.

 

6/14/18 – During the council meeting of June 12, councilman Art Welch has been served with formal charges for two ethics violations.

The charges were brought by Councilman Don Peterson in accordance with Sec.10.5 of Banning’s “Manual of Procedural Guidelines” ( click here to view).

These Guidelines call for a public hearing for censure of Welch to be agendized for June 26, 2018.

.

.

.

 

---

.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBER ART WELCH

.

COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF ETHICS – DECEPTIVE LETTER TO GRAND JURY

On July 19, 2016 Councilman Welch sent a letter to the Riverside County Grand Jury in response to their 2016 report. The letter was authorized by unanimous direction given by council, without there being any dissent on record by any council member.

In the letter Welch implied that the City of Banning will no longer conduct business via undocumented handshake agreements. However, only 9 months later, Welch engaged in yet another handshake agreement, this time for brush removal to the benefit of a private business, Diamond Hills Chevrolet.

In the council meeting of May 22, 2018, Welch is on video stating that just because he signed the letter, this “does not mean (he) agreed with it ”. This means Welch intentionally mislead the Grand Jury into believing that he as Mayor – as well as the City – fully agree with the Grand Jury’s recommendation that handshake agreements shall no longer be used in Banning, when in fact he had every intention to continue the practice.

At a very minimum, Welch had an ethical obligation to formally express his dissent with the response, not only to the Grand Jury, but also to the public. Welch failed to do so not only when the response was formulated, but also at the time he signed the letter. This violated the ethical standards set forth in Sec. 9.10 of the “Manual of Procedural Guidelines” of the City of Banning, which reads : “A member of a Legislative Body shall maintain the highest ethical standards and shall adhere to all laws and the ordinances and regulations of the City in carrying out their duties”.

.

COUNT 2: VIOLATION OF ETHICS – GIVING DIRECTION TO CITY MANAGER WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL

In their 2018 report, the Grand Jury found that Councilman Welch “directed” the City manager (Michael Rock) to provide brush clearing services for Diamond Hills Chevrolet. This is believed to have occurred in March of 2017. Welch gave the direction as a single councilmember, without knowledge or consent of the rest of the council.

In the councilmeeting of May 22, 2018 Welch is on video stating that he never gave direction, but merely made a suggestion.

However, Welch’s denial deserves no consideration as it is irrelevant under the law. The Grand Jury’s investigation into the matter lasted for over 9 months, and included the testimony of nine witnesses, including Rock and Welch. With their report, the Grand Jury has acted as a “finder of fact”. The factual finding by the Grand Jury was that Welch indeed gave direction to the City manager.

Pursuant to Sec. 11.9 of the “Manual of Procedural Guidelines”, the Banning City council must (not “may” or “should”) consider “legally mandated findings applicable to a matter”. Such findings include those of a Grand Jury. Therefore, this section mandates that the council frame their decision solely based on the factual findings of the Grand Jury. They must not consider their denial by Welch.

It was unethical for Welch to use his position as Mayor and throw his weight around by directing a Staff member, in this case the City manager himself, without first consulting with the rest of the City council.

Welch violated the ethical standards as set forth in Sec. 9.10 of the “Manual of Procedural Guidelines” of the City of Banning. His actions also went against the spirit and intent of City Ordinance 2.08.110, which specifically prohibits council from micromanaging staff.

In a council session of April 11, 2017, Welch is on video admitting wrongdoing when he said: “Did we go around the idea of bringing it to council, to get a project like that approved? – Probably”.

.

---

.
DECISION TO CENSURE NOW IN THE HANDS OF FRANKLIN, MOYER AND ANDRADE

A censure proceeding is meant to determine whether a council member has violated any laws. A censure is the formal disapproval of the member’s conduct.

If it is found that Welch violated any law, he will be subject to censure for his conduct. If the members do not censure Welch, this means they are approving and condoning his actions.

Given the outrageous conduct by Welch, and the enormous damage he has done to the reputation of Banning, it is hard to imagine that a reasonable individual would find that his behavior was acceptable, in compliance with the law and meeting ethical requirements.

But knowing how Franklin, Moyer – and lately even Andrade – operate, we expect that they will try to avoid censure – at any cost.

There may be, however, a slight problem with such a scenario for this decision making trio: according to Sec. 11.9 of the Guidelines, they now must adhere to the factual findings of the Grand Jury. This means they are bound by the Grand Jury’s finding that Art Welch directed City staff ; for Welch to give such direction was unlawful, particularly when it is done without consent of the council, as this violates the Brown Act.

Should they chose to ignore this important core finding, the trio may even find themselves in violation of Sec. 11.9 of the Guidelines, and opening themselves up for an ethics probe of their own.

.

CONCLUSION

Any reasonable observer will take great offense in the lawless, unethical ways good-ole-boy Art Welch has been conducting himself. Welch has given our City a very bad name.

The rule of law must return to Banning – and it is now in the hands of three elected officials to make this happen. On June 26, 5 pm, the citizens of Banning will be watching closely.

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK