Est. in September 2010

This blog was started over one year ago. However, the record goes back even further. Tracing Dolores Lucero through our County has been part of this process and has been going on for at least two years. Starting with the Public Records on file with Whitmore School District, her path of destruction is wide and broad. Her challenges to authority, facts, and reason are well documented. One thing I have found during my research is that witnesses to her antics as well as victims of her antics CONTINUE to be afraid of her retaliation against them. I find the similar concerns expressed within this very community now. I urge you to see for yourself, watch a council meeting LIVE. Read through the mountain of records for yourself. Get educated. Get involved. This City is worth the effort.

facebook like

Contact Info

CONTACT US: ljazz2@att.net
(530) 275-6167

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Petition Found Sufficient December 21, 2011

*Page 1of 2*
SHASTA COUNTY

Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk / Registrar of Voters

Doug Patten, Assistant County Clerk / Registrar of Voters www.elections.co.shasta.ca.us
1643 Market St., Redding, CA 96001 / PO Box 990880, Redding, CA 96099-0880
Phone: 530-225-5730 / FAX: 530-225-5454 / CA Relay Service: 711 or 800-735-2922

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 21, 2011

Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk, announces the petition filed December 1st, 2011
with the Shasta Lake City Clerk, Toni Coates, to recall Dolores Lucero, Shasta Lake
City Council member, has been found sufficient.

The petition was filed containing 1,658 signatures. County Clerk staff found 1,500
valid signatures, with a required number of 1,222 for the petition to be found sufficient.

The County Clerk has certified this to the City Clerk of the City of Shasta Lake.

-30-


SHASTA COUNTY

Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk / Registrar of Voters

*Page 2 of 2*

Doug Patten, Assistant County Clerk / Registrar of Voters
1643 Market St. / PO Box 990880 / Redding, CA 96099-0880 / www.elections.co.shasta.ca.us
PHONE: 530-225-5730 * FAX: 530-225-5454 * CA RELAY SERVICE: 711 or 800-735-2922

SIGNATURE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE

I, Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters of the County of Shasta, State of
California, hereby certify:

Re: City of Shasta Lake Petition for Recall – Dolores Lucero
The above Initiative was filed with our office on December 1, 2011.
That said petition consists of 68 sections;

Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 1658
Number of signatures checked 1658
Number of signatures found SUFFICIENT 1500
Number of signatures found INSUFFICIENT 158
INSUFFICIENT because of DUPLICATE 17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 22nd day of December, 2011.


CATHY DARLING ALLEN
Shasta County Clerk/Registrar of Voters


R/S News Article December 21, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/dec/21/lucero-recall-qualifies-ballot-county-clerk-says/?partner=yahoo_feeds

Thursday, November 10, 2011

November 15, 2011 CC Adenga

http://cityofshastalake.org/archives/60/11.15.11%20Packet%20for%20Web.pdf


Please note Item #6.2:  City of Shasta Lake response to Attorney Pappas.

Facebook Hate Nov 9, 2011

Ms. Gracious Palmer is not a part of this recall.  Never has she been a part of this recall effort.  Yet, this is what the supporters of Ms. Lucero are circulating.

The ones supporting Ms. Lucero have no problem with slander.  They have no problem with crossing the line from support to HATE.  If you are appalled at this type of disgusting rhetoric, please sign our petition.  We are only asking that this issue be brought before the voters.

Letter to the Editor Nov 10, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/nov/10/barbara-riddle-what-is-motive-of-recall-drive/

Letter to the Editor R/S Nov 10, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/nov/10/vince-copeland-luceros-supporters-dont-even-live/

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Monday, November 7, 2011

Intent to Recall Item #3 "I got no problem."

Lucero No Conflict of Interest .avi



As the Mayor is explaining, Ms Lucero filed a complaint against her fellow council members who recently voted to approve the consolidation of elections from odd years to even years.  Ms Lucero is free to step down at the end of her current term as she see's it.  Of course, that option is not going to work for her.  She would rather file baseless complaints and allegations.

R/S Editorial Nov 7, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/nov/07/editorial-election-day-shasta-county-takes-a/

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Lucero Why I Can't do my Elected Job.avi



This is video from the meeting where a Code of Conduct was brought before the CC to consider.  Ms Lucero says "This would be opening a can of worms".  Against a Code of Conduct!  She also states that she is against one person trying to tell the council what to do.  Isn't that exactly what she is wanting to accomplish?  One person telling  the council how to do things?  I thought the city council acted as a body?

R/S Blog Nov 6, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/nov/06/on-brown-act-city-should-heed-its-zealous/

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

CC Mtg Minutes Sept 7, 2010


Report and Recommendations           Reviewed and Approved


City Manager

     CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL
                               

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2010, AT THE JOHN BEAUDET COMMUNITY CENTER, 1525 MEDIAN AVENUE, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.



CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9.
1 Case,  Liability Claim
Claimant:  Richard Holloway
Agency Claimed Against:  City of Shasta Lake
Action on Claim – Possible Denial

1.0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING  - 6:00 p.m.

Mayor Watkins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and announced that during the Closed Session, Council voted 5-0 for denial of the claim.

Council members present: Dixon, Farr, Lindsay, Lucero, Watkins
Council members absent: None
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation

2.0 AWARDS/ RECOGNITIONS:

2.1 Council member Lindsay introduced three local winners of the Special Olympics Bowling Contest:

Clarissa Martinez – won a Bronze Medal
Michael Woods – won a Gold Medal
Stacey Stewart – won a Gold Medal

2.2 Mayor Watkins read a Proclamation recognizing September 17-23, 2010 as Constitution Week.  The Proclamation was presented to Terry Taft of the Bostonian Tea Party.

Council member Farr announced that Charles Chipley Sr.had passed away.  Mr. Chipley was a long time citizen who was very involved in the community and served three years on the City Council (1996-1999).
3.0 COMMUNICATIONS :

3.1 Presentations:

Larry Montgomery, Executive Director and CEO of Golden Umbrella provided a brief report on the services available to the senior citizens of Shasta Lake.

3.2   Public Comment Period:  

Brad Dupre of Shasta Lake questioned why the Channel 11 television crew was not present to record the meeting.

3.3 Commission/Committee Reports:

3.4 City Council Reports/Comments/Correspondence

Miscellaneous

3.5 Staff Comments/Reports:  

Forrest Bartell briefly reported on Sheriff Department activities.

4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR:

Item 4.6 was removed from the consent calendar for discussion.

4.1 Approval of the regular meeting minutes of August 17,  2010.

4.2 Approval of the special meeting of August 24, 2010.

4.3 Resolution CC 10-82 accepting the Quarterly Cash and Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2010.

4.4 Resolution CC 10-83 authorizing the City Manager to sign acquisition offerings, certificates of acceptance, and temporary construction easement contracts for the Safe Routes to School Project on Cabello Avenue from Vallecito to SR 151.

4.5 Resolution CC 10-84 establishing changes to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code at the conclusion of its Biennial Review process.

Motion/Vote

By motion made/seconded (Farr/Lucero), and carried, the consent calendar was approved.

4.6 Resolution CC 10-85 authorizing the award of Fiscal year 2010/2011 Annual Tree Trimming Contract for the clearing of electric lines to Atlas Tree Surgery for the amount of $98,781.

Motion/Vote

By motion made/seconded (Lindsay/Dixon), and carried, Resolution CC 10-85 was approved.

5.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Public Hearing and possible first reading of an Ordinance approving modification to the city’s Grading, Erosion Control, and Hillside Development Ordinance by amending Municipal Code Section 15.08.280(F), Design Standards for Skyline and Ridgeline Development.

Councilmember Farr questioned whether the Mayor should act on this item.  Mayor Watkins disclosed that he had received a packet of information from a citizen who feels he may have a conflict because his property is hillside property.  He indicated that he had not had ample time to review the information.  He would like time to meet with staff to determine whether or not he has a conflict.

Motion/Vote

By motion made/seconded (Lindsay/Farr), and carried, the item was tabled until the next meeting to allow time for Mayor Watkins to confer with staff regarding a potential conflict of interest.

6.0 OLD BUSINESS: None

7.0 NEW BUSINESS

7.1 Discussion and possible action on Resolution to declare Tullis Inc. the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, and enter into a contract with Tullis Inc. for the construction of the Street Improvements 2010 Project and authorize expenditures not to exceed $350,000.

Motion/Vote
By motion made/seconded (Lindsay /Farr), and carried, Resolution CC 10-86 was approved.    Noes: Dixon/Lucero

7.2 Discussion and possible action on Resolution accepting the settlement offer in the amount of $28,027.32 from Shapeco inc. for the delinquent utility account for Westflex Pipe Manufacturing.

Motion/Vote

By motion made/seconded (Lindsay/Lucero), and carried, Resolution CC 10-87 was approved.

8.0 COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS/COMMENTS

8.1 Council Comments/Reports:   None

8.2 Staff Comments/Reports: None

9.0 ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Watkins adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.



TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk

Sunday, October 30, 2011

This Is My Town Rally November 7, 2011


This is My Town Rally - Nov 7

We are calling on the movers and shakers of the Shasta Lake community to join us in a rally on Nov 7th to help recall  Dolores Lucero from the Shasta Lake City Council.

Women who recognize the value good leadership are the backbone of this community.  We are responsible for shaping it into the place we all want to raise families, honor our heroes, live, work and play. We volunteer our time and talent, we serve on committees and commissions,  we have participated for decades to better this city.  We will not stand for abusive and divisive behavior from any elected official.  We will not tolerate a council member who refuses to answer questions from her constituents.

The rally will be held on Monday, Nov 7th beginning at 5pm at the Clair Engle Park Bandstand.  Members of the Committee Supporting the Recall of Council Member Dolores Lucero 2012 will speak. Afterwards we will march to the new City Hall and throughout the 1007 precinct to gather signatures on the ‘Petition for Recall’ that would put the issue on the 2012 election ballot.  The group will return to Clair Engle Park for refreshments and a media presentation at 7pm.

For more information contact Janice Powell at 275-2011 or Lori Chapman-Sifers at
275-6167.  Please visit www.recalldoloreslucero.blogspot.com  to review video clips of Ms. Lucero’s behavior on our city council.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Ca Gov Code Section 37201-37210


CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 37201-37210




37201.  Demands against the city for money or damages are governed
by Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) and Part 4 (commencing with
Section 940) of Division 3.6 of Title 1, except as provided therein,
or by other statutes or regulations expressly applicable thereto.



37202.  Except as provided in Section 37208, the legislative body
shall approve or reject demands only after such demands have been
audited in the manner prescribed by ordinance or resolution. Such
audited demands may be submitted separately or a register of audited
demands may be submitted to the legislative body for approval or
rejection and shall have attached thereto the affidavit of the
officer submitting the demands certifying as to the accuracy of the
demands and the availability of funds for payment thereof.



37203.  Upon allowing a demand or approving a register of audited
demands, the mayor shall draw a warrant or warrants upon the city
treasurer specifying the purpose for which drawn and the fund from
which payment is to be made. The city clerk shall countersign the
warrant. The legislative body, by ordinance or resolution, may
prescribe an alternative method of drawing warrants and checks.



37204.  When an order or demand is not approved for want of funds
and its amount does not exceed the income and revenue for the year in
which the indebtedness was incurred, the city clerk shall endorse on
it: "Not approved for want of funds," with the date of presentation
and his signature.


37205.  The clerk shall number the endorsement, register the order
or demand in his records, and deliver it to the claimant, or his
order. From delivery the order or demand bears interest at 6 percent
a year. Orders or demands shall be paid in the order they are
registered.



37206.  By ordinance or resolution, the legislative body shall
prescribe the time and method of paying salaries and wages of
officers and employees.


37207.  Department heads shall certify or approve departmental pay
rolls or attendance records for employees in their departments. The
city clerk shall certify or approve pay rolls or attendance records
of other officers and employees.


37208.  (a) Payroll warrants or checks need not be audited by the
legislative body prior to payment. Payrolls shall be presented to the
legislative body for ratification and approval at the first meeting
after delivery of the payroll warrants or checks.
   (b) Warrants or checks drawn in payment of demands certified or
approved by the city clerk as conforming to a budget approved by
ordinance or resolution of the legislative body need not be audited
by the legislative body prior to payment.
   (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), budgeted payrolls
and demands paid by warrants or checks may be presented to the
legislative body for ratification and approval in the form of an
audited comprehensive annual financial report.



37209.  The duties imposed upon the city clerk by this article may
be transferred to a director of finance when such office has been
established and the powers and duties thereof defined by ordinance.
Such an ordinance shall require the execution by the director of
finance of the bond required of the city clerk by Section 36518 of
this code.



37210.  Newly incorporated cities that have not received revenues
from property taxes may issue temporary non-negotiable notes bearing
interest at a rate not exceeding 6 percent per annum to pay lawfully
incurred current expenses and the salaries and wages of officers and
employees. Said notes must be repaid on or before the last day of the
fiscal year in which the money is borrowed and the maturity date of
said notes shall not be later than said last day. The aggregate
amount of said notes shall not exceed 85 percent of the anticipated
revenues for the fiscal year in which the money is borrowed. Said
notes shall be repaid only from revenues received during or allocable
to the fiscal year in which the money is borrowed.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

For the Record

Dear Public,

The proponents of the Recall Effort are not in hiding, do not work for the City, are not comprised of council members, and have NO personal agenda!  Everything has been done with the utmost care and consideration for the law as well as respect for those involved.
Ms. Lucero at the direction of Mr. Falkner has now begun to slander innocent citizens in an attempt to falsely prove guilt.  Our country operates under the protection of the Constitution of The United States of America, where you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. However, proving one's innocence is not the way the process is supposed to work.
What is at stake here?  I can not speak on behalf of all the proponents or all the individuals who have already signed our petition.  I speak on my behalf.  I have spent countless hours researching and studying Ms. Lucero's history and her record with the City of Shasta Lake.  What I found disturbed and dismayed me.  Having made a choice to buy a home here and raise my children here, I also did some checking on the area.  I found out that the city of Shasta Lake has a lot of history.  Some of it good and some of it bad.  All of it very interesting.  What I found out was a mixed bag, that's true.  We also felt it was worth looking into.  To my husband and I, it was the perfect place to settle down.
Let's go back to 2001.  After our Nation suffered it's largest terrorist attack in it's young life, my focus dramatically shifted to protecting the future for my then 5 month old baby girl.  Living in Redding at the time, my husband and I craved a close, family-oriented community to 'put roots down'.  Shasta Lake has what our young family needed.  A small, rather quiet City.  Beautiful, living scenery and a 5 minute drive to the Lake.  Property in our price range, in a safe, happy neighborhood is just what we got.  However, communities don't just happen.  This requires people to get involved and stay involved.  Having young kids I immediately volunteered to serve on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.  I served for over 5 years.  I also volunteered to serve on the Library Financing and Governance Task Force, and have served for 4 years.  I also volunteered to serve on the Citizen Volunteer Patrol, which requires a background check, fingerprinting done and several hours of training and community service.  Being a work from home mother has afforded me the ability to serve the community I am a part of.  This includes regular attendance at all city council meetings, workshops, and attending any Q&A meetings that the City has asked for citizens to offer input.
This is what being a good citizen means to me.  That we all work together to make this work.  No one is allowed to stand on the sidelines, yelling  to the participants.  "You untrustworthy fool!  You're doing it all wrong!"  Is pointing fingers, making baseless accusations, and slandering good people, at all helpful? NO!  It is demeaning, demoralizing, and reckless.  It serves no other point than the accuser having a bit of the spotlight on them.  Do the facts matter?  We say yes, but when the lie is told over and over... over time people tire of the 'bickering'.  The one who is pointing the accusatory finger looks like the hero, when in fact they have presided over the destruction of someone's integrity.  In this case, it is the integrity of the citizens, staff, volunteers, and respected members of this community who are involved for the better!  It is soulless, and shameful! 
I could no longer keep quiet.  I feel that the forward progress of my city is at stake here.  All that I and others have worked so hard to achieve, for our children and our elders, is precious.  Worth taking a stand for.  Beyond the shadow of a doubt.  We have nothing to hide.  We are proud of this city, what we have done here.  We will not let it suffer, but see it prosper and shine!
If that is the definition of a 'Good Old Boy', then fine.  I am neither old, nor a boy.  I am a citizen who cares and decided to be a part of the solution.


R/S Article October 25, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/25/lucero-didnt-tell-man-to-shut-up/

Monday, October 24, 2011

Pictures from Saturday October 22, 2011

 IBEW representatives came from Vacaville to present the Recall Lucero campaign with a  generous contribution!  Thank you, IBEW!
 Boy, we have had perfect weather!

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

New Items of Note October 19, 2011

In the interest of fairness I would like to draw your attention to the following new sites:

http://citizensforlucero.com/Citizens_for_Lucero/No_Recall.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens-for-Delores-Lucero/264111433621927

This is what Ms. Lucero and supporters have been up to.  I encourage everyone interested in this topic to please get the facts for yourself.  Look at all the information provided you and make you own educated choice.  Thank you for your continued support and interest in the City of Shasta Lake!


Monday, October 17, 2011

KCNR Radio Interview Oct 18, 2011

I have found out that Dolores and Randall Falknor will be interviewed by Carl Bott of Free Fire Radio tomorrow morning at 7:30am. 1460 am Please tune in, feel free to call or submit your questions via chat. WE WANT TO HEAR DOLORES IN HER OWN VOICE. RANDALL IS NOT SHASTA LAKE'S REPRESENTATIVE! Please help us spread the word!
http://www.kcnr1460.com/

Letter to the Editor October 17, 2011

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/17/pamelyn-anne-morgan-recall-is-about-attacks/

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Thursday, July 21, 2011

1,233 is the magic number

Yes, 1,233 is a very important number to the cause.  The cause I write about is the effort afoot to recall Dolores Lucero.  Based on the California Election Code the amount of signatures required to meet the threshold to recall an elected official is 25% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS in the affected city/district.

This number many seen daunting.  It certainly did to me... But that was a year and a half ago.  Sadly, nothing much has changed as far as Dolores Lucero's behavior and attitude and over-all incompetence.  What has changed, is the shear number of people who now object to the council member's behavior.  The lack of civic responsibility, lack of general knowledge,  and her dangerous lack of humility have combined to create the perfect storm.

November 2012 in the time to take action.  1,233 is the number of signatures required to have this placed on the ballot.  If you are concerned, have questions, and think this behavior is unacceptable, Now is the time to make your voices heard!

Can We Count On You?

Monday, March 21, 2011

March 2011 Update

To the Citizens of Shasta Lake,

If you have noticed, at the bottom of the page there is a comment from a Mr. Richard Holloway. Mr. Holloway's story is a sad one indeed. A quick synopsis: Councilwoman Lucero violated Mr. Holloway's civil liberties by slandering him in public. She abused her position by trying to obtain personal information about an employee (she was unsuccessful thanks to well trained staff).

She has repeatedly denigrated her fellow council members, city staff, as well as the citizens who did not vote for her! She violated FPPC rules during her election campaign. She then brings forward questions of integrity against our very own city attorney. Filing complaints with the very agency she herself has violated!

I could go on and on. The Office of the Secretary of State offers a procedure for the recalling of a local official. The handbook states "Recall is the power of the voters to remove elected officials before their terms expire."

The reason for the recall is up to the people in the affected community. They get to decide if, and why someone is to be recalled.

For your information, I am providing three words most commonly used for the determination of recalling a public official and their definitions:

Malfeasance: wrongful conduct especially by a public official.

Misfeasance: the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner

Nonfeasance: failure to perform an act that is required by law

I urge everyone to consider these words, their definitions, and whether or not you feel this is happening in Shasta Lake.  Please contact Toni Coates, City Clerk at (530) 275-7407 for more specific answers to your questions.  Shasta County Elections Office at (530) 225-5730 has much more information also.

Thank you for being a part of our informed and educated community!

http://www.cityofshastalake.org
http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/clerk_

You may have thought I forgot about Richard Holloway.  I didn't.  The saddest part of this story is that Mr. Holloway has decided to move on.  Instead of spending his savings on a lengthy legal battle, he has moved away.  Perhaps he decided to retire, and enjoy his life.  The fact remains, if this happened once... It can only be a matter of time before this city sees itself in another lawsuit, defending D. Lucero.  Is it worth it??? Ask yourself, ask your neighbors, watch the meetings on Channel 11.  I want to hear from you... Post your feelings and comments and thoughts right here.  I'll be waiting!

Letter to the Editor Record Searchlight 2-23-11

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/feb/23/letters-to-the-editor-feb-23-2011/