the store. After all, it is only other peoples' money.

       

         I detected many suspicious PCard purchases. A few of the most troubling deal with: (1) $4,000 lunches at Boston Market by an Assistant City Manager; (2) motel bills amounting to approximately $15,000 in a very short time for an allegedly homeless persons by the City Manager; and (3) monthly Orange County toll-road fees by the Chief of Police. More egregiously, PCards have been used improperly to purchase expensive computer equipment. (Unless properly inventoried, those items can grow legs.) That's for starters. Culver City's responses to my PRA request supplied the raw data. It was a small sampling of a few employees, but the results should shock a taxpayer's conscience.

 

          In early 2019, I informed the City Council of the Culver City's PCard problem.  190303_LetterToCityCouncil.pdf 

 

          The City Council gave the appearance that it was listening. 190411_CCN_NewSheriffInTown.pdf

 

          But the runaway cost of seminars and training sessions that did not produce one idea to benefit Culver City was another clue as to the depth of the problem.  190725_CCN_CulverCityNeedsIdeas.pdf  + 190704_LG_Letter_FAC_MeetingAgendaSuggestions.pdf + 190709_LG_Letter_FAC_SupplementalMeetingAgendaSuggestions.pdf

 

          Follow-up research demonstrated that the PCard problem had not abated. 200130_CCN_CC_GovernmentFrittersAwayTaxpayerMoney.pdf  + 200110_PCard_Spreadsheet.pdf

 

          I advised Subcommittee co-Chairpersons Small and Fisch and then Mayor Sahli-Wells of the continuing problem. No one responded. 200208_LG_EmailToSubCommittee.pdf

 

          The Finance Advisory Committee washed its hands of the matter by claiming that its job is not to determine the merits of a matter. 200212_FAC_Minutes.pdf      

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS SMALL AND CULVER CITY FORWARD

 

 

         Years ago, City Attorney Carol Schwab publicly informed the City Council that she does not determine whether a City Council Member is biased or has a conflict-of-interest. The May 27, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes state, in part: "Carol Schwab, City Attorney, discussed instances where a conflict of interest arises; the appearance of bias; and she clarified that it is up to the individual Councilmember to make the decision." 140527_CC_Minutes_SchwabEthics.pdf   

 

         Council Member Small publicly announced that he: (1) would not seek a second term; (2) had opened up shop ("last fall") as the Chief Executive Officer of Culver City Forward; and (3) would move on (after his term expires in November) from the City Council. His statements led to my first article concerning his probable conflicts of interest. 200807_CCCR_SmallStandsDown.pdf + 200810_CCCR_DearEditor_ThomasSmallsLegacy.pdf

 

         An anonymous tipster suggested looking into an alleged "Small-Hackman" relationship. A cursory investigation led to a second article, which sets forth details of the relationships and their ramifications. Michael Hackman and related entities have large real-estate interests in Culver City. 200820_CCN_DearEditor_ResignationRequired.pdf

 

         I promptly emailed a copy of that second article to the City Council. No City Council Member responded. 200820_LG_EmailToCityCouncil.pdf

 

            Another person inquired about source materials.

 

         The Culver City Cross Roads recently interviewed Small. He spoke of his relationships with Hackman Capital Partners, LLP (Hackman) and Culver City Forward, and his "extensive discussions" with City Attorney Schwab and City Manager Nachbar. 200409_CCCR_CulverCityCouncilMemberSmallTalks.pdf

 

         Hackman does much business in Culver City. Hackman_TheCulverSteps.pdf + Hackman_TheCulverStudios.pdf  + Hackman_5500JeffersonBoulevard.pdf

 

         On one occasion, when a Hackman project came before the City Council, Small made no disclosure and voted in favor of Hackman's request. This contrasts with Mayor Sahli-Wells's disclosure of her potential conflict of interest. 190826_CC_Minutes.pdf

 

         Culver City has a conflict-of-interest policy against gifts in excess of $25 to Council Members. 960422_CC_CodeOfEthics_ConflictsOfInterest.pdf  

 

         Hackman's General Counsel incorporated Culver City Forward and caused other legal work to be done on its behalf, e.g., he requested that the IRS grant Culver City Forward tax-exempt status. 200820_CCF_CASectStateSummary.pdf + 190301_CCF_ArticlesOfIncorporation.pdf  + 190524_CCF_CASectState_Hackman.pdfHackman_BrentDanielIloulian.pdf + 200501_CCF_EIN_83-4433775.pdf  Hackman created many other business entities, but none like Culver City Forward. Hackman_Profiles.pdf 

 

         On June 1, 2020, Michael Hackman, Chief Executive Officer of Hackman, formally relinquished control over Culver City Forward to City Council Member Small. One could reasonably assume that the value of a good-standing tax-exempt corporation is a lot more than $25. That's not counting any funds in the corporation's bank accounts or other assets that it might have possessed, e.g. a leasehold interest, at the time of the transfer of control. 200309_CCF_CASectState_Hackman.pdf  + 200601_CCF_CASectState_Small.pdf

 

         According to the IRS, "An exempt organization must make available for public inspection its exemption application. … In addition, an exempt organization must make available for public inspection and copying its annual return." (Emphasis added.) Culver City Forward and its representatives have ignored multiple requests for this information. A Freedom of Information Act request has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Stay tuned. 200813_CCF_RequestsForTaxInformation.pdf

 

         The search for truth and justice continues. What did: (1) City Attorney Schwab; (2) City Manager Nachbar, and (3) fellow City Council Members know, and when did they know it? Did City Attorney Schwab and/or City Manager Nachbar grant a special dispensation to Small? If so, when and why? Culver City might prefer that we remain in the dark. 200818_PublicRecordsActRequest.pdf  + 200826_CC_PRA_Response.pdf + 200827_PRA_Reply.pdf200910_CC_PRA_Presponse.pdf  +  200914_PRA_Reply.pdf  +  200818_PRA-Second_Supplemental_Response.pdf  We learned that, on September 24, 2019, the City Attorney, the City Manager and Council Member Small met to discuss potential conflicts of interest.

 

         By June 1, 2020, Hackmanwho had business dealings with Culver Cityhad "funded" Culver City Forward and it was operational. On June 1, 2020, Michael Hackman relinquished his position as Culver City Forward's Chief Executive Officer and bestowed operational control of Culver City Forward upon Council Member Small. Culver City's "Code of Ethics" states, in part, "'Gift' means anything of economic value, regardless of the form. ... No Public Official ... shall accept any gift valued in excess of $25 from any person, firm, or corporation which to his/her knowledge is interested in any business dealing with the City. ... Violations of the Ethics Policy and Guidelines may expose a public official ... to a variety of consequences, including reprimand, removal from office ... Elected Officials: Penalties authorized by law may be imposed." On June 1, 2020, did operation control of Culver City Forward—a prospective economic advantage—have economic value in excess of $25? If so, will Culver City censure Council Member Small or allow a sense of impunity to continue to permeate the governmental environment? We filed a Complaint against Council Member Small, seeking an independent investigation. The City Attorney said, in effect, take a hike; proving, once again, Culver City is an ethical desert. 200922_Complaint-Exhibits.pdf + 201013_CA_Response.pdf + 201013_ReplyToCA.pdf + 201020_CA_Response.pdf + 201023_ReplyToCA.pdf + 201027_CA_Response.pdf

 

         However, the City Attorney revealed another method by which she hinders objective-independent investigations. 210127_CCCR_QuestionableMethods.pdf In addition to representing Culver City, she made Small her "client." Attorneys run into ethical problems investigating their "clients" or former "clients." 

 

         Would Culver City Forward honor another and publicly advertised request for its Form 990 be successful? 210405_CCCR_DoesCulverCityForwardDoAnyGood.pdf

 

         One can obtain IRS Form 990 filings from ProPublica's website. CCF's 2019 Form 990 contains much financial information. From March 2019, CCF had only one employee—Chief Executive Officer Small. On average, Small supposedly worked 40 hours per week for CCF, and CCF paid Small benefits of $84,973, which averages about $8,500 per month. CCF took in exactly $300,000. (This is consistent with one giant tax-deductible contribution by Hackman.) CCF paid no rent, but had total expenses of $138,037, even though CCF was still "in the process of forming." $14,819 went toward attorney fees. (Only Hackman's corporate attorney is identified in CCF's public filings.) A "consultant" got $20,840, and blessed Small's benefits as "fair and reasonable." (A web search revealed that Hackman's current Tax Director was formally employed by CCF's Sacramento-Form-990 "Preparer." The Preparer's website advertises that it has "specialized expertise" with tax-exempt organizations.) Schedule B identifies "contributors" and the amount(s) contributed as "RESTRICTED." Worst of all and consistent with CCF's stated mission of "engag[ing]" and "address[ing] important issues," CCF expended nothing directly to benefit those who are not able to care for themselves. 2019_CCF_Form_990-Annotated.pdf One can readily discern that CCF's 2019 Form 990 information concerning Small's extensive efforts at CCF directly conflicts with CCF's Secretary of State filings concerning Small's lack of participation with CCF. Some information is available on CCF's Form 990 - flat $200,000 in contributions with $182,292 in "Executive compensation."

 

         A second supplemental and broader request for an independent investigation of the Hackman-CCF-Small relationship has been filed with the City Attorney. 210413_CALetter-NewInformation.pdf

 

           According to Hackman's April 20, 2018 publication, "[w]ith his architectural background, Small worked on the plan [for Culver Studios] for two years, helping to integrate the architecture from the old stages." 180420_CulverStudiosCelebrates.pdf Questions arise. In what capacity did Small "work"? Was Small paid by Hackman for that "work"?

 

            It appears that Hackman's political contributions continue to influence additional City Council Members, who appear to be blind to the conflict-of-interest concept. 

230413_CCCR_Real Estate Money and the Appearance of Corruption.pdf

 

 

ETHICALLY CHALLENGED CITY COUNCIL REVOKED LONG-STANDING RESIDENTIAL-PARKING RESTRICTIONS

 

           Using questionable tactics, Culver City business interests converted residents' protected parking area to their parking lot. Culver City government has no shame—it's business as usual. 160915_CCO_WeWon_Overview.pdf  +  160429_CCCR_HistoricalRecap.pdf

           Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church enlisted the help of a City Council Member to revoke its neighbors' protective-parking restrictions. Council Member Andrew Weissman had both an undisclosed social and business relationship with a Church VIP. 140912_CCN_ParkingDispute.pdf + 140919_CCN_ResidentAllegesBias.pdf 141024_CCN_CeaseAndDesist.pdf  

           Years before, the City permitted the Church to build without providing for any on-site parking. The Church morphed into a business. It rented its membership-dwindling facility to other organizations and to other churches. 141110_CCN_ParkingDilemmaContinues.pdf

           Residents easily demonstrated that arguments by the Church's few supports were without merit. 141212_CCN_AssumptionsRefuted.pdf

           Per the City's Procedures, only the Traffic Engineer or the residents could raise the issue of modifying parking restrictions. Initially, the Traffic Engineer rejected the Church's requests. Yet, Weissman pressured him to conduct a bogus "traffic study." The Traffic Engineer warned Weissman that the "study" was unfair to the neighbors. Further, a member of the management of the contractor that conducted the "study" was a member of the Church. 141107_CCN_TrafficEngineerDeniesRequests.pdf  +  160316_CCCR_PoliticsOfParking.pdf  +  160610_CCCR_PhoneyParkingStudy.pdf 160711_CCCR_ConflictedParkingStudy.pdf  +  160901_CCN_DefectiveParkingStudy.pdf

           Some Council Members accused the residents of underhandedly opposing their favorite City-Council candidates. One besmirched the residents on a private-media website that was managed by another Church VIP (Dan O'Brien), and encouraged others to do so. The Chamber of Commerce put in its two cents. 160322_CCCR_SocialMediaSecretSociety.pdf   +  160404_CCCR_SocialMedia.pdf  + 160331_CCN_ChamberOfCommerceAttack.pdf

           After extensive due diligence, the residents presented irrefutable documentary evidence of the aforesaid biases and shenanigans to the City Council and to the City Attorney. Both yawned. Culver City is an ethical desert. 160908_CCN_FaceOff.pdf160823_CCCR_LackOfEthics.pdf  +  161013_CCN_EthicalDesert.pdf

           We have omitted most information about related litigation and settlements. We have redacted some articles. None of which modifies the material underlying facts.

 

 

EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL FREE SPEECH

 

 

                Please see www.LGEsquire.com/Political_Free_Speech.html.

 

 

FIGHT AGAINST THE WAR-WAGON AS ECONOMIC WASTE

 

              Culver City residents recognize and appreciate services provided by the Culver City Police Department (CCPD). However, that does not mean that residents unthinkingly support the purchase of every toy CCPD wants in its arsenal. Taxpayers' money is tight, and there are alternatives competing for it.

           It appears that the CCPD anticipates an invasion by the Symbionese Liberation Army or some similar group. 190822_CCCR_CCPDWantsAWarWagon.pdf

           The City Council declined to authorize the purchase of a pig-in-a-poke. 190829_CCCR_JustTheFacts.pdf

        

           Discussion at the Culver City Senior Center demonstrated that fear is a potent motivator. 200212_CCCR_CommunityMeetingOverBearCat.pdf

        

           Culver City has absolutely NO need for its own Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck (BearCat). The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department provides the same services without charge. CCPD has no complaint against LACSD's swat protection. 200218_CCCR_CulverCityDoesNotNeedASWATTeam.pdf

        

           It might be hard for proponents of CCPD's purposed purchase of a BearCat to acknowledge the obvious: BearCats—no matter how fearsome—do NOT prevent emergencies, but respond AFTER an emergency occurs. 200305_CCCR_WeDoNotNeedABearCat.pdf

 

DISCLAIMER

 

 

 

            The information presented on this website was obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed.  It is provided solely for educational purposes.  It is not intended to be nor should it be interpreted to be the rendering of legal or other advice.  The opinions, findings and/or conclusions of the author(s) do not necessarily state or reflect those of anyone else, may not be politically correct and are subject to change without notice. 

 

 

Last Updated:  June 17, 2024

 

 

This Website is Sponsored by:

 

 

Law  Offices  of

LES GREENBERG

 

http://www.LGEsquire.com

LGreenberg@LGEsquire.com

 

 

###