Step 1. Activate

ACTIVATE THE MACHINE by inserting the Activation Card

into the yellow slot on the lower left-hand side of the

machine.

Step 2. Select

MAKE YOUR SELECTION by touching the circle 

to the right of the candidate or measure of your choice.

A green checkmark will appear in the circle  .

Repeat this process until you have selected the

candidates or measures of your choice. If you make a

mistake or change your mind, simply touch the

checkmark. It will disappear and you can make a new

choice.

To vote for a qualified WRITE-IN candidate, touch the

circle  to the right of the word Write-In. When the

keyboard screen appears, touch the letters of the write-in candidate’s name, then touch

the “OK” button in the lower right hand corner of your screen to continue.

To “REVIEW” your selection(s) at any time prior to casting your vote, simply touch

“REVIEW” at the bottom center of the screen.

WHEN YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH YOUR SELECTIONS touch the

“NEXT” arrow in the lower right corner of the screen.

Step 3. Cast Your Ballot

Once satisfied with your selections touch the yellow square

in the middle of the screen to cast your ballot.

You cannot change your mind after the ballot is cast.

Touch Screen Voting

IN 3 EASY STEPS



33-3EazySteps- (REVISED 08-10-04)

NEXT

REVIEW

NEXT

` `

A

OFFICIAL BALLOT

Consolidated General Election

Riverside County

November 2, 2004

This ballot stub shall be removed and retained by the voter.

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Vote for One Party

JOHN F. KERRY, for President Democratic

JOHN EDWARDS, for Vice President T

DAVID COBB, for President Green

PAT LA MARCHE, for Vice President T

GEORGE W. BUSH, for President Republican

RICHARD CHENEY, for Vice President T

MICHAEL BADNARIK, for President Libertarian

RICHARD CAMPAGNA, for Vice President T

MICHAEL ANTHONY PEROUTKA, for President American

CHUCK BALDWIN, for Vice President Independent T

LEONARD PELTIER, for President Peace and Freedom

JANICE JORDAN, for Vice President T

T

UNITED STATES SENATOR

Vote for One

JAMES P. “JIM” GRAY, Libertarian

Judge T

MARSHA FEINLAND, Peace and Freedom

Public School Teacher T

BARBARA BOXER, Democratic

U.S. Senator T

BILL JONES, Republican

Farmer / Businessman T

DON J. GRUNDMANN, American Independent

Doctor of Chiropractic T

T

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE

44th Congressional District Vote for One

KEN CALVERT, Republican

Member of Congress T

KEVIN AKIN, Peace and Freedom

Supervising Stationary Engineer T

LOUIS VANDENBERG, Democratic

College Administrator T

T

000000000000 33-A001 TURN CARD OVER A

_

A

I HAVE VOTED—HAVE YOU?

STATE SENATOR

31st Senatorial District Vote for One

MARJORIE MUSSER MIKELS, Democratic

Constitutional Attorney / Businessowner T

BOB DUTTON, Republican

Member of California Legislature / Business Owner T

T

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY

63rd Assembly District Vote for One

D’ANDRE MCNAMEE, Democratic

Small Business Owner T

MAUREEN K. KEEDY, Libertarian

Educator T

BILL EMMERSON, Republican

Businessman / Educator / Doctor T

T

33-A002 TURN CARD OVER A

_

Riverside 33-SB001 Ballot Type: 001 Page: 1 Sample BallotSample Ballot
` `

B

OFFICIAL BALLOT

Consolidated General Election

Riverside County

November 2, 2004

This ballot stub shall be removed and retained by the voter.

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

STATE

1A

PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

REVENUES Ensures local property tax and

sales tax revenues remain with local govern- ment thereby safeguarding funding for public

Yes T

No T

safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services. Pro- visions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fis- cal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur. Fiscal

Impact: Higher local government revenues than otherwise

would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars

annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts would

result in decreased resources to the state of similar amounts.

59

PUBLIC RECORDS, OPEN MEETINGS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends Constitution to include public’s right of

access to meetings of government

Yes T

No T

bodies and writings of government officials. Preserves specified constitutional rights; retains existing exclusions for certain meetings and records. Fiscal Impact: Potential minor

annual state and local government costs to make additional

information available to the public.

60

ELECTION RIGHTS OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Requires general election ballot include

candidate receiving most votes among

Yes T

No T

candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal effect.

60

A

SURPLUS PROPERTY. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Sale proceeds

of most surplus state property pay off specified

bonds. Fiscal Impact: Net savings over the

Yes T

No T

longer term-potentially low tens of millions of dollars-from

accelerated repayment of existing bonds.

61

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL PROJECTS. GRANT

PROGRAM. BOND ACT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $750 million general obligation bonds for grants to eligible children’s

Yes T

No T

hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off

both the principal ($750 million) and interest ($756 million)

costs of the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year.

000000000000 33-B003 TURN CARD OVER B

_

B

I HAVE VOTED—HAVE YOU?

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

STATE

62

ELECTIONS. PRIMARIES. INITIATIVE CON- STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

Requires primary elections where voters may

vote for any state or federal candidate regardYes T

No T

less of party registration of voter or candidate. The two pri- mary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office,

whether they are candidates with “no party” or members of

same or different party, would be listed on general election

ballot. Exempts presidential nominations. Fiscal Impact: No

significant net fiscal effect on state and local governments.

63

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXPANSION,

FUNDING. TAX ON PERSONAL INCOMES

ABOVE $1 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Establishes 1% tax on taxable personal

Yes T

No T

income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for

mentally ill children, adults, seniors. Fiscal Impact: Additional

state revenues of about $800 million annually by 2006-07,

with comparable annual increases in total state and county

expenditures for expansion of mental health programs. Unknown partially offsetting savings to state and local agencies.

64

LIMITS ON PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT OF

UNFAIR BUSINESS COMPETITION LAWS.

INITIATIVE STATUTE. Allows individual or

class action “unfair business” lawsuits only if

Yes T

No T

actual loss suffered; only government officials may enforce

these laws on public’s behalf. Fiscal Impact: Unknown state

fiscal impact depending on whether the measure increases

or decreases court workload and the extent to which diverted

funds are replaced. Unknown potential costs to local governments, depending on the extent to which diverted funds are

replaced.

65

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES.

STATE MANDATES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Requires voter approval for reduction of local fee/tax revenues.

Yes T

No T

Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined. Fiscal Impact: Higher local government revenues

than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annually over time. Any such local revenue

impacts would result in decreased resources to the state of

similar amounts.

33-B004 TURN CARD OVER B

_

Riverside 33-SB002 Ballot Type: 001 Page: 2 Sample BallotSample Ballot
` `

C

OFFICIAL BALLOT

Consolidated General Election

Riverside County

November 2, 2004

This ballot stub shall be removed and retained by the voter.

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

STATE

66

LIMITATIONS ON “THREE STRIKES” LAW.

SEX CRIMES. PUNISHMENT. INITIATIVE

STATUTE. Limits “Three Strikes” law to violent

and/or serious felonies. Permits limited

Yes T

No T

resentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment

for specified sex crimes against children. Fiscal Impact: Over

the long run, net state savings of up to several hundred

million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system; local

jail and court-related costs of potentially more than ten million

dollars annually.

67

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. FUNDING. TELEPHONE SURCHARGE. INITIATIVE

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND

STATUTE. Increases telephone surcharge and

Yes T

No T

allocates other funds for emergency room physicians,

hospital emergency rooms, community clinics, emergency

personnel training/equipment, and 911 telephone system.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $500

million annually to reimburse physicians and hospitals for uncompensated emergency medical services and other specified purposes. Continues $32 million in state funding for

physicians and clinics for uncompensated medical care.

68

NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING

EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT

AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL

Yes T

No T

AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Authorizes tribal compact

amendments. Unless tribes accept, authorizes casino gaming for sixteen non-tribal establishments. Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services. Fiscal Impact:

Increased gambling revenues-potentially over $1 billion annually-primarily to local governments for additional specified

services. Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations, potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of millions of

dollars annually.

69

DNA SAMPLES. COLLECTION. DATABASE.

FUNDING. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires

collection of DNA samples from all felons, and

from others arrested for or charged with speciYes T

No T

fied crimes, and submission to state DNA database. Provides for funding. Fiscal Impact: Net state cost to process

DNA samples of potentially nearly $20 million annually when

costs are fully realized. Local costs likely more than fully

offset by revenues, with the additional revenues available for

other DNA-related activities.

000000000000 33-C005 TURN CARD OVER C

_

C

I HAVE VOTED—HAVE YOU?

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

STATE

70

TRIBAL GAMING COMPACTS. EXCLUSIVE

GAMING RIGHTS. CONTRIBUTIONS TO

STATE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Upon tribe’s

Yes T

No T

request, Governor must execute 99-year compact. Tribes

contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in

exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming. Fis- cal Impact: Unknown effect on payments to the state from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these

payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred

million dollars annually.

71

STEM CELL RESEARCH. FUNDING. BONDS.

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. This measure establishes “California Institute for Regenerative

Yes T

No T

Medicine" to regulate and fund stem cell research, constitutional right to conduct such research, and oversight committee. Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning

research. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $6 billion over 30

years to pay off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3

billion) on the bonds. State payments averaging about $200

million per year.

72

HEALTH CARE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. REFERENDUM. A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects legislation

requiring health care coverage for employees,

Yes T

No T

as specified, working for large and medium employers. Fiscal

Impact: Significant expenditures fully offset, mainly by employer fees, for a state program primarily to purchase private

health insurance coverage. Significant county health program savings. Significant public employer health coverage

costs. Significant net state revenue losses. Overall unknown

net state and local savings or costs.

JUDICIAL

Judge of the Superior Court

Office #7 Vote for One

SHAFFER T. CORMELL

Attorney Criminal Civil T

SARAH ADAMS CHRISTIAN

Deputy District Attorney T

T

33-C006 TURN CARD OVER C

_

Riverside 33-SB003 Ballot Type: 001 Page: 3 Sample BallotSample Ballot
` `

D

OFFICIAL BALLOT

Consolidated General Election

Riverside County

November 2, 2004

This ballot stub shall be removed and retained by the voter.

SCHOOL

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Vote for no

Governing Board Member more than Two

JIM REAL

Retired Businessman T

JANET MARY GREEN

Administrator / Business Professor T

MIKE GASCA

College Student / Businessman T

MARY FIGUEROA

Incumbent T

ALBERTO “BETO” CAMARENA

Educator T

GLORIA WILLIS

Retired Teacher / Homemaker T

MARK A. TAKANO

Incumbent T

ANDREW “BEN” AAMES

Attorney T

T

T

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

CITY

CITY OF RIVERSIDE

BB

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended by amending the Preamble to better

reflect the diversity and inclusiveness of

Riverside, changing the title of Article II, and

Yes T

No T

correcting typographical errors in sections 1110 and

1111?

CC

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to (1) add a new Section 201, entitled

“Access to public meetings and public records;” (2) provide that meetings of ad hoc

Yes T

No T

Council committees and Mayoral-appointed bodies be open

to the public; (3) all closed session meetings of the City

Council be audiorecorded; and (4) provide that the City Clerk

shall help members of the public examine and copy all public

records?

000000000000 33-D007 TURN CARD OVER D

_

D

I HAVE VOTED—HAVE YOU?

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

CITY

CITY OF RIVERSIDE

DD

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended by adding a new Section 202,

entitled “Adoption of ethics code,” which would

require the City of Riverside to adopt within six

Yes T

No T

months a Code of Ethics and Conduct?

EE

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to (1) provide that the City Council review the compensation of the Mayor and City

Council every two years and that any

Yes T

No T

increase be limited to five percent every two years; and (2)

eliminate the Mayor and Council members salary commission?

FF

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to provide that the Mayor shall appoint the chairperson to all City Council standing committees?

Yes T

No T

GG

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to provide that each City board or

commission shall have at least one member

from each Council Ward?

Yes T

No T

HH

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to provide that minors may be appointed to City boards or commissions with

preferential voting privileges only or to a youth

Yes T

No T

commission?

II

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to add a new section 810, which

would add the Community Police Review Commission to the Charter?

Yes T

No T

JJ

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to allow the City Council (1) to conduct an election for a bonded indebtedness by

a mail-ballot election; and (2) to sell such

Yes T

No T

bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness at public

sale by notice inviting bids or by negotiated private sale?

33-D008 TURN CARD OVER D

_

Riverside 33-SB004 Ballot Type: 001 Page: 4 Sample BallotSample Ballot
` `

E

OFFICIAL BALLOT

Consolidated General Election

Riverside County

November 2, 2004

This ballot stub shall be removed and retained by the voter.

MEASURE(S) SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

CITY

CITY OF RIVERSIDE

KK

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to (1) provide that bids on public

works contracts can be accompanied by such

other form of bidder’s security as the City

Yes T

No T

Council establishes by ordinance; and (2) add a new Section

1114, entitled “Use of design-build procurement for public

works projects,” which would permit the award of contracts

for the combined design and construction of public works

projects?

LL

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to provide that the City change its independent auditor at least every five years?

Yes T

No T

MM

Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be

amended to (1) allow the board of public

utilities to award and execute contracts for

construction, goods or services for the public

Yes T

No T

utility; (2) allow the director of public utilities to approve work

to be done at the customers’ request and expense; and (3) allow the director of public utilities to negotiate and execute

contracts with individual retail customers for utility services?

000000000000 33-E009 TURN CARD OVER E

_

I HAVE VOTED—HAVE YOU?

This page was intentionally left blank.

Examine both sides of each card for

voting opportunities.

39-N999 N

_

Riverside 33-SB005 Ballot Type: 001 Page: 5 Sample BallotSample Ballot
VOTER’S PAMPHLET INFORMATION SECTION

The Following Pages Contain

Voter Information Applicable to your Ballot

Which May Include Any/All of the Following Items:

 CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS

 BALLOT MEASURES

 ANALYSES

 ARGUMENTS PRO & CON

 TEXT OF MEASURE(S)

This pamphlet section may not contain a complete list of candidates. A complete list of candidates appears on the

Sample Ballot. Each candidate’s statement in this pamphlet is volunteered by the candidate and is printed at the

expense of the candidate unless otherwise determined by the governing body.

Arguments in support of or in opposition to the proposed laws are opinions of the authors.

The text, grammar and spelling are as submitted by the authors.

Campaign Finance Reform

Among all state legislative candidates appearing on ballots in Riverside County, the following persons have pledged to

abide by campaign spending limits as specified in the California Government Code. This is a result of Proposition 34

adopted by the voters at the November 2000 General Election, and of a new statute passed by the Legislature and

signed by the Governor in 2001. Candidates agreeing to the limits have the opportunity to publish a statement of

qualifications in the local sample ballot pamphlet.

This list covers all legislative districts in the county. Not all districts will appear on your ballot.

STATE SENATE, 31ST DISTRICT

Bob Dutton, Republican

Marjorie Musser Mikels, Democratic

STATE ASSEMBLY, 65TH DISTRICT

Russ Bogh, Republican

Rita Ramirez-Dean, Democratic

STATE SENATE, 37TH DISTRICT

Pat Johansen, Democratic

STATE ASSEMBLY, 66TH DISTRICT

Jack N. Lee, Libertarian

Laurel Nicholson, Democratic

STATE ASSEMBLY, 63RD DISTRICT

Maureen K. Keedy, Libertarian

D'Andre McNamee, Democratic

STATE ASSEMBLY, 71ST DISTRICT

Bea Foster, Democratic

Todd Spitzer, Republican

STATE ASSEMBLY, 64TH DISTRICT

John J. Benoit, Republican

Robert Melsh,Democratic

STATE ASSEMBLY, 80TH DISTRICT

33-VP5 (08-31-04)
CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR

STATE SENATOR, 31ST DISTRICT

MARJORIE MUSSER MIKELS AGE: 58

OCCUPATION: Constitutional Attorney/Small Business Owner

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

As your State Senator I pledge to work for: a robust and just economy;

educational excellence for all; affordable health care; sustainable, affordable energy; clean and healthful environment

Support small business and working families: As a small business owner,

I will vote to ease tax burdens on small business and working people. I

want global corporations profiting from California’s marketplace to pay a

fair share of taxes. Profiteers, like Enron, who caused unprecedented

deficits by gouging California energy consumers, must repay ill-gotten

gains. I will vote to reduce borrowing, which straps future generations

with debt.

Protect our natural resources: I waged successful political and legal

battles against the Ward Valley nuclear dump that threatened our water

with radioactive waste. As Senator, I will work to save our local forests

from drought, fire, bark beetle infestation and over-development. Federal

dollars must be used to clean up local groundwater basins, polluted by

federal contractors. I oppose privatization of water resources.

Uphold freedom/justice: A UCLA-trained attorney, I’ve fought utility taxes

and property assessments that penalize homeowners, seniors and the

poor. We can save billions by amending “Three Strikes” to target only

violent crimes and use the savings to build schools and colleges, not

more prisons. Educate rather than incarcerate. Proudly progressive, I’m

a mother who supports less governmental intrusion into our private lives.

I need your vote to help roll back right wing extremism and good-old-boy

cronyism.

Elect Marjorie Mikels! “A vision of hope, the courage for change ”

STATEMENTS OF LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES

SEEKING PARTISAN OFFICE

33-1
33-6

CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE #7

SHAFFER T. CORMELL AGE: 42

OCCUPATION: Attorney Criminal Civil

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

I am the only candidate with experience as Judge Pro-Tem. In over 13

years as a Riverside County attorney, I have dealt with a wide range of

criminal and civil cases. I have been an Adjunct Professor of Business

Law and am active in church and community leadership. My wife,

Melissa and I have two children.

As your Judge, I pledge to act with integrity, be firm, fair, and uphold the

United States and California Constitutions. I will work hard to protect our

neighborhoods from violent crime. I will diligently seek innovative and

successful ways of continuing my fight against the scourge of illegal

drugs, so devastating to all sectors of our society.

Shaffer Cormell’s endorsements include:

Superior Court Judges: Dallas Holmes; Richard Fields; Christopher

Sheldon; Graham Anderson Cribbs. Judicial Officers: Ronald Lorden;

Thomas Hudspeth.

Riverside County Board of Supervisors: Roy Wilson; Marion Ashley; Bob

Buster; John Tavaglione. Law Enforcement: Retired Sheriff of Riverside

County, Cois Byrd; Chief Robert Grady, Retired; Lieutenant Tim Wade.

Mayors: Ron Loveridge; Brian DeForge; Daryl Busch, Art Welch. Retired

State Senators: Dave Kelley; Robert Presley

Vote for Shaffer Cormell for safer communities and a better future.

For more information and many more endorsements:

www.shaffercormell.com; 760-922-9223

CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE #7

SARAH A. CHRISTIAN AGE: 57

OCCUPATION: Deputy District Attorney

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

I am: The only law enforcement candidate on the ballot. Committed to

the public safety of our citizens. Committed to being tough on crime while

applying the law fairly and impartially to everyone. Known to be fair, firm,

hard working.

I will: Remain supportive of law enforcement personnel and goals.

Work to maintain efficient administration of court operations. Bring

maturity, integrity, honesty, sound reasoning and knowledge of the law to

my performance of the duties of judge.

Experience: Attorney 14 years. Deputy District Attorney 2 years.

Juvenile Special Prosecutor 5 years. General civil practice of law 10

years.

Education: California Baptist University, Bachelor of Arts, Business

Administration, California Baptist University, Bachelor of Sciences, Political Science, University of LaVerne College of Law, Juris Doctor.

My website at http://electchristianjudge.org will tell you more about me,

my background, and how I think. I hope you will take the time to read it.

You may write me at Sarah@electchristianjudge.org if you have specific

questions. Thank you for your support.

Endorsements include: District Attorney Grover Trask, Sheriff Bob

Doyle, Hon. Jean Leonard, Riverside Sheriffs’ Assoc., Riverside County

Deputy District Attorneys’ Assoc., Rod Pacheco, Assistant District

Attorney, Marion Ashley, 5th District Supervisor
33-8

CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER,

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

JANET GREEN

OCCUPATION: Administrator, Business Professor

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

My goal as a Board member will be to provide the finest occupational and

general education opportunities for our students, so they can upgrade

their income and job status for the benefit of the entire community.

Educational quality, counseling, registration, scholarships, athletics, and

programs for students should be the highest district priorities.

Unfortunately, current district priorities are not where they should be.

Money has been spent on administrators traveling to Europe and

lawsuits against those who question current spending practices.

The La Sierra property purchased by the district, now sitting idle, should

be used or sold, alleviating the burden on taxpayers.

I want proper planning and good fiscal management. Decisions should

be made to benefit students, not bureaucrats.

For 26 years, I served as a faculty member, dean and Health Services

Director at a local community college. I know how the system works. I will

get results.

Currently, I serve on many state and local boards and commissions,

including the State Bar Board of Governors and the Fair Housing, Sexual

Assault, Child Support, and Inland Agency Boards. I am an RN and an

Air Force veteran. I have a BA from Redlands University and an MA from

CSU.

CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER,

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

MARY FIGUEROA AGE: 48

OCCUPATION: Peace Officer/Correctional Counselor

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS

It has been my privilege to lead RCC as Board President during the most

dynamic period in it’s history. The voters approved Measure C to meet

the needs our growth required. I will ensure that this money will

strengthen the academic and vocational opportunities of the college.

As a Riverside native, graduate of North High and UC Riverside, I know

the importance of a quality education. Through my work as a Correctional Counselor, I witness daily what happens to individuals with a lack

of educational opportunity.

Since 1995, my priorities as a trustee have been fiscal responsibility,

student access, and independent status for each of the campuses. We

have opened phase two on the Norco and Moreno Valley campuses, and

the new Digital Library at Riverside has provided the community access

to state of the art information technology.

I will continue to ensure that standards for a quality education are met.

Individuals with the desire to learn will find an accessible educational

institution, a college faculty second to none and a student population

reflecting the diversity of the community it represents.

Please vote for me so that I may continue to work for our students and

their future.

CANDIDATE STATEMENT FOR

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER,

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

MARK A. TAKANO AGE: 43

OCCUPATION: Community College Trustee - High School Teacher

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

Harvard College, BA in Government, 1983; UC Riverside, School of

Education. RCC Trustee, 14 years; Member, Board of Directors of

California Community College Trustees, 8 years.

Thanks to you, the voters, $350 million in capital construction bonds were

approved last March. I appreciate your confidence in RCC’s fiscal

management and educational leadership. Because of your vision, future

students will continue to have access to the best educational opportunities. I pledge that your tax dollars will be used wisely to build classrooms

and laboratories to meet the needs of future growth.

Through intensive, bipartisan federal and state legislative advocacy,

RCC has secured significant new money for operations: equalization

funding, state and federal grants. This means more full-time faculty for all

the classrooms we will build and high quality programs. Our legislative

advocacy has been effective. I pledge to improve and continue this work

to secure more funding in the future.

The Norco and Moreno Valley campuses will soon emerge as independent colleges. RCC is in transition to a three-college system. RCC faces

complex management challenges ahead. Now, more than ever, sound

and experienced leadership is needed.

I stand on fourteen years of successful service. I ask for you support

again. www.marktakano.com
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "BB"

(Preamble, Title of Article II, Typographical Errors)

This measure contains three proposed amendments to the City of

Riverside Charter.

The first proposed amendment pertains to the preamble to the

Charter. Current law provides a short statement as a preamble, reflecting the City’s right to enact a charter. If passed by a majority of voters,

this measure would add the following statement to the Preamble:

"We, the people of the City of Riverside believe in promoting an

inclusive community with shared economic, environmental and

cultural prosperity, equal civil and political rights, social

harmony and cohesion, and opportunities for all governed by

responsible and responsive public officials who promote citizen

participation, as well as just and equitable tax and financial

policies; and these beliefs are rooted in our desire to enhance

the uniqueness of the City of Riverside."

The second proposed amendment, if passed by a majority of voters,

would change the title of Article II from "Powers of the City" to "General

Powers of the City."

The third proposed amendment, if passed by a majority of voters,

would correct certain typographical errors in the text of the Charter.

None of these proposed amendments impose any obligations or

duties on the City.

If Measure "BB" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact

to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "BB." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "BB"

The Charter Review Committee voted unanimously to amend the

Preamble, change the title of Article II, and correct the typographical

errors in sections 1110 and 1111. The most significant change a yes on

Measure "BB" would bring about is an amendment to the Preamble that

enhances it from simply identifying the source of authority and action

statement to include a section on the intent of the residents of Riverside;

a more subjective declaration reflecting goals, diversity, responsiveness,

governing values and civic participation. The purpose of this addition is to

exemplify the fundamental principles that reflect the spirit of the City of

Riverside. Vote yes on Measure "BB."

By: Eric Haley

Charter Review Committee Member

Connie Howard Leach

William R. Bailey, III

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "BB"

33-138
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "CC"

(Access to Public Meetings and Records, Audio Record of

Closed Sessions, Citizen Participation at Meetings of Ad Hoc

Committees, City Clerk Assist Public in Accessing Public

Records)

This measure contains four proposed amendments to the City of

Riverside Charter.

The first proposed amendment would add a new section to the

Charter entitled "Access to public meetings and public records." Current

law requires meetings of legislative bodies of local public agencies to be

open and public. Such legislative bodies include the City Council, and

any commission, committee, board or other body created by the City

Council except for "ad hoc" committees or bodies created by the Mayor.

An "ad hoc" committee is generally considered to be an advisory body

composed solely of less than a quorum, or majority, of the legislative

body. An ad hoc committee is one that will serve a limited or single

purpose, is not perpetual, and is to be dissolved once their specific task is

completed. An example would be an advisory committee composed of

less than a quorum created to advise City staff on a single, narrow issue

of importance to the City. Current law does not require the City to make

meetings of "ad hoc" committees created by the City Council or other

bodies created by the Mayor open and public. If passed by a majority of

voters, this measure would codify such existing California law in the

Charter, and would also provide that all ad hoc committees created by

the City Council or other bodies created by the Mayor are subject to such

laws.

The second proposed amendment pertains to closed session

meetings of the City Council. Current law provides that "closed sessions"

are meetings conducted in private without the attendance of the public or

the media. Such meetings are permitted only for specified purposes. If

passed by a majority of voters, this measure would require the City to

audio-record all such closed session meetings, retain such recordings for

at least two years, and keep such recordings confidential.

The third proposed amendment pertains to the right of citizens to

make comments at meetings of ad hoc City Council committees. Current

law provides that citizens may publicly comment at regular meetings of

the City Council or City Council standing committees. If passed by a

majority of voters, this measure would allow citizens to make public

comments at any meeting of an ad hoc City Council committee.

The fourth proposed amendment pertains to the City of Riverside

City Clerk’s obligation under California law to assist the public in examining and copying public records. If passed by a majority of voters, this

measure would codify existing California law in the Charter.

If Measure "CC" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact

to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "CC." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "CC"

The City of Riverside should make every effort to open up its decision

making process and make it easy for its citizens to access public

documents. Furthermore, to maintain full public confidence in the propriety of the actions of the Mayor and City Council, all closed sessions

should be audio recorded, as permitted by State law, consistent with the

strict privacy protections guaranteed in State statutes.

Full public access and participation in government should include knowledge of, and participation in, all the deliberations of the policy making

bodies of local government. Over the years Riverside's population has

grown and the City Council's obligations have expanded. As the

complexity of city issues has increased, the use of ad-hoc sub-committees, consisting of fewer than a majority of the Council, has become an

important and frequently used tool to develop policy recommendations to

the full City Council. Even though these ad-hoc committees are temporary and not covered by open-meeting laws, they can play a decisive role

in crafting the final actions of the Mayor and City Council.

Because of the importance of ad-hoc committees and because of the

City of Riverside's commitment to open government and citizen participation, the seventeen members of the Riverside Charter Review

Committee unanimously recommend a yes vote on Charter Measure

"CC."

By: The Riverside Charter Review Committee

Eric Haley, Charter Review Committee Member

Marcia McQuern

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "CC"

33-139
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "DD"

(Code of Ethics)

Current law does not require the City of Riverside to have a code of

ethics for its elected officials and members of appointed boards, commissions and committees.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would require the City

Council to adopt a code of ethics within six months of the effective date of

this Charter amendment. The nature and scope of the code of ethics

would be determined by the City Council. The code of ethics would apply

to the Mayor, members of the City Council, and members of the City’s

boards and commissions.

If Measure "DD" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact

to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "DD." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "DD"

To insure public trust and confidence in elected officials and

decision-makers, many cities have adopted a code of ethics affirming

that decisions will be made impartially and with accountability to the

public. Experience has shown that a code of ethics promotes a City Hall

culture that values communication, collaboration, service-orientation,

and positive attitudes in interpersonal relations in the workforce and with

the community.

The purpose of a code of ethics in the City Charter is to provide the

community with knowledge that its elected officials, other

decision-makers, and public representatives serving on City boards and

commissions commit to service in the community based on ethics,

honesty and integrity.

By: Dr. Damon Castillo, Jr

Rose M. Mayes

Ben Johnson, II

Art Garcia

Eric Haley

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE"DD"

33-140
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "EE"

(Mayor and City Councilmembers Salary)

Current law provides for a Mayor and City Council member salary

commission. Such commission is required to meet in every

even-numbered year to make recommendations to the City Council

concerning the compensation of the Mayor and City Council members.

Compensation for the Mayor and City Council members is then set by

ordinance after a duly noticed public hearing. Any such ordinance must

be approved by at least five affirmative votes of the City Council. Current

law does not limit the amount of such increase.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would eliminate the

Mayor and City Council member salary commission, and require the City

Council, in January of every odd-numbered year, to review the compensation of the Mayor and City Council members. The City Council, in

establishing any increase to such compensation, would be limited to a

five percent increase from their then-existing salary. Such increase

would still have to be adopted by ordinance by no fewer than five affirmative votes.

If Measure "EE" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact

to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "EE." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "EE"

In order to avoid the debacle of 2002, we need to change the city's

system for determining mayoral and City Council compensation That

year's council totally rejected the advice of the charter-required citizens

Salary Commission which, after spending months studying the issue,

determined that council members deserved no raises for what commissioners said was part-time public service. Council members responded

by voting themselves 60 percent increases, an action that was widely

criticized.

The current Charter Review Committee concluded that the charter

should eliminate the Salary Commission, as several commissioners

suggested, and accept the current level of council and mayor salaries. It

also decided the charter should remain silent on the full-time versus

part-time issue, leaving it to ward voters to decide if their representative

was working long enough hours.

While elected officials understandably would rather not take the heat for

raising their pay themselves, the charter committee rejected automatic

raises tied to judges' salaries, the increases the council gives City

employees or a cost of living index. Instead, this measure allows, but

does not require, the Council to raise members' salaries no more than 5

percent every two years with at least a five-of-seven affirmative vote.

The committee believes that council members should take responsibility

for their compensation increases. In years of budget cuts and giving City

employees no or small raises, they are unlikely to give themselves big

raises, if any.

By: Marcia McQuern

Eric Haley

Ben Johnson, II

Rose M. Mayes

Dorothy Bailey

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE"EE"

33-141
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "FF"

(Mayoral Appointment of Chairpersons to City Council

Standing Committees)

The City Council currently has eight "standing" committees. A

"standing committee" is an advisory committee composed of less than a

quorum, or majority, of the City Council members. These committees are

organized by subject matter (e.g., Development Committee, Finance

Committee, Public Safety Committee, etc.) and meet regularly to discuss

issues referred by the City Council. The policy and practice of the City

Council has been that, by majority vote, the City Council appoints one

chairperson, one vice chairperson and one member to such a committee.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would allow the

Mayor, instead of the City Council, to appoint the chairperson to each

such standing committee. The City Council would still appoint the vice

chairperson and the other member to the standing committee, by

majority vote.

If Measure "FF" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact to

the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "FF." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "FF"

Unlike City Council members, the Mayor is the only governing official

elected by residents citywide. One of the principal powers and duties

assigned to the Mayor is to offer guidance on policy matters by setting

goals for City Council members and by promoting support for those

policies that address the most significant municipal issues from a

citywide standpoint.

A yes vote on Measure "FF" will expand the powers and duties of the

Mayor to include the right to appoint the chairs of the City Council standing committees. The current selection process for chair appointment

allows council members to choose the committee they wish to chair

based on council member seniority. Amending the City Charter to authorize the Mayor to appoint the chairs of the City Council standing committees will add perspective and objectivity to the selection process and will

up hold the citywide viewpoint rather than any perceived ward-influenced

agenda. Further, changing the City Charter to allow the Mayor to appoint

these important chair positions to City Council standing committees will

ensure a level of accountability essential for balanced and successful

municipal government for the City of Riverside. Vote yes on Measure

"FF."

By: Connie Howard Leach

Eric Haley

Charter Review Committee Member

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "FF"

33-142
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "GG"

(Ward Representation on City Boards and Commissions)

Current law provides that members of City boards and commissions shall be comprised of qualified electors of the City, none of whom shall hold

any paid office or employment in City government. Such boards and commissions serve as advisory bodies to the City Council. Currently, there are

thirteen boards and commissions.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would require that each such board or commission have at least one member from each City

Council ward. Such members would still have to be qualified electors and not hold any such paid office or employment in City government. If

approved, the City Council would have to review the then current membership of each board and commission to determine whether or not there is

representation from each City Council ward. Current board and commission members may be subject to removal from office in order to comply with

this measure. For example, if a seven member board or commission currently has members who reside in only five of the City’s seven council wards,

then two of the members who reside in the over-represented wards would be removed from office. They would be replaced by two new members who

reside in each of the two previously unrepresented council wards.

If Measure "GG" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "GG." If you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the City

Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

33-143

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "GG"

The basic principle of representative democracy is public participation in

local governance. In support of this concept, boards and commissions

were established by City Charter to allow the public to provide advice and

input to the City Council in their decision-making process. However, the

current process is not providing adequate representation across all

wards. Data has confirmed that 60% of the membership of all City boards

and commissions comes from one ward, while some other wards have

little or no representation.

Amending the City Charter to provide each board or commission with a

member from each Council ward will ensure that each ward will have

input in the decisions affecting all members of the community.

This amendment does not change the selection process of members of

boards and commissions; it simply requires representation from all areas

of the City. The entire City Council and Mayor are involved in the

process, ensuring that there are quality representatives with diverse

backgrounds and experiences serving on boards and commissions. The

Council and Mayor will still be able to name at-large members, in addition

to the newly required ward representatives. Current board and commission members could continue with the addition of representatives from

the previously unrepresented wards.

The City of Riverside is proud of its diversity. By amending the City

Charter to require representation from each Council ward, we ensure

that our diversity is not only acknowledged, but also respected.

By: Barry C. Johnson

Dorothy Bailey

Sharon L. B. Tyrrell

Dr. Damon Castillo, Jr.

Mike Teer

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "GG"

It is simply not true that 60 percent of the membership of all City boards

and commissions come from one ward. The ward with the most representation has about 37 percent of the board/commission membership

and every ward is represented on at least five boards or commissions.

The reason for the under-representation of some wards on boards and

commissions is not discrimination, but rather a shortage of applications

from people in some areas of the city with the interest, time and experience to serve. More aggressive outreach for applications can address

this issue without risking the forced appointment of less qualified people

than now serve. All wards' interests are protected because the City

Council, where every ward has equal representation, is the final authority

on all city issues.

By: Marcia McQuern
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "GG"

While it superficially may sound like a good idea to require mandatory

ward representation on all city boards and commissions, after much

discussion and reflection a majority of the Charter Review Committee

came to understand that the current appointment system is superior to

this measure. However, the supermajority of two thirds required to

withdraw the initial recommendation was not achieved.

The major problem with creating a requirement that each ward be represented on every board and commission is that it would promote

ward-centered decisions rather than a focus on what is best for the whole

city. The requirement would be particularly detrimental to boards and

commissions that benefit from members with specialized knowledge,

such as the Police Review Commission and the Public Utilities Board.

Further, approval of Measure "GG" would require the immediate removal

of many excellent appointees now serving. This would leave city boards

and commissions with sudden vacancies that would be filled by reference to geographic residency rather than by consideration of experience, qualifications and community commitment.

Currently, the mayor and council collaborate on appointments, seeking

not only diversity in ward residency, but also in community involvement,

work experience, ethnicity and gender. While a screening committee

selects among applicants for interviews, any council member can require

that any applicant be interviewed. It takes five votes to appoint a board or

commission member. A mandatory ward requirement could lead to

patronage appointments rather than appointments made through the

current deliberative process.

Although too often there are few applicants from one or more of the

wards, we do not need to change the City Charter to get broader ward

representation. We can improve outreach efforts by council members

and city staff encouraging qualified residents in all parts of the city to

become involved.

Vote no on "GG."

By: Marcia McQuern

NO REBUTTAL FILED TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "GG"

33-144
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "HH"

(Youth Members on City Boards and Commissions)

Current law provides that members of City boards and commissions

shall be comprised of qualified electors of the City, none of whom shall

hold any paid office or employment in City government. Current law

defines an "elector" as any person who is a United States citizen, 18

years of age or older, and a resident of the City at least 15 days prior to an

election.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would allow minors to

be appointed to either a youth commission or other boards or commissions, so long as they otherwise legally qualify as electors. Except for

minors appointed to a youth commission, a minor appointed to a board or

commission would serve as a preferential voting member. This means

that the minor’s vote would be advisory only and would not be part of the

official vote on a matter. Such minor’s appointment would not be counted

against the number of members established by ordinance of the City

Council for that board or commission. Also, the minor would not be

allowed to attend closed session meetings of a board or commission, or

vote on any such matters subject to closed session discussion.

If Measure "HH" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact

to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "HH." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "HH"

Offering minors the opportunity to hold a seat on City boards and

commissions as preferential voters will give the youth in Riverside a

voice in shaping their community and a practical lesson in the operations

of city government. A preferential vote is not a vote that will affect any

action taken by the board or commission, but rather it is a vote that is only

reflected in the minutes of the meeting to ensure that the youth member’s

opinion is recorded. A yes vote on Measure "HH" will not take a seat

away from an adult on any City board or commission. The youth member

will be an additional member to the currently established number of

members.

Amending the City Charter to allow minors to participate on City boards

and commissions will teach the youth of Riverside how to meet community challenges, make hard decisions, and develop civic responsibility.

Adults and young people working together on City boards and commissions will build stronger adult youth relationships and change the culture

to view youth as resources rather than merely recipients of what adults

have to give.

The youth of Riverside are the leaders of tomorrow. Young people

involved in city government are better prepared to be leaders and

decision makers in all aspects of their lives. The opportunity for youth to

serve on boards and commissions will add a fresh perspective and a

diversity of opinion to issues that relate to the quality of life in the community. Everyone benefits with a yes vote on Measure "HH."

By: Connie Howard Leach

Eric Haley, Charter Review Committee Member

William R. Bailey, III

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "HH"

33-145
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "II"

(Community Police Review Commission)

The current City Charter does not include the City’s Community

Police Review Commission as one of the enumerated City boards and

commissions. The Community Police Review Commission was created

by ordinance of the City Council in April of 2000.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would add the

Community Police Review Commission to the Charter, with the same

powers and duties as already established by ordinance of the City

Council. Such powers and duties would include the following:

(a) advise the Mayor and City Council on all police/community

relations issues; (b) public outreach to educate the community

on the purpose of the commission; (c) receipt and discretionary

review and investigation of citizen complaints against officers of

the Riverside Police Department filed within six months of the

date of the alleged misconduct; (d) review and investigate the

death of any individual arising out of or in connection with

actions of a police officer; (e) conduct a hearing on filed

complaints or commission-initiated investigations when such

hearing, in the discretion of the commission, will facilitate the

fact finding process; (f) require the attendance of witnesses,

through subpoena, and the production of books and papers at

commission investigations; (g) make findings concerning

allegations contained in the filed complaint; (h) advise the

Riverside Police Department in matters pertaining to police

policies and practices; and (i) prepare an annual report to the

Mayor and City Council on commission activities.

If Measure "II" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact to

the City. This measure would not impact the City Council’s current

obligations under Section 801 of the City Charter. Section 801 provides

that the City Council shall budget funds which in its opinion are sufficient

for the efficient and proper functioning of City boards and commissions.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "II." If you

desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the City

Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you or

view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "II"

Riverside has developed a civil forum to resolve disputes between Riverside’s many diverse communities and our police department. The

Community Police Review Commission’s independent and objective

status lets the community be confident that police problems are not

ignored and that false accusations of officers do not stand. In the

Commission’s four years, 98% of citizen complaints reviewed supported

the actions of the police officer. Those findings support police officers in

the difficult work they do every day. In the other 2% the Commission

identified problems that can be resolved with feedback or retraining. This

process supports valid claims against the officer and reaffirms our faith in

the Riverside Police Department.

Continuing police review and accountability is simply good government.

Since the Commission was established in April of 2000, through the

submission of this argument in August 2004, the city has settled two (2)

lawsuits alleging police abuse of force for a combined total of $51,500.

Police review helps save money paid in lawsuits through a community

grievance procedure that can be trusted. Additional key contributions

include Chief Leach's leadership and increased officer training.

Placing the Commission in the charter will permit it to do its work in a less

politically volatile climate. Previous efforts to de-fund and change the

makeup of the Commission are clear evidence that the Commission

must be placed in a more independent, unbiased position within our city

structure.

The Commission has provided important recommendations for change

in police policy and procedures that help establish a better working

relationship between the department and the community it serves.

Protect effective, unbiased accountability in Riverside, our "All America

City" and restore public confidence. Vote "YES" to add the Commission

to the City Charter.

By: Art Garcia

Sharon L. B. Tyrrell

Rose M. Mayes

William R. Bailey, III

Dr. Damon Castillo, Jr.

33-146
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "II"

Measure "II" amounts to wasteful spending. The Community Police

Review Commission (CPRC) is the only city board or commission that

carries a $300,000 budget and is the only board or commission that is

funded independently from the rest of the city budget. The entire cost of

running the commission has been estimated at around $600,000

whereas, most of the City boards and commissions have a budget of a

few thousand dollars.

Measure "II" does not offer our city government the flexibility to

modify or change the commission as the city grows. Our city council

needs to have the flexibility to modify, change, or remove the commission

to reflect what our community wants. The CPRC is, and should remain,

an administrative function and not a product of the city constitution. If

measure II is passed, it will take another charter amendment to modify or

remove the commission. An undue burden we do not want to bear.

Our current system has worked very well for years and the old

adage, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" still holds true. The commission

doesn’t work and it creates an unnecessary financial burden to our city.

The Police Department already has many levels of oversight including

the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General’s

Office, California Department of Justice, United States Department of

Justice, United States Attorney General’s Office, and the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI). CPRC is not capable of conducting investigations

to the level and skill of the aforementioned investigative bureau’s and

departments.

Our Police Officers work very hard to provide the excellent level of

service we should expect from our fine city. Support our Police Officers,

and trust our City Council to make the correct decisions for us. Vote ‘No’

on measure "II."

By: Christian Dinco,

Riverside Police Officer’s Association

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "II"

CPRC advises the Mayor and City Council on all police/community

issues. It has been an essential element for Community Oriented

Policing. The flexibility for change to meet the needs of the community is

still in the hands of the City Council via the ordinance process.

Opponents of Measure "II" suggest that other law enforcement agencies

provide police oversight. These agencies are not established to conduct

citizen complaints on a day-to-day basis, nor do they have authority on

such issues of local control. Most complaints are deemed to be

unfounded, exonerated, or not sustained.

CPRC makes an effort to maintain a balance between the privacy rights

of police officers and the public’s right to register complaints. Fact-finding

processes provide procedural due process for officers; however, CPRC

has no role in the disciplinary process.

Opponents of Measure "II" offer CPRC costs not supported by facts.

Actual expenditures have never exceeded the amount budgeted in the

General Fund. The FY 2002-03 budget was about one half of one

percent of the Police Department’s budget. Proposed budget for FY

2004-05 is approximately $6,400 greater than the FY 2003-04 budget.

Citizen input into the decision-making process is a fundamental principle

in a democracy. Community review of citizen complaints supports good

police practices and insures best community oriented policing. Recent

reforms including those mandated by the State Attorney General have

paid off in a sharp reduction in lawsuits and settlements. Do not be

swayed by the scare tactics of the Measure’s opponents.

By: Dr. Damon Castillo, Jr.

Art Garcia

Rose Mayes

Sharon L. B. Tyrrell

33-147
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "JJ"

(Mail-Ballot Elections for Bonded Indebtedness; Sale of Bonds

by Competitive or Negotiated Sale)

This measure contains two proposed amendments to the City of

Riverside Charter.

The first proposed amendment pertains to the City’s ability to

conduct elections for general obligation bonded indebtedness by

mail-ballot rather than by polling place election. "General bonded indebtedness" means bonds which are paid from taxes levied on property in the

City based on assessed valuation. Current law requires the City to

conduct elections for approval of such bonded indebtedness through

polling-place elections where voters either appear and vote or vote by

absentee ballot. If passed by a majority of the voters, this measure would

allow the City Council to determine, by ordinance, that such an election

could be conducted as a mail-ballot election. In a mail-ballot election, the

voters would vote and return ballots that are mailed to them. The voting

process would be similar to the process for voting absentee ballots.

The second proposed amendment pertains to the City’s ability to sell

bonds by negotiated sale. State law requires cities to sell general obligation bonds to investors by public sale with published notice inviting bids.

If passed by a majority of the voters, this measure would allow the City

Council to determine, by ordinance, that it is in the best interest of the City

that general obligation bonds be sold by negotiated sale rather than by

public sale with notice inviting bids. In a negotiated sale, the City would

negotiate the terms of the sale of the bonds with a single investment

banking firm which would market the bonds to the public.

If Measure "JJ" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact to

the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "JJ." If you

desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the City

Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you or

view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "JJ"

The voters and the taxpayers of Riverside deserve the best fiscal

practices to assure the least cost for borrowed funds. The Riverside City

Charter should be updated and modernized to allow for both a traditional

bidding process and a negotiated sale of public debt.

The Charter should also be amended to allow the use of mail-ballot

elections. The financial obligations of our city should be of paramount

concern to all citizens. In addition to the cost savings of mail-ballot

elections, broad voter turnout through mail-ballot elections assures the

greatest participation of Riverside voters on these important issues.

The members of the Riverside Charter Review Committee unanimously

recommend a Yes vote on Charter Measure "JJ."

By: The Riverside Charter Review Committee

Eric Haley, Chair

Riverside Charter Review Committee

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "JJ"

33-148
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "KK"

(Bidder’s Security for Public Works Projects Bids; Design-Build

Procurement for Public Works Projects)

This measure contains two proposed amendments to the City of

Riverside Charter.

The first proposed amendment pertains to the City’s requirement

that all bidders for public works projects provide a certain form of

"bidder’s security." Current law provides that every bid submitted for a

public works project must be accompanied by either a certified or

cashier’s check, or a bidder’s bond issued by a surety company. The

purpose of this security is to provide financial assurance that the bidder

will honor his or her bid if awarded a contract, because if the bidder fails

to so honor the bid, the City can retain the check or demand payment on

the bond from the surety company, as applicable. If passed by a majority

of voters, this measure would allow the City to accept other forms of

bidder’s security, as determined by ordinance of the City Council. An

example of another form of bidder’s security that this measure would

allow is an electronic funds transfer.

The second proposed amendment pertains to the City’s authorization to use a design-build process for public works projects. Current law

provides that the design and construction of public works projects be

done by a design-bid-build process. The current design-bid-build

process is described as follows. The City uses a qualifications-based

selection and price negotiation process to retain an architect or engineer

to prepare design plans and specifications for a public works project.

Then the City issues requests for bids to construction contractors to build

the public works project based on those design plans and specifications.

Except for limited circumstances, the City must then award the contract

to construct that public works project, as described in the plans and

specifications, to the lowest responsive bidder.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would allow the City to

determine, by ordinance, that for particular projects the City could

procure the design and construction of public works projects through a

competitive negotiation process rather than a competitive bidding

process.

If Measure "KK" is approved, the fiscal impact to the City is unknown.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "KK." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "KK"

This measure updates the Charter to allow the City Council, if it chooses,

to use two contracting tools on City public works projects that are available in other jurisdictions and for private sector projects.

The first would allow bids to be accompanied by any form of bidder’s

security that the Council authorizes for that contract. This will allow use of

modern financial tools such as letters of credit.

The second allows the Council to use the frequently less expensive and

faster design-build process on public works projects that already can be

used on public utilities contracts. While this process of hiring one firm to

both design and build a project eliminates finger pointing between architects and general contractors and may speed project development, it

may not always be appropriate. That is why this Charter amendment

does not require it, but allows our elected City officials to choose

design-build, if it would be more practical for a particular project.

By: Marcia McQuern

Ben Johnson, II

Barry C. Johnson

Eric Haley

Sharon L. B. Tyrrell

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "KK"

33-149
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "LL"

(City’s Independent Auditor)

Current law provides that the City Council shall annually employ a qualified public accountant to examine the City’s financial documents and to

submit an audit report.

If passed by a majority of voters, this measure would require the City to change public accountants at least every five years. This means that the

City could not employ the same accountant to perform these functions for more than five consecutive years at a time.

If Measure "LL" is approved, the fiscal impact to the City is unknown.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "LL." If you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the City

Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

33-150

ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "LL"

The Charter currently requires that a public accountant audit the City’s

financial statements each year. The City rebids the audit work every five

years with the incumbent firm given the opportunity to continue. The

Charter Review Committee is recommending the independent auditor be

rotated every five years.

Corporate failures and reported conspiracy by independent accountants

have raised concern about auditor independence. In response,

Congress passed legislation addressing these concerns, requiring the

U.S. General Accounting Office ("GAO") to study the potential effects of

periodic mandatory rotation of auditors. On 11-21-03 the GAO issued its

report. Survey respondents overwhelmingly opposed mandatory audit

firm rotation. The GAO concluded:

• Industry and organization specific knowledge is cumulative, built

up over a number of years. The early years of an audit relationship require significantly increased hours to document systems,

controls, risk factors, and understanding the client’s business.

This leads to a reduced likelihood of detecting material misstatements.

• Auditors would charge higher fees because of the shorter time

over which the additional early year costs can be recovered and

because of increased marketing costs.

• Audit clients will incur additional costs because of the more

frequent effort to orient the new auditor to the organization.

• Audit committees can decide if auditors are too complacent.

• Rotating audit partners accomplishes the "fresh look" objective.

Additionally, the State Controller considered mandatory auditor rotation

for schools but decided instead to require rotation of the audit partners

after five years. California municipal finance officers were also surveyed

regarding mandatory auditor rotation requirements. From approximately

fifty responses, only one city indicated such a requirement.

We believe amending the Charter is unnecessary. While advantages

exisit to rotating auditors periodically, making this business decision a

charter requirement, removing it from the City’s Finance professionals, is

not a change we believe best serves the City of Riverside.

By: Paul C. Sundeen

Finance Director

City of Riverside

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "LL"

To insure a truly independent audit system, as was intended by the inclusion of this process in the City’s Charter, it shall become not practice nor

choice but mandatory for a rotation of accounting firms, every five years.

Currently, each auditing firm is given a five (5) year contract and, at the

end of that contract, along with other firms, may re-apply for renewal of

the contract for five more years, upon appointment by City Council.

There currently is no limit to the number of times a firm’s contract may be

renewed.

The purpose of an independent audit is to check the accountability of the

City to the citizens where finances are concerned. To provide this as an

independent service, a firm should not become too comfortable in its

position nor the City too comfortable with that audit service so as not to

perform at the level intended. In the last 17 years, there have been 4

different firms providing audit services to the City, making their service

approximately 4.5 years each. The City is, apparently, already practicing

what the Charter Review Committee has recommended become mandatory. Mandatory rotation of service provider after five years shall help

insure the most credible audit services for the City.

By: Sharon L. B. Tyrrell

Eric Haley

Charter Review Committee
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE "MM"

(City of Riverside’s Board of Public Utilities)

This measure contains three proposed amendments to the City of

Riverside Charter.

The first portion of this measure concerns the power of the City’s

Board of Public Utilities ("the Board") to award and authorize public utilities department contracts. The current Charter provides that most

procurements of goods, services and construction for the public utilities

department be approved by both the Board of Public Utilities and the City

Council if the procurement exceeds $50,000. If passed by a majority of

voters, this measure would authorize the Board, instead of the City

Council, to award contracts for public utilities public works projects,

purchases of equipment, materials, supplies, goods and services, if the

procurement exceeds $50,000, and authorizes the City Manager or his

designee to execute such contracts or issue purchase orders, as appropriate. The limitation on such power is that the funds for such contracts

must be included in the City Council-approved budget for public utilities.

The second portion of this measure concerns work done at the

request and expense of a customer of the City’s Public Utilities. Current

law provides that such work be approved by both the Board of Public

Utilities and the City Council. If passed by a majority of voters, this

measure would allow the Director of Public Utilities to authorize and

execute contracts for such work. The two limitations on the director’s

power would be that the work must be done pursuant to rules established

by the Board and approved by the City Council, and if the cost of such

work exceeds $100,000, that the City Manager must approve as well.

The third portion of this measure concerns individual contracts with

public utilities department customers for water, electric and any other

utility service. Current law provides that all such individualized contracts

be approved by both the Board of Public Utilities and the City Council. If

passed by a majority of voters, this measure would allow the Director of

Public Utilities to negotiate and execute such individualized contracts for

such utilities. The limitation on the director’s power would be that the rate

under such utility contracts would be established by the Board and

approved by the City Council in accordance with existing Charter provisions.

If Measure "MM" is approved, there would be no direct fiscal impact

to the City.

By: City Attorney

City of Riverside

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure "MM." If

you desire a copy of the proposed Charter language, please call the

City Clerk at 951-826-5557 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to

you or view the full text at www.riversideca.gov.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE "MM"

The City should be allowed to serve its utility customers faster than the

current charter allows. Under this proposal, the City Council would still

control all spending and policies.

This measure allows the utilities board to execute contracts that are

within the scope of work and budget already approved by the Council. It

would allow the City utilities director to approve work done at the request

and expense of customers. It also would allow the director to negotiate

and execute contracts with individual retail customers following rules and

rates previously approved by the Council. This latter change would allow

the City to attract and retain economically important institutions and

companies and, if de-regulation returns, would allow the City to compete

for the utility business of its biggest customers.

The current charter’s requirement that all these contracts return to the

council for unnecessary redundant votes delays projects for at least 30

days, if not two months.

By: Marcia McQuern

Dorothy Bailey

Sharon L. B. Tyrrell

Eric Haley

Ben Johnson, II

NO ARGUMENT FILED AGAINST MEASURE "MM"

33-151
FROM — REMITE

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

DID YOU SIGN YOUR APPLICATION?

¿FIRMO USTED SU SOLICITUD?

FIRST

CLASS

POSTAGE

PLACE STAMP HERE

PONGA ESTAMPILLA AQUI

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

2724 GATEWAY DRIVE

RIVERSIDE CA 92507-0923

33-PERM (REVISED 08-10-04)

NOTICE TO THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED VOTER

A “YES” or “NO” printed under the handicapped symbol /arrow on the back cover of this pamphlet indicates

whether or not your assigned polling place is accessible to physically handicapped voters. Please be

advised of your right to vote in the following alternate ways:

A. Vote early at one of our Early Voting locations listed on the back cover.

B. By mail. You may request an absentee ballot and vote by mail. Simply complete the application on the back

cover of this pamphlet. The application must be mailed to reach the Registrar of Voters’ Office by the deadline

given.

C. Outside the Polling Place. If you are unable to enter the polling place because of a physical handicap, you may

vote in a place that is as near as possible to the polling place and that is accessible to the physically handicapped

(i.e., your car). Prior to receiving your ballot you will be required to sign the Handicapped Voter Certificate in lieu

of signing the Roster Index of Voters.
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

2724 GATEWAY DRIVE

RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-0918

ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATION

SOLICITUD PARA BALOTA AUSENTE

APPLICATION MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 26, 2004

APLICACION TIENE QUE SER RECIBIDA NO MAS TARDE DEL 26 DE OCTUBRE DE 2004

I hereby request an absentee ballot for the Consolidated General Election, November 2, 2004.

Por la presente solicito una balota ausente para la Elección Consolidada General, 2 de noviembre de 2004.

PLEASE PRINT:

NAME AS REGISTERED Imprima el nombre como está registrado

RESIDENCE ADDRESS AS REGISTERED/Imprima la dirección de su residencia como registrado

CITY Ciudad STATE Estado ZIP Zona Postal

I declare, under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge. / Declaro bajo pena del perjurio que la información proporcionada es

verdad y correcta al mejor de mi conocimiento.

SIGNATURE

REQUIRED

FIRMA REQUERIDA

SIGNATURE OF VOTER Firma de votar DATE Fecha

33-BCov General 11-02-04

POSTMASTER DELIVER TO

LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE

 UBICACION DE SU URNA DE VOTACION 

BALLOT

TYPE

✒

NONPROFIT

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Registrar of Voters

Riverside

MAIL BALLOT TO:

ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) Dirección postal (si es diferente)

CITY Ciudad STATE Estado ZIP Zona Postal

You May Cast Your Absentee Ballot Early

by TOUCH SCREEN

October 4 thru November 2

At

THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

2724 Gateway Drive, Riverside, CA

OR

October 21 thru October 30

GALLERIA AT TYLER

1299 Galleria at Tyler Riverside, CA

HEMET VALLEY MALL

2200 W. Florida Ave., Hemet, CA

THE PROMENADE IN TEMECULA

40820 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA

WESTFIELD'S SHOPPINGTOWN IN PALM DESERT

72840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA