National Night Out in Rialto

National Night Out is a nation wide program co-sponsored by Target in where neighborhood watch groups come together one night a year with Target representatives, police, fire, school and city officials, to celebrate the concerted effort in fighting crime throughout the year.
Flyer from city website

Flyer from city website

This is National Night Outs 30th year in operation. National Night Out is the communities response to crime and crime prevention. Rialto is celebrating it’s 13th year is holding this event. It is Rialto Police Departments goal to make this a great event. This year Rialto has pulled out all the stops and created an event like no other. This years event will include:
Rides in police cars
Target Kidz Fun Zone
Home Depot Grow and Build Workshop
Seven Exciting food trucks
over 50 vendors
Video Game Truck
Police Vrs Fire Chili Cook Off
K9 & SWAT Demonstrations
Fly in of Rialto PD’s Helicopter
And More…………..

We will have the following food trucks:

Grilled Cheese Truck:

MeSoHungry Truck:

Tornado Potato Truck:

Rolling Sushi Van:

Suite 106 Cupcakery:

Mustache Mikes Truck:

Sweet Shop:

National Night Out is a wonderful opportunity for our community to promote police-community partnerships, crime prevention, and neighborhood camaraderie. It represents the kind of spirit, energy, and determination that is helping make our neighborhoods safer places throughout the year. It is a night to celebrate safety and crime prevention success and to expand and strengthen our commitment throughout the year.
America’s Night Out Against Crime. Free Admission. This event takes place Tuesday, August 6 from 5:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the City Civic Center, Willow Ave. / Palm Ave., between 1st Street and Rialto Ave.
For more information, please contact Corporal Nelson at (909) 820-2515.
Find us on Facebook at
Join our event page at

Missing Fontana Man Found Dead in Rialto Park

Alejandro Padilla, 40, was found dead inside the vehicle. we were on scene before any of the news outlets. We have been contacted by ABC 7 for the release of use of these images.

Alejandro Padilla, 40, was found dead inside the vehicle at flores park

Alejandro Padilla, 40, was found dead inside the vehicle at flores park

Flores Park along with other parks has become a summer spot for drug dealers, illicit sex and wayward teens but a murdered body in a burning car? As you can see Rialto Fire and Police were working to extinguish the flames but according to Police Officials the body appeared to be dead prior to the car being lit on fire.

Here is an upclose image of the fire we posted on our twitter page

Here is an upclose image of the fire we posted on our twitter page

It’s unclear why the criminals chose to dump the victim here in a park nestled in a community right next to a elementary school. Some are speculating that the victim may have prior ties to the area and this was done to send a message. Reports from police officials are that the victim recently moved in with his brother.Anyone with information was asked to contact Fontana police at (909)  350-7700.

ABC 7 Interviwed a couple that said that the car was seen in the park an hour after he disapeared.

What’s going on at City Hall?

The city council meeting on July 9th was full of happiness, turmoil, confusion & accusations. No one was silent this time everyone had a bone to pick or a issue to iron out.

robertsonMike Story

What we know is that there were a couple of HOT BUTTON issues on tap that night. It began with two consent calendar items. One was to move the public comment section from the end of the meeting to the beginning. This drew little controversy but did raise questions on what was the thought process. This item was placed by Councilman Joe Baca Jr. and he said his reasons for the change was to allow the citizens the ability to voice their concerns without having to sit through an entire meeting especially when they went long.

People had concerns with this move because many times the subject matter of a community members statement could change after hearing the way our elected officials act in the course of the meeting. Mr. Baca said he didn’t see any reason to not allow someone to defer to the end of the meeting if they so choose and this move in no way would eliminate the communities’ ability to comment on separate TAB items. This was only affecting the public comment section when you are speaking on an item not on the AGENDA.

Mr Joe Baca Jr. did a excellent job explaining his move and people were allowed to come up and speak their issue on the Consent Calendar item.

The other Consent Calendar item that was of contention was Mayor Deborah Robertson’s move to REDUCE the time you could speak from five minutes to three minutes. We covered this on our last post and you guys responded in a big way and you were heard. The problem was Mayor Robertson pulled this item at the last minute. This move didn’t allow the public the ability to speak on the issue.

I found the move by Mayor Robertson to be damaging to her ability to gain the public’s trust. Joe Baca Jr. was simply moving forward on a issue that multiple council members had spoke openly about. After we wrote about this issue a couple weeks ago a firestorm of comments proceeded. None in support of the Mayors idea that APPEARED to be a move to silence the community. The statement she found most damming confused me. It wasn’t people calling for a do over, it wasn’t accusations that our elected officials over the years have overlooked the decline Rialto has gone thru. She was most upset over the accusation that Ed Scott the contender she beat out for the job of mayor said that she was mirroring a move done by John Longville when he was mayor of Rialto. Ed Scott simply said that Longville ran her campaign and implyed that he was advising the mayor on these types of matters.

Joe Baca Jr made it very clear that he had nothing to do with the time limit restrictions and didn’t agree with the move at all. Mayor Robertson never gave a clear answer to why she had this placed on the consent calendar by denied it had anything to do with silencing the public. What she did next made that statement appear false.

Four people singed up to speak on the consent calendar. Richard Royce, Terry Thompson, June Hayes and David Phillips prior to coming up we were informed we could only speak on the Public Comment item and not on the time limit issue because it was pulled from consideration. Richard Royce deferred his comments, Terry Thompson spoke and seemed thrown because he probably was expecting to speak on both issues, June Hayes & David Phillips both spoke and were not at all happy that they were being silenced. Then council began speaking about the time limit issue and June Hayes taught me a valuable lesson. That opened the door for our comment to be heard and we were allowed to re approach the dais and address council on this issue.

What was eye opening was the breach of the Brown Act. The Brown Act covers meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))

What was done in reference to this action was Mayor Robertson tried to POLL the council? You see the Brown Act has rules where more than two council members cannot discuss matters concerning the public good except at an open meeting attended by the public. What Mayor Robertson did and this is from her own lips was have the City Administrator ask each members opinion on this issue and the City Administrator actually admitted that he did just that. Mayor Robertson moved forward with this action because she received word from the City Administrator that there were no objections. She didn’t entertain pulling the item until YOU the COMMUNITY blasted social media and sent emails and made calls sending a clear message that this move had ZERO support in the community.

This is the second time Mayor Robertson has directed city staff to do something that was against the proper decorum of an elected official. Where is the investigation? What is our city attorney being paid $600,000 a year to do if he isn’t looking into this?

What do you think, should our city be allowed to run like this? Comment here or go to and join the conversation.


Public Comment time reduced from 5 minutes to 3 minutes


Item on Tuesdays Consent Calendar in the city of Rialto. Mayor Deborah Robertson wants to limit the amount of time you are allowed to speak. Read the item from the Agenda below.

E.8 Request City Council to Adopt Resolution No. 6302 to Provide Three Minutes for Oral Communications.

What do you think? Should the Mayor be allowed to silence the people?

We placed this question on our facebook page and the comments came pouring in. The interesting part is that it doesn’t matter if your a Deborah Robertson supporter or not no one thinks its ok to limit public speech.

Here are some of the comments:

Jeanne – No not at all….. What’s her reasoning for doing so. Sounds like she is up to her old self…serving herself. For those that can’t show, have residents write their council to say no on her wanting to shorten the minutes to talk. Shawn is only one of the council that serve the city, so we need to write every one of them. I wrote both my hub and i. As my husband said three min is nothing. He feels her intention to shorten min is not just to silence the people.  but to hurry the council meeting up. She likes the title of Mayor, but don’t want put the time in to hear the people.

Ed – This is totally wrong on the City’s part while the Mayor can put what ever she wants to on the agenda there are 4 other votes. It seems like the City has gone backward not forward.  I urge residents to show up and fight this move.

Matt – Wow, more of the same old politics. Apparently the Mayor thinks that citizens need only a few minutes of speaking time? Maybe they need to limit her speaking time and up hear listening time. Another political who THINKS she’s the queen and the citizens are her subjects. Vote it down.

Lynn – they only want to hear themselves and do things that only benefit themselves.  What have they done for the people, really. Rialto is no better and is just getting worse.  Look at Foothill Blvd, it looks horrible with all the empty buildings and trash all over the place.

Paul – Too much government not enough FREEDOM!!!

Diaz – It’s freedom of speech, not freedom of speech for 3 minutes!  Vote No!

Ken – I think Robertson is getting too full of herself.  She is just like the old mayor when it comes to responding to our concerns….She doesn’t!!! There is already to little time to speak now.  Let’s limit the council’s reports to 1 minute since they do so little to report on. Is it too late to change my vote??
Fred – Policy at the Councils I attend as a citizen are 3 minutes per person… so I take friends and they give me their minutes when I need more time!
Join us in fighting this abuse of power by showing up Tuesday July 9th at 6:00pm at city hall. Fill out a request to speak form and voice your concerns to our council on this dangerous abuse of power. If you can’t attend the meeting call and email our elected leaders.

Abuse of Power or Assisting The Community


When can you call an abuse of power simply that an abuse?

Normally it’s when someone in a position of power uses that power to influence a process to benefit one side over the other. Wikipedia describes it in this way, “Abuse of power, in the form of “malfeasance in office” or “official misconduct,” is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.”

So for example lets use the City Council Meeting on June 25th 2013. The final tab item delt with the issue of replacing the current Security Contractor for the City of Rialto. Marcus Fuller and City Staff used a very clear set of guidelines to qualify companies for the approval of working with our city and obtaining the Security Contract. After all the bids were in and evaluated Contact Security Inc. (CSI) was found to be the best fit in accordance with the guidelines set forward by city staff.

For the last 18 years General Security Services (GSS) has worked here in Rialto. They have covered our parks, metro link, city offices & downtown area. Their last contact the city paid them $240,000. I became aware we had security Services last year when I witnessed one of their security guards walk past a group of people in Flores Park after 10pm and did nothing. He didn’t make contact, he didn’t look in their direction or call dispatch he just locked the bathrooms and went on his way. I was blown away that I was the only person calling dispatch to report these people in the park after park hours.

What bothered me even more was back in 2008 when my family moved back into Rialto Flores Park went through a massive rash of gang activity and graffiti. I begged and pleaded with our city and police department for a permanent solution. The only solution was forcing people that had to live here to act as defacto security and patrol our own park. If there has been security in the city since 1995 what was their purpose? Why put residents in danger when we were PAYING security personnel to patrol those parks?

So I began asking around looking for a reason why this company had zero impact on keeping our parks safe. I came across numerous employees that told me a story that is all to common in contract security. The accusation is that General Security Services tells the city that they will do what they ask but tells its employees to drive without seeing the issues because it was to much trouble to get involved. Many security companies scare their employees with the thought of unemployment if they chose to involve themselves in illegal situations even with the simplest action of calling the police.

On Thursday June 20th I sat down with Marcus Fuller the Public Works Director, Mike Story the City Administrator, Lt. Bill Wilson with Rialto PD and Chief Tony Farrar. Mike Story, Bill Wilson & Marcus Fuller all admitted that monitoring the company that worked in the city had never really happened they were waiting for complaints. So they don’t tell you that they pay a company $240,000 a year to secure our public facilities and then expect you to complain about something that in your mind doesn’t exist.

So Councilman Shawn O’Connell asks Mike Story to evaluate any company that has had a long term contract with the city that has received numerous extensions. Thus the security contract was put out to bid and a strict set of guidelines was created to remove companies that didn’t conform to the guidelines set forth in the RFP. General Security Services did not conform to those guidelines and should have been removed from the process. Marcus Fuller made a decision to allow them to remain and complete the process, no other company was given this right.

Even though General was given the right to remain in the process they did not finish on the top and Contact Security Services was chosen by the committee to receive the contract. I was unhappy with this and not only placed calls to Mayor Robertson, Mike Story & Councilman O’Connell I went to council that night and spoke out about the $302,000 contract the city was handing out to a company that was no different than General if not worse. What Mayor Robertson did after that blew me away she instructed Marcus Fuller to go back to General and allow them to change their proposal to fit the RFP guidelines and come in $19,000 under Contact Security Inc. No other company was given this right only the company that was accused by city staff to be trolling council looking for an ear to bend.

The end result was Marcus Fuller after much prodding from Councilman Shawn O’Connell Marcus Fuller finally said who directed him to act in such an inappropriate way. Now General Security has a 90 day extension on the security contract and no one knows where things will go from here.

According to the Fair Political Practice Commission what Mayor Robertson and Public Works Director Marcus Fuller did looks illegal

‘ 18702. Making, Participating in Making, or Using or Attempting to Use Official Position

to Influence a Government Decision,


(a) To determine if a public official is making, participating in making, or using or

attempting to use his/her official position to influence a government decision, apply 2 Cal. Code Regs. sections 18702.1 through 18702.4, respectively.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of this regulation, to determine if a public official who holds an office specified in Government Code section 87200 is making, participating in making, or using or attempting to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision relating to an agenda item which is noticed for a meeting subject to the provisions of the Bagley-Keene Act Government Code section 11120 et seq.) or the Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.) apply 2 Cal. Code Regs. sections 18702.1(a)(1)-(a)(4), 8702.2, 18702.3, 18702.4, and 18702.5. Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 81002, 81003,

87100, 87101, 87105 and 87200, Government Code

Mayor Robertson claims that Downtown businesses that she spoke to like General Security Services. Luckily Councilman Ed Palmer owns a business in our Downtown and tells a different story. He speaks to Security staff either unwilling or unable to fulfill the post they were assigned. There is a massive disconnect between the people supervising the contract and the contract itself. For 18 years no one has monitored what WE have paid MILLIONS for.

Below is the link where you can see the meeting unfold for yourself if you want to skip straight to the Security Contract it is TAB 12.