Everyone knows I don’t like Beth Gaines very much.
It started with the betrayal of John Allard in 2011 (and several others) by the Gaines so that Beth could go get a government paycheck relying on no qualifications other than her last name. This followed her husband’s public betrayal of Congressman John Doolittle a few years earlier – a family political pattern.
In 2011, she lied (and got away with it) about being a business owner / businesswoman. The court said she lied but declined to remove the ballot designation because ballots had been printed.
In 2012, Beth Gaines was torched by the Sacramento Bee for sending out a campaign mailer attacking Andy Pugno that was an outright lie. I have saved the PDF for posterity. She attacked Pugno for the actions of another business that has an office in the same building.
Gaines also voted against a campaign finance bill that would have caused her biggest benefactor’s name to end up on independent expenditures on her behalf.
Gaines has proven to be so incompetent in the legislature – Beth Gaines actually had to vote against her own amendment on the floor of the Assembly because of her drafting error.
We have documented that Gaines went office shopping and is currently engaged in the time-honored tradition of trying to anoint a successor.
Not coincidentally, Gaines’ office was implicated in an attempt to smear would-be opponent Placer County District 4 Supervisor Kirk Uhler. The since-retracted attack was planted in a local tea party by Beth Gaines’ Chief of Staff and her District Director accusing Uhler of supporting Tax-increases. (If true, it would be the kiss of death in Placer’s 4th District where Beth Gaines lived until recently)
Incidentally, some of Beth Gaines’ allies on the local Placer GOP Central Committee are talking openly about challenging Kirk Uhler for re-election, still parroting some of the erroneous information. This has not gone away – Beth Gaines never did a thing to take out any democrats in Placer County, only attacking Republicans she did not like. It appears her slime has infected the Placer GOP as well.
Beth Gaines is alleged to have looked at running against Roberta MacGlashan in Sacramento County and the $130k+ paycheck that comes with.
So, the Gaines’ rented a house in El Dorado County’s first Supervisor District. The incumbent has no money and has had a bizarre history as a supervisor.
Beth Gaines has $200k in her Assembly account on paper. (Although, she is alleged to have substantial off-the-books-debt, which if true is illegal) The money in the Assembly account can be used on a local race.
El Dorado supervisor pays $76k a year, not quite what an assembly-member makes, but it will do because it includes benefits.
With Beth settling in to her third residence in the last 4 years, (2 of the 3 rented in order to support varied runs for office) almost on queue, her erstwhile opponent gets lit up by the El Dorado Grand Jury!
I wrote about this a couple days ago – but under the “no coincidence” category, one of the leaders of the Grand Jury is none other than a donor and well-known supporter of Beth Gaines. That person, Ken Steers, is a wealthy Business Owner in El Dorado County and in 2011, was telling people publicly that the Gaines do his insurance.
While Steers and Gaines will/are denying any involvement in the Grand Jury smear – the pattern is undeniable and the grotesquely unprofessional and political nature of the Grand Jury report fails the smell test.
Those of us that know the Gaines best understand this pattern of lies and slime. It is the only way someone who lacks qualification and competence can win elections.
You would think that with $200k in the bank and an extremely vulnerable and broke opponent that Beth Gaines would not need to resort to this – perhaps this is an admission that Gaines really did commit a felony (as in if the off the books debt is indeed real) or that everyone around her is admitting that what I have written about her incompetence is true?
Dear El Dorado County Grand Jury – please read this report from the Placer County Grand Jury and use it as a template for how to professionally write a report.
Contrast the politicized El Dorado Grand Jury Report opener with the Placer Grand Jury Report opener:
Summary The Grand Jury investigated the formation of a food services contract between the Eureka Unified School District (EUSD) and the Roseville Joint Union High School District (RJUHSD) to determine whether the EUSD Board had violated the Brown Act in approving the contract. The Grand Jury recommends that an individual Board member not be allowed to attend more than one information meeting in a given series of meetings set up by the Superintendent. Further, the Grand Jury is recommending that EUSD Board members and executive district staff obtain additional training regarding the Ralph M. Brown Act (hereinafter, Brown Act or Act; Government Code § 54950, et seq.), so that the district can avoid any violation of the Act and any appearance of violation of the Act.
Much more professional and what you’d expect.
If you read the report, you will find out that the Eureka USD needed a vendor for their school lunch program. The RJUHSD entered in to negotiations with the EUSD. Apparently, it was not an easy deal. It also appears to have been done by a very small group of people in violation of the Brown Act.
I read the report. Here are the conclusions I drew:
1. It appears that one member of the EUSD Board was present at all meetings related to the food contract with Roseville Joint Union High School District. The RJUHSD is not mentioned has having a similar problem. I have learned that this member may, or may not have been Renee Nash. Apparently, there is a facet of the Brown act called “serial meetings”… the idea being to prevent one member of a board from controlling circumstances or an outcome. Apparently, the board can not designate a member either to be able to do “serial meetings” on behalf of the board. (Man, I hate the Brown Act)
2. It also appears that the Superintendent of the Eureka USD was involved in every aspect of the Food Contract as well.
3. A condition of the Food Contract with the RJUHSD was that there was supposed to be no dissent or negative comments at the EUSD meeting where the contract was ratified. I am not sure why this was the case, but I find it odd. Could it be related to the history of tensions in the EUSD amongst the board members? Could the inclusion of this issue be the grand jury implying that the RJUHSD or an individual member of it was in on this Food Contract deal as well?
So now the EUSD has to respond to the Grand Jury, which is extremely rare in these sorts of things. (see the last page of the report) Does Renee Nash have to respond, or the board on her behalf? The Grand Jury also addressed the superintendent directly as well, I’d assume the district’s counsel will be responding.
Renee Nash was more than polite to me when I saw her on election night in 2014. I have been told that she has been very supportive of my Mother on the RJUHSD Board. It seemed to me that the drama on the EUSD was abating…
… now we have a case where it appears that Ms. Nash and the Superintendent let their control issues get the best of them as it related to the food contract with the RJUHSD.
I hate the Brown Act with a purple passion for this exact reason. Nash, when she campaigned, railed on violations of the Brown Act committed by board members and now she has the shoe on the other foot.
Nash is an attorney who advertised one of her specialties being the Brown Act, she has also published a book or books on the act! Why did Renee Nash do this? Was she that worried over the school lunch program?
What happened here?
The Grand Jury wrote the following:
The Grand Jury recommends that:
R1. Informational 2×2 meetings between EUSD staff and Board of Trustee members should never include a common Board member present at all the meetings.
R2. The EUSD staff should arrange an annual training seminar on the Brown Act provisions for all Board members and executive staff.
Did I mention that I hate the Brown Act? The problem is that it is the law and the law was violated. Now what? Does someone go to jail? Get sued? Does the district get fined? Will the district superintendent get disciplined over this?
All this happened over trying to deal with the school lunch program (don’t get me started on that either) that the EUSD and other districts are forced to do by state and federal mandates!
Well, well, well… I got sent a copy of a Grand Jury Report attacking (DRUMROLL) Ron “Mik” the supervisor in El Dorado’s First District.
It just so happens that “Mik” is all that stands between termed out Beth Gaines and her next government paycheck. Cozy.
Before he was elected, Mikulaco was not known for his background and qualifications, but best known for standing on El Dorado Hills Boulevard with a sign urging drivers to vote for him. At first, that Depression-era sandwich board tactic seemed ineffective to many. Yet, Mikulaco was elected in 2012.
I guess Grand Juries are not subject to the rules of the real jury system? Or, perhaps, they can engage in the same sort of shilling and yellow journalism that the Placerville paper is famous for?
Well – I started asking questions as to why I felt like I was looking at a campaign hit piece.
I poked around and found out the shocking details – Local mega-donor and wealthy El Dorado County Businessman Ken Steers is an actual member of the Grand Jury!
I can write with a high level of confidence that Steers and Gaines likely have each other on speed-dial. Heck, Beth may be renting one of Steers’ rental properties in El Dorado Hills!
What did Ken Steers do to influence the outcome of this “report”? It really does not matter what eeeeevil things “Mik” is alleged to have done according to the report. The fingerprints of Ken Steers should make anyone take pause – especially with his political conflict of interest and the unprofessional language that the report starts with.
It would be like me sitting on the Placer Grand Jury recommending the disbarment of Jack Duran for eating too many donuts.
Missing from the Grand Jury Report is any mention of the malicious prosecution of Dan Dellinger. Things that make you go hmmmm… I wonder if Steers and company are going to ignore the pending lawsuit(s) against Mr’s. Pierson and Harn?
I also hear that the fish is starting to spoil…
To be continued…
The original plan was for Dave Titus to run for his boss (Beth Gaines) job and for Gaines to run against Kirk Uhler for Supervisor in Placer D4.
Both were reported on this blog as vetted rumors and both of these efforts evaporated shortly thereafter.
While the Placer GOP Cent Com and its’ members are still openly talking about an opponent for Kirk Uhler (more on that later in this post), Beth has moved to El Dorado County’s Sup D1 in order to take on a weak incumbent with the $200k she is showing on paper in her AD06 account.
Speaking of AD-06 – a couple of unknowns are declared candidates:
1. Cristi Nelson – who attempted to bluff other candidates out with a $100k loan (that it appears she will not spend all of) and buying up some advertisements early. No one knows much about her, she has a few endorsements and a husband who is a local business owner. I have heard several stores – second hand – from people that have “experienced” her and they are diverse. Cristi is advertised as a lawyer and I do know she is a social liberal.
2. Kevin Kiley. Young (age 30). Lawyer. Yale. Claims to have access to lots of money. If he gets said money – he will be formidible as he is well spoken and appears to be pretty conservative.
3. Candidate X. (Team Gaines, seat control team) Clay Sigg, he of the Sacramento Board of Realtors – (not Placer, mind you) has been paraded around to a few capitol meetings by Beth Gaines. Ssssteve Davey has been pushing him. Dave Gilliard has told others that he has a client. (without specifying it is Clay) Problem – does Clay want to run? He is in his mid 60’s and appears to have a pretty good life.
3.1 Candidate X 2.0 (David Short) This is an unvetted rumor, but suggests that Ssssteve Davey is also planning contingencies for Clay Sigg’s departure. David Short is Jeff Short’s dad – he appears to be successful in business and he is not a lawyer. (sorry, I could not help myself)
3.2 Dave Titus. If I was Ssssteve Davey… Ok, Aaron stop. Dave Titus does indeed live in Rocklin now. Why the hell doesn’t he run? He is pushing 60, but is in fantastic shape and looks far better than Ssssteve Davey.
4. Bill Halldin. Is he running? (I heard a good rumor) If he does, he will scoop up endorsements in Placer County fast. He will also have real access to real people and real money. Bill Halldin is a Sierra College Trustee and would have more name ID than any other person on this list as well.
All this brings me back to Kirk Uhler – Placer Sup D4.
Tom Hudson went psycho when the CRA did not endorse Tom McClintock in 2014.
The rumors of a Beth vs Kirk Sup D4 race popped up, with the now retracted attack on Kirk from the local tea party.
Tom Hudson is now publicly threatening Kirk with criminal charges over an internal CRA matter.
I have heard from two consecutive Placer GOP Cent Com Meetings that the Cent Com members are talking openly about trying to get even with Kirk over Measure B passing 62-38.
One member of Tom McClintock’s staff was clicking like on facebook posts celebrating our ouster from CRA. Her husband was a central figure in it.
Four of the complaints against us referenced the audacity of us not supporting Tom McClintock. ( still have his lawn sign in my garage, by the way) You could say that a major part of our expulsion from CRA was McClintock.
Now the evils Park Brothers and Kirk Uhler are being attacked as a three-piece set.
Am I out on a limb here, or am I onto a pattern? Is Tom McClintock working with the Placer GOP Cent Com to recruit an opponent for Kirk Uhler? Are they working separately?
If yes – why are they giving commie-lib hippie Jennifer Montgomery a free pass? These are the same people that could not find an opponent for Big Daddy Jack Duran in 2014. (whose district I now live in. Don’t make ME have to file against him in 2018…)
Oh, that’s right – it is the circular GOP firing squad again. They have to be right, who cares about winning.
My head hurts.
Dennis Revell was right. He was right for the wrong reason. He had roundly criticized Ed Rowen over a year ago when he ran for a vacancy on the Placer GOP Central Committee. Revell had cited Ed’s Anger Management issues – I think Revell was on to something and may not have fully understood that Ed’s real issue is a complete lack of integrity (which is where his unstable behavior comes from).
I knew it did not sit well with Ed Rowen when Kirk Uhler stepped up to run for Placer CRA President.
10 days before the CRA Convention in March – Ed came in to our office nearly panic stricken because he had been a part of a plot to invalidate our officer elections because of a snafu with the location of the meeting. (because Bayside gave Uhler the wrong address for the room we had reserved)
The detail with which Alice Khosravy knew about the events of the Placer CRA officer elections meeting in January told me she an Ed had discussed it in depth. Tom Hudson was the only other person that had complained about the PCRA officer elections. George called him shortly after Ed was in our office. Hudson sounded shocked when George talked to him – like he had been caught.
For at least the last year of Ed’s term as PCRA President, he spoke to Alice frequently. Alice, in her manipulative way made sure to tell us that Ed Rowen never had anything good to say about George or I behind our back – as it has been her pattern to play people off against each other.
We got Ed to send us an email detailing the plot he was a part of. We forwarded the email to the credentials committee in order to stop the attempt that Alice, Ed and (likely Tom) were going to make to de-credential Placer’s delegates. (while Alice and company were credentialing 5 ineligible delegates from SCVRA, and the delegates of the three other fraudulent units)
Ultimately – Jim Shoemaker and the CRA Weed-Eater Tim Thiesen cited the revelation of this plot as one of their reasons for asking for our expulsion as most of the CRA Complaints against George and I were designed to cover up the malfeasance at our expense.
Ed Rowen was promised that once George was knocked off the board and Alice had run against John Briscoe successfully from the floor, he would be made President of the Placer CRA again.
When Ed lived in Santa Clara County – he had a reputation for double-dealing. It is his demonstrated pattern of this that causes people to doubt him when he does tell the truth. (Such as when he told us about this plot to de-credential the Placer RA)
Ed Rowen has also been quite clear that much of his identity was and is tied up in his titles with CRA.
Ed was present at the 5/30 Placer CRA Board Meeting. At that meeting, he was fiercely critical of Tom Hudson. In the last two months, on the phone or in person with either George or I, he has railed on Tom Hudson and others within CRA.
So, why would it be no surprise that Ed would turn on Kirk Uhler, George and I?
Here is an email Ed typed in response to Mark Gardner’s logical gymnastics that I posted a bit ago:
I wanted to note to the Board they also have the PCRA Banner and the Mike System that was bought with club funds…I have been a CRA Member since 1981, my Mother and Father were both members and so was my Grandfather who attended his fist Convention in 1938 and was a Sicilian Immigrant who came to this country in 1915. I was a Club President for four terms in Santa Clara County and was President of the PCRA for three terms. Never in my life I have ever met three people who have been more of a disgrace to the organization then these three. It will take a while for the PCRA to be back where we were, but I am glad to rid of myself and the group of those three. All I can say to all of you is thank you….
Note – Ed piles on accusing us of stealing more stuff.
Then he lays out how part of his identity is being a part of CRA.
Then he lays in to Kirk, George and I.
Then he thanks the CRA’s board for giving him the club back so his life is complete again.
The logical conclusion from this exercise? If you let Ed Rowen be a part of your campaign for office – he will do the same to you.