What the Rex Gutierrez Corruption Re-Trial Shows...[Updated Post Trial--after "Wow!"].

Defense witnesses due today in Gutierrez trial - Topix

Jury finds Rex Gutierrez guilty on all counts - Topix
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/san-bernardino-county-sun/TB8VOKRV1A41G6QGU/p3#lastPost

Blogger Bob's Comments:

(1) Being expected to "work" 80 hours per pay period (which apparently Gutierrez was meeting or exceeding standards in at least 9 categories in the first 6 months of his employment)is not the same as having to "account" (could 60 hours have been ok in one week and 20 hours in the next? accounting to whom? & how?) for the time; besides, as the movie the "FIRM" showed us, billable time to some can be done if you think about a client's case in a shower or on the golf course (no suggestion is being made that either were done folks--just an example); that "tweak" on reality (no pun intended or person intended) seems to almost have taken life in San Bernardino if what the prosecution is arguing is true; the fact Gutierrez received a positive review, worked in his car, at home and was never docked pay-wise for that manner of time use, will make the prosecution's cross examination of Gutierrez crucial (assuming they have any impeachment evidence); update post-conviction--Wow! Moral of the story is don't have political connections before being hired to a new position at the County and make sure, you document every minute of time you spend because you may face a prosecution team that reconstructs your job to fit the testimony of a former co-worker-&-convicted-felon who has an axe to grind and or incentive to finger you!

(2) One thing that I am not clear on is how specific was the job description for the job Rex Gutierrez was hired for or was it a general job descriptions for the class of work in place already? If the job description was general, wouldn't that pretty much leave up to Gutierrez and his boss Postmus to determine WHAT was considered 80 hours of work in a 15 day period, how, where & where it could be done? (and then "reported" to?).Wow! Sounds like the jury allowed the prosecution to fill in the blanks on the job description/function or Gutierrez's testimony/account was utterly incredible!

Update comment (10/20/2010) If what the Press Enterprise reports on October 20, 2010 is correct ["the only task in the job description was meeting with the city managers of the county's 24 cities"], then in a 22 month job, even with pre-travel research, preparation and staff consultation, that left a lot of time to do oral reports/briefings/?, which of course begs the question of whether there was anyone in the office to meet with/brief given the allegations that everyone was out doing their political things for Postmus or immersed in their own jobs (there were a few people still there after Williamson got the boot)--but with that said, I have never been too impressed with some County employee's ability to get things done efficiently--that Rex had the gift of gab may be an understatement. The allegation he worked in his car reminds me of the "work" in a car allegedly done by another county employee with a subordinate. Wow! Since Ramos has no job description posted on the County website, I can't wait to see how he fits in his "Ristow" time & expense!

(3) Doesn't this really get back to the failure of the BOS to (and Mike Ramos to send a memo inquiring why new people were being hired that the incumbent assessor said were not needed) require Postmus to give a (a) justification for the job, (b) a statement of purpose for the proposed job,(c) what the "work" would be that was expected, (d) "where" (if on-site/ off-site), (e) was it to be supervised and if so by whom and with what criteria and (f) THEN, having the BOS vote on it as a reasoned and intelligent body of elected legislators? (maybe that is where the breakdown happens--not having people with the integrity & backbone to question and where appropriate say no). The likely reason none of that was done? (i) Mitzelfelt was covering for his oft time under-the-influence and/or hospitalized boss (for his alleged meth addiction) and was jockeying to be appointed by the Board as Postmus' replacement (once Postmus was elected to the assessor's office) and (ii) everyone else was afraid to cross Postmus on the BOS due to his fundraising prowess the power of his political machine and endorsement. Wow! With such a loose job being approved, when do we prosecute the County Board for rank stupidity for going along with Postmess?

Update comment (10/20/2010) When the Board of Supervisors approves a vague job which on its face can't justify a 80 hour per pay period compensation (based on the job description), isn't performance of that job consistent with that minimal accountability, while wasteful, a waste presumptively approved? Wow! Is the County going to pass a rule about not approving vague job descriptions where the workload does not conceivably justify the position?

(4) Is Gutierrez being prosecuted because Postmus orchestrated a high paying job, with few if any stated requirements for its performance that significantly benefited a developer? With that as a criterion for prosecution, there are a lot of people at risk of being indicted;
Wow! Who is next Mikey?

(5) All the above as an aside, we still do not have any county rules in place to prevent this from happening again--do we?? Nah

(6) If the trial degenerates into a fight over personnel management interpretation of the workplace rules and arguing the positive job review Gutierrz got should be ignored (because Ramos let the statute run on the major felony counts), the prosecution team is in trouble, unless they have specific instances they can point to of personal time use on the clock and that the job did not allow for "making up of" by working at home or in a car while slurping a frapachino or emailing on one's county phone etc. What it sounds like is the prosecution is nitpicking over County Human Resources/Personnel rules and or policies and how a field employee gets the day's work done in a new job never before in existence (and therefore is a job with perhaps few if any guidelines on how it should be done) which leaves one with the impression that the prosecution is fighting civil/administrative law issues in a criminal action? Wow! Ramos found a way to criminalize slackards with political connections.
.
(7) The question that needs to be answered is what is Gutierrez's criminal conduct? (as opposed to simply being a friend of a politically powerful contributor of the boss hired to do a full time job but allegedly trying to scoot by on a less than 100% effort--something people hired for jobs in all industries do from time to time but are not criminally charged for)?
Wow! The precedent is mixed---a vendor for the assessor's office does not get prosecuted in exchange for "cooperation" and "restitution" so lets see what Gutierrez's deal is!
.
(8) Something I thought of that really bothers me--is this another Ramos prosecution of a actual or potential political opponent? Gutierrez ran for Congress and did fairly well as I recall--as someone that fought a tough (close) campaign for Congress and someone with name recognition that can raise money (and with Ramos desperately looking to run for Congress himself in two to four years), is this prosecution of Gutirrez being used to take out a potential contender for a Republican nomination for a Congressional seat carved out in the upcoming reapportionment? Let's hope not. Wow! One down for 2012!
.