An anonymous tip that could have some bite to it

Andrew Lamberto

Someone just pointed out that when the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors entered the public section after meeting on discipline for Greg Devereaux, they indicated they had no reportable action.  But we now know they did in fact have reportable action based on Supervisor Gonzales’s comments regarding doing a complete review of Devereaux.  Do you all think we witnessed a Brown Act violation?

7 thoughts on “An anonymous tip that could have some bite to it

  1. Chasing a Brown Act violation would be a waste of time. In fact they would probably like that to happen as it detracts from the original facts. The original facts are what need to stay alive. Hopefully the county board sees that no matter how good they may have been at their jobs before this, everyone is replaceable and actions have consequences. They have both lost the trust of the people they are supposed to lead and the people they work for. Their credibility is gone and they should just go also.

  2. Pursuing a Brown Act violation will help keep the original facts alive. It will highlight the failure of the Board to act and expose its continued non-transparency. From the link above: After a closed meeting “All actions taken and all votes in closed session must be publicly reported orally or in writing within 24 hours”. Action is defined

    54952.6. As used in this chapter, “action taken” means a collective
    decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a
    collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a
    legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an
    actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when
    sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution,
    order or ordinance.

    Gonzales stated that she was disappointed from the Supervisors did a personnel review outcome of the closed meeting. There is no doubt that an action as defined above was taken. Actually, likely, several actions took place. Even simple “informal” polling is an action taken as defined above.

    The voters will benefit by knowing whom from the Supervisors voted and in what way. It will also, expose the Supervisors for their covering of serious wrongdoings of high level employees. The Brown Act is there for a reason, and looking at the situation, the county was betrayed once again by the Supervisors. Unless they are held to high standards, employees won’t. If anything, pursuing a Brown Act violation will bring into focus the underlying original facts.

  3. Technically, there was no Brown Act violation.
    Some have spread speculation about what supervisors said what, but very little of this speculation is accurate. Bob Lovingood did not have the hatchet out for Greg Devereux, as was widely reported. Members of the board and the others who work on the Fifth Floor found that erroneous story amusing. Josie Gonzales took the strongest stand, but there was never any talk of removing Greg Devereux over this. Because of the vague policy the county has with regard to the reporting of off the clock criminal violations by employees, if the county were to fire Devereux over this, he would have grounds for a lawsuit and at the very least would be entitled to three years’ pay. If you do not believe that, read his contract. It is spelled out in black and white. For as accurate of an account as was published on this (even though it does not tell the full story) and to understand why there is no Brown Act violation, read this article: http://sbcsentinel.com/2015/11/board-quietly-directs-devereaux-to-orchestrate-lambertos-exodus-2/

    • First off, I apologize that it took so long to approve your comment. For some reason I did not receive notification and just found it as I posted my new Lamberto story.

      There are two things wrong with your argument I can say from fact. First, as someone who has had Mark fabricate an entire story about me, his paper is the last one you want to quote for factual information. Although there are times Mark hits it on the head, there are other times you will get more factual information in the Star or the National Enquirer. He is an excellent writer but he should be writing fiction, not news.

      Second, I have several eye witnesses to Lovingood’s claims that he has/had issues with Devereaux, including one who heard him say that he was working to get Devereaux fired. This has been going on a lot longer than just with the Lamberto debacle.

      Finally, based on the video we all saw, there is a plan in place to deal with Devereaux, although I doubt to our liking. But, whatever that plan is, it was reportable at the end of closed session. If it was not reported, which it was not, it was a violation of the Brown Act. They do not have to specifics when it comes to personnel matters, but they do have to let it be known that they made decisions.

  4. Very good point. Just hope the facts don’t die from time passage like so many other wrong things have done in San Bernardino County. Why can’t they just get it right?

  5. Only one who was at the meeting could have Elaine’s (above) confidence that there was no Brown Act violation. Even seemingly non-actions such as “we don’t fire him” or ” “we decided to continue his employment” are actions as defined by the Brown Act and must be reported. Gonzales was disappointed that things did not go her way at the meeting. Was there no vote, informal or not? Who are we kidding. Like not one one, but several actions took place.

Leave a Reply