Opinion ID: 858127
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waste-Hauling Contract Scheme (Counts 22–37)

Text: The second scheme, charged against both Robles and Garrido, alleged that Robles, while he was Treasurer, caused the City of South Gate to award improperly a waste-hauling contract to Michael Klistoff’s (“Klistoff”) waste company, Klistoff & Sons. Garrido and Klistoff had been friends for several years before Garrido introduced Klistoff to Robles. In 1999, at Robles’s request, Klistoff began making campaign contributions and gifts3 to Robles and Robles’s general purposes.” Id. § 82015(a). A payment “made at the behest of a candidate is a contribution to the candidate unless . . . [i]t is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the payment was made for purposes unrelated to his or her candidacy for elective office.” Id. § 82015(b)(2)(B). One type of payment that is presumed to be for purposes unrelated to a candidate’s candidacy for elective office is a payment “made principally for personal purposes,” which “may be considered a gift.” Id. § 82015(b)(2)(B)(I). 3 In January 2000, Klistoff bought a personal computer and computer software for Robles. In October and November 2000, Klistoff wrote two checks to Pyramid Press for Citizens for Good Government. Also in November 2000, Klistoff made a partial payment for a telephone switchboard system for Robles. In February 2001, Klistoff paid for copying expenses for Robles. Klistoff made all of these payments at Robles’s request. 8 UNITED STATES V . GARRIDO purpose committee, Citizens for Good Government.4 Klistoff agreed to make these contributions because he knew Robles had influence in South Gate and Klistoff was hoping to gain access to future waste-hauling contracts. About ten days before the March 2001 election, Robles asked the then-current waste-hauling company for South Gate, Waste Management, whose contract with the city was set to expire in eight months, to pay $15,000 worth of printing bills that Robles was about to incur. Waste Management declined to pay the bills because it was too late to report them as a campaign contribution. After Robles was reelected Treasurer, Robles told Waste Management that they were not his friends and that, as far as Robles was concerned, Waste Management was “out of town.” Robles told Waste Management to go away quietly or he would hurt the company in other cities. In 2001, Klistoff told Garrido that he wanted Klistoff & Sons to be awarded South Gate’s ten-year waste-hauling contract, worth about $48 million. Garrido agreed to help Klistoff get the contract on the conditions that: (1) Klistoff hired Garrido as a consultant for $350,000 per year for the duration of the ten-year waste-hauling contract, and (2) Garrido’s recycling business would be cut in on the contract if it was awarded to Klistoff & Sons. 4 A general purpose committee is a committee that: (1) receives contributions totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year, and is “formed or exists primarily to support or oppose more than one candidate or ballot measure”; (2) makes independent expenditures of more than $1,000 per calendar year; or (3) makes contributions totaling $10,000 in a calendar year at the behest of candidates or committees. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 82027.5, 82013(a)–(c). UNITED STATES V . GARRIDO 9 Robles met with Klistoff before South Gate sent out its request for proposals for the waste-hauling contract. Robles showed Klistoff the draft request for proposals, which called for one company to perform residential services and three companies to perform commercial waste-hauling services. Klistoff suggested to Robles that one company could perform both waste-hauling services. The final request for proposals incorporated Klistoff’s suggestion and called for a single company to perform both the residential and commercial services. Klistoff & Sons submitted its bid for the wastehauling contract in June 2001. In July 2001, Robles assigned his friend, Louis Moret, to work on the city’s waste-hauling contract as the facilitator for the bidding process. Moret presented the staff recommendation for the contract to the city council and attended the meeting when the city council voted to award the contract. Robles told Moret that “he had a horse in the race” and that horse was Klistoff & Sons. Robles was concerned about Klistoff’s ability to make a persuasive presentation to the contract selection committee, so he asked Moret to recommend a consultant to help Klistoff & Sons prepare its oral presentation in support of its bid. Moret recommended Ray Garubo (“Garubo”) as a consultant. Shortly thereafter, Garrido contacted Klistoff and advised him to hire Garubo as a consultant to help Klistoff & Sons make an effective and convincing presentation to city officials. Klistoff retained Garubo as a consultant, but Garrido paid Garubo’s consulting fees.5 5 Advising Klistoff to retain Garubo and paying Garubo’s consultant fees were the only services Garrido provided Klistoff even though Klistoff agreed to pay Garrido $350,000 per year for the life of the ten-year wastehauling contract. Between 2002 and 2003, Klistoff made five payments 10 UNITED STATES V . GARRIDO Klistoff received information that no competing company was given. Robles showed Klistoff the other competing companies’ bids, even though the bids were supposed to be confidential. Moreover, at Robles’s request, Moret provided Robles and Garubo with a copy of the confidential questions that the selection committee would ask the bidders to answer during oral presentations. None of the other bidders were provided with these confidential questions in advance of their oral presentations. After the oral presentations, the selection committee voted to recommend that South Gate engage in exclusive negotiations with Klistoff & Sons. The vote was in part based on Klistoff’s oral presentation. The city council approved the selection committee’s recommendation and ultimately awarded the $48 million waste-hauling contract to Klistoff & Sons. Counts 22 through 25 and 27 charged Robles and Garrido with honest services mail fraud in connection with the wastehauling contract scheme. Count 22 is based on California Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests, for calendar year 2000 in which Robles failed to disclose the payments received from Klistoff for a computer, software, and a telephone switchboard system. See supra note 3. The Form 700 was mailed. Counts 23 through 25 are based on three checks from Garrido’s business, GWS Nursery and Supplies, Inc., received by Garubo for assisting Klistoff & Sons in its efforts to obtain the waste-hauling contract with South Gate. to Garrido of $87,500 each, for a total of $437,500. Klistoff did not make any further payments to Garrido. UNITED STATES V . GARRIDO 11 Count 27 refers to a California Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests, for calendar year 2001, in which Robles failed to disclose copying services paid for by Klistoff on Robles’s behalf. Counts 33 through 37 were charged against Robles alone. Robles was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 666 with accepting bribes from Klistoff in connection with the waste-hauling contract.