Why didn’t the Council Demand the Backup Documents From their Staff as Required by California Public Contract Code?
“We’re blind, We Can Not See” is Exactly why the SEC Specifies that the Council put in Writing that THEY are Responsible for their Actions.
Sept. 18, 2017
City Clerk of Beaumont
Public Record Request:
All Correspondence to/from any/all Beaumont Elected and Appointed Officials to/from any all Gilmore Bell Representatives. Correspondence should include, but not limited to all Papers and Estimates as required by California Public Contract Code 10335 and additional Provisions for Legal Services as required by California Public Contract Code 10335.5.
Date: September 18, 2017 at 4:46:02 PM PDT
Subject: RE: Public Record Request 9-18-17
Can you clarify a time frame of such correspondence?
Deputy City Clerk
City of Beaumont
550 E 6th St
Beaumont, Ca 92223
Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Public Record Request 9-18-17
To: Judy Bingham <[email protected]>, Sharon Geiser <[email protected]>, [email protected], Lloyd White <[email protected]>, Nancy Carroll <[email protected]>, Mark Orozco <[email protected]>, JULIO MARTINEZ <[email protected]>, [email protected]</[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]>
Why didn’t the Council demand the backup documents be put on the Agenda as required by California Public Contract Code?
“We’re blind, we can not see” is exactly why the SEC specifies that the Council put in writing that they are responsible for their actions.
It was assumed that the Law Firm of Gilmore Bell wasn’t notified until after the SEC Order was Issued on August 23, 2017.
But since you asked; “All” means all.
If an Elected or Appointed Official had contact with Gilmore Bell before the SEC Order, then we would like that correspondence too.
In the Real World; An Elected or Appointed Officials representing the City of Beaumont contacted the Law Firm at some point in time.
If the original contact was a phone call there is a record of the call and I would hope notes taken from the Elected or Appointed Official.
If the original contact was an email or letter there should be a record of the communication.
Parton claims that he struck a deal, so there must be written communication because that’s how the real world works.
We want the names of the Gilman Bell Representatives before the start of the City Council Meeting.
We want the Documents from Gilman Bell stating that they are filling the role of ‘Independent Consultant’.
SEC Order Undertaking 28: Provide Written Evidence of Compliance and Exhibits Sufficient to Prove Compliance.
Fraudulent Interstate Transactions: Securities Act of 1934:
SEC. 17. (a)(2) “to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
SEC. 17. (a)(3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.”
California Public Contract Code 10335: ” Each contract shall be transmitted with all papers, estimates, and recommendations concerning it to the department and, if approved by the department, shall be effective from the date of approval. “
California Public Contract Code 10353.5: (a) Any contract for legal services shall contain the following provisions:
(1) The contractor shall agree to adhere to legal cost and billing guidelines designated by the state agency.
(2) The contractor shall adhere to litigation plans designated by the state agency.
(3) The contractor shall adhere to case phasing of activities designated by the state agency.
(4) The contractor shall submit and adhere to legal budgets as designated by the state agency.
(5) The contractor shall maintain legal malpractice insurance in an amount not less than the amount designated by the state agency.
(6) The contractor shall submit to legal bill audits and law firm audits if requested by the state agency. The audits may be conducted by employees or designees of the state agency or by any legal cost control providers retained by the state agency for that purpose.
(b) A contractor may be required to submit to a legal cost and utilization review, as determined by the state agency.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Legal bill audits,” means an evaluation and analysis of the reasonableness of particular legal bills submitted to a state agency for reimbursement.
(2) “Law firm audit,” means a review of law firm files applicable to legal services provided to a state agency for a particular time period.
(3) “Legal cost and utilization review,” means a review performed by the state agency or its legal cost provider of the utilization and billing practices of a contractor for the purpose of developing or revising guidelines to be followed prospectively by the contractor in representing the state agency.
(4) “Contract for legal service,” shall include any contract between a state agency and any law firm, professional corporation, law firm partnership, or individual attorney to perform legal work on behalf of the state agency.
(5) “Legal cost control provider,” means any corporation, professional corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship which possesses the following qualifications:
(A) Maintains an office in the state.
(B)Is authorized to do business in the state.
(C) Has existed as a legal cost control provider for at least two complete, successive years, as evidenced by filings of tax returns.
(D) All legal cost control services are provided by attorneys.
(E) All attorneys providing the legal cost control services are admitted to practice in this state.
(F) All attorneys have been admitted to practice in this state for a minimum of five years prior to the performance of any legal cost control services for any state agency.
(G) Any legal cost control provider shall maintain professional liability insurance in the amount designated by the state agency.
(Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 734, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1993.)