Uffer Paints Picture of Byzantine Intrigue At County

A $15 million claim filed by former county administrative officer Mark Uffer implicates current and former county officials in several violations of the law, including graft, the acceptance of bribes or otherwise illicit gratuities, extortion, fraud and Brown Act violations.
Uffer was ousted in November on a 3-2 vote, with supervisors Gary Ovitt, Brad Mitzelfelt and Neil Derry voting to remove him. Supervisors Josie Gonzalez and Paul Biane dissented in that vote. Uffer was not removed for cause, such that he was provided with a severance payout equal to one year’s salary – more than $240,000. Nevertheless, Uffer in his claim, is accusing the county of wrongful termination, defamation, fraud and retaliating against him for cooperating with ongoing grand jury and district attorney’s office investigations. For what was perpetrated against him, Uffer and his attorney, Sanford Kassel, maintain that Uffer is owed $15 million.
A claim serves as a precursor to a lawsuit, The county, as do most governmental entities, routinely rejects such claims lodged against it.  Upon rejection, the claimant can demonstrate that he or she has exhausted all administrative remedies and is then free to proceed with a civil suit.
Significantly, in marshaling evidence to support his claim, Uffer implicates himself in having, for several years while he was the county’s top appointed official, tolerated or in some fashion covered up those transgressions. Indeed, Uffer offers multiple examples of acts of commission or omission on his part that could severely complicate for him the prosecution of any lawsuit he will file against the county, as well as potentially leave him exposed to criminal prosecution himself for having been involved in, either passively or actively, the criminal actions he describes and offers evidence of.
Despite Biane’s vote opposing his termination, Uffer does not spare Biane in the portrait he paints of a governmental entity mired in corruption
In his claim, Uffer intimates that members of the board of supervisors, apparently including Biane, Ovitt and Mitzelfelt, were extorted by Jim Erwin, the one-time president of SEBA, the union for the county’s sheriff’s deputies and later the assistant assessor under Bill Postmus.
“In or about November 2007,” the claim states, “Jim Erwin abruptly resigned as the assistant assessor for operations. Jim Erwin was granted a six-month severance package upon leaving the office. At no time in the history of the county had a non-administrative employee received a severance package of this nature. Mark Uffer was made aware by board members that this was being done to keep Jim Erwin in-line and out of fear for what Jim Erwin was capable of doing to the board.”
The claim provides a new perspective on the deterioration of the once close personal and political relationship between Postmus and both Biane and former Hesperia mayor and chief county legislative officer/county purchasing department director/county health department director Jim Lindley.
While Postmus was serving as chairman of the board of supervisors and chairman of the county’s  Republican Central Committee he was in an ironclad alliance with Biane, who was the vice chairman of both the board of supervisors and the central committee. Together, they were dual kingmakers, doling out party money to Republican candidates they favored and denying funds to those who did not go along with their programs. But backup material Uffer included with his claim shows that by 2006, Postmus and Biane were no longer getting along, despite any appearance to the contrary.
On June 16, 2006, an email from Uffer to Biane states, “rumor has it Bill wants an evaluation of me on the closed session of the 27th.”
Biane responded, “U have my vote.  A guy with six months left is not going to f*** with my life or yours and I have the votes to back it up.”
On Saturday June 24, Uffer sent Biane an email, asking “Anything changed since we last talked? Do I need to look for employment?”
Biane responded, “Nothing has changed. Bill will vent some frustrations. And that will be the end of it. Sorry for some of this monkey business. But you have to remember your [sic] paid very well and there are going to be some days that this job just like any other are [sic] going to suck. Six more months and then 2 years of clear sailing. We all will make [it] through this storm.”
In July 2005, Postmus was at the height of his power while holding the positions of chairman of the county board of supervisors as well as chairman of the county Republican Central Committee. Using his clout, he directed county staff, including Uffer and Andrew Lamberto, the county’s director of human services, to hire Lindley, who was then a member of the ruling coalition on the Hesperia city council. That ruling coalition was aligned with Postmus, whose First District included the city of Hesperia. The coalition strongly supported approving the projects of numerous developmental interests doing work in Hesperia. Those developers in turn made hefty campaign donations to Postmus and assisted in the perpetuation of his political machine which, at that point, dominated San Bernardino County politics.
Postmus had sustained some criticism for his hiring of Lindley, whose expertise with regard to legislative affairs was questionable. At the time, however, given Postmus’ position of strength, that flak had little effect on him. Roughly two years after Lindley’s hiring by the county, however, the relationship between Postmus and Lindley had taken a turn for the worse. Ultimately, after Postmus successfully ran for assessor in 2006 and then moved to have his chief of staff, Brad Mitzelfelt, appointed as his replacement as supervisor, the relationship between Postmus and Lindley would break into open hostility when Lindley applied with several others to be considered by the board of supervisors as a candidate to serve as the interim First District supervisor.
“In or about Fall 2006, shortly after the primary June 2006 election and prior to the general election in November 2006 for the county assessor’s position, Bill Postmus became consumed and fixated on prevailing at the general election by raising substantial funds and controlling the election process in San Bernardino County,” Uffer’s claim states. “While Jim Lindley, among other candidates, was running for his third four-year term on the Hesperia city council, Bill Postmus informed Jim Lindley that he [Jim Lindley] could regain his {Bill Postmus’] confidence if he [Jim Lindley] became a ‘team player’ during the election and let him [Bill Postmus] ‘run things.’ Desperate to win the general election, Bill Postmus overtly co-opted political donors, funneled money into his own campaign, and had Adam Aleman and other staff working on political projects on county time, and on county premises. While on the Fifth Floor of the board of supervisors offices, Bill Postmus was conducting illegal campaign activity. Jim Lindley witnessed laptops in Bill Postmus’ conference room offices and campaign literature spread about and overheard numerous cell phone conversations regarding fund-raising and campaign operations going on. As the general election neared in November 2006, it became common knowledge that the board of supervisors was undertaking the task to appoint a candidate to fill the First District supervisor’s seat rather than to call a special election or let the governor make an appointment.  Hence, Bill Postmus began to lobby the board of supervisors to appoint his chief of staff, Brad Mitzelfelt to fill his seat.”
Aleman is a longtime Postmus associate who worked for him as a field representative when Postmus was supervisor and who was then appointed assistant assessor when Postmus was elected assessor.
According to Uffer’s claim, when “Jim Lindley became a serious candidate for said position, Bill Postmus made threats against Jim Lindley’s job. In fact, Jim Lindley received over a dozen telephone calls about Bill Postmus targeting Jim Lindley directly “
According to the claim, “Jim Lindley immediately contacted Mark Uffer and made his concerns known about the threats” and “Mark Uffer reassured Jim Lindley that he worked for him and not the board and that the board could not fire him. As a consequence, it became known and evident to the board and Bill Postmus that Mark Uffer was supporting and protecting Jim Lindley. Accordingly, Bill Postmus, aware of this fact, targeted Mark Uffer to eliminate him so that he could reach Jim Lindley. “
Subsequently, according to the claim, Lindley, who had at that point been reassigned to the position of county purchasing officer,  and Uffer worked together to thwart or otherwise question or hold up what the claim termed “suspicious” requisition orders coming from Postmus in his capacity as assessor. In addition to requisition requests for “fixed assets, furniture, supplies and irregular items” one requisition order was for the services of  Mike Richman, a political consultant involved with the San Bernardino County Republican Central committee and a Postmus ally. Mitzelfelt, Postmus’s successor and longtime political associate, joined in with Postmus in making inappropriate or illegal use of county funds, according to the claim. “Likewise, Brad Mitzelfelt was deeply involved and promoted the [Republican] party’s agenda with Mike Richman,” the claim states. “Recent campaign disclosures suggest that Mike Richman was also involved in the campaign of Neil Derry for supervisor.” Pressure mounted on Lindley, vectored from Postmus, Aleman and Mitzelfelt to hire Richman in such a manner that the county’s competitive bidding process for Richman’s services to the assessor’s office were not brought to bear, according to Uffer’s claim.
“Jim Lindley then contacted Mark Uffer again and said, ‘I was fearful that Brad would have me fired over this.’  Bill Postmus and others perceived Jim Lindley and Mark Uffer as being disloyal.”
In his claim, Uffer maintains that he was called as a witness before the 2007-08 grand jury and that he “submitted findings concerning the pervasive corruption” besetting the county at that time.  The grand jury and a special investigation carried out by attorney John Hueston approved by the board of supervisors later established, according to Uffer’s claim, “fraudulent use of time cards” in the assessor’s office, that “Bill Postmus unlawfully provided contracts of employment to friends without submitting the contracts to the bidding process, members of the Postmus’ executive team received tuition reimbursement for course work unrelated to their jobs, that other board members were involved with and/or encouraged Bill Postmus’ known unlawful political agenda and efforts on county time [and] that Bill Postmus’ staff assisted supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt’s political campaign as well as Neil Derry’s campaign.”
Uffer’s claim does not directly deal with why it was not until he was brought before the grand jury that he tolerated the numerous depredations he has cataloged in his claim. The claim does not directly state, but hints at the consideration that at some point Uffer may have become a willing source in dealing with the grand jury and the district attorney’s office.
Nevertheless, the claim has as attachments back up material, including interoffice memos, emails between various county employees that include Uffer and handwritten notes by Uffer which demonstrate that Uffer had personal knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of county officials and members of the board of supervisors going back as early as 2004, shortly after he was named county administrative officer, which he kept under wraps for years.
Three of these pertain to violations of the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law which prohibits a majority of any governmental body from meeting and discussing official  policy or business outside the confines of an advertised and agendized  public meeting.
An email dealing with negotiations relating to the sheriff’s deputies’ union contract with the county from then human services director Elizabeth Sanchez to Uffer dated December 17, 2004 and posted at 5:09 p.m. contains in its body three forwarded emails – one that originated from Jim Erwin, who was then the representative of the deputies’ union,  and sent to Sanchez at 11:29 a.m., Sanchez’s response to Erwin at 1:35 p.m. and Erwin’s response back to her at 2:48 p.m.  In Erwin’s 11:29 a.m. email to Sanchez, he wrote, “I spoke with [deputy county counsel] Carol [Greene] about the [sheriff’s deputy] unit mod[ification] and agreed that it should go away. I had dinner with Bill, Paul and Gary last night and Bill is ok with it.”
Thus, Uffer had information shortly after he was installed as county administrative officer that Postmus, Biane and Ovitt were meeting outside the auspices of a public hearing, a clear violation of the Brown Act.
An email from Matt Brown, Biane’s chief of staff sent on August 30, 2006 to Uffer is included in the attachments Uffer provided with his claim. That email contains a forwarded email from Erwin to Brown in which Erwin states “I just received word that Mark Uffer has informed the sheriff that he [h]as a 3-2 vote in his favor, with Ovitt and Postmus supporting SEBA.”
The subject being discussed in the email related to an existing memorandum of understanding about Sheriff’s Department seniority staffing that was being renegotiated by the county, the sheriff’s office and SEBA, the sheriff’s deputies’ union.
The email strongly implies that Uffer and other county officials were aware that discussion involving a quorum of the board of supervisors, a violation of the Brown Act, had taken place.
Another Brown Act violation allegedly occurred, involving Derry, Biane and Mitzelfelt, at a California State Association of Counties meeting in San Diego on the night/early morning of  December 3 and 4, 2008.
Uffer’s claim, which is buttressed by handwritten notes he made that night chronicling his conversations with Derry and Brown, asserts that “on or about December 3, 2008, Neil Derry, Brad Mitzelfelt and Paul Biane met at Donovan’s for a legislative dinner. Thereafter, Neil Derry, Brad Mitzelfelt [and] Paul Biane met for drinks at a Mexican Restaurant, La Puerta, near [their] hotel in San Diego. Thereafter, Neil Derry, Brad Mitzelfelt and Paul Biane went to Brad Mitzelfelt’s room and discussed county business while intoxicated until about 5:00 am.” The claim notes that this constituted a “Brown Act violation” before continuing, “Neil Derry, Brad Mitzelfelt and Paul Biane discussed what health plans (PPO vs. HMO) the supervisors would be able to have per Neil Derry’s campaign promise. Jim Erwin confirmed that the agreement was to eliminate the board’s PPO insurance plan in exchange to receive increased flexible benefit dollars.”
Uffer’s  notes covering the incident convey that Biane’s chief of staff, Matt Brown,  apparently without Biane’s knowledge, reported  to Uffer about the early morning conversation, including the incidental intelligence that after the three supervisors returned to Mitzelfelt’s room, they drank all of the alcoholic beverages contained within the honor bar there.
Other insights provided by the back up material affixed to the claim is that Uffer at different times over the last several years shifted his alliances with and against various of the county’s top players.
In September 2006, for example, after his relationship with Postmus had grown somewhat testy, Uffer appears to have patched things up, at least temporarily, with the then-chairman of the board of supervisors.  A series of emails back and forth between the two on September 1 show the rapprochement. At 1:31 p.m. on that date Postmus writes that he wants to talk in person to Uffer. “I’m very frusterated (sic) with some things that are and have been going on and I want to discuss them with you one on one!”
At 1:33 p.m., Uffer replies, “Not really much to say at this point Bill. You have simply said I am the enemy and undermine the board.”
At 1:38 Postmus posts back a simple, “ok.” At 5:55 p.m. Uffer wrote to Postmus, “Talked with Adam and explained what I believe Cassie did. I still support you and what we are doing. We should sit down just you and I. I was just hurt this morning that you were mad.”
The reference to Cassie is apparently to Riverside Press Enterprise reporter/columnist Cassie MacDuff and a column she had written that was considered less than flattering to Postmus, and which Postmus believed was based upon off-the-record information provided to MacDuff by Uffer.
At 7:24 p.m. Postmus then sent an email to Uffer which said, “I apologize if I over reacted but the whole article just set me off…yes let’s get together next week and talk. Be healthy I think!”
Shortly thereafter, Uffer responded, “I apologize if anything I did upset you.”
From some of the supporting material provided, it is clear that at one point Uffer and Erwin had a back channel line of communication in which information that was less than flattering and even damaging regarding members of the board of supervisors was being exchanged. At another point, after Erwin left the assessor’s office, another temporary alliance between Uffer and Postmus took hold.
On March 5, 2008 at 1:39 p.m., in response to an unspecified but apparently unflattering newspaper article that had just been published, Uffer wrote to Postmus, “Is Erwin quoted as the source? I think he has been a very destructive force in our county.”
At 1:43 p.m. Postmus responds, “Not in the story but the reporter just as much admitted that it was Erwin. Erwin also told two people on Monday that it was him.”
At 1:43, Uffer wrote back, “What a solid guy.” At 1:46, Postmus posted, “More like an asshole!”
Instantaneously, that is, less than a minute later, Uffer responded, “He sure tried hard to get me fired.” To this, Postmus wrote back, “Yes he did! Now he says he is gonna take me down also!”
The back up material Uffer provided also shows that into the summer of 2009 he maintained another back channel line of communication with Sharon Gilbert, a former county employee who had created a website, i.e.politics.com, which offered information that was very critical of the county and its top officials.
And another document, a March 6, 2007 email from Adam Aleman, who was then a member of the county Republican Central Committee and one of Postmus’s closest political associates, suggests that an effort to offer Uffer the position of executive director of the county Republican Party had been afoot.
“On behalf of chairman Bill Postmus and the San Bernardino County Republican Party we are pleased to announce that we are accepting interested candidates for the position of executive director and political director,” the email reads. “Please reference the attached announcement for inquiries into the openings.”