One tactic to prevent discussion of an issue is to flood the area where it is taking place with discussion of another issue. We published a story earlier in which an anonymous source using the name “Ana Tansa” — now self-described as a “mentor” to recently departed (as of March, or was it January?) Santa Ana Housing Division Manager Sidney Stone — raised some charges of what might be costly favoritism to an outside interest by Santa Ana Councilmembers Vince Sarmiento and Michele Martinez. A vigorous debate continues there. Personally, I don’t know who or what to root for, but given the allegations I look forward to it being hashed out so far as is possible.
However, one tangent in that comments section has threatened to engulf it, which makes continued discussion there unlikely. That involves an issue involving Councilmember David Benevides. As with the other issue, it may or may not actually be a problem, but it is a legitimate matter of public concern — and it’s getting in the way of that discussion. So we’re moving that whole topic over here, where those who want to discuss it may do so.
Santa Ana has a history on this blog of being a huge source of endless gladiatorial combat among largely anonymous commenters — the Santa Ana Unified School District threads being the primary example — and that’s fine so long as people don’t use the Dark Arts of online commentary to block that discussion. As it looks like that is what’s happening on that other post, we’re going to stop it from happening. This may mean a larger crackdown on comments and commenters than we’re used to here, but these sorts of fights seem more likely than most to require a referee.
Here is the material raising questions, and questions about those questions (and so on), about Benavides becoming the new Executive Director of Kidsworks and whether they are getting an unfair advantage as a result. Once again, I do not know what to think about the underlying issue and one motivation is to allow Benavides and his supporters to give whatever explanation and rebuttal they consider appropriate here.
Comments from the other post:
Why was the post about FedTech committee member David Benavides funneling CDBG funds to his employer Kidsworks just deleted? It has seemed weird that Benavides’ name has been consistently left out as a member of the FedTech committee, and now we know why. I smell a rat, and that rat is David Benavides. Remember Councilmember Benavides’ video encouraging NewSong to come in and buy the Santora building, a deal in which he was involved a real estate agent? No? Probably because they buried that, too.
I deleted it because of the personal allegations at the end. The author can try it again while staying on topic. I’m not going to edit them; either the whole thing goes in or out. If you think that you have something useful to add to our understanding of this deal, leave the other crap out.
Greg Diamond
Posted March 29, 2015 at 1:18 PM
“Ana” says that the FEDTech committee “currently” has two members, Sarmiento and Martinez? Is or was Benavides also on this committee? If once but no longer, when did he leave? Do we know why? Should be fairly easy for someone (likely Adam, as we don’t seem to have volunteers here) to check.
Benavides was still on the FedTech committee as of last month.
Ross Street Annex Whistlblower
Posted March 29, 2015 at 2:05 PM
Again, I never suggested that P. David Benavides association with kidsworks is in anyway relative. What I said is people the department that Sidney ran was a complex organization and he was perhaps “in over his head”. I also noted he was the third choice. In the interest of remaining the host’s “safe zone” I will ask aloud when you look at Stones profile online, one name repeatedly appears as being “similar” and it is noted that people who looked at Sidney Stones professional profile also looked at this “other person”. We all KNOW what’s happening at city hall, if this website chooses to selectively profile something that is their right. Just don’t ask the question and then nuke the answer because it does not fit into your political scope.
No one to my knowledge has connected Benavides new employment anything other being a realtor is a tough job. What we do know is ALL of the council tries to stack departments with their guys. That’s called AMERICA.
Just trashed another mostly OK post, Anonymous, because at the end you get into insinuations that may be defamatory. Try it again without those, if you want.
If you want to speculate about people’s sex lives go see if Pedroza is interested (or these days maybe Liberal OC.)
I don’t know anything about Kidsworks being involved. I just answered who the dismissed individual was and why I was told he was let go. It was a bit more credible than someone Ana Tansa who has second or third hand information spreading rumors.
You asked. I answered. How about somebody actually coming to the city and asking instead of playing keyboard cowboy to destroy your favored candidates opposition.
Transa
Posted March 29, 2015 at 1:38 PM
FedTech has 3 Councilmembers on it: Martinez, Sarmiento AND Benavides. Here is a link to the City website PDF of a FedTech agenda that clearly lists his name – http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/agenda_fedt_20150127.pdf
It’s interesting that Ana Tansa has carefully avoided mentioning that fact. It casts a shadow on this “whistleblower’s” credability.
It’s also troublesome that Benevides went from being the chair of Kidworks’ Board of Directors to being their Executive Director. Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Was there a national search? And if there was, what qualifications did Benavides have to win the spot over other candidates?
Finally, if Elected Officials are prohibited from double dipping into city funds by drawing both a salary & grants/funding/contracts for their organizations, then WHY is Benavides squeezing out the biggest chunk of Santa Ana’s CDBG money into Kidworks, his EMPLOYER?
Other organizations with excellent track records in Santa Ana, like the Delhi Center, OCCCA, The Center OC and Serve the People (who serve Santa Ana’s homeless) get NOTHING but Benavides’ Kidworks walks away with $30,000?
Where is the “Justice” with that??
David Zenger
Benavides would be breaking the law by directing funds to his employer. Conflict of interest. I doubt if that’s happening – that would be too obvious. How he became an employee is irrelevant.
Perhaps he wasn’t there the day the committee met.
Excuses Zenger…silly & weak excuses. Your bias is clear as day.
Benavides IS directing CDBG funds to his employers. I agree, it’s way too obvious, but B’s never been the brightest bulb on City Council as evidenced by his past Santora real estate fiasco.
Who would be dumb enough to make a public video (where one identified themselfs as a sitting councilman in order to exert influence for personal gain) directing his own church (Newsong) to buy a building he himself was representing as a realtor? Someone with no morals and/or sand for brains.
If you want to verify this violation of THE LAW then why don’t u ask for the list of the 30+ non-profits “competing” for CDBG funds and their staff recommended funding totals. As you review it, you will notice how the highest allotments go to orgs with ties to either David Benavides or City Manager Cavasos.
David Zenger
Posted March 29, 2015 at 2:27 PM
Oh, bullshit. I couldn’t care less about Santa Ana and its “leadership.” Never met Sarmiento. never met Benavides, don’t know, don’t care. I wouldn’t spend a nanosecond asking anybody in Santa Ana government for anything
I do care about anonymous people just making stuff up on the internet, so if I’m showing a bias, that’s it.
If what you said is true then why haven’t you (or anybody else – like say, Pulido) filed a complaint? According to you Benavides has blatantly, serially, willfully and publicly violated Section 1090 of the California Government Code. That is a crime. The people of Santa Ana are waiting for you to step up do the right thing.
People in Santa Ana ARE stepping up Zenger. They are the EQUITY for ALL team. Read up on them & you will see that many groups in the city are uniting to bring order & equity into this mess.
Also, city staff are not blameless here. The Downtown Laison mentioned above who left for Ventura was a terrible choice for the position. Besides belittling local business owners & residents, ignoring requests for info, inclusion & clarification, not processing invoices, fomenting an even bigger parking crisis than ever before and choosing to spend over $2000 a pop in public money for $400 benches… what can be said, but that the people of Santa Ana are glad she’s moved on.
Probationary Periods are for a reason. It makes parting ways easier if it isn’t a good match.
It appears that many such folks hired by the new City Manager didn’t pan out. Even our new PIO has had to leave due to the many issues & complaints against her coming from other staff members, the general public & several city stakeholders.
We can only hope that more such incompetent staffers will be soon shown the door.
David Zenger
Posted March 29, 2015 at 5:27 PM
“People in Santa Ana ARE stepping up Zenger.”
That’s nice. Are they using their own names or just passing along anonymous gossip on blogs?
“.. passing along anonymous gossip on blogs.”
Sounds like Diamond’s on the job again.
I’m trying to facilitate an informed discussion here. If that means deleting some or all of your comments to this post at some point, it will only be because you seem determined to impede that. So: don’t do that.
Santa Ana has devolved into THREE cabals of Klepto Democrats?
The running joke with staff is the difference between council and pirates? Pirates share the booty. To many, the whole Santa Ana Spring, Pulido Attacks and the Sunshine Ordinance was so the others could get in on the action. That’s what you are seeing here.
Remember how council boasted about the city survey and how they would implement change? 1,500 people took part, 500 of them were my co-workers, few of whom even live here. That left a little under 1,000 residents surveyed, an estimated .0025% of the population. Yet, council, used those results to form a “strategic plan” which has more to do with rewarding a select few than improving the city, it’s government or reputation.
As they say same circus, different clowns. But these clowns can sign BIG checks.
A board member scooping up an Executive Director position is pretty snaky in the best circumstances. And given Benavides council position on keeping bars open until 4am, I doubt he was the best candidate for a job involving children. I’ve seen ED hungry board members chase away, downgrade and even sabotage qualified candidates. How extensive was the search? Who else applied for this? How many applicants? The previous Kidworks ED was earning $95K. How much did they shell out for this turkey?
And while we’re talking about city staffers being fired, can someone look into the news that PIO Tanya Lyon was canned? Adam?
All of the Kidsworks stuff is NOYB anonymous – private company.
It’s a PUBLIC NON-PROFIT not a private company. All it’s financials can easily be found online. #UseGuidestar
Kidsworks is not a government organization. As a non-profit a certain limited amount of their information may be required to be made available to the public. In every other sense it is a private organization. Their meetings are not required to be open to the public and their hiring practices are not required to be made public.
Zenger must be dyslexic or unable to read plain English. I already gave the name of the coalition which has successfully gathered over 1000 signatures to support the rebranding of DTSA into a hub for multicultural art & wellness. They/We/All are also looking into the distribution disparity with regards to CDBG funds and other irregularities. #EquityForAll
Click on the televised Santa Ana City Council meetings to see our faces & hear our voices as we speak during public comment. It’s no secret who we are. Meet us in the flesh on April 9th. #EquityForAll #NotAnonymous
====================
So that is where we stand. Continue or don’t — it’s up to all of you!
“Zenger must be dyslexic or unable to read plain English”
Incorrect on both counts, although my wife claims I have a hearing problem.
You on the other hand are claiming to be part of a brave new Santa Ana world. Under the cover of a fake name, of course.
O brave new world that has such people in it!
In the other thread’s discussion were allegations of wrongdoing by Councilmembers on the FedTech committee. Repeatedly left out of the discourse was one of the members of that same committee, David Benavides, while his other two council colleagues (Martinez & Sarmiento) got pummeled.
It’s interesting as discussion turned to who would benefit from the “scandal” and the trail of breadcrumbs led to David B. So of course discussion on this tangent was canned & moved here.
Since a main issue in that other thread was a firing of a city staffer during his probationary period, I felt it necessary to point out that several of City Manager Cavazos’ new hires were found to be poor choices and were either fired or left on their own.
Further, speaking about the character of someone who clearly stands to benefit from the slander is not off topic.
Re: Kidworks, do you really believe Benavides beat out the 100+ applicants for the ED position fair & square? Nuh uh, no way.
Did he pull strings to Kidworks funding while other local orgs got nothing? Probably.
Shine a light on the real crooks. The puppet politico (and his puppet pal Reyna) that you all are hell bent on supporting & covering for.
Divide & conquer away!
Much ado about nothing – nothing – you got nothing …….
“SARMIENTO ENGINEERS FIRING OF NEWLY HIRED HOUSING DIVISION MANAGER”
Where is your proof of this accusation? You don’t have any. How about an explanation, speculation, guess, hearsay ……… you don’t have any of that. You are full of BS.
“In January, staff presented at the Financial, Economic Development and Technology (FedTech) committee meeting a competitive process mechanism for release of the Inclusionary Housing Funds.”
That was a really stupid thing to do if you expect to keep your job working for the City of Santa Ana.
Here’s a link to the City of Santa Ana website clearly showing Benavides as a member:
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/agenda_fedt_20150127.pdf
He was still a part of the committee in February when members of the community made a presentation to him, Martinez & Sarmiento.
Why did David B leave? Are these accusations against his council colleagues disgruntled sour grapes as they continued carrying on business without him?
How could Benavides not know what was going on in the same committee he had been a part of until March? He was either asleep at the wheel or had some involvement.
“He was still a part of the committee in February when members of the community made a presentation to him, Martinez & Sarmiento.” – So what?
“Why did David B leave?” – Probably to not project the appearance of a conflict of interest.
“How could Benavides not know what was going on in the same committee he had been a part of until March? He was either asleep at the wheel or had some involvement.” – What was “going on”? Again, you got NOTHING – because there IS nothing.
I will give you this much – crony political capitalism is going on in Santa Ana. Hell, we all already knew that. It is not illegal and is not covered by the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Here’s the latest FedTech agenda from March:
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/agenda_fet.pdf
Why is there no Feb agenda posted on the City website? They skipped right over it.
You can see some of the items discussed in the other thread mentioned in the agenda items. But why would the Diamond post that info on a relevant thread? It might undermine his slash & burn campaign on a couple of the Dems on Council. ;p
If you want to put the relevant information on the other thread while leading out the irrelevant information, Transa, you may.
For the record, I do not have a slash-and-burn campaign against Sarmiento and Martinez. I supported Michele in her Mayoral campaign and I wrote year that I wished that Sarmiento would run well before Reyna entered the race. I consider them and Benevides to be roughly equally positive, and all better than Pulido.
The more you keep saying that, the less credibility you have.
So as not to congest and confuse the other thread as asked, I’ll pose this question here:
Why the insistence that this deal be approved on April 7, 2015? Much was done to make sure this happens. Is it so it could be a 7 up vote? Or as rumored so that under the cover of the “wellness district” debate?
Also, to my knowledge David remains part of the FEDTECH committee.
“Why the insistence that this deal be approved on April 7, 2015?”
In order to avoid scrutiny – dirty deals are usually done as quickly as possible.
If it’s about the April 7 meeting, put it in the other post. This one is supposed to be for those who want to discuss Benavides and the Kidworks position.
You cats are difficult to herd.
That’s because these issues are RELATED to each other. As much as you want to divide & compartmentalize the issues @ play, you can’t because they ARE LINKED.
For example, from what I hear about the way City Hall works, it’s STAFF that researches & preps the proposals presented to City Council…and before presenting anything to the CC, the staff must get the CM’s to sign off on it.
So here’s another conspiracy theory: since the CM knows the April 7 meeting is going to get heated thanks to my fellow activists, maybe engineered this whole deal to sneak through under the radar? If “discovered” it would create strife among the Councilmembers as they accuse & fight among themselves, never suspecting it was really the CM who set it all up.
What would be the motivation? Maybe to exploit factions within the council so they don’t unite to vote him out? The CM serves at the pleasure of Council and already there is much chaos & unprofessional behavior arising with new staffers.
The question of whether David Benevides is doing something wrong in being the new Executive Director at KidsWorks and their getting public funding — which was diverting attention in the original post (intentionally or not) from the questions bring raised about the deal that supposedly has generated suppressed objections in many City Departments — can readily be separated out. That is why (and is the only reason why) this post was created.
As for your new conspiracy theory — well, it is one. You can pursue it if you want, but I’m bothered if it detracts from the questions that have been posed, which seem to be of greater pressing public interest.
Careful there employee we were just ordered not to answer ANY questions to ANYONE about this. We have had several calls this morning. CM is on the warpath!
Lunch is going to be great! No wonder we can’t get anything done around here!
No worries “SA Workers” – the powers have this covered – just making sure that no loose ends get out there.
This is what I love about OC Politics: Ask and you shall receive. The host here dismisses the suggestion of sexual impropriety by the councilman, as being an anonymous personal attack. He goes on to challenge other bloggers (Pedroza and Chmiliewinski) to do so.
Lo and behold, Art publishes documents and pictures of Benavide’s putting his alleged girlfriend and daughter on city commissions.
I get and respect responsible posting, but between your blog and the Voice Of OC blog it certainly seems like you play favorites when it comes to David. Conversely, the attacks on the mayor are rarely with merit and becoming childlike.
At last, you speak of credibility.I think you have confused the definition of that word with another: likability. If the blogger does not like or agree with he claims they are lacking credibility. This is wrong, one sided and a mechanism to abolish fair and accurate debate.
You should be better that.
Hey, one-time-IP-address-and-probably-fake-email user! Welcome to OJB! Since despite “not having posted here before,” you seem very familiar with the OC and (in a more adult and polite manner) reiterate themes regarding Benevides and Pulido commonly presented by banned-from-the-site others, I presume that I don’t have to offer you a lot of background.
I don’t dismiss “the suggestion of sexual impropriety by the councilman,” I’m simply not going to publish anonymous allegations of it. I leave that to the low-lifes. Did Art publish something based on those allegations? That’s Art’s business. I’m not sure how putting an “alleged girlfriend” on a commission is a sexual impropriety (of the sneering sort that was offered to me), rather than a nepotistic one, but you can figure that out on your own.
I would not publish anonymous sexual allegations about Pulido either. I hear all kinds of things (without seeking them out or being happy to hear them) about local politicians’ sex lives, largely from people who would love to see me publish them, and I rarely if ever publish them. (I’d say “never,” because I can’t recall ever doing so, but I can’t guarantee that I never have.) So I treat Pulido and Benevides the same in that regard.
I don’t have any particular stock in Benavides. In a Mayoral race between him and Sarmiento, I’d probably lean towards Sarmiento — except for that nasty residency problem — but not definitely and not by much. (I think that he didn’t do that well on OCWD, but I think he’s the City Council member with the best likelihood of going on to state or county office. How I feel about that depends on his honesty, which is why I considered getting to the bottom of this story so important.)
The attacks on Pulido, far from being childish, go to such matters as him allegedly requiring (or more or less doing so) people who wanted to do business with Santa Ana to hire him or people who would share money with him as “consultants” to “guide their proposal through the process.” I’ve never had the resources to investigate that fully. Are you telling me that that’s what you want to see me do, for you to consider my behavior “adultlike”?
Anyway, your criticism — which doesn’t actually rely on any serious evidence beyond your own opinion, which by now is old hat — is ill-founded, incorrect, and verges on the absurd. Thank you for visiting Orange Jucie Blog. Don’t presume that you can make yourself at home.
Well we now know Councilman Benavides MARRIED his appointee!
It sure is a good thing NOBODY followed up on that one!
I don’t know the answer to this one: is it illegal — not just unethical, but illegal — for a Council member to marry his or her appointee to a City commission?
If only we had followed up on the story and — what, prevented the marriage? Some criticisms that we get here are puzzling.
We’re glad that you have this forum to express your views. I’mma guess that you’re not a Benavides fan, yes?