« Pomona Queen: The Movie | Home | More Details on PSN Promotions »
More P.R. and Alvarez-Glasman UPDATED x4
By Publius | June 28, 2007
Awful cozy over in the city of Pico Rivera these days. But hey, the kind of coziness that comes from everyone knowing everyone else is often just a part of small town charm, right?
You see, Pico Rivera hired Arnold Alvarez-Glasman (A-G) without putting out a bid or holding any public debate a mere 48 hours after their prior city attorney resigned. A-G is also the city attorney of West Covina, Bell Gardens, and Pomona. While wearing his Pomona hat, A-G threatened this very blog for our posts about the retirement—”retirement”?—of Pomona city manager Doug Dunlap. Anyhow, A-G is very busy, but the city council of Pico Rivera wanted him as their city attorney so bad that they changed the dates of their public meetings to fit with his schedule.
As we’ve explained before, A-G’s firm gave Pico Rivera councilman David Armenta at least $3,300 in campaign money in 2006 alone, and an Arnold Alvarez-Glasman, an Arnold Awarel Glassman, and Lydia Glasman, have given Pico Rivera councilman Gregory Salcido at least $5,000 in campaign contributions in 2002 alone. And we haven’t even looked at whether A-G gave money to these two or any of the other councilmember’s local campaigns. As the updates below make clear, A-G has a history of making questionable campaign contributions.
Further, as this pdf file reveals, A-G defended the Mayor of Pico Rivera, Ron Beilke, years ago when Beilke pled no contest to grand theft charges. To my knowledge, this has not been reported in the press as of yet. I have not verified these records by getting them myself from the Alhambra Courthouse—the pdf file was sent to me by the webmaster of the Pico Rivera Community for Truth in Politics (see also the Pico Rivera Chronicles website). The document appears to me to be the real thing, and it begs a lot of questions.
Of course, there is nothing technically or legally wrong with all this.
A-G is free to contribute to the campaigns of local councilmen all he wants, just like you and me. Further, in this case, of the only two councilman which we know (thus far) he’s given money to, Armenta voted against A-G’s hire and Salcido expressed concerns about it in the press.
And after all, if you were mayor, wouldn’t you want someone you trust as your city attorney? Someone you’ve known for a long time? Someone you can depend on?
UPDATE I:
By the way, Arnold decided to add his mother’s last name to his given last name back in 1989 so he could make sure he cashed in on his Latino heritage all the time instead of only “being Hispanic every four years,” as the anonymous letter that pushed him to add the Alvarez to Glasman complained. Mayor Sam posted the entire LAT article from 1989 here, which quotes him as solemnly pronouncing, “From now on, I will be known as Arnold Alvarez-Glasman,” although he didn’t legally change his name.
Again, A-G’s career is instructive in that many of the themes of local politics in these parts come across clearly. Cashing in on Hispanic heritage is a major part of getting “in” the club in many cities (which only stands to reason if the city is a largely Hispanic one), although as time goes on this isn’t quite the big deal it used to be as an increasing amount of Latino voters has led to an increasing amount of Latino candidates. “Glasman” doesn’t exactly “resonate.” Mayor Sam has more here; as does Edward Barrera here.
UPDATE II:
A-G’s been written up for questionable campaign contributions before, back when he was working for the upstanding city of South Gate:
SOUTH GATE CITY ATTORNEY’S AIDES DONATED TO CAMPAIGNS
Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA)
June 20, 1995
Author: Sharon HormellWhen he applied for the job of city attorney in 1993, Arnold Alvarez-Glasman promised to avoid involvement in South Gate politics.
But last year, three of his paralegals and his secretary donated $5,750 to the campaign committees of Mayor Albert Robles and Councilman Bill Martinez.
Because the campaign finance reports that Robles and Martinez filed with local and state governments did not accurately list the donors’ occupations and their employers’ name, as state law requires, it is not apparent from the public documents that the donors worked in Alvarez-Glasman’s private Montebello law office.
Robles, whose losing 1994 campaign for the state Board of Equalization received $4,000 from the workers, and Martinez, whose City Council campaign received $1,750, could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls requesting interviews. There is no indication that Alvarez-Glasman got anything from the council in return for the contributions his workers sent.
Alvarez-Glasman’s mid-1993 resume seeking the South Gate post said, ”Mr. Glasman knows that a good city attorney will be sensitive to the pressures of the elected officials, yet will avoid playing politics or counting votes”
Asked if his office workers’ donations to Robles and Martinez might make it appear that he was politically favoring the pair, Alvarez-Glasman likened the contributions to those that might be made by a city employees’ union.
”There is no inappropriate activity whatsoever. Campaign contributions are everyone’s First Amendment right,” he said.
According to campaign reports, Alvarez-Glasman himself did not donate to any South Gate council members last year. He said he made a donation in his own name of more than $100 to Robles’ council campaign committee in March.
In January, the council gave Alvarez-Glasman a 25 percent raise, increasing his hourly fee from $100 to $125 per hour to handle city and redevelopment issues.
At that rate, he still earns less than the average rate of $145 per hour charged by his predecessor, William Rudell at the firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon. Depending on the complexity of the issue and the attorney assigned, South Gate was paying Rudell’s firm $105 to $250 per hour. The council changed city attorneys in 1993 as an economizing move, several council members said.
State law says candidates who receive $100 or more from a donor must truthfully disclose the donor’s full name and address, occupation and employer. Candidates and their treasurers sign the reports, swearing under penalty of perjury that they have used all responsible diligence in preparing the forms, said Fair Political Practices Commission spokeswoman Jeannette Turvill.
Failing to disclose the real occupations and employers of donors is an illegal practice informally known as campaign money laundering. The Fair Political Practices Commission can levy fines of $2,000 per offense against the donor and recipient, or turn cases over to the District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution.
The FPPC does not confirm, discuss or deny ongoing investigations, so Turvill would not say if the agency is researching South Gate council campaigns or Robles’ failed 1994 state Board of Equalization campaign.
However, South Gate City Clerk Nina Banuelos said an investigator from the FPPC had requested Robles’ council cam paign finance records dating back to 1991 as part of an audit of all candidates in the Board of Equalization race.
”People have the right to know that the companies and their employees are supporting a particular candidate,” Turvill said. ”If the disclosure (report) is not accurate, that can be a deliberate attempt to defraud the voters.”
On the required forms, Alvarez-Glasman’s three paralegals were listed as working at three different paralegal or secretarial services bearing their last names and their home addresses in Chino, Chino Hills and Arcadia, although none holds an official county permit to do business as those firms.
The secretary, who lives in Monterey Park, was identified as working at Alvarez-Glasman’s firm, but her occupation was misidentified as an attorney on the campaign disclosure form.
Two of the paralegals could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls to their homes and office. The secretary and the third paralegal said in separate interviews that they made the donations voluntarily and were not reimbursed, but each declined to discuss the circumstances or reasons for writing the checks.
Alvarez-Glasman said he knew of the donations by his workers, ”probably, in passing, they may have mentioned it,” but stressed, ”I had nothing to do with that, and it is up to you to decide if it is a coincidence.”
Because he is also a Montebello City Council member, his office often receives mailed requests to donate to political campaigns, and it is up to each individual to decide whether and how much to give, he said. Those who donate receive no benefit and incur no penalty if they don’t give, he said.
No employee is reimbursed for a political donation, he said, declining to say how much he pays his secretary and paralegals.
According to campaign finance reports, none of his office staff has donated to any sitting council members of Montebello, where Alvarez-Glasman has held office since 1985, or Pomona, the other community he represents as city attorney.
Copyright (c) 1995 Press-Telegram
UPDATE III
But wait! There’s more! Back when Nell Soto was a Pomona city councilwoman, she was criticized for accepting campaign money from A-G, because, well, she also voted to hire him. As a February 17th, 1991 article by Mike Ward in the LAT put it:
[City Council candidate Robert] Jackson has strongly criticized Soto for accepting nearly $3,000 in campaign contributions from the billboard industry and $1,000 each from City Atty. Arnold Glasman and Miller & Schroeder, a bond consulting firm employed by the city. Jackson said the donations represent a conflict of interest because Soto voted to hire Glasman and the bond firm and has been backing a proposal that would allow billboard companies “to keep their dilapidated eyesores in our city.”
Soto said there is no conflict of interest because she promises nothing in return for contributions. For example, she said, she has never voted to increase the number of billboards but favors allowing sign companies to replace some aging billboards with new ones on the outskirts of Pomona.
UPDATE IV:
Why was A-G’s hire by the city of Pomona such a big deal, you ask? Well, you see, a Los Angeles County Grand Jury back in 1991 issued a report criticizing the governance of Pomona for all manner of misdeeds, one of which was hiring “an inexperienced city attorney without any formal evaluation process,” according to a September 19, 1991 article by Mike Ward in the LAT. According to the article:
* The council hired City Atty. Arnold Glasman and his firm, Glasman, Colvin & Adams, on an interim basis in 1989 and permanently a few months later, although neither Glasman nor his partners had any municipal legal experience.
The grand jury said the council interviewed five firms for the job without setting criteria, then allowed Glasman to approve the form of his contract without outside legal review.
Fuentes said Glasman was versed in municipal law from representing private interests in business transactions with cities and redevelopment agencies.
Councilman Tomas Ursua said the city hired Glasman because he was low bidder. Ursua said Glasman was not his first choice but “we’re saving money and the guy works pretty hard.”
Last 5 posts in City Council
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
- Sid Tyler Questions Need for Bridge; Builds It With Mind - July 23rd, 2008
- Claremont Court, er City Council in Session Tonight - July 22nd, 2008
- RCJP vs Monrovia, RCJP volleys 2 pointer for win? - July 22nd, 2008
- Monrovia Saturday night - that was gun fire not thunder - July 13th, 2008
Topics: City Council, Pomona |
June 28th, 2007 at 10:43 am
you and your sources are hired. It’s time for a biopic on Mr. Glasman.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
and to think Glassman was “smart” enough to bring this on himself when he threatened the FC for exposing the Grandpa Doug and _____ _______ scandal. What a brilliant lawyer Pomona hired!!
June 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Glassman sure takes a lot of our taxes money. We would like to see a story on another questionable small city city attorney: Francisco Leal. He has LOTS hidden away in his closet!
June 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
hey..fc….when we gettn’ an update about grandpa Doug and his girlie friend?
June 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Anybody that David Armenta gets money from expects something in return.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
How many cites did James Casso represent in the foothill area on behalf of the AG firm?
June 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Of course, Casso was working in A-G’s firm. Wonder what happened there. And I wonder why PR was going to fire him.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Maybe the whole thing was orchestrated? Casso and his firm of Meyers-Nave only served the city for under a year. Alvarez-Glassman and Colvin, served the City of Pico Rivera for quite a long time. So did James Casso while working for AG. Everyone on the council liked Casso, he only did what he was told to do. Gregory Salcido worked with Casso as he interned for Esteban Torres, Casso’s father-in-law.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:10 am
It should be noted that PR has lost over thirty long time employees including Casso and the recently hired City Clerk.
The common thread seems to be - if you don’t do what Beilke tells you, his dog will fire you, Beilke himself will take his best shot at you, or you just quit and go home with your tail between your legs.
That is why it is SO WRONG to have a former campaign manager of Beilke as City Manager, it creates a condition where that sole city councilman can wield intimidation and threats over city personnel.
What is truly sad is that no one has the guts to to tell the truth for fear of losing thier job.
A threat is only a threat if you allow it to exist in your mind!
June 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Dis guy Glasman has a quite a record in Pomona since his “employment” in 89 in the amount of lawsuits Da City has been up against. Last count Barry Bonds got nuthin’ on him. Watch out on how that is worded, since Arnold might be listening and pull out the cease and desist card. If you watch the Council meetings which is #1 in it’s time slot on Monday Evening, you’ll see who actually runs the City and it isn’t the pig on Green Acres.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I am sure that is what the people in South Gate thought until someone pulled out a gun. Your from Pico Rivera dude, you know how crazy they are.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
As a quote from a “b” was made - “Do you want to live forever?” Guns don’t scare people, people scare people, that is if you let them.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 am
[…] More P.R. and Alvarez-Glasman UPDATED x4 […]
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
[…] retirement—”retirement“?—of Pomona city manager Doug Dunlap. In light of the many things we’ve discovered about A-G since then, each day this week we’re going to put up one […]
July 9th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Oh my gosh, you guys are seriously FOOLS!!!!!! If you were smart enough, you would know that Glasman is with one S not two. But then again, ignorant people like seen here are posting ignorant comments. Second of all, Mr. Glasman is 50% Mexican indeed and as you can see, takes pride in that by hyphinating his mothers last name. His mother past young, so it was another way to show honor of his background. But once again, you dont know this, because you are dumb! So I think people need to acutally appreciate a man of Mr. Glasman’s level and just zip up your mouth so you dont feel the world with more NONSENSE!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
You guys really need to learn how to spell Glasman. GLASMAN!!
July 10th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Anonymous,
Read item #2 above you did the same thing - “and to think Glassman was “smart” enough”. People who live in glass houses should not throw “glassman”.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:09 am
[…] retirement—”retirement“?—of Pomona city manager Doug Dunlap. In light of the many things we’ve discovered about A-G since then, we’re putting up informative posts concerning […]