1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
- - -
4 5 6 7 8 9
THE BALLONA WETLANDS LAND TRUST,
) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) SANTA MONICA BAY RESTORATION ) COMMISSION; DOES 1 to 10, ) ) Respondents. ) ________________________________)
No. BS154128
10 11 12 13 14
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
15
SCOTT HARLEV VALOR
16
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
17
AUGUST 19, 2015
18 19 20 21 22
ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. COURT REPORTERS (800) 288-3376 www.depo.com
23 REPORTED BY:
24 25
FILE NO.:
CARYN CARRUTHERS, CSR NO. 4389, RPR, CP, CLR
A90847F
1
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
- - -
4 5 6 7 8 9
THE BALLONA WETLANDS LAND TRUST,
) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) SANTA MONICA BAY RESTORATION ) COMMISSION; DOES 1 to 10, ) ) Respondents. ) ________________________________)
No. BS154128
10 11 12 13 14
Videotaped Deposition of SCOTT HARLEV
15
VALOR, taken on behalf of the Petitioner, at
16
1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660, Los
17
Angeles, California 90017, commencing at 11:16
18
a.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2015, before Caryn
19
Carruthers, CSR No. 4389, RPR, CP, CLR.
20 21 22 23 24 25
2
1
A P P E A R A N C E S
2 3
For Petitioner:
4
6
VENSKUS & ASSOCIATES BY: SABRINA D. VENSKUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 482-4200
7
For Respondents:
8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KURT WEISSMULLER, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 897-7232
5
9 10 11 12
The Videographer:
13
Curtis Frye
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3
1
I
2
WITNESS:
3
EXAMINATION
4
N
D
E
X
SCOTT HARLEV VALOR PAGE
By MS. VENSKUS
9, 61
5 6 7
EXHIBITS
8 9
PETITIONER LETTER
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
10
A - 2/6/12 e-mail to Mary and Elena from Scott
32
11
B - E-mails re PRA Follow Up and New Request
36
12
C - E-mail re Public Records Act Request for SMBRC
49
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
and a questions [sic] for SMBRF D - E-mails re Website records/timing of disclosure
61
of outstanding public records E - Response to Los Angeles County Counsel Questions
69
re SMBRF Cash Reserve Funding F - SMBRC/SMBRF Projects and Programs Benefiting
72
the Flood Control District G - Fact Sheet - SMBRC and SMBRF - Structure
74
and Relationship
22
H - E-mails re SMBRF dues
75
23
I - E-mails re SMBRF dues
76
24
J - E-mails re voluntary contribution
82
25
4
1
INDEX (continued):
2 3
EXHIBITS
4
PETITIONER
5
LETTER
6
K - Memorandum of Agreement between SMBRC and
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
7
The Bay Foundation re the Santa Monica Bay
8
National Estuary Program (as amended 6/18/15)
9
83
L - E-mails re SMBRA agreement
91
10
M - Conflict of Interest Code for the SMBRC
93
11
N - E-mails re Should this be considered a gift
95
12 13 14
to be disclosed on Form 700 O - Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program,
97
Annual Report 2014
15
P - 3/13 billing from Scott H. Valor
100
16
Q - 5/14 billing from Scott H. Valor
104
17
R - SMBRF Contract Agreement, 15-13
105
18
S - 7/25/08 e-mail to Steve Munro from Christopher
106
19 20 21 22
Meyer T - 7/14/08 letter to California Energy Commission
110
from Lia Protopapadakis, Bay Restoration Commission U - E-mails re Should we Act Here? - Fw:
Failure to
117
23
Provide Public Records Requested by the Sierra Club
24
June 19, 2014
25
5
1
INDEX (continued):
2 3
EXHIBITS
4
PETITIONER
5
LETTER
6
V - SMBRF Board Meeting Minutes, 8/16/07
122
7
W - 6/14/07 to Foundation Board of Directors
124
8 9 10 11 12 13
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
from Shelley Luce re FY 2008 Work Plan Update X - E-mails re Ballona Stakeholders and Roles
125
Y - 8/21/14 e-mail to Molly Martin from Scott Valor
127
re MOU Z - 9/13/11 letter to John Davis from Frances L.
128
McChesney
14
AA - E-mails re Staff bios
129
15
BB - E-mails requesting removal of SMBRC staff
129
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
from web site.txt CC - 5/24/12 e-mail re Follow-up document -
130
SMBRC, SMBRF DD - 4/1/06 - 9/30/06 Santa Monica Bay Restoration
135
Authority Statement of Receipts and Disbursements EE - 2/18/10 SMBRC Minutes of the Governing Board
138
meeting FF - 8/19/10 SMBRC Minutes of the Governing Board
139
meeting
25
6
1
INDEX (continued):
2 3
EXHIBITS
4
PETITIONER
5
LETTER
6
GG - 6/19/14 SMBRC Minutes of the Governing Board
7
DESCRIPTION
PAGE 142
meeting
8
HH - 7/6/15 e-mail to Molly Martin from Scott Valor
145
9
II - Business cards of Tom Ford, Karina K. Johnston,
150
10
Charles J. Piechowski, and Ivan D. Medel
11
JJ - Screen shot of Public Records re Scott Valor
153
12
KK - Screen shot of The Bay Foundation page
154
13 14 15
QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
16
PAGE/LINE (denoted with a "+")
17
44/20
75/5
18 19 20
INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED: (NONE.)
21 22 23 24 25
7
1
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2015
2
11:16 A.M.
3
-o0o-
4 5
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
Good morning.
I'm Curtis Frye,
11:16
6
your videographer.
7
Incorporated, in Glendale, California.
8
financially interested in this action nor am I a relative
11:16
9
or employee of any attorney or any of the parties.
11:16
10
I represent Atkinson-Baker,
11:16
I'm not
11:16
Today's date is August 19, 2015; the time,
11:16
11
11:16 a.m.
12
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660, Los Angeles, California
11:16
13
90017.
11:16
14
This deposition is taking place at 1055
Case No. BS154128 entitled Ballona Wetlands
15
versus Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
16
deponent is Scott Valor.
17
on behalf of the plaintiff.
18 19 20
11:16
11:16
Today's
11:16
This deposition is being taken
11:16
Your court reporter is Caryn Carruthers from Atkinson-Baker.
11:16 11:16 11:16
Counsel will now please introduce themselves.
11:16
21
After all counsel present have introduced themselves, the
11:16
22
witness will be sworn by the court reporter.
11:16
23 24 25
MS. VENSKUS:
Sabrina Venskus of Venskus &
Associates for Petitioner Ballona Wetlands Land Trust. MR. WEISSMULLER:
Kurt Weissmuller with the
11:16 11:16 11:16
8
1
California Department of Justice on behalf of the Santa
11:16
2
Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
11:16
3
11:16
4
SCOTT HARLEV VALOR,
11:16
5
called as a witness by the Petitioner, having been first
11:16
6
duly affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
11:16
7
11:16
8 9 10
EXAMINATION
11:17
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
Good morning.
11:17 I'm Sabrina Venskus.
I'm the
11:17
11
petitioner's counsel, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, and
11:17
12
I'd like you to state and spell your name for the record,
11:17
13
please.
11:17
14
A.
Do you want my middle name as well?
11:17
15
Q.
Yes, please.
11:17
16
A.
Scott Harlev Valor, and it's S-c-o-t-t, middle
11:17
17
name is H-A-R-L-E-V, and the last name is Valor, spelled
11:17
18
V-, as in Victor, a-l-o-r.
11:17
19
Q.
Have you ever been deposed before?
11:17
20
A.
No.
11:17
21
Q.
Have you ever been the subject of a lawsuit?
11:17
22
A.
No.
11:17
23
Q.
Do you know what this case is about?
11:17
24
A.
Yes.
11:17
25
Q.
What is this case about, as far as you
11:17
9
1 2
understand it? A.
This case is about alleged violations of the
11:17 11:17
3
California Public Records Act by the Santa Monica Bay
11:17
4
Restoration Commission.
11:17
5
Q.
Are you an attorney?
11:18
6
A.
Yes, I am.
11:18
7
Q.
Are you licensed in California?
11:18
8
A.
I am.
11:18
9
Q.
How long have you been an attorney?
11:18
10
A.
Since December of 1991.
11:18
11
Q.
Are you a practicing attorney?
11:18
12
A.
No.
11:18
13
Q.
What did you do to prepare for this deposition
11:18
14
today?
11:18
15
A.
Other than speak with counsel?
11:18
16
Q.
Correct.
11:18
17
A.
Nothing.
11:18
18
Q.
Did you review any documents?
11:18
19
A.
Other than the petition and my notice of
11:18
20 21 22
deposition, no. Q.
Have you ever spoken with Tracy Egoscue or
anyone from her office regarding this matter?
11:18 11:18 11:18
23
A.
Yes.
11:18
24
Q.
When did you speak with Tracy Egoscue?
11:18
25
A.
I don't recall the date.
11:18
10
1
Q.
What was your conversation with her?
11:18
2
A.
The conversation was the --
11:18
3
MR. WEISSMULLER:
4 5 6
Wait a minute.
11:18
In what capacity did you speak with her?
11:18
THE WITNESS:
As a friend.
long time.
11:18 11:18
7
MS. VENSKUS:
8
MR. WEISSMULLER:
9
I've known Tracy for a
As have I. Okay.
11:18 I don't want you to go into
any lawyer-client communication and any information.
10
THE WITNESS:
11
MR. WEISSMULLER:
12
THE WITNESS:
I understand. Okay.
Go ahead.
Tracy, Tom Ford, and I spoke and asked
11:18 11:18 11:18 11:18 11:19
13
if she would be available to The Bay Foundation with
11:19
14
regard to this case, and she said yes, and that was
11:19
15
basically the end of the conversation.
11:19
16
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:19
17 18
Q.
So when you say "available," do you mean the
foundation hired Tracy Egoscue as their attorney?
11:19 11:19
19
A.
I assume so, yes.
11:19
20
Q.
Did you ask her on behalf of the foundation to
11:19
21
be the foundation's attorney?
11:19
22
A.
I did not.
11:19
23
Q.
Have you spoken with Tom Ford about this case?
11:19
24
A.
No.
11:19
25
Q.
Have you spoken with Shelley Luce about this
11:19
11
1
case?
11:19
2
A.
No.
11:19
3
Q.
Have you spoken with anyone else about this
11:19
4
case at all besides Ms. Egoscue, Mr. Weissmuller, or
11:19
5
anyone else?
11:19
6
A.
11:19
7
Frances McChesney, F-R-A-N-C-E-S, McChesney,
M-c-C-H-E-S-N-E-Y.
8
Q.
9
MR. WEISSMULLER:
11:20
Tell me about your background in government. Objection; assumes facts not in
11:20 11:20
10
evidence.
11:20
11
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:20
12
Q.
Do you have any background in government?
11:20
13
A.
I do.
11:20
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
I worked for the California State Legislature
16
Tell me about that.
for about six years.
11:20 11:20 11:20
17
Q.
Tell me about that, please.
11:20
18
A.
I was a committee consultant to two committees.
11:20
19
I was senior consultant to the Environmental Safety &
11:20
20
Toxic Materials Committee; I was consultant to the
11:20
21
Natural Resources Committee in the Assembly, and I was
11:20
22
chief consultant to that committee.
11:20
23
Q.
What years?
11:20
24
A.
I believe it was 1996 to 2002 or 2003.
11:20
25
Q.
For both those committees that you referred to?
11:20
12
1
A.
Collectively.
11:21
2
Q.
And then after 2002, where did you go to work?
11:21
3
A.
I came to Southern California and worked for
11:21
4
the National Estuary Program, Santa Monica Bay.
5
Q.
Who paid your salary?
6
A.
Who paid my salary?
7 8 9 10
11:21 I don't understand the
question. Q.
11:21 11:21
Who paid your salary when you worked for the
National Estuary Program? A.
11:21
11:21 11:21
You mean who wrote the check or --
11:21
11
I don't understand what you're --
11:21
12
Who paid the salary?
11:21
13
Q.
Were you paid?
11:21
14
A.
Yes, I was.
11:21
15
Q.
Okay.
11:21
16
A.
The executive director issued me a check.
11:21
17
Q.
Executive director of what?
11:21
18
And who paid you?
Of the National
Estuary Program?
11:21
19
A.
Yes.
11:21
20
Q.
So was the check actually -- or on the check
11:21
21
itself, did it say National Estuary Program?
11:21
22
A.
No, it did not.
11:21
23
Q.
What did it say?
11:21
24
A.
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation.
11:21
25
Q.
Okay.
11:21
Where you -- Do you have records of
13
1
those checks?
11:21
2
A.
I do not, no.
11:21
3
Q.
Okay.
11:21
So have you always received a check from
4
the foundation for your work for the National Estuary
11:22
5
Program?
11:22
6
A.
As far as I know.
11:22
7
Q.
What is the National Estuary Program?
11:22
8
A.
I don't quite understand your question, because
11:22
9
it would have multiple answers.
11:22
10
Q.
Okay.
11
A.
Do you know or do you -- referring to the broad
So give me the answers.
11:22 11:22
12
National Estuary Program for the United States, or are
11:22
13
you referring to the local Santa Monica Bay National
11:22
14
Estuary Program?
11:22
15 16
Q.
Well, you said that you went to work for the
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program.
11:22 11:22
17
A.
Hm-hmm.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program --
11:22
I can shorten and refer to it as NEP if that
11:22
20 21 22
11:22 Tell me about what that entity is.
will help you. It's called the Santa Monica Bay NEP.
11:22
11:23 It's one
11:23
23
of 28 NEPs in the United States, and it is under the
11:23
24
guise of the U.S. EPA, and it -- it is comprised of the
11:23
25
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, what is known as
11:23
14
1
The Bay Foundation or the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
11:23
2
Foundation, and a joint powers authority known as the
11:23
3
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Authority.
11:23
4
Q.
Is it a government agency?
11:23
5
A.
Any --
11:23
6
MR. WEISSMULLER:
7
Objection; calls for a legal
conclusion from a lay witness.
8
MS. VENSKUS:
9
MR. WEISSMULLER:
This is an attorney, Mr. Weissmuller. He's not appearing as an expert
11:23 11:23 11:23 11:23
10
witness and he's not appearing as an attorney.
11:23
11
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:23
12
Q.
Is it a government agency?
11:23
13
A.
Do I respond?
11:23
14
Q.
Yes, you respond.
11:23
15
MR. WEISSMULLER:
16
THE WITNESS:
17
Unless I tell you not to, yes.
Okay, that's fine.
Is the National Estuary Program itself a
18
government agency?
19
BY MS. VENSKUS:
No.
11:23 11:23 11:23 11:23 11:24
20
Q.
What is it?
11:24
21
A.
It is a partnership of a government agencies
11:24
22 23
and nonprofit. Q.
Is there any operating agreement between all of
11:24 11:24
24
the different entities that you stated are part of this
11:24
25
program?
11:24
15
1
A.
Operating agreement?
11:24
2
Q.
Correct.
11:24
3
A.
There's no agreement, per se.
11:24
When you say "agreement," you mean some kind of
11:24
4 5
With respect to the NEP.
signed document or otherwise?
11:24
6
Q.
Correct.
11:24
7
A.
Not that I'm aware of, no.
11:24
8
Q.
Is there any operating principles in writing
11:24
9 10 11
having to do with the NEP and how the entities that you
11:24
described operate in order to carry out the NEP?
11:24
MR. WEISSMULLER:
12
11:24
Are we talking about the Santa Monica NEP or
13
the National NEP?
14
MS. VENSKUS:
15
Objection.
11:24 11:24
We're always talking about Santa
Monica NEP.
11:24 11:24
16
MR. WEISSMULLER:
17
THE WITNESS:
I got it.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
11:24
Can you repeat the
11:24
18
question?
11:24
19
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:24
20
Q.
21
Sure.
11:24
Is there any operating principles in writing
11:24
22
referring to how these entities that you mentioned work
11:24
23
together to carry out the NEP?
11:24
24 25
A.
Sure.
There's two I can think of.
One is the
11:24
broader, what's known as the Bay Restoration Plan, which
11:25
16
1
is a multiyear document, and the second is the -- what we
11:25
2
call the annual work plan.
11:25
3
Q.
And that's an operating agreement?
11:25
4
A.
It's not an agreement.
11:25
5
Q.
It's operating principles?
11:25
6
A.
What do you mean by "principles"?
11:25
7
Q.
Some kind of writing that states explicitly how
11:25
8
the entities work together to carry out the NEP that you
11:25
9
state that you work for.
11:25
10
A.
That's correct.
11:25
11
Q.
Okay.
11:25
And those are the two documents that
12
reference operating principles of the NEP; is that
11:25
13
correct?
11:25
14
A.
As far as I'm aware, yes.
11:25
15
Q.
Do you have a contract agreement with the Santa
11:25
16
Monica Bay Restoration Foundation?
17
11:25
And, for the record, when I'm referring to "the
11:25
18
foundation," I'm referring to the Santa Monica Bay
11:26
19
Restoration Foundation.
11:26
20
we're talking about the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
11:26
21
Foundation, let's just call it "the foundation" and not
11:26
22
the Bay Foundation or really anything else.
11:26
23
way we can be consistent --
So from here on forward when
24
A.
That's fine.
25
Q.
-- throughout this deposition.
Then that
11:26 11:26 Okay.
11:26
17
1
Do you have a contract agreement with the
11:26
2
foundation?
11:26
3
A.
I do.
11:26
4
Q.
And do you have a yearly contract that you
11:26
5
renegotiate, or have you just had one contract the entire
11:26
6
period that you've been working for the foundation?
11:26
7 8
MR. WEISSMULLER: in evidence.
9 10 11
Objection.
That assumes facts not
There's nothing --
Okay. THE WITNESS:
Go ahead.
Go ahead, answer it.
Repeat the question, please.
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:26 11:26 11:26 11:26 11:26
12
Q.
13
foundation?
11:26
14
A.
Yes.
11:26
15
Q.
Okay.
16 17 18 19 20
Do you have a contract agreement with the
And when was the last time you signed a
contract with the foundation? A.
July -- I believe it was July of this year,
July 2015. Q.
11:26
11:26 11:26 11:26 11:27
You've been paid by the foundation since 2002;
is that your testimony?
11:27 11:27
21
A.
Either 2002 or 2003.
11:27
22
Q.
Okay.
11:27
23
And so every year that you've worked for
the -- that you've been paid by the foundation --
11:27
24
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:27
25
Q.
-- do you have a new contract, or do you just
11:27
18
1
have one contract that covers a set period of time and
11:27
2
then at some point you renegotiate it?
11:27
3
A.
I do not have an annual contract.
In other
11:27
4
words, I do not have a contract that is renewed annually.
11:27
5
It's been renewed from time to time.
11:27
6
Q.
How many times has your contract been renewed?
11:27
7
A.
Since the original.
11:27
8
Q.
So the first time -- the first contract that
11:27
you signed was in July 2 -- I'm sorry -- 2002 when you
11:27
10
first started being paid by the foundation; is that
11:28
11
correct?
11:28
9
Two?
I believe twice.
12
A.
2003 I believe, yeah.
11:28
13
Q.
Okay.
11:28
14 15 16 17
So 2003.
When was the next time you signed a contract with the foundation? A.
I don't recall.
11:28 11:28
I want to say -- I'll say
2008.
11:28 11:28
18
Q.
So around 2008; is that your estimate?
11:28
19
A.
Sure.
11:28
20
Q.
Okay.
11:28
21
A.
Yes.
11:28
22
Q.
And then the next time was July 2015?
I
11:28
23
believe that was your testimony, but maybe I
11:28
24
misunderstood.
11:28
25
A.
No.
I think . . . .
11:28
19
1
2012, perhaps.
11:28
2
I believe that's right, 2012.
11:28
3
Q.
Do you recall the approximate month?
11:28
4
A.
No.
11:28
5
Q.
Okay.
6
And so since 2012, you have not signed
another contract with the foundation?
11:28 11:28
7
A.
I said 2015 was the last time I signed one.
11:28
8
Q.
Okay.
11:29
9
So now let me make sure I understand
your testimony.
11:29
10
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:29
11
Q.
The contracts that you have signed with the
11:29
12
foundation were four different contracts?
11:29
13
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:29
14
Q.
The first one was 2003?
11:29
15
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:29
16
Q.
The second one was approximately 2008?
11:29
17
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:29
18
Q.
The third one was approximately 2012?
11:29
19
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:29
20
Q.
And then you've signed a fourth one which was
11:29
21
in July of 2015?
22
A.
Hm-hmm.
23
Q.
Okay.
24 25
11:29 Sounds about right. Are you the Director of Government
Affairs for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission? A.
I am.
11:29 11:29 11:29 11:29
20
1
Q.
Is that a full-time job?
11:29
2
A.
Nope, it is not.
11:29
3
Q.
How many hours a week do you work as the
11:29
4
Director of Government Affairs for the Santa Monica Bay
11:29
5
Restoration Commission?
11:29
6
A.
For the commission itself, assigned duties for
11:29
7
the commission itself, it varies from month-to-month,
11:30
8
depending on what is required for the commission.
11:30
9 10 11
Q.
Could you give me an estimate, please, on a
monthly basis?
11:30
Tasks for the commission itself on a monthly
11:30
12
basis would range anywhere from 30 to 70 or 80 hours a
11:30
13
month.
11:30
14
A.
11:30
Q.
What is the address of the location from which
11:30
15
you principal -- principally perform your work for -- as
11:30
16
Director of Government Affairs for the commission?
11:30
17
A.
You would be asking to my home address.
11:30
18
Q.
So what's that address?
11:30
19
A.
2721 Poipu, P-o-i-p-u, Road, and the town is
11:31
20
Koloa, K-o-l-o-a, Hawaii.
11:31
21
Q.
ZIP Code, please?
11:31
22
A.
96756.
11:31
23
Q.
So your residence is in Hawaii?
11:31
24
A.
Yes.
11:31
25
Q.
How long have you -- How long has this been
11:31
21
1
your residence?
11:31
2
A.
Since December of last year, full time.
11:31
3
Q.
How long have you lived in Hawaii?
11:31
4
A.
Since December of last year.
11:31
5
Q.
Before that, where did you live?
11:31
6
A.
In Manhattan Beach.
11:31
7
Q.
How do you like Hawaii?
11:31
8
A.
It's my home --
11:31
9
MR. WEISSMULLER:
10
MS. VENSKUS:
11
Q.
Objection; it's irrelevant.
Good.
Your name is listed on the Meet the Staff page
11:31 11:31 11:31
12
of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission's website;
11:31
13
correct?
11:31
14
A.
I believe so, yes.
11:31
15
Q.
Are you compensated for the work you do in your
11:32
16
position of Director of Government Affairs of the Santa
11:32
17
Monica Bay Restoration Commission?
11:32
18
A.
I don't understand what you're asking.
11:32
19
Q.
Are you compensated for the work that you do in
11:32
20
your capacity as Director of Government Affairs of the
11:32
21
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission?
11:32
22
A.
23
commission?
11:32
24
Q.
Correct.
11:32
25
A.
Yes.
11:32
So am I paid to perform tasks for the
11:32
22
1
Q.
Now let me just say also for the record that
11:32
2
when we refer to "the commission," we're referring to the
11:32
3
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
11:32
4
Fair enough?
11:32
5
A.
Understood, hm-hmm.
11:32
6
Q.
Okay.
11:32
7 8
How did you get the job of Director of
Government Affairs of the commission? A.
9
11:32
Originally two -- Well, no.
11:33
One commission governing board member and
11:33
10
another person who was affiliated -- I'm not sure how --
11:33
11
recommended to the then executive director that -- of the
11:33
12
NEP that they hire me to perform certain functions, and
11:33
13
she did.
11:33
14
Q.
The executive director, who was that?
11:33
15
A.
Her name was Maryanne Yamaguchi.
11:33
16
Q.
And what year was that?
11:33
17
A.
About, I believe, 2003.
11:33
18
Q.
And so then what was the process of your being
11:33
19 20
hired? A.
11:33 She interviewed me and she asked me about my
11:34
21
background and asked me if I can fulfill certain things
11:34
22
for her, and then she hired me.
11:34
23
Q.
So what was the process by which she hired you?
11:34
24
Did she give you a contract to sign?
11:34
25
Did she have you go to some human resources
11:34
23
1
department somewhere and fill out some paperwork?
2 3
A.
11:34
What -- what happened there?
11:34
No.
11:34
4
No.
It was actually rather informal.
She said to
11:34
5
show up for work at one point, and then I started doing
11:34
6
certain tasks.
11:34
7
Q.
So you just showed up for work one day?
11:34
8
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:34
9
Q.
Did you have any sort of agreement with
11:34
10
Ms. Yamaguchi to perform certain duties in writing?
11:34
11
A.
I don't recall.
11:35
12
Q.
Did you have any document that set forth what
11:35
13
your duties were as Director of Government Affairs
11:35
14
Commission?
11:35
15
A.
Initially, no.
Specific --
11:35
16
If you're -- Are you --
11:35
17
Well, can you ask that again?
11:35
Sure.
11:35
Do you want to go ahead and ask the question,
11:35
18
Q.
19 20 21
Madam Reporter, or restate the question, rather? A.
Sure.
11:35
(Question read.)
11:35
22 23
11:35
THE WITNESS:
24
initially?
25
/ / / /
And what time frame then?
Like
11:35 11:36
24
1
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:36
2
Q.
Initially when you were first hired.
11:36
3
A.
No.
11:36
4
Q.
So how did you know what duties to perform?
11:36
5
A.
We talked about it, and she had me do those
11:36
6
things, and I just started doing them.
7
Q.
What were they?
8
A.
Couple of things.
9
11:36 11:36
First, was to research and
11:36
review a joint powers authority agreement which was
11:36
10
something that -- that the -- they wanted to do with the
11:36
11
commission; to respond to Fair Political Practices
11:36
12
Commission inquiries regarding the commission; and then
11:36
13
to help organize governing board meetings for the
11:36
14
commission.
11:36
15
Q.
I think that's all.
Does the foundation draw from a particular
11:37
16
funding source to compensate you for the work that you
11:37
17
perform in your capacity as Director of Government
11:37
18
Affairs for the commission?
11:38
19 20
A.
If I understand your question correctly, I
believe --
21
11:38 11:38
The foundation receives a grant from the U.S.
11:38
22
EPA, and I'm compensated through the grant from the U.S.
11:38
23
EPA to the foundation.
11:38
24 25
Q.
Is that the Section 320 grant that you're
referring to?
11:38 11:38
25
1
A.
Correct.
11:38
2
Q.
And is 100 percent of your work funded by the
11:38
3
Section 320 grant from the United States Environmental
11:38
4
Protection Agency?
11:38
5 6
A.
I don't know.
I assume so, but I -- I don't
know.
11:38 11:38
7
Q.
Who knows?
11:38
8
A.
Tom Ford would know.
11:38
9
Q.
Is there anyone else that would know?
11:38
10
A.
Marcelo Villagomez would know.
11:38
11
Q.
The purpose of the Section 320 grant is to
11:39
12
support commission work; isn't that correct?
11:39
13
A.
That's not entirely correct, no.
11:39
14
Q.
What is correct?
11:39
15
A.
It's to support the foundation and to provide
11:39
16
funding for staff so that the staff of the foundation can
11:39
17
provide services to the commission, to the foundation,
11:39
18
and then also to the joint powers authority.
11:39
19 20
Q.
So the Section 320 grant is for a number of
things, not just to support the commission's work.
11:39 11:39
21
A.
That's correct.
11:39
22
Q.
So specifically what work besides commission
11:39
23
work does the 320 grant support?
11:39
24
A.
I don't know.
11:39
25
Q.
Who would know?
11:39
26
1
A.
Tom Ford, I assume.
11:39
2
Q.
Anyone else?
11:39
3
A.
Perhaps Marcelo Villagomez.
11:39
4
Q.
Have you ever looked at a 320 grant
11:40
5
application?
6
A.
I may have.
7
Q.
Are you familiar with the 320 program?
11:40
8
A.
What do you mean by that?
11:40
9
Q.
Are you familiar with Section 320 of the Clean
11:40
10
11:40 I don't recall, though.
Water Act?
11:40
11:40
11
A.
Yeah.
12
Q.
Are you familiar with the grant program?
11:40
13
A.
You mean in terms of how it operates?
11:40
14
Q.
Correct.
11:40
15
A.
No.
11:40
16
Q.
Do you know when the foundation was first
11:41
17
established?
11:41
18
A.
11:41
19
MR. WEISSMULLER:
20
THE WITNESS:
21
I've reviewed it, yes.
I believe it was 1988.
It -- I am.
MR. WEISSMULLER:
23
THE WITNESS:
25
I don't know -- I don't
know the exact date, but I believe that's the date.
22
24
Are you guessing or is that --
Okay.
My best recollection.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
Were you one of the legislative analysts for
11:40
11:41 11:41 11:41 11:41 11:41 11:41 11:41
27
1
the legislation establishing the Santa Monica Bay
11:41
2
Restoration Commission?
11:41
3
A.
I was.
11:41
4
Q.
And tell me about your role as analyst in
11:41
5 6
analyzing that particular legislation. MR. WEISSMULLER:
11:42
Be careful to segregate any
11:42
7
information you may have received from counsel for the
11:42
8
legislature while you were in --
11:42
9
THE WITNESS:
Understand.
10
MR. WEISSMULLER:
11
MS. VENSKUS:
12
MR. WEISSMULLER:
13
MS. VENSKUS:
14 15 16
11:42
You understand?
Excuse me. Yes.
Okay.
Was that an objection? Sorry.
It was.
Can you state your objection on the
record, please?
11:42 11:42 11:42 11:42 11:42
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Yeah.
It potentially calls for
attorney-client-privileged information.
11:42 11:42
17
MS. VENSKUS:
Okay.
11:42
18
THE WITNESS:
Probably the best way would be to
11:42
19
explain how the process works.
11:42
20
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:42
21
Q.
Great.
11:42
22
A.
As a committee consultant, you are assigned --
11:42
Well, the committee is assigned based on
11:42
23 24
jurisdiction, any number of bills, and in this case, the
11:42
25
particular bill that created the Santa Monica Bay
11:42
28
1
Restoration Commission was assigned to our committee.
11:42
2
At the time, I was senior consultant, and I
11:42
3
believe the committee consultant assigned the bill to me,
11:42
4
which is what the chief consultant would do, and then you
11:43
5
analyze and basically break it down for the legislators
11:43
6
to consider it in committee.
11:43
7
Q.
Do you write anything?
11:43
8
A.
Didn't write what they call an analysis, which
11:43
9
is basically --
10
11:43
It's a summary.
If there's any issues or any
11:43
11
problems with a particular piece of legislation, you note
11:43
12
that.
11:43
13
Q.
What do you understand about the legislation?
11:43
14
A.
What do you mean what do I understand?
11:43
15
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Objection.
It calls for a
11:43
16
narrative.
11:43
17
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:43
18
Q.
What do you understand about that legislation?
11:43
19
A.
The legislation, as I understand it, created
11:43
20
the entity known as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
11:43
21
Commission.
11:43
22
Q.
11:43
23
established?
11:43
24
A.
11:43
25
What was the purpose of that commission being
It was -- Exactly, I don't recall what the
legislation said, but essentially to restore the Santa
11:44
29
1
Monica Bay through various acts, which I don't recall
11:44
2
exactly what those, in the legislation.
11:44
3
Q.
Do you recall whether or not the legislation
11:44
4
states that the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project is
11:44
5
being renamed to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
11:44
6
Commission?
11:44
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
And the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation
9 10
I understand that.
11:44 11:44
was created by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
11:44
[sic]; isn't that right?
11:44
11
A.
I don't think so.
11:44
12
Q.
What is your understanding of who created the
11:44
13
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation, if you know?
11:44
14
A.
I don't know.
11:44
15
Q.
You said that you believed that the foundation
11:45
16
was established in 1988.
17 18 19
A.
What is the basis of that belief?
11:45
An old document or old -- old documents that I
11:45
had seen in the past.
20
11:45
I don't know if it's --
Well, I'm trying to decide if it's in the work
21
plan or not.
22
Q.
I'm not sure.
I don't recall.
But you don't know of any particular documents
11:45 11:45 11:45 11:45
23
that you can think of at the moment where you've seen
11:45
24
that actual year with respect to the foundation being
11:45
25
established?
11:45
30
1
A.
Right.
No.
It would be -- My best guess would
11:45
2
be the work plan or the Bay Restoration Plan in some
11:45
3
narrative form.
11:45
4
Q.
5
commission?
11:46
6
A.
No.
11:46
7
Q.
Have you ever served as legal counsel to the
11:46
8
foundation?
11:46
9
A.
No.
11:46
10
Q.
Besides your role as legislative analyst for
11:46
11
Have you ever served as legal counsel to the
the State Legislature.
12
A.
Right.
13
Q.
Okay.
California State Assembly. Do you have any other experience with
11:46
11:46 11:46 11:46
14
government prior to your experience as legislative
11:46
15
analyst?
11:46
16
A.
No.
11:46
17
Q.
What did you do before you were -- became a
11:46
18
legislative analyst for the State Legislature?
11:46
19
A.
I taught at San Jose University.
11:46
20
Q.
What did you teach?
11:46
21
A.
Environmental law to undergrads and a couple of
11:46
22 23
graduate courses in writing. Q.
Are you authorized by the Santa Monica Bay
11:46 11:47
24
Restoration Commission to respond to requests made to the
11:47
25
commission pursuant to the California Public Records Act?
11:47
31
1
A.
I was assigned to do that, yes.
11:47
2
Q.
Who assigned you?
11:47
3
A.
Initially, it was former executive director
11:47
4
Shelley Luce.
5 6
Q.
Is that one of your duties as Director of
Government Affairs for the commission?
7 8
11:47
A.
It's one of the things I'm assigned to do for
the commission, yes.
9
MS. VENSKUS:
10
This will be Exhibit A.
(Exhibit A marked for identification
11
and attached hereto.)
11:47 11:47 11:47 11:47 11:48 11:48 11:48
12
MS. VENSKUS:
Please take a look at that document.
11:48
13
THE WITNESS:
(The witness complies.)
11:48
14
Okay.
11:48
15
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:48
16
Q.
So this appears to be an e-mail message dated
11:48
17
February 6, 2012 from you to Mary Small and Elena Eger of
11:48
18
the State Coastal Conservancy.
11:49
19
Do you recognize this e-mail?
11:49
20
A.
It looks familiar.
11:49
21
Q.
Okay.
11:49
Do you have any reason to believe that
22
an e-mail that says from Scott Valor or cc'd to Scott
11:49
23
Valor wouldn't in fact have been from you or e-mailed to
11:49
24
you?
11:49
25
A.
In this case, no.
11:49
32
1
So in this e-mail, after reading it, can
11:49
2
you certify that all of these statements in this document
11:49
3
are true?
11:49
4 5
Q.
A.
Okay.
When you say "statements," what I'm writing to
Mary and Elena right here?
11:49 11:49
6
Q.
Correct.
11:49
7
A.
I believe so that, yes.
11:49
8
Q.
Do you have any written agreement at this time
11:50
authorizing you to act as Director of Government Affairs
11:50
for the commission?
11:50
9 10 11
A.
Written agreement with whom?
11:50
12
Q.
With anyone.
11:50
13
A.
Other than the contract that we discussed
11:50
14
earlier?
11:50
15
Q.
Correct.
11:50
16
A.
No.
11:50
17
Q.
Okay.
When you receive a Public Records Act
11:50
18
request, do you ever respond to it on your own without
11:50
19
checking with legal counsel, or do you always check with
11:50
20
legal counsel first before responding to Public Records
11:50
21
Act requests?
11:50
22 23 24 25
A.
Always check with legal counsel unless it's
something obvious. Q. obvious?
11:50 11:50
And what would something obvious be versus not
11:50
Can you give me an example?
11:50
33
1
Sure.
11:51
2
An obvious thing would be a document that is
11:51
3
part of our public record or on our website, such as a
11:51
4
work plan for the Bay Restoration Plan.
11:51
5
asking for that document, then that's easy to -- to find
11:51
6
or to access.
11:51
7
A.
Q.
8 9 10
So if someone is
And something that --
11:51
Could you give me an example of something that
11:51
would not be obvious? A.
11
11:51
No, not specifically.
11:51
If I don't understand the request or if it's
11:51
12
very broad, then I would definitely talk to legal counsel
11:51
13
about it.
11:51
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Q.
these PRA request responses? A.
11:51 11:51
Frances McChesney -- same name -- State Water
11:51
Board legal counsel, who is assigned to the commission.
11:51
Q.
So Frances McChesney's a person that you would
consult with. A.
21 22
And what legal counsel do you talk to about
11:51 11:52
Correct.
11:52
You mean regarding these responses
11:52
to requests --
11:52
23
Q.
Correct.
11:52
24
A.
Correct.
11:52
25
Q.
What percent of Public Records Act requests --
11:52
34
1
Well, strike that.
11:52
2
On a yearly basis, can you give me an estimate
11:52
3
of how many Public Records Act requests that the
11:52
4
commission receives?
11:52
5
A.
Actual individual requests?
11:52
6
Q.
Correct.
11:52
7
A.
I can't.
11:52
8
Q.
I see.
9
A.
No.
11:52
10
Q.
Could you give me your best estimate, please?
11:52
11 12
And you could give me a range. A.
13 14 15
More than a hundred?
11:52
Sure.
11:52
Over the years, since we started getting them,
11:52
10 to 30 individual requests. Q.
11:52
And approximately -- your best estimate -- what
11:53 11:53
16
percent of those requests would you estimate that you
11:53
17
respond to without first seeking the advice or guidance
11:53
18
from Frances McChesney?
11:53
19
A.
I don't know.
20
Q.
Would 20 percent sound correct?
11:53
21
A.
No, that's high.
11:53
22
Q.
10 percent, approximately?
11:53
23
A.
More like 5 percent.
11:53
24
MS. VENSKUS:
25
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Very small amount.
This will be Exhibit B. Are these our copies?
11:53
11:54 11:54
35
1
MS. VENSKUS:
2 3
Yes.
11:54
(Exhibit B marked for identification and attached hereto.)
11:54 11:54
4
THE WITNESS:
Is this a string of --
11:55
5
MS. VENSKUS:
Correct.
11:55
6
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
7 8 9 10 11
This is a string.
So this follows . . . . okay.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
11:55
Have you had a chance to review this e-mail, or
do you want a little bit more time? A.
A little more time.
This is the first I've
seen it; give me more time.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
Okay.
14
Q.
So does this e-mail communication -- let's call
15
11:55
11:56 11:56 11:56 11:56 11:56
Yep.
I'm familiar with this.
it an e-mail thread --
11:57 11:57 11:57
16
A.
Sure.
11:57
17
Q.
-- does this look familiar?
11:57
18
A.
Oh, yeah.
11:57
19
Q.
Okay.
11:57
And so in this e-mail thread, you make
20
the argument to Mr. Lamb that even though the 2013 e-mail
11:57
21
from you to the City of Hermosa Beach has you as the
11:57
22
commission Director of Government Affairs --
11:57
23
A.
Hm-hmm.
11:57
24
Q.
-- that that was an error; that really you were
11:57
25
sending that e-mail on behalf of the foundation and,
11:57
36
1
therefore, that e-mail is not subject to the Public
11:57
2
Records Act.
11:57
3 4
A.
Is that a fair representation of your argument?
11:57
No.
11:58
This -- What I was stating is that by
5
putting the signature line, Santa Monica Bay Restoration
11:58
6
Commission, it didn't necessarily mean that I was
11:58
7
representing the commission, specifically, simply because
11:58
8
we use that term commission to -- in the past to
11:58
9
represent the entire National Estuary Program as a sort
11:58
10
of shorthand, so whether it was there or not is not
11:58
11
relevant to the actual task which was being performed on
11:58
12
behalf of the foundation.
11:58
13
Q.
Does the City of Hermosa Beach understand that
11:58
14
when you're referring to the -- yourself as a commission
11:58
15
Director of Government Affairs, that you're actually not
11:58
16
referring to your -- you're actually not referring to
11:58
17
yourself as commission Director of Government Affairs
11:58
18
with respect to particular communication?
11:58
19
MR. WEISSMULLER:
20
THE WITNESS:
21
City of Hermosa Beach.
11:58
22
BY MS. VENSKUS:
11:58
23
Q.
Objection; calls for speculation.
I don't know what's in the mind at the
Well, what would you think if you had received
11:58 11:58
11:58
24
something from the City of Hermosa Beach where they wrote
11:59
25
under their name that they're an official of the City of
11:59
37
1
Hermosa Beach?
2
their official capacity of an official with the City of
11:59
3
Hermosa Beach?
11:59
Would you assume that they're writing as
4
MR. WEISSMULLER:
5
it calls for speculation.
6
THE WITNESS:
7
MR. WEISSMULLER:
8
THE WITNESS:
9 10
sure.
Objection.
It's irrelevant, and
11:59
Yes.
11:59 It depends on the context,
But -- It depends on the context, sure.
It would
seem like that.
11
MS. VENSKUS:
12
Q.
11:59 11:59
Should I answer?
I suppose.
11:59
11:59 11:59 11:59
Okay.
11:59
So it's your testimony that you were not
11:59
13
actually writing in your capacity as a Director of
11:59
14
Government Affairs of the commission; is that your
11:59
15
testimony?
11:59
16
A.
That's correct.
11:59
17
Q.
And it's your testimony that you were writing
12:00
18
as -- I'm sorry.
19 20 21 22 23
A.
In what capacity were you writing this e-mail?
12:00
As government affairs director for the Santa --
12:00
the foundation. Q.
12:00
Have you ever written e-mails as the Director
of Government Affairs of the foundation?
12:00 12:00 12:00
24
A.
Ever?
12:00
25
Q.
Have you ever --
12:00
38
1 2
Let me strike that question.
It wasn't a good
question.
3
12:00 12:00
Have you ever put in your e-mail signature
12:00
4
line, Director of Government Affairs, Santa Monica Bay
12:00
5
Restoration Foundation, in any e-mail that you've sent?
12:00
6
A.
Yeah.
I think I have.
Yeah.
I have.
Because
12:00
7
you just forget your signature line, and if you can
12:00
8
remember, you put that or put nothing.
12:00
9
Q.
So I think so.
So do you use one e-mail address for all of
12:00
10
your e-mail communication from the commission and the
12:00
11
foundation, in your capacity --
12:01
12
A.
Yes.
12:01
13
Q.
-- as government affairs director of the
12:01
14
commission and foundation?
15
12:01
It's one e-mail address?
12:01
16
A.
Correct.
12:01
17
Q.
Okay.
And so when you create an e-mail, you
12:01
18
know when we hit that little button that says "new" or
12:01
19
"create e-mail," does your signatures line automatically
12:01
20
populate?
12:01
21
A.
Yes.
12:01
22
Q.
And what does it automatically populate with?
12:01
23
A.
Right now?
12:01
24
Q.
Let's say prior to January 1st, 2015.
12:01
25
A.
Oh, prior to that date, I don't know.
I think
12:01
39
1
right now it says Director of Government Affairs, period.
12:01
2
When that started, I don't recall.
12:01
3
Q.
What did it -- Was there ever a time that it
12:01
4
would automatically populate with Santa Monica Bay
12:01
5
Restoration Commission?
12:01
6
A.
Yes.
12:01
7
Q.
And so if you were sending an e-mail in your
12:01
8
capacity as Director of Government Affairs of the
12:02
9
foundation, would you go in and actually change the
12:02
signature line?
12:02
10 11 12
A.
I think I've done that once or twice, but
generally no.
12:02 12:02
13
Q.
And why not?
12:02
14
A.
Because when we would refer to the commission,
12:02
15
we would -- I would have said general shorthand for the
12:02
16
entire process, so at the time, it didn't really seem to
12:02
17
matter what the signature line said, because the context
12:02
18
would be obvious what you're doing.
12:02
19
Q.
How would the context be obvious?
12:02
20
A.
Well, just depended on what kind of task you're
12:02
21
performing.
12:02
22
Q.
12:02
So it's obvious to someone that when you're
23
referring to yourself as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
12:02
24
Commission, that you're actually not referring to
12:02
25
yourself as the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
12:02
40
1 2 3 4
official. A.
12:02 What do you mean by "someone"?
what someone else is thinking. Q.
I don't know
It's obvious to me.
It's obvious to you that when you are referring
12:02 12:02 12:02
5
to yourself as a commission official, that you're
12:03
6
actually not acting as a commission official.
12:03
7
A.
You have to restate that question.
12:03
8
Q.
Okay.
12:03
9
It's obvious to you --
If I understand your testimony --
12:03
10
A.
Yes.
12:03
11
Q.
-- I'm understanding your testimony to be that
12:03
12
even though you're representing yourself as the Santa
12:03
13
Monica Bay Restoration Commission official, meaning
12:03
14
Director of Government Affairs, that it should be obvious
12:03
15
that you don't actually mean that you're acting in your
12:03
16
capacity as a Director of Government Affairs of the Santa
12:03
17
Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
12:03
18
Is that your testimony?
12:03 12:03
19
A.
No, it's not.
20
Q.
Okay.
12:03
21
A.
What I said was it -- the capacity depends on
12:03
That's not what I said.
22
the context, and it would depend on the context of the
12:03
23
task or the context of the e-mail and to who it's sent,
12:03
24
regardless of what it says on the signature line.
12:03
25
Q.
So what makes it obvious with respect to this
12:04
41
1
particular e-mail --
2 3
And let's take a look at that one.
12:04 This is
page 2, Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013.
12:04 12:04
4
A.
Hm-hmm.
12:04
5
Q.
"Hi Frank and Liz."
12:04
6
A.
Right.
12:04
7
Q.
The substance of this e-mail, what makes it
12:04
8
obvious that this is being sent, not in your capacity as
12:04
9
Director of Government Affairs of the Santa Monica Bay
12:04
Restoration Commission?
12:04
10 11
A.
It has to do with the fact that I met with
12:04
12
Frank Sinteno at length as well as Hermosa Beach City
12:04
13
Attorney, at length, as represented by the foundation,
12:04
14
and discussed with them these issues.
12:04
15
So in that sense, a follow-up e-mail,
12:04
16
regardless of that signature line, is based on those
12:04
17
representations and those meetings.
12:04
18
Q.
19
says --
20
A.
Hm-hmm.
12:05
21
Q.
-- the statement is, it's being sent by Scott
12:05
Okay.
So even though this e-mail says -- it
12:04 12:05
22
Valor, the Director of Government Affairs of the Santa
12:05
23
Monica Bay Restoration Commission, you've determined that
12:05
24
it's not -- you determined that it was not actually sent
12:05
25
on behalf of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
12:05
42
1
Is that your testimony?
12:05
2
A.
That's correct.
12:05
3
Q.
Okay.
12:05
And you made that determination based on
4
your recollection of what transpired at that meeting; is
12:05
5
that correct?
12:05
6 7 8 9 10
A.
I don't understand.
What do you mean by
"recollection"? Q.
12:05 12:05
Well, I recall in your testimony that you just
12:05
gave that you were referring to this meeting that you had
12:05
with Liz and/or Frank --
12:05
11
A.
Right.
12:05
12
Q.
-- right? -- and that it had to do with
12:05
13
foundation money and so, therefore, based on that, it
12:05
14
should be, I guess, obvious to somebody -- I guess you --
12:05
15
that it's not -- it wasn't being sent, even though it
12:06
16
says it was being sent by you on behalf of the
12:06
17
commission, it actually wasn't; it was the foundation.
12:06
18
A.
Correct.
12:06
19
Q.
Okay.
12:06
20
Just want to make sure I understand your
testimony; that's all.
12:06
21
So I guess this gets to -- back to how you
12:06
22
determine a document is responsive to a request made
12:06
23
under the Public Records Act directed to the commission.
12:06
24
What is your process for determining?
12:06
25
Is it based on the signature line?
12:06
43
1
Is it based on what's actually in the e-mail?
12:06
2
Is it based on your recollection of what
12:06
3
transpired that instigated the e-mail?
12:06
4
Explain to me your thinking process when you
12:07
5
were going through the determination process of what's
12:07
6
responsive to a Public Records Act request.
12:07
7
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Okay.
Objection.
The question
12:07
8
calls for attorney-client-privileged information; it is
12:07
9
compound; and it asks for a narrative.
12:07
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:07
10 11
Q.
12
MR. WEISSMULLER:
13 14 15
What was your --
Are you withdrawing it? MS. VENSKUS:
I'll withdraw it, even though I think
your objection's without any basis --
16
MR. WEISSMULLER:
17
MS. VENSKUS:
18
MR. WEISSMULLER:
19 20
So what was your --
Of course you do.
-- but just to simplify it -Of course you do.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
12:07 12:07 12:07 12:07 12:07 12:07 12:07 12:07 12:07
+What was your thinking with respect to this
12:07
21
particular e-mail, as far as whether it was responsive to
12:07
22
a Public Records Act request requesting documents to the
12:07
23
commission?
12:07
24 25
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Okay.
Same objection as to the fact that it
12:07 12:07
44
1
potentially asks for attorney-client-privileged
12:07
2
information.
12:07
3
THE WITNESS:
4
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Do you want me to respond? Not if it -- if your -- the basis
12:08 12:08
5
for making a determination on this particular document
12:08
6
was the result of conversations you had with legal
12:08
7
counsel.
12:08
8
THE WITNESS:
9
MR. WEISSMULLER:
10
MS. VENSKUS:
11
Q.
Which is the case. Okay.
Okay.
So this was a document that you actually went
12:08 12:08 12:08 12:08
12
to legal counsel and asked for the opinion of legal
12:08
13
counsel; correct?
12:08
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
12:08 Now, you mentioned that currently you
12:08
don't have a signature or -- I'm sorry -- strike that.
12:08
17
Your signature line simply states what your
12:08
18
position is and not -- or, let's say, your title and not
12:08
19
necessarily the entity in which you are performing the
12:09
20
task of writing the e-mail and sending it; is that
12:09
21
correct?
12:09
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Okay.
12:09 And so how would one know what entity
12:09
24
you are acting on behalf of when they receive the e-mail
12:09
25
if they don't have an actual identification of the entity
12:09
45
1 2 3 4
in which you're performing duties? A.
12:09
It would be based on the context of the
interaction with that individual or entity. Q.
Okay.
12:09 12:09
And has anyone ever asked you before
12:09
5
what entity you are representing when you -- you know --
12:09
6
in that e-mail that has no identification of the entity?
12:09
7
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Objection to the extent it asks
12:09
8
for information that is protected by the attorney-client
12:09
9
privilege.
12:09
10 11
THE WITNESS:
I don't recall.
12:10
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:10
12
Q.
How long has your signature line been that way?
12:10
13
A.
This is 2015?
12:10
14
Two years?
One year?
In terms
of just the generic Director of Government --
15
Q.
Right.
16
A.
-- Affairs?
17
Q.
So at this time, you aren't making any
12:10 12:10
One year, two years, roughly?
12:10 12:10
18
distinction between your role as government affairs
12:10
19
director of the foundation and government affairs
12:11
20
director of the commission in your e-mail; right?
12:11
21 22
A.
Distinction in the e-mail signature, no.
They're the same -- It's the same signature.
12:11 12:11
23
Q.
What about in letters that you write?
12:11
24
A.
Sure.
12:11
25
Depends on the context.
When you say "letters," you mean the e-mails?
12:11
46
1
Q.
No.
I'm referring to actual letters that you
12:11
2
print out and you put in the mail, or a PDF that you
12:11
3
create and send the letter.
12:11
4
A.
Oh, hm-hmm.
12:11
5
Q.
So it's the same --
12:11
6
A.
No.
You differentiate it.
If it's a
7
foundation issue, it would be foundation letterhead.
8
it's commission, it would be commission letterhead.
9 10
Q.
12:11 If
And why do you differentiate in letters but not
e-mails?
12:11 12:11 12:11 12:11
11
A.
I don't know.
12:11
12
Q.
Did someone tell you to differentiate in
12:11
13
letters and not e-mails?
12:12
14
A.
I don't know.
12:12
15
Q.
You don't know if someone told you.
12:12
16
A.
No.
12:12
17
Q.
Did you just come up with this idea on your
12:12
18
own?
12:12
19
A.
I don't know.
12:12
20
Q.
Well, you must know if you came up with the
12:12
21 22
idea on your own or if someone told you, so which is it? MR. WEISSMULLER:
Objection.
It's argumentative and
12:12 12:12
23
it assumes facts not in evidence.
12:12
24
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:12
25
Q.
Did someone tell you or did you come up with it
12:12
47
1
on your own?
12:12
2
A.
I don't recall.
12:12
3
Q.
You don't recall if someone told you or you
12:12
4
came up -- up with it on your own?
5
A.
Right.
6
Q.
Okay.
7
12:12 12:12
And you're -- I hope that you recall
12:12
that you're testifying under penalty of perjury --
12:12
8
A.
Hm-hmm.
12:12
9
Q.
-- and we've deposed a number of people in this
12:12
10
case, so I just want to make sure that you understand --
12:12
11
that you understand and remember those two facts; okay?
12:12
12
MR. WEISSMULLER:
13
THE WITNESS:
Hm-hmm.
12:12
14
MS. VENSKUS:
That's just a friendly reminder.
12:12
15
18 19
12:12
This is Exhibit C.
16 17
There's no question pending.
12:13
(Exhibit C marked for identification
12:14
and then withdrawn.) THE WITNESS:
12:14
I'm good.
12:15
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:15
20
Q.
Does this document look familiar to you?
12:15
21
A.
No.
12:15
22
MS. VENSKUS:
23
We just marked it for an exhibit.
I'm
not going to include it in the deposition; okay?
24
MR. WEISSMULLER:
25
MS. VENSKUS:
So Exhibit C is not Exhibit C?
Yeah, exactly, right.
We're going to
12:16 12:16 12:16 12:16
48
1
call this Exhibit C.
2
(Off the record.)
3 4
MS. VENSKUS:
Okay.
12:16
Exhibit C.
I'm going to take
this back; okay? MR. WEISSMULLER:
6
MS. VENSKUS:
7
So we have a new Exhibit C?
Correct.
And I will identify it.
(Exhibit C marked for identification
8
12:16 12:16
5
9
12:16
and attached hereto.)
12:16 12:16 12:16 12:16
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:17
10
Q.
You've had a chance to review this document?
12:17
11
A.
Yes.
12:17
12
Q.
It's November 18, 2014 e-mail between you and
12:17
13
Mr. Lamb; Mr. Lamb being the president of the Ballona
12:17
14
Wetlands Land Trust.
12:17
15 16
And does this e-mail exchange look familiar to you?
12:17 12:18
17
A.
18
but . . . .
12:18
19
Q.
12:18
20
Yeah.
Reasonably.
Not specifically,
Do you have any reason to believe that this
would not be an exchange between you and Mr. Lamb?
12:18
12:18
21
A.
No.
12:18
22
Q.
And it appears that you attached just one
12:18
23
document as responsive to this Public Records Act request
12:18
24
that Mr. Lamb sent to you November 18, 2014; correct?
12:18
25
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Objection; the document speaks for
12:18
49
1
itself.
2
plural.
And the way I read it, the "document" is in
12:18
3
THE WITNESS:
4
MR. WEISSMULLER:
5
THE WITNESS:
6
12:18
Am I responding? Yes.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So, I'm sorry.
12:18 12:18 12:18
You asked is there just one
12:18
7
attachment?
12:18
8
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:18
9
Q.
Correct.
12:18
10
A.
And that would be the PDF down (indicating)
12:18
11
here --
12
Q.
Correct.
13
A.
-- yes.
14
Q.
And how did you determine that this was the
12:19 12:19 Yes.
12:19 12:19
15
only document responsive to Mr. Lamb's Public Records Act
12:19
16
request?
12:19
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
MS. VENSKUS:
19 20
Objection to the --
Without giving me any information
about any conversations you had with an attorney. THE WITNESS:
Sure.
12:19 12:19 12:19 12:19
21
I would have asked staff who have access to the
12:19
22
State Water Board or, I should say, the commission server
12:19
23
if documents are available, or if it's something that's
12:19
24
on the commission website, and I believe this
12:19
25
presentation was on the website, and then that would be
12:19
50
1
given to me, and then I would forward it in response.
12:20
2
BY MS. VENSKUS:
12:20
3
Q.
So if a document is on the commission website
12:20
4
or the server downtown at 320 West Fourth Street, and it
12:20
5
would be assuming it was within the confines of the
12:20
6
subject matter of the request, it would be determined to
12:20
7
be a commission document responsive to that request.
12:20
8
A.
Correct.
12:20
9
Q.
Okay.
12:20
Do you have any role in preparing or
10
overseeing the preparation of meeting minutes for
12:22
11
approval by the governing board of the commission?
12:22
12
A.
Yes, I do.
12:22
13
Q.
What is -- Explain your role.
12:22
14
A.
My role is to review it for format and
12:22
15
grammatical errors, if any, and to match up my list of
12:22
16
governing board attendees with that which is reflected on
12:22
17
the minutes themselves --
12:22
18
Q.
Do you --
12:22
19
A.
-- of the written minutes themselves.
12:22
20
Q.
Do you attend these governing board meetings?
12:22
21
A.
Yes, I do.
12:22
22
Q.
So are you responsible for drafting the
12:22
23
minutes?
12:22
24
A.
No, I'm not.
12:22
25
Q.
Are you responsible for ensuring that the
12:22
51
1
minutes accurately reflect what actually happened at the
12:22
2
governing board meeting of the commission?
12:23
3
A.
As far as I can recollect, yes --
12:23
4
Q.
But you are --
12:23
5
A.
-- at the time.
12:23
6
Q.
But you are responsible for ensuring that they
12:23
7
are accurate; correct?
12:23
8
A.
As accurate as I can, yes.
12:23
9
Q.
Who's responsible for drafting the first draft
12:23
10
of the meeting minutes?
12:23
11
A.
Various staff.
12:23
12
Q.
Who?
12:23
13
A.
Let me see.
12:23
14
Marcelo Villagomez; Carrie Baldwin has done it;
12:23
15
and Victoria Gambale, G-A-M-B-A-L-E, has drafted minutes.
12:23
16
Q.
I'm sorry.
17
A.
Baldwin.
12:24
I don't know if she's with The Bay Foundation
12:24
I just recall her doing a particular set.
12:24
18
Carrie who?
19
anymore.
20
Because they're recorded.
12:24
12:24
21
Q.
Oh, on tape?
12:24
22
A.
Yes.
12:24
23
Q.
Okay.
12:24
24
A.
-- so it's a tape that runs however long the
12:24
25
And --
commission meeting runs, and then it's transcribed or
12:24
52
1 2
summarized, I should say.
12:24
How long did -- Are those --
12:24
3
Are they cassette tapes?
12:24
4
Are they recorded digitally now?
12:24
Again, it's a -- I don't know.
12:24
5 6
Q.
Not transcribed.
A.
I think it's digital.
Or how are they --
It's a machine.
I don't know.
12:24
7
Q.
How long are they kept for; do you know?
12:24
8
A.
No.
12:24
9
Q.
Okay.
So these are foundation staff members
12:24
10
that draft these meeting minutes for the governing board
12:24
11
of the commission; right?
12:24
12
A.
Right.
Foundation staff member's assigned to
12:24
13
perform these tasks for the commission governing board
12:24
14
meeting specifically, yes.
12:25
15
Q.
16
Okay.
Let's go to Exhibit B again.
12:25
Can you take a look at it, please?
12:27 12:27
17
A.
Sure.
Okay.
18
Q.
Okay.
So it appears as though the subject
Sure.
12:27
19
matter -- the underlying subject matter of this
12:27
20
back-and-forth communication --
12:27
21
A.
Hm-hmm.
12:27
22
Q.
-- had to do with a community fundraising
12:27
23
initiative.
24 25
Are you familiar with that terminology in this -- the context of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
12:28 12:28 12:28
53
1
Commission?
12:28
2
A.
Yes.
12:28
3
Q.
Okay.
4
And it looks like you say that in the
last paragraph --
12:28 12:28
5
A.
Which page?
6
Q.
I'm sorry.
7
A.
Okay.
12:28
8
Q.
The commission itself did not --
12:28
Let's look at the --
12:28
9
12:28 This is the first page.
12:28
10
A.
I see it.
12:28
11
Q.
Yeah.
12:28
12
Okay.
The commission itself did not engage in
13
a community fundraising initiative.
14
The Bay Foundation --
15
Rather,
12:28 12:28 12:28
And you're referring to the foundation?
12:28
16
A.
Correct.
12:28
17
Q.
(continuing:)
12:28
18
-- engaged in the fundraising efforts.
12:28
19
The foundation is not subject to the Public
12:28
20
Records Act, so those documents are
12:28
21
available.
12:28
22 23
Do you still believe all those statements to -do you believe your statements to be true?
12:28 12:28
24
A.
Yes.
12:29
25
Q.
And then subsequent to this e-mail, do you
12:29
54
1
recall Mr. Lamb providing you with a document that
12:29
2
demonstrates that the commission was in fact in
12:29
3
possession of documents that were responsive to his
12:29
4
request for documents regarding the community fundraising
12:29
5
initiative?
12:29
6
A.
No.
7
Q.
Okay.
8
A.
He -- Walter Lamb provided me, subsequent to
9 10 11
That's not what happened. So what did happen?
12:29 12:29 12:29
this response by me, with a document that was on
12:29
commission letterhead that was signed by Shelley Luce.
12:29
Q.
Okay.
And it's -- and you're saying that the
12:29
12
commission letter was not commission -- it was not
12:29
13
responsive to the -- the Public Records Act request
12:29
14
directed to the commission?
12:30
15 16
A.
No.
That's not what I said right now.
12:30
What that did was refreshed my recollection
12:30
17
that that letter -- and I believe there were 12 of them,
12:30
18
approximately, total -- existed, because at the time that
12:30
19
this community fundraising initiative was taking place by
12:30
20
the foundation, the only two people who were doing it
12:30
21
were myself and Shelley.
12:30
22
And at this time, Shelley wasn't -- I don't
12:30
23
recall if she wasn't around or wasn't available, but I
12:30
24
had forgotten that document existed.
12:30
25
reminded me, then I could then search for a document.
So once it was
12:30
55
1
Q.
Where did you search for it?
12:30
2
A.
It was actual -- It was on the foundation
12:30
3
server.
4
Q.
12:30 So after that, did you start looking for other
12:30
5
commission documents that might be on the foundation
12:30
6
server that would be potentially responsive to Public
12:30
7
Records Act request directed towards the commission?
12:31
8
A.
No.
12:31
9
Q.
Why not?
12:31
10
A.
Because that's the foundation's server.
12:31
11
Q.
Do you have access to it?
12:31
12
A.
I do.
12:31
13
Q.
And do you have access to the server at 320
12:31
14
West Fourth Street?
12:31
15
A.
I don't.
12:31
16
Q.
So how do you access documents at 320 West
12:31
17 18
Fourth Street? A.
12:31
I have to ask staff, State Water Board staff,
12:31
19
or foundation staff who are assigned to the commission
12:31
20
who would have access, or through legal counsel.
12:31
21 22
Q.
But you're a foundation staff that is assigned
to commission tasks; right?
12:31 12:31
23
A.
Correct.
12:31
24
Q.
Okay.
12:31
25
But you don't have access to the 320
West Fourth Street server?
12:31
56
1
A.
Correct.
12:31
2
Q.
So where do you keep all your documents that
12:31
3
you create -- let's say, records, actually -- documents,
12:31
4
e-mails, whatever --
12:31
5
A.
Hm-hmm.
12:31
6
Q.
-- where do you keep those?
12:31
7
A.
I give those to Marcelo, and we also post them
12:32
8 9 10
on the website. Q.
12:32
So when you say you give them to Marcelo, what
do you do?
E-mail them to him or --
12:32 12:32
11
A.
Yes.
12:32
12
Q.
And with direction to post it or to save it on
12:32
13
the server at 320 West Fourth Street?
12:32
14
A.
Hm-hmm.
12:32
15
Q.
Where are your e-mails saved?
12:32
16
A.
What do you mean?
12:32
17
Q.
Well --
12:32
18
A.
They're just --
12:32
19
Q.
I'm sorry.
12:32
20
question --
12:32
21
A.
Right.
12:32
22
Q.
-- unfortunately.
That's a little bit of a cryptic
We got to lay a foundation.
12:32
23
What is -- What -- Where --
12:32
24
What computer do you use to perform foundation
12:33
25
work?
12:33
57
1
A.
It varies, depends on where I'm at.
12:33
2
Q.
Okay.
12:33
3 4
computers that you use, please? A.
12:33
Sure.
12:33
They're -- At my home there are two that I
12:33
5 6
So could you tell me the different
might use.
7
12:33 And if I'm here, if I have a flash drive, I'm
12:33
8
doing work, I could use computer in this office if I
12:33
9
wanted to.
12:33
10
If I'm visiting my folks, computer there.
12:33
11
If I'm at The Bay Foundation offices, perhaps a
12:33
12
computer there.
12:33
13
It just -- Depends on where I'm at.
14
majority of the work though is on my computer at home.
15
Q.
16 17
The
12:33 12:33
But you have access to the --
12:33
Well, what servers do you have access to from
12:33
home?
12:33
18
A.
The foundation server.
12:33
19
Q.
Is there any reason why you don't have access
12:33
20
to the 320 West Fourth Street server?
12:34
21
A.
Never needed it, so I've never asked for it.
12:34
22
Q.
Why have you never needed access to the 320
12:34
23 24 25
West Fourth Street server? A.
I don't know.
I just -- There's no reason for
me to access a particular document, particularly since --
12:34 12:34 12:34
58
1
since 2012 or so.
2
commission-related documents.
They're on our website; any of the
12:34 12:34
3
Q.
So are all commission documents on the website?
12:34
4
A.
I don't think all, but all of the work I do, as
12:34
5
far as I know, is on the website.
12:34
6
Q.
Do you post documents to the website yourself?
12:35
7
A.
To the --
12:35
Which website?
12:35 12:35
8 9
Q.
Commission website.
10
A.
I don't post them.
11 12 13
I request that State Water
Board I.T. post them, yes. Q.
Who -- who's the I.T. person?
12:35 12:35
Who do you send
requests to now?
12:35 12:35
14
A.
To a generic I.T. address; websupport@SWRCB.
12:35
15
Q.
Can you tell me -- I'm sorry.
12:35
16
Can you tell me
the e-mail address, please?
12:35
17
A.
Of what?
12:35
18
Q.
Of the I.T. person.
12:35
19
A.
I don't recall.
12:35
20
Q.
I thought you just said it --
12:35
21
A.
I did.
12:35
22
It's something like web support I.T. --
I really --
12:35
23
Q.
You don't know it right now?
12:35
24
A.
No.
12:35
25
Q.
Okay.
It's an odd one.
12:35
59
1 2
THE REPORTER: to finish.
3
MS. VENSKUS:
4
Q.
5
server?
6
A.
7
Make sure you guys allow each other
12:36 Sorry.
12:36
How long have you had access to the foundation
12:36 12:36
Ten years -- No.
Eight years.
I'm guessing.
But approximately, sure.
8
MS. VENSKUS:
9
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
10
12:36
Okay.
12:36 12:36
We can take a break. DVD being stopped; 12:37. -o0o-
12:37 12:37 12:37
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
60
1
(Luncheon recess was taken at 12:37
12:37
2
p.m., and at 1:14 p.m., the deposition
12:37
3
resumed with all parties present.)
12:37
4
12:37
5
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
6
MS. VENSKUS:
7
Exhibit D.
8 9 10
We're back on record, 1:14.
I'm going to mark a document as
Take a look at that, please. (Exhibit D marked for identification
and attached hereto.) THE WITNESS:
Okay.
11
14 15
01:14 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:16 01:16
12 13
01:14
EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
01:16 01:16
Does this reflect or does this e-mail look
familiar to you?
01:16 01:16
16
A.
Sure.
01:16
17
Q.
Okay.
01:16
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Your statements are in blue; correct?
01:16
20
A.
Yes.
01:17
21
Q.
Do you -- You've reviewed these statements now
01:17
22
here --
23
A.
Yes, I have.
01:17
24
Q.
-- again?
01:17
Do you represent that these statements are true
01:17
25
I'm sorry.
01:16
01:17
61
1
at this time?
01:17
2
A.
Yes.
01:17
3
Q.
One of your assertions in this letter is that
01:17
4
it was a mischaracterization --
01:17
5
A.
Where are you?
01:17
6
Q.
Let me see.
01:17
Well, I guess "mischaracterization" is my word.
01:17
7 8
But I'll direct you to the language that I'm construing
01:17
9
as you say it's a mischaracterization.
01:17
10
A.
Okay.
01:17
11
Q.
I can -- At the bottom of the page, first page.
01:17
12
I can see how you would be confused by
01:17
13
the above language.
14
with your request, let me explain that the
01:18
15
language should have been more accurately
01:18
16
reflected that the Santa Monica Bay National
01:18
17
Estuary Program, through its nonprofit
01:18
18
partner, The Bay Foundation, developed and
01:18
19
implemented the plan.
01:18
In order to assist you
01:18
20
My question to you is:
01:18
21
Are you suggesting that the Santa Monica Bay
01:18
22
National Estuary Program --
01:18
23
A.
Hm-hmm.
01:18
24
Q.
-- is a partner of the foundation?
01:18
25
A.
No.
01:18
62
1 2 3
Q.
Okay.
So what did you mean, "through" --
"through its nonprofit partner"? A.
01:18 01:18
What I mean is that the Santa Monica Bay Estu-
01:18
4
National Estuary Program -- the NEP, as I'll call it --
01:18
5
is comprised of three partners:
01:18
6
commission; one partner being the foundation; and one
01:18
7
partner being the JPA.
01:19
8 9 10
One partner being the
So by referring to its nonprofit partner, I meant those three partners that forms the NEP. Q.
Okay.
So you weren't referring -- You weren't
01:19 01:19 01:19
11
referring to the NEP as an entity that's a partner of the
01:19
12
foundation.
01:19
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Okay.
That's not what you meant there.
01:19 So I'm confused by this sentence, so
01:19
15
maybe you can make it a little bit clearer for me; maybe
01:19
16
just state it in different words, so it's clear because,
01:19
17
I don't think that it is.
01:19
18
The way that you're -- The way you're -- you're
01:19
19
fashioning the sentence is as if the NEP developed and
01:19
20
implemented the plan.
So maybe you can just clarify.
01:19
You're saying the Santa Monica Bay National
01:20
21 22
Estuary Program, through its nonprofit partner, The Bay
01:20
23
Foundation, developed and implemented the plan.
01:20
24 25
Let's just take out the words, through its nonprofit partner, The Bay Foundation, and just take the
01:20 01:20
63
1
sentence as if it doesn't have those words.
2
So you can understand my confusion?
01:20 That
01:20
3
you're suggesting that the NEP developed and implemented
01:20
4
the plan.
01:20
5
entities -- the foundation, the commission, and the JPA,
01:20
6
which makes up the NEP -- developed and implemented the
01:20
7
plan?
01:20
So is what you mean to say, that the three
8
A.
Collectively the three of them, no.
01:20
9
Q.
Okay.
01:20
So maybe you can explain then why you're
10
suggesting here, the way your sentence is structured,
01:20
11
that the NEP developed and implemented the plan.
01:21
12 13
MR. WEISSMULLER: speaks for itself.
14 15
putting your own gloss on it.
18
So go ahead and answer it. THE WITNESS:
01:21 01:21
Counsel, you're misconstruing it and you're
16 17
I'm going to object; the document
Okay.
Can you repeat the question
then --
01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21 01:21
19
MS. VENSKUS:
Yeah.
01:21
20
THE WITNESS:
-- or restate it?
01:21
21
MS. VENSKUS:
Sure.
01:21
22
Q.
The way that this sentence is structured -- and
01:21
23
maybe it's just a sentence structure problem, but it
01:21
24
suggests that the NEP developed and implemented the plan.
01:21
25
But you say that the NEP didn't develop and
01:21
64
1
implement the plan -- that would be impossible -- because
01:21
2
the NEP is essentially a partnership with three entities.
01:21
3 4 5
That's my understanding of your testimony.
Is
that a correct understanding? A.
I don't think so.
01:21 01:21
I don't think so.
The
01:21
6
National Estuary Program isn't a thing in and of itself.
01:21
7
It's a thing that's comprised of the three partners.
01:22
8
So what I'm saying is that this particular
01:22
9
partner, the nonprofit partner of the three that
01:22
10
comprises the NEP, is the one that developed and
01:22
11
implemented the plan.
01:22
12 13
Q.
Okay.
Did the commission develop and implement
the plan, too?
01:22 01:22
14
A.
No.
01:22
15
Q.
So the commission's never developed the Bay
01:22
16
Restoration Plan --
17 18 19 20 21 22
A.
01:22
I'm sorry --
01:22
We're not talking about the Bay Restoration
01:22
Plan. Q.
01:22 What are we talking about?
What's the plan
that we're talking about? A.
You have to tell me the context here.
01:22 01:22
Are we
01:22
23
referring to the sentence above my response that is in
01:22
24
italics?
01:22
25
Q.
I believe so, because I think that's the
01:22
65
1
question -- or that's the -- the statement that you're
01:22
2
responding to.
01:22
3
A.
4
Right.
01:22
So what this sentence says is the SMBRC
01:22
5
developed and implemented the plan to diversify and
01:22
6
augment the funding source through its fundraising
01:22
7
contributions.
01:22
8
Q.
Okay.
01:22
9
A.
So it's that plan.
01:22
10
Q.
Got it.
01:22
11
for me.
12 13
Great.
Thank you for confirming that
01:23 So it's the foundation -- Can we call it a
community fundraising plan?
01:23 01:23
14
A.
Sure.
01:23
15
Q.
So it's the foundation that developed that plan
01:23
16
and implemented that plan.
01:23
17
A.
Correct.
01:23
18
Q.
Was that plan in furtherance of the
01:23
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
commission's goals and mission? A.
It's in furtherance of the National Estuary
Program's goals and mission. Q.
And the National Estuary Program has the same
goals and mission as the commission has? A.
The National Estuary program's goals and
mission is reflected in the activities of the three
01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23 01:23
66
1
entities, as described in the work plan for it.
01:23
2
Q.
The commission has a mission; correct?
01:23
3
A.
Yes.
01:23
4
Q.
And is that mission the same as the
01:23
5
foundation's mission?
01:23
6
A.
I don't know.
7
Q.
Is it the same as the JPA's mission?
01:23
8
A.
No.
01:23
9
Q.
Does the JPA have a stated mission?
01:23
10
A.
In fact, I'm trying to remember.
01:24
I don't recall.
01:24
Do you know if the foundation would have a
01:24
11 12 13
Q.
I don't recall.
I don't -- I don't think so.
different mission than the commission?
01:23
01:24
14
A.
I don't know.
15
Q.
What would that mission --
01:24
How would that mission be different?
01:24
16 17 18
MR. WEISSMULLER:
20
MR. WEISSMULLER:
21
THE WITNESS:
24 25
Do I respond? Yeah; to what you know.
I don't know.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
You were the Director of Government Affairs;
right? A.
01:24
01:24 01:24
THE WITNESS:
23
Objection; it calls for
speculation.
19
22
It's possible.
01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24 01:24
Right.
01:24
67
1 2
Q.
And you are the Director of Government Affairs
both for the commission and for the foundation; right?
01:24 01:24
3
A.
Correct.
01:24
4
Q.
So you've been with the foundation and the
01:24
5
commission since 2003; correct?
01:24
6
A.
Sure.
7
Q.
So wouldn't you know whether or not the mission
Yes.
01:24 01:24
8
is -- what the missions are of the entities that you
01:24
9
perform work for?
01:24
10 11
MR. WEISSMULLER: it's argumentative.
12
THE WITNESS:
13
MR. WEISSMULLER:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
Objection; asked and answered, and
memorized?
16
01:24 01:24
Do I respond?
01:25
Yeah.
01:25
Do I have the mission statement
No I don't.
01:25 01:25
So if I saw a document that would refresh my
01:25
17
recollection of what the mission statement is, perhaps.
01:25
18
But, no, I don't have it memorized.
01:25
19
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:25
20
Q.
21
MR. WEISSMULLER:
22 23 24 25
Do you believe that they're the same mission?
he believes.
Objection.
It doesn't matter what
You're entitled to ask him --
MS. VENSKUS:
Could you please not make speaking
objections -MR. WEISSMULLER:
01:25 01:25 01:25 01:25 01:25
Yeah.
01:25
68
1
MS. VENSKUS:
-- Mr. Weissmuller?
Thank you.
Just
01:25
2
the stated objection is fine, and then we can get the
01:25
3
record and the answer from him.
01:25
4
THE WITNESS:
I don't know.
I assume they're
01:25
5
similar.
01:25
6
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:25
7 8 9 10
Q.
different? A.
01:25 01:25
No.
One way or the other, no.
MS. VENSKUS:
11 12
Do you have any reason to believe they would be
01:25
E.
01:28
(Exhibit E marked for identification and attached hereto.)
01:28 01:28
13
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
I'm done.
01:29
14
MS. VENSKUS:
Can I ask the question,
01:29
15
Mr. Weissmuller, or would you prefer I wait?
16
MR. WEISSMULLER:
17
MS. VENSKUS:
18 19 20
Go ahead.
01:29
I just wanted to be respectful for you
as counsel.
01:29 01:29
MR. WEISSMULLER:
No.
That is fine.
Please
proceed.
01:29 01:29
21
MS. VENSKUS:
22
Q.
23
Oh, no.
01:29
Okay, thank you.
So this appears to be a memorandum authored by
you on commission letterhead?
01:29 01:29 01:29
24
A.
Right.
01:29
25
Q.
Does this look familiar?
01:29
69
1
A.
Yes, it does.
01:29
2
Q.
And you authored this letter.
01:29
3
A.
Yes.
01:29
4
Q.
And on page 2,
[email protected] under
01:29
5
your title of Director of Government Affairs.
01:30
6
A.
Right.
01:30
7
Q.
Is that your e-mail that you use for both the
01:30
8
foundation and the commission?
01:30
9
A.
Yes.
01:30
10
Q.
Is the e-mail --
01:30
Are you at all involved in the JPA?
01:30
Yes.
01:30
11 12 13
A.
The commission is a partner in the JPA
so, by definition, I would be involved in the JPA.
01:30
14
Q.
15
JPA as well?
01:30
16
A.
That title's never really about --
01:30
Well, I would assume so, because the JPA
01:30
17
Are you Director of Government Affairs for the
01:30
18
agreement says that the commission is a partner, and
01:30
19
since I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the
01:30
20
commission, I would be performing those types of duties
01:30
21
for the authority.
01:30
22
Q.
Have you ever engaged in any communications as
23
an official of the JPA?
24
communications.
25
A.
I don't recall.
I should say written
01:30 01:30 01:30
I really don't.
01:30
70
1
Q.
Okay.
01:30
2
A.
Well, to the JPA board members, if we're
01:31
3
organizing a JPA meeting, then something like that, but
01:31
4
other than that, not that I can recall.
01:31
5
Q.
6
here --
7 8
Okay.
And are all the statements that you made
01:31 01:31
I guess your statements follow the word "response" in each one of these paragraphs?
01:31 01:31
9
A.
Correct.
01:31
10
Q.
Are all these statements that you made in this
01:31
11
document true?
01:31
12
A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
01:31
13
Q.
One of the concerns raised by the county's
01:31
14
legal counsel seems to be about the possible gift of
01:31
15
public funds if the county sends money to the foundation
01:31
16
directly.
01:31
17
So the county wanted assurances that any
01:31
18
contribution by the county would go towards the
01:31
19
commission and not some other purpose of the foundation
01:32
20
not related to the commission.
01:32
21
I think that's, under bullet four, that appears
22
to be what the legal counsel's concern is.
23
Angeles County counsel's questions.
24 25
A.
This is Los
01:32 01:32 01:32
Do you see that under bullet No. 4?
01:32
Yeah, I do.
01:32
71
1
Q.
Okay.
Even though in your reply when you
01:32
2
respond to -- I'm sorry -- you refer to the response to
01:32
3
question No. 3 --
01:32
4
A.
Hm-hmm.
01:32
5
Q.
-- and you further respond, in order to qualify
01:32
6
for federal funding, the foundation and commission must
01:32
7
work together according to the work plan; correct?
01:32
8
A.
Correct.
01:32
9
Q.
And that's -- that's a true statement; correct?
01:32
10
A.
Yes, it is.
01:32
11
Q.
Okay.
01:32
12
might want to just leave it out.
13
16 17
01:33
This is F.
14 15
We might come back to this one, so you
01:34
(Exhibit F marked for identification and attached hereto.) THE WITNESS:
01:34 01:34
Okay.
01:34
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:34
18
Q.
Does this document look familiar to you?
01:34
19
A.
It does.
01:34
20
Q.
Did you draft this document?
01:34
21
A.
I think so, or I co-drafted.
22
I had -- I didn't
draft this alone, no.
23
Q.
24
recall?
25
A.
Do you know who you drafted it with; do you
01:34 01:34 01:34 01:35
I believe Jack Topel and/or -- either him or
01:35
72
1
Guang-Yu Wang.
01:35
2
Topel is T-O-P-E-L.
01:35
3
It was -- Maybe Shelley Luce.
01:35
4
In fact, you know, I'm not really sure I
01:35
5
drafted this at all or had anything to do with this,
01:35
6
other than . . . .
01:35
7
Maybe formatting it.
I don't know.
01:35
8
Q.
Okay.
9
A.
Yeah, yeah, sure.
01:35
10
Q.
-- to you.
01:35
11
A.
Sure.
01:35
12
Q.
Do you know why the commission sent this
01:36
13 14 15
But it looks familiar --
document to L.A. County? MR. WEISSMULLER:
Objection; assumes facts not in
evidence.
01:35
01:36 01:36 01:36
16
THE WITNESS:
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
THE WITNESS:
Respond? Yeah.
I believe -- I believe this
01:36 01:36 01:36
19
document -- looks like this document was prepared to
01:36
20
demonstrate to L.A. County how commission recommended
01:36
21
funding went to the county.
01:36
22
When I say "commission recommended funding,"
01:36
23
this like funding from propositions over which the
01:36
24
commission has some decision-making authority.
01:36
25
/ / / /
73
1
MS. VENSKUS:
2 3 4 5
G.
01:37
(Exhibit G marked for identification and attached hereto.) THE WITNESS:
Okay.
01:37 01:37 01:38
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:38
6
Q.
Does this document look familiar?
01:38
7
A.
It does.
01:38
8
Q.
Are all these statements in this document true?
01:38
9
A.
I believe they are.
01:38
10
MS. VENSKUS:
11 12
Okay.
Next document, H.
Can we move on? THE WITNESS:
13
Yeah.
No. No.
01:38 01:38
Just a moment, please.
01:39
This document actually is
01:39
14
incorrect.
01:39
15
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:39
16 17 18
Q.
Why don't you tell me what is incorrect about
this document. A.
01:39 01:39
The term of this document refers to the
01:39
19
foundation as the primary fiscal agent, and that's not a
01:39
20
correct term.
01:39
21 22
Q.
Did you think that this term, this information,
was true at the time that you sent this document?
01:39 01:39
23
MR. WEISSMULLER:
24
evidence, it's vague.
01:39
25
THE WITNESS:
01:39
Objection; assumes facts not in
Do I respond?
01:39
74
1
MR. WEISSMULLER:
2
THE WITNESS:
3 4
Yes, I did.
01:39
Q.
01:39
And then what -- Why is it --
01:39
+How did you find out that information isn't
01:39
true?
01:39
7
A.
8
MR. WEISSMULLER:
9
THE WITNESS:
10
01:39
BY MS. VENSKUS:
5 6
Yeah.
It's a discussion with legal counsel. Okay.
Then don't answer it.
Okay.
01:40 01:40 01:40
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:40
11
Q.
When did you find out you that it wasn't true?
01:40
12
A.
I don't recall the time.
01:40
13
After this,
obviously.
01:40
14
Q.
Was it within the last year?
01:40
15
A.
Yeah.
01:40
16
It was within the last year.
Exhibit 14 -- I'm sorry.
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
MS. VENSKUS:
19 20
01:40
and attached hereto.)
22
MR. WEISSMULLER:
25
01:40
(Exhibit H marked for identification
THE WITNESS:
24
H.
H, now.
21
23
01:40
Okay.
Do you want --
Go ahead.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
01:40 01:40 01:41 01:41 01:41
This appears to be a November 28, 2014 e-mail
01:41
from you to Josh Svensson for the L.A. County Watershed
01:41
75
1
District tracking down the status of the dues for the
01:41
2
foundation's cash reserves.
01:41
3 4
Is that an accurate reflection of what this e-mail subject matter is about?
01:41 01:41
5
A.
Seems to be, yes.
01:41
6
Q.
Do you recognize this e-mail?
01:41
7
A.
I think so, yes.
01:41
8
Q.
Is there any reason to believe that you
01:41
9 10
wouldn't have had this conversation via e-mail with
01:41
Mr. Svensson?
01:41
11
A.
12
MS. VENSKUS:
13
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
No.
01:41 Do you want to change? Okay.
This concludes DVD No. 1
14
in the continuing testimony of Scott Valor.
15
the record at 1:42.
16 17 18
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
23 24 25
This is the beginning of DVD
Back on record; 1:44. MS. VENSKUS:
This is Exhibit I.
(Exhibit I marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
01:42 01:42 01:42
No. 2 in the continuing testimony of Scott Valor.
21 22
We're off
(Off the record.)
19 20
01:42
This appears to be a continuation of the e-mail
that we saw in Exhibit H.
01:42 01:44 01:44 01:44 01:44 01:45 01:45 01:45 01:45 01:45
76
1
A.
Right.
01:45
2
Q.
Do you recognize this communication?
01:45
3
A.
Looks familiar.
01:45
4
Q.
So here you're making it clear that your
01:45
5
contact is for both the SMBRC and the SMBRF; correct?
01:45
6
A.
Correct.
01:46
7
Q.
And here your signature though is for Santa
01:46
8 9
Monica Bay Restoration Commission; correct? A.
10
01:46
Right.
01:46
As I noted before, that was used in the general
01:46
11
sense, but you are correct, it says Santa Monica Bay
01:46
12
Restoration Commission.
01:46
13
And SMBRF.
01:46
14
I'm sorry.
01:46
15
And -- Well, maybe I didn't understand your
01:46
16
Q.
point.
01:46
17
A.
I don't understand your question then.
01:46
18
Q.
So I'm just wanting to make sure that -- I'm
01:46
19
just confirming that you're representing to Mr. Svensson
01:46
20
and the other people that are cc'd here --
01:46
21
A.
Hm-hmm.
01:46
22
Q.
-- that you are the point of contact for both
01:46
23
the SMBRC and SMBRF with respect to these SMBRF dues;
01:46
24
correct?
01:46
25
A.
No.
That's not what I meant by that.
01:46
77
1
Except for the person, Terri Grant, these other
01:46
2
people were new to me, introduced to me at the time, and
01:46
3
what I was making clear, or thought I was making clear,
01:46
4
is that with respect to foundation activities, in
01:47
5
particular, the dues, I was their contact, and with
01:47
6
respect to the fact that the flood control district sits
01:47
7
on the commission's governing board, as Director of
01:47
8
Government Affairs, I'm their contact for that.
01:47
9
Q.
Did you think it was important to clarify that
01:47
10
information in the e-mail, or was there some reason why
01:47
11
you didn't feel like it was important to specify what --
01:47
12
what sub -- what issues you were the contact for Santa
01:47
13
SMBRC for versus the SMBRF?
01:47
14
A.
I don't think I understand what you're saying.
01:47
15
Q.
Well, I mean, you're clarifying now what you
01:47
16
meant, but do you think that it would have been important
01:47
17
to clarify those points for these people that you are
01:47
18
sending the e-mail to?
01:47
19 20 21 22
A.
I still don't understand what you're saying or
asking me. Q.
01:47
Well, the topic of your e-mail here, at least
the subject matter, says RE:
01:47
SMBRF dues.
01:48 01:48
23
A.
Hm-hmm.
01:48
24
Q.
And you say here, Thank you for all your work
01:48
25
and continued leadership on this issue.
01:48
78
1 2 3
A.
01:48
Them paying dues for the foundation and the
01:48
program.
4 5
What is "this issue" that you're referring to?
Q.
01:48 Then you say here, It makes a big difference to
us.
01:48 01:48
6
Well, who's the "us" you're referring to?
01:48
7
A.
The collective National Estuary Program.
01:48
8
Q.
Okay.
01:48
9
And how would these people know that's
what you're referring to?
01:48
10
A.
They probably wouldn't.
01:48
11
Q.
Okay.
01:48
And then it says, If you have any
12
questions, would like a draft reviewed, et cetera, what's
01:48
13
the "draft reviewed"?
01:48
14
A.
15
Oh.
The board letter.
I must be referring to the prior e-mail where
01:48 01:48
16
it says Youssef and Menerva are preparing the board
01:48
17
letter relating to the SMBRF dues, so I assume if that's
01:49
18
what I'm referring to.
01:49
19
Q.
Then after that, you say, In direct
01:49
20
relationship to the draft reviewed, et cetera, I am the
01:49
21
contact for SMBRC and SMBRF.
01:49
22 23 24 25
So you make reference to both to SMBRC and SMBRF. A.
Why is that? As I explained that before, to let them know
how these relationships work.
01:49 01:49 01:49 01:49
79
1 2
As Director of Government Affairs, I'm frequently having to explain these things.
01:49 01:49
3
Q.
What are "these things"?
01:49
4
A.
Our structures; how the NEP works; what are the
01:49
5
duties of a governing board member for the commission; so
01:49
6
forth.
01:49
7 8
Q.
Do you mention NEP at all in this e-mail
exchange?
01:49 01:49
9
A.
No.
01:49
10
Q.
Do you know if these people know what the NEP
01:49
11
is?
12
01:49 MR. WEISSMULLER:
13
MS. VENSKUS:
Josh Svensson, Youssef Chebabi,
Menerva Ariki, Terri Grant.
16
THE WITNESS:
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
THE WITNESS:
19 20
By "these people" --
Well, that's vague.
14 15
Objection.
Do I answer? Yeah.
Okay.
Sorry.
At the time, probably not. BY MS. VENSKUS:
21
Q.
Do you think it's important to be clear to
01:49 01:49 01:49 01:49 01:50 01:50 01:50 01:50 01:50 01:50
22
these people about what the NEP is and the relationship
01:50
23
between the commission and the foundation?
01:50
24 25
A. now.
At the time, it wasn't as important as it is
01:50 01:50
80
1
Q.
Why is it important now and not then?
01:50
2
A.
Because at the time when you had the
01:50
3
generalization of the commission being this entire
01:50
4
organization, people didn't really seem to pay attention
01:50
5
to that and they would focus on the projects.
01:50
6
So when people would ask questions about fairly
01:50
7
complex government structure, it became apparent we
01:50
8
needed to clarify, and so that's -- that's what we've
01:50
9
been doing over time is trying to clarify what is in a
01:50
complex governmental structure.
01:51
10 11 12
Q.
Why is it important to clarify in a complex
governmental structure?
01:51 01:51
13
A.
So that there's no confusion.
01:51
14
Q.
About what?
01:51
15
A.
About what roles are being played by
01:51
16
organizations; what roles these individuals or their
01:51
17
agency might play in a particular government
01:51
18
organization.
01:51
19 20
Q.
Why is -- Give me an example of why that would
be important.
01:51 01:51
21
A.
I don't -- I don't understand the question.
01:51
22
Q.
Well, what kind of problems could result from
01:51
23 24 25
being confused as to the governmental organization? A.
No.
There's no problems.
Just to help with clarity for people to be able
01:51 01:51 01:51
81
1
to know how the system works, how the National Estuary
01:51
2
Program is formulated.
01:51
3
Q.
4
Act request?
01:51
5
A.
I don't understand.
01:51
6
Q.
Would that have any bearing on whether or not a
01:51
7
Does that have any bearing on a Public Records
document is responsive to Public Records Act request?
8
A.
9
MS. VENSKUS:
10 11 12 13
No.
No.
Not at all. The next document is J.
(Exhibit J marked for identification and attached hereto.) THE WITNESS:
Okay.
BY MS. VENSKUS:
01:51
01:51 01:52 01:52 01:52 01:52 01:53 01:53
14
Q.
Does this e-mail look familiar?
01:53
15
A.
Sure, yes.
01:53
16
Q.
Okay.
01:53
17
that this is an e-mail to Mark Pestrella.
18 19
So seeing the second page, it appears
Is he with the -- Is he the chief deputy director of the L.A. County Department of Public Works?
01:53 01:54 01:54
20
A.
I believe so.
01:54
21
Q.
And the subject line is update on cash
01:54
22
reserves; is that correct?
01:54
23
A.
Correct.
01:54
24
Q.
And you say:
01:54
25
Could you give me an update regarding
01:54
82
1
timing, invoicing, et cetera, so that I can
01:54
2
give that to our executive committee when I
01:54
3
brief members on Thursday?
01:54
4
is on the 16th.
5
The EC meeting
The executive committee to which you refer is
01:54 01:54
6
the executive committee of the commission; is that
01:54
7
correct?
01:54
8
A.
That's correct.
01:54
9
Q.
And so you sent this e-mail in your capacity as
01:54
10
Director of Government Affairs of the commission;
01:54
11
correct?
01:54
12
A.
13
MS. VENSKUS:
14
us this document so --
01:55
15
THE WITNESS:
Who are you talking to?
01:55
16
MS. VENSKUS:
I'm just talking to myself, actually.
01:55
17
Sorry.
That's correct. Actually, I think you've already given
Let's --
01:54 01:55
01:55
18
Well, let's just --
01:55
19
We'll say this is Exhibit K.
01:55
20 21 22 23
(Exhibit K marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
I believe this is the same document you
01:55 01:55 01:55 01:55
24
produced or your counsel produced in the deposition today
01:56
25
that's in response to request No. 1 and 5; is that
01:56
83
1 2 3 4 5
correct? A.
01:56 I -- I don't remember those requests, but it is
one of the documents that we produced, yes. Q.
Okay.
This is a memorandum of agreement
between the commission and the foundation; right?
01:56 01:56 01:56 01:56
6
A.
Correct.
01:56
7
Q.
This memorandum of agreement was just updated
01:56
8
at the June 18, 2015 meeting of the commission governing
01:56
9
board?
01:56
10
A.
Correct.
01:56
11
Q.
Do you believe that this MOA here accurately
01:56
12
reflects the operating agreement between the commission
01:57
13
and the foundation?
01:57
14
A.
I do.
01:57
15
Q.
Do you know who drafted this?
01:57
16
A.
I do.
01:57
17
Q.
Who?
01:57
18
A.
Legal counsel.
01:57
19
Q.
Which legal counsel?
01:57
20
A.
Frances McChesney.
01:57
21
Q.
Did you review it?
01:57
22
A.
In terms of what?
01:57
23
Q.
Before it was approved.
01:57
24
A.
Did I see it?
01:57
25
Yes.
Did I review it in terms of reviewing her work?
01:57
84
1 2 3
I don't do that. Q.
Okay.
01:57 Okay.
So look on page 2 on the second
paragraph, and it says:
4
01:57 01:57
The state law also created in the state
01:57
5
treasury the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
01:57
6
account and authorized monies in the account
01:57
7
to be expended, upon appropriation by the
01:57
8
Legislature, to support the activities of
01:57
9
the commission.
01:57
No monies have been
10
appropriated by the legislature to date to
01:58
11
support the activities of the commission.
01:58
12
Do you know if this is an accurate statement?
01:58
13
A.
I believe it to be accurate.
01:58
14
Q.
Has any money ever that been deposited into the
01:58
15
Santa Monica Bay Restoration account that you know of?
01:58
16
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
01:58
17
Q.
Would you know if it was?
01:58
18
A.
I don't know.
01:58
19
Q.
But you're not sure.
01:58
20
A.
Not sure.
01:58
21
Q.
Who would be sure?
01:58
22
A.
Tom Ford and, I think, legal counsel.
01:58
23
Q.
"Legal counsel" being Frances McChesney?
01:58
24
A.
Correct.
01:58
25
Q.
Then on page 3 of this agreement, it says --
01:58
I might.
85
1
this is the third paragraph down:
2 3
01:58
The commission has the authority to do all of the following.
01:58 01:58
4
Request and receive federal, state,
01:58
5
local, and private funds from any source and
01:58
6
expend those monies for the restoration
01:58
7
enhancement of the Santa Monica Bay and its
01:58
8
watershed.
01:59
9
Do you see that?
01:59
10
A.
I do.
01:59
11
Q.
Has the commission ever exercised that
01:59
12
authority that you know of?
01:59
13
A.
No.
01:59
14
Q.
Do you know if it has?
01:59
15
A.
Not to my knowledge, no.
01:59
16
Q.
So, as far as you understand, the commission
01:59
17
has never exercised that authority.
18
A.
Right.
19
Q.
And then on page --
20
01:59
Correct.
See if that's the right page.
01:59 01:59 Let's go back to
01:59
21
page 2.
22
A.
Okay.
02:00
23
Q.
See in the second paragraph, the last three
02:00
24 25
01:59
sentences? A.
Starting with?
02:00 02:00
86
1 2
Q.
Commission.
Second paragraph, last three lines
of that second --
02:00
3
A.
Oh, last three lines.
4
Q.
Sorry if I misspoke.
5
02:00
Okay. It says:
The commission and the foundation are
02:00 02:00 02:00
6
partners in the Santa Monica Bay Estuary
02:00
7
Program, which is one of 28 entities that
02:00
8
comprise the National Estuary Program
02:00
9
established pursuant to Section 320 of the
02:00
Clean Water Act.
02:00
10 11
Do you see that?
02:00
12
A.
Yes, I do.
02:00
13
Q.
When did the foundation become a partner in the
02:00
14
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program?
15
A.
I don't know.
16
Q.
From where does the foundation derive authority
It was before my time.
02:01 02:01 02:01
17
to act as a partner in the Santa Monica Bay National
02:01
18
Estuary Program?
02:01
19
A.
Do you know?
I would say it would be the work plan or the
02:01
20
Bay Restoration Plan, which is the broader -- the broader
02:01
21
document.
02:01
22
Q.
Do you know if the EPA issued a formal
02:01
23
determination that the foundation was a partner in the
02:01
24
NEP?
02:01
25
A.
I don't know.
The EPA does approve the work
02:01
87
1
plan annually, which is the reason you're funded -- I'm
02:01
2
sorry -- that the organizations are funded, so if that's
02:02
3
an approval, then that's an approval.
02:02
4
Q.
Do you have any specific recollection of
02:02
5
discussing a memorandum of agreement between the
02:02
6
commission and the foundation with Tom Ford when he first
02:02
7
became -- within several months after he became the
02:02
8
executive director of the commission?
02:02
9
A.
10 11
Q.
A specific recollection.
02:02
Like a date and time when --
02:02
Well, let me just say, do you recall discussing
02:02
12
with him within his first few months of becoming the
02:02
13
executive director the memorandum of agreement?
02:03
14
A.
Not specifically, no.
02:03
15
Q.
Do you know why the U.S. EPA Section 320 funds
02:03
16
are routed to the foundation instead of the Santa Monica
02:03
17
Bay Restoration account mentioned in the legislation?
02:03
18
A.
I don't.
02:03
19
Q.
I think I asked this before, but just for
02:03
20
clarity of the record, are you the director --
02:03
21
Well, strike that.
02:04
22
Do you fulfill and perform any duties for the
02:04
23
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Authority, JPA; correct?
02:04
24
A.
Hm-hmm, yes, I do.
02:04
25
Q.
And what are those duties?
02:04
88
1
A.
I organize the meetings and organize any staff
02:04
2
reports that are provided.
3
format, make sure it gets to the -- the board members.
4
organize the minutes and any resolutions that might be
02:04
5
needed if they pass something.
02:04
6 7
Q.
I don't -- I organize meeting
Do you draft like recommendations for the board
on the -- the authority?
What is its -- Let me just --
8
Sorry.
9
What is the decision-making body of the
10
I
Let me back up.
A.
Governing board.
12
Q.
Governing board.
13
02:04
02:04 02:04 02:04
authority called?
11
02:04
02:04 02:04 02:05
Okay.
02:05
So do you draft any recommendations for the
02:05
14
governing board of the authority for their consideration
02:05
15
when they're making decisions?
02:05
16
A.
17
I don't recall that I actually drafted.
02:05
In the case of some kind of authority action,
02:05
18
that's usually requested by another staff member, so I
02:05
19
would make sure that that document is formatted correctly
02:05
20
and in such a way that they get will it.
02:05
21 22
So I don't -- No, I don't recall myself making recommendations.
02:05 02:05
23
Q.
So what other staff member would?
02:05
24
A.
It would be Tom Ford.
02:05
25
It might be county flood
control district staff or public works staff.
Excuse me.
02:05
89
1 2
Yeah. Q.
And that's all I can think of. What's your official position for the
3
authority?
4
something else?
5 6 7
A.
Is it Director of Government Affairs or
02:06 02:06 02:06
I don't have an official position for the
authority. Q.
02:06
02:06 02:06
So who pays your -- who -- who pays you
02:06
8
compensation for the work that you perform on behalf of
02:06
9
the authority?
02:06
10
A.
The Bay Foundation.
02:06
11
Q.
And what is the authority, The Santa Monica Bay
02:06
12 13
Restoration Authority, exactly? A.
02:06
It's a joint powers agreement within The Santa
02:06
14
Monica Bay Restoration Commission and the county flood
02:06
15
control district or public works.
I think it's flood
02:07
16
control district.
So it's a local government entity.
02:07
17
Did you have any role in writing the joint
02:07
18
powers agreement with the County of Los Angeles that
02:07
19
created the authority?
02:07
20 21
Q.
A.
But ultimately the draft that came out is to county -- from county counsel.
24 25
It's one of the reasons I
was hired was to research it.
22 23
I did, initially.
Q.
02:07 02:07 02:07 02:07
So -- Does that answer your question?
02:07
Yes.
02:07
Thank you.
90
1
Okay.
2 3 4 5 6
This is Exhibit L.
(Exhibit L marked for identification and attached hereto.)
02:08 02:08
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
02:08
02:09
Have you had a chance to review it or do you
need more time, Mr. Valor?
02:09 02:09
7
A.
Little more time.
02:09
8
Q.
Okay.
02:09
9
A.
Okay.
02:09
10
Q.
Okay.
11
So this appears to be an e-mail thread
from March 2015 --
02:09 02:09
12
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:09
13
Q.
-- between you and an official or two officials
02:09
14
at the Fair Political Practices Commission; correct?
02:09
15
A.
Yes.
02:10
16
Q.
Does this -- Do you recognize this e-mail
02:10
17
exchange?
02:10
18
A.
I do.
02:10
19
Q.
If you turn to page 2 about halfway down this
02:10
20
page, you indicate you've embedded responses to Ms.
02:10
21
Mayer's questions in red.
02:10
Do you see that?
22
A.
I do.
02:10
23
Q.
On page 3, you respond in red text to questions
02:10
24
that Ms. Mayer had asked about the joint powers agreement
02:10
25
and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration board; correct?
02:10
91
1
A.
Yes.
02:10
2
Q.
In the first sentence of your response, it
02:10
3
states:
02:10
4
I was originally hired by the
02:10
5
commission, in part, to draft the JPA
02:10
6
language along with county staff, so I'm
02:10
7
very familiar with it.
02:10
8
Is that a true statement?
02:10
9
A.
It's a shorthand, but yes.
02:10
10
Q.
And then on page 4, you respond in red text to
02:10
11
a second question from Ms. Mayer about whether the Santa
02:11
12
Monica Bay authority has any employees.
02:11
13
You state:
The authority does not have any
02:11
14
stand-alone employees.
15
director of the commission is the sole
02:11
16
employee for the JPA agreement.
02:11
17
delegates his authority to two others;
02:11
18
myself, who files a Form 700 annually for
02:11
19
the commission, and then Guang-Yu Wang, a
02:11
20
S --
02:11
21 22
The executive
However, he
I guess that's a state water resources control board employee --
02:11
02:11 02:11
23
A.
Correct.
02:11
24
Q.
(continuing:)
02:11
25
-- who files annually for that entity,
02:11
92
1
so all employees of the JPA do file already.
02:11
2
And, yes, we are deemed as employees who at
02:11
3
least participate in making decisions, which
02:11
4
is at least one reason why we file.
02:11
5
Correct?
02:11
6
A.
Right.
02:11
7
Q.
So all those are accurate statements you made
02:11
8
to the Fair Political Practices Commission?
02:12
9
A.
Correct.
02:12
10
Q.
For how many years, approximately, have you
02:12
11
filed a Form 700 annually as Director of Government
02:12
12
Affairs of the commission?
02:12
13 14
A.
Since we first started filing, which would
be -- I don't recall -- '04, '05?
15 16
I'm not sure I answered that question correctly.
17 18 19
Can you read back the question? (Question read.)
THE WITNESS: BY MS. VENSKUS:
Okay. Okay.
20
THE REPORTER:
21
MS. VENSKUS:
22 23 24 25
No.
I answered that correctly.
This is number . . . .
02:13 02:13
02:13 02:13 02:13
Thank you.
(Exhibit M marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
02:12
02:13
M. M?
02:12
Can you review this document and tell me if it
02:13 02:13 02:13 02:13 02:13
93
1
looks familiar to you?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
So this appears to be the Conflict of Interest
4
It looks familiar.
Code for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
02:13 02:14 02:14 02:14
5
A.
Correct.
02:14
6
Q.
And is this the current Conflict of Interest
02:14
7
Code?
02:14
8
A.
I believe it is.
02:14
9
Q.
On the second page of this document, there's a
02:14
10
list of designated employees of the commission.
11
02:14
Do you see that?
02:14
12
A.
I do.
02:14
13
Q.
And can you go down this list and provide the
02:14
14
names of the individuals that match these descriptions at
02:14
15
this time regarding the -- starting with the executive
02:14
16
director.
02:14
17
Is that Tom Ford?
02:14
18
A.
Correct.
02:14
19
Q.
And then is the -- your --
02:14
You're the Director of Government Affairs;
02:14
20 21
correct?
02:14
22
A.
Correct.
02:14
23
Q.
Then the policy analyst, who's that right now?
02:14
24
A.
I don't recall.
02:14
25
Q.
Okay.
02:14
What about the administrative assistant?
94
1 2 3 4 5 6
Is that Marcelo Villagomez? A.
No.
There isn't one specifically that
would meet that criteria. Q.
A.
02:15 02:15
And what about the consultants and special
project employees?
7 8
No.
02:14
02:15 02:15
That would be -- that would be me as well.
02:15
'Cause I am a consultant, I'm not a, you know,
02:15
employee, per se.
02:15
9
Q.
Anyone else?
02:15
10
A.
The environmental scientist would be
02:15
11 12 13
Guang-Yu Wang and Jack Topel. Q.
Anyone else that would fall under this
category, disclosure category C?
14
A.
15
MS. VENSKUS:
16 17 18 19 20
No.
No.
No. Okay.
02:15 02:15 02:15
N.
(Exhibit N marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
02:15
Does this -- Have you had a chance to finish
reviewing this?
02:15 02:16 02:16 02:17 02:17 02:17
21
A.
I have.
02:17
22
Q.
Does this look familiar to you?
02:17
23
A.
I don't think so.
02:17
24
Q.
Is this -- Any reason --
02:17
Do you have any reason to believe that this,
02:17
25
95
1
what appears to be, an e-mail exchange between yourself
02:17
2
and Rene Robertson wouldn't be an authentic copy of your
02:17
3
communication with her?
02:17
4
A.
I think so, yes.
02:17
5
Q.
You do believe it is authentic --
02:17
6
A.
I do --
02:17
7
Q.
-- representation?
02:17
8
A.
-- yes.
02:17
9
Q.
Okay.
So it appears that Mr. Wang is telling
02:17
10
you that he and Jack Topel received reimbursement from
02:18
11
the foundation for a percentage of their monthly cell
02:18
12
phone bills?
02:18
13
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:18
14
Q.
And the source of the money that pays for their
02:18
15
cell phone bills is from the EPA grant; is that correct?
02:18
16
A.
It looks like it, yes.
02:18
17
Q.
Is that the 320 grant?
02:18
18
A.
Yes.
02:18
19
Q.
And he's asking whether he needs to disclose
02:18
20
this information on his Form 700.
21
02:18
Do you recall this conversation?
02:18
22
A.
I think so, yes.
02:18
23
Q.
Are these two individuals currently partially
02:18
24 25
reimbursed for their cell phone use? A.
I don't know.
02:19 02:19
96
1 2
Q.
Did you ever receive the advice from the fair
political practice commission's experts?
3
A.
4
MS. VENSKUS:
5
10
No, I don't.
02:19
O.
02:21 02:21
and attached hereto.)
7
9
02:19
(Exhibit O marked for identification
6
8
I don't recall.
MS. VENSKUS:
02:19
02:21
I'll give you mine when I'm done with
it.
02:21 02:21
THE WITNESS:
Since it's such a large document, do
you want ask a question, maybe, rather than --
02:21 02:21
11
MS. VENSKUS:
Yeah.
12
THE WITNESS:
Otherwise, we'll be here about 30
13
minutes reading this.
02:21
14
BY MS. VENSKUS:
02:21
15 16
Q.
That would be great.
Can you just kind of flip through it?
02:21
I'm
going to ask you if you've ever seen the document before.
02:21
02:21 02:21
17
A.
Yes.
02:21
18
Q.
And so this is --
02:21
Let me represent to you that this is downloaded
02:21
19 20
yesterday from the website of The Santa Monica Bay
02:21
21
Restoration Commission.
02:21
22
Does that sound like an accurate statement?
02:21 02:21
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
Do you know who drafted or the people
that drafted this document?
02:21 02:22
97
1 2
A.
I know some of them.
I know who some of them
are, I should say.
02:22 02:22
3
Q.
Is there a number of people that drafted it?
02:22
4
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:22
5
Q.
Were you one of them?
02:22
6
A.
No.
02:22
7
Well, that's not true.
02:22
8
I -- I probably had a hand in making sure that
02:22
9
some of this wording, particularly in this "About Us"
02:22
10
section, was correct, or as -- or was correct as
02:22
11
possible.
02:22
12
Q.
Do you have any reason to believe -- and I'm
02:22
13
not asking you if all the statements are true -- but
02:22
14
would you have any reason to believe that any statements
02:22
15
in this document would be untrue?
02:22
16
A.
Without reviewing it, no.
02:22
17
Q.
When was -- Does --
02:23
18
Strike that.
02:23
19
Is the SMBRC governing board and SMBRF board of
02:23
20 21 22
directors ever attend meetings? A.
No. Well, okay.
02:23 So when you say "meetings," like
23
in some kind of decision-making capacity?
24
actual meeting where there are --
25
02:23
No.
So it's an
02:23 02:23 02:23 02:23
98
1
Q.
What I mean is, an official meeting that, you
02:24
2
know, is noticed to the public and both of the
02:24
3
decision-making bodies come together and have a meeting
02:24
4
about something.
02:24
5
A.
6 7
Right.
Right.
No. Q.
Okay.
02:24 02:24
Who is responsible for ensuring that
02:24
8
your day-to-day activities as Director of Government
02:24
9
Affairs are effectively supporting the commission?
02:24
10
A.
Who's responsible?
02:25
11
Q.
Hm-hmm.
02:25
12
A.
The question is who do I answer to?
02:25
13
Q.
Correct.
02:25
14
A.
Tom Ford.
02:25
15
Q.
Does the Director of Government Affairs of the
02:25
16
foundation ever brief the Director of Government Affairs
02:25
17
of the commission?
02:25
18
A.
I don't understand your question.
02:25
19
Q.
It's a yes-or-no question.
02:25
20
Does the Director of Government Affairs of the
02:25
21
foundation ever brief the Director of Government Affairs
02:25
22
of the commission on his activities?
02:25
23
A.
You're asking me if I talk to myself?
02:25
24
Q.
Correct.
02:25
25
A.
No.
02:25
99
1
MS. VENSKUS:
2 3
P.
02:26
(Exhibit P marked for identification and attached hereto.)
02:26 02:26
4
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
02:26
5
MS. VENSKUS:
This is -- Actually, let me divide
02:26
This is actually two different documents, I
02:26
6
this up.
7
believe, so let's make this one P.
This is one page.
02:26
8
Q.
So does this document look familiar to you?
02:26
9
A.
It does.
02:26
10
Q.
And was it submitted by you to --
02:27
11
Well, strike that.
02:27
12
It looks like it was submitted by you to the
02:27
13
commission; is that correct?
02:27
14
A.
It was submitted to the NEP.
02:27
15
Q.
Okay.
02:27
And who is this signature -- Whose
16
signature is this at the bottom of the page?
17
approved by and date.
18
A.
No.
This is
02:27
Is that Guang-Yu Wang's signature?
02:27
I think -- I'm guessing, but it looks like
02:27
19
more like a Shelley Luce signature.
20
Guang-Yu Wang's signature looks like.
I don't know what
02:27 02:27
21
Q.
Right.
22
A.
I think so.
02:27
23
Q.
Who in 2013 was responsible for signing your
02:27
24
time sheets?
02:27
25
A.
02:27
That does look like Shelley Luce.
Shelley Luce, the executive director.
02:27
100
1
Q.
So does Tom Ford now sign your time sheets?
02:28
2
A.
Correct.
02:28
3
I assume so.
Just so you understand, I don't see this.
I
02:28
I don't see this stamp or whatever.
02:28
4
see what is sent.
5
This is unfamiliar to me.
6 7
Q.
Okay.
So this one though is sent to Shelley
Luce? A.
Yes.
9
Q.
Okay.
02:28
02:28 So -- So where it says, bill to grant,
EPA, that is the three -- Section 320 program?
11
A.
I don't know.
12
Q.
Do you know of any other EPA grants that the
13
02:28
02:28
8
10
I don't --
I would assume so.
foundation receives?
02:28 02:29 02:29 02:29 02:29
14
A.
Yeah.
15
Q.
Do you know what they are?
02:29
16
A.
No.
02:29
There are other EPA grants.
I think one has to do with monitoring
17
general -- something.
18
billed to that.
But I -- that -- But mine would be
02:29
02:29 02:29
19
Q.
To the 320?
02:29
20
A.
It would be likely the 320, if anything else.
02:29
21 22 23
But, again, I cannot personally confirm that. Q.
Okay.
So it says here the activities that you
perform for this compensation that you received --
02:29 02:29 02:30
24
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:30
25
Q.
-- and you did receive compensation for this
02:30
101
1
work; correct?
02:30
2
A.
Yes.
02:30
3
Q.
These activities consistent with the commission
02:30
4
work plan goals are as follows.
5 6
And down here -- down further, under the third, let's say, subject matter --
7
A.
Hm-hmm.
8
Q.
-- is:
9 10
02:30 02:30 02:30 02:30
Effectively reaching out to and
02:30
involving the public and stakeholders in actions that
02:30
implement the Bay Restoration Plan.
02:30
11
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:30
12
Q.
One of those activities is outreach to state
02:30
13
and congressional staff regarding Ballona Wetlands
02:30
14
Restoration; correct?
02:30
15
A.
Yes.
02:30
16
Q.
What kind of outreach to state and
02:30
17
congressional staff regarding the Ballona Wetlands
02:30
18
Restoration is this referring to?
02:30
19
A.
With any particular project that the NEP is
02:31
20
doing, we receive questions from -- they're e-mail
02:31
21
questions regarding the project.
02:31
22
And what I'll do, in this case, because there
02:31
23
was a lot of controversy surrounding it and these state
02:31
24
and congressional staffers were being visited, bombarded,
02:31
25
whatever you want to call it, by certain groups, they
02:31
102
1
wanted to found out who was involved.
2
would do is direct them to a particular website or to
02:31
3
people at particular agencies who are involved with that
02:31
4
restoration.
02:31
5
Q.
02:31
And so what I
Then as far as the Annenberg Foundation
02:31
6
facility outreach, what kind of outreach and to whom did
02:31
7
do the outreach?
02:31
8 9 10
A.
When -- when -- This
02:31
was -- I don't know if this is the time that it was
02:31
signed or not.
02:31
11 12
That's the same thing.
I think that, again, would be answering questions regarding --
13
02:32 02:32
Well, I wouldn't answer the questions myself
02:32
14
because I wasn't involved in that, but I would direct
02:32
15
them to people who might know about that.
02:32
16 17 18
And I think at this time, the reason that's there, is there was a lot of that around 2013. Q.
Okay.
Why -- Or do you know if this document
02:32 02:32 02:32
19
was included in response to any of the land trusts -- I'm
02:32
20
sorry -- the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust Public Records
02:33
21
Act request?
02:33
22
A.
23 24 25
I don't recall.
I don't recall any document
like this was ever asked for. MS. VENSKUS:
Okay.
Let's go on to Q.
02:33 02:33 02:33 02:33
103
1 2 3 4 5
(Exhibit Q marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
02:33 02:33 02:34
So this document appears to be another time
sheet that you submitted.
02:34 02:34
6
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:34
7
Q.
Is this --
02:34
8
A.
Yes.
02:34
9
Q.
This looks familiar?
02:34
10
A.
Yes.
02:34
11
Q.
So where it says "review pending
02:34
12
I'm sorry.
legislation" --
02:34
13
A.
Hm-hmm, I do.
02:34
14
Q.
-- what do you recall that legislation you
02:34
15
reviewed?
02:34
16
A.
On this particular date, no, or --
02:34
17
Q.
Do you --
02:34
18
A.
-- in this particular month?
02:34
19
Q.
Correct.
02:34
So is that part of your scope of duties is to
02:34
20 21 22
review pending legislation? A.
If there is something relevant on the state or
02:34 02:34
23
federal level, like a new bond, or something that might
02:34
24
affect, yes, the water shed, yeah --
02:35
25
Q.
Okay.
02:35
104
1 2 3
A.
executive director, and we follow it. MS. VENSKUS:
4
R.
02:36 02:36
and attached hereto.) THE WITNESS:
02:35 02:35
(Exhibit R marked for identification
5 6
-- and then I bring it to the attention of the
Right.
All right.
02:36 This is that
02:36
7
big -- I understand what this is.
02:36
8
BY MS. VENSKUS:
02:36
9 10
Q.
So this is -- this appears to be the scope of
work exhibit to the contract agreement in July 2015 --
02:36 02:36
11
A.
Correct --
02:36
12
Q.
-- is that correct?
02:36
13
A.
-- yes.
02:36
14
Q.
And this is your signature on the --
02:36
Let's see.
02:36
15 16
here.
17 18
Unfortunately it's not paginated
02:37 -- page 7 where it says contractor.
That's
your signature; right?
02:37 02:37
19
A.
That's correct.
02:37
20
Q.
And that's Tom Ford's signature at the bottom;
02:37
21
correct?
02:37
22
A.
I believe so, yes.
02:37
23
Q.
Are you reimbursed for phone usage and travel
02:38
24 25
and like internet, anything like that, by the foundation? A.
No.
02:38 02:38
105
1 2 3 4
Q.
So you just charge them an hourly rate; you
don't get any expenses reimbursed? A.
No.
You know, I think I was -- See, I don't
I took a trip with Maryanne Yamaguchi to Washington, D.C. a decade ago.
7
reimbursed for that flight.
8
pay for everything myself. Q.
02:38 02:38
6
9
02:38
remember.
5
02:38
I'm not sure I was
But other than that, no; I
02:38 02:38 02:38 02:38
So when you have to fly over here to Los
02:38
10
Angeles to attend commission governing board meetings,
02:38
11
nobody reimburses you for those flights?
02:38
12
A.
No.
02:38
13
Q.
Why?
02:38
14
A.
Because I can write it off myself.
15 16
I'm
self-employed. Q.
02:38 02:38
Got it.
02:39
17
S?
02:39
18
THE REPORTER:
19 20 21 22 23
Yes.
(Exhibit S marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39
This appears to be an e-mail that you sent from
a Hotmail account of yours; is that correct?
24
A.
Yeah.
25
Q.
Is that Hotmail account a personal account or
Looks like it.
02:39 02:39 02:39 02:39
106
1
account that you do business from?
02:39
2
A.
It's a personal account.
02:39
3
Q.
And it looks like it was forwarded to a Steve
02:40
4
Munro.
5
02:40 Do you know who that is?
02:40
6
A.
No, I don't.
02:40
7
Q.
Okay.
02:40
Would it refresh your recollection if I
8
told you that he was the compliance project manager for
02:40
9
the California Energy Commission at the time?
02:40
10
A.
Sure.
02:40
11
Q.
Do you -- Does this e-mail looks familiar?
02:40
12
A.
No, it doesn't.
02:40
13
Q.
Do you have any reason to believe that someone
02:40
14
would send an e-mail to someone from your -- to someone
02:40
15
else from your Hotmail account?
02:40
16
A.
No.
02:40
17
Q.
Would it be reasonable to assume that you sent
02:40
18
this e-mail to Christopher?
02:40
19
A.
Yes.
02:40
20
Q.
At the bottom of this e-mail, it says that you
02:40
21
were sending it on behalf of the Santa Monica Bay
02:40
22
Restoration Commission; correct?
02:40
23
A.
That's what it says, yes.
02:41
24
Q.
Were you sending it on behalf of the Santa
02:41
25
Monica Bay Restoration Commission or were you telling an
02:41
107
1
untruth to Christopher?
2
MR. WEISSMULLER:
3
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
02:41 That's argumentative.
02:41
I was using the term, as I said
02:41
4
before, commission to represent the -- the broader
02:41
5
National Estuary Program.
02:41
6
BY MS. VENSKUS:
02:41
7 8
Q.
the foundation, the commission, and the JPA?
9 10 11
So you were actually sending it on behalf of
A.
Well, that's what that means, "on behalf of,"
yes.
02:41 02:41 02:41 02:41
Q.
So -- so when you're referring to the Santa
02:41
12
Monica Bay Restoration Commission, you were actually
02:41
13
referring to the NEP, but the NEP is a partnership of
02:41
14
three different -- three different entities, so really
02:41
15
what you meant was on behalf of the three different
02:41
16
entities.
02:41
17 18
Is that an accurate reflection of your testimony?
02:41 02:41
19
A.
I believe so, yes.
02:41
20
Q.
Okay.
02:41
21
1 million.
22
That appears to -- let's see.
It says --
02:42
Second line?
02:42 02:42
23
A.
Yeah.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
And in the message body, it references
I got it.
The 1 million already paid out will not
02:42 02:42
108
1
be required to be returned, so long as it
02:42
2
has been encumbered or spent.
02:42
3
Is what you mean in this statement that
02:42
4
100 percent has already been encumbered or 80 percent was
02:42
5
already spent?
02:42
6
means?
7
A.
8 9
I'm confused.
Can you tell me what this
02:42 It's been a long time, so I -- I'd be guessing.
02:42
But what I think it means is that of the
02:42
1 million paid, looks like 80 percent of it has been
02:42
10
spent, and -- which means the rest -- well, all of it has
02:43
11
been encumbered, and the actual 80 percent of the
02:43
12
100 percent has fully been paid out.
02:43
13
Q.
14
this e-mail?
02:43
15
A.
02:43
Okay.
And what funds are you referencing in
I think what -- what this was, NRG was
02:43
16
converting to dry cooling at their El Segundo facility,
02:43
17
and as a -- not a mitigation measure, but as a -- as a
02:43
18
measure to get their permits from the energy commission,
02:43
19
they had to provide a certain amount of funding to a --
02:43
20
an entity in the region that does environmental work.
02:43
21
And so the funding was provided to the
02:43
22
foundation.
23
was it was going to be up to 4 million.
24
received 1 million, and then the rest was canceled, and I
02:43
25
don't really recall why.
02:44
I think -- At least I think what happened The foundation
Almost like a SEP fund or
02:43 02:43
109
1
something.
02:44
2
Q.
What's a SEP fund?
02:44
3
A.
Supplemental environmental project.
02:44
4
Q.
Supplemental environmental project?
02:44
5
A.
Yeah.
02:44
State Water Board used to, as part of issuing a
02:44
6 7
permit or as part of, I believe, as a -- as a penalty
02:44
8
measure, used to make organizations pay into
02:44
9
environmental organizations, so this was a similar thing.
02:44
10
If NRG wanted to do this dry cooling, part of
02:44
11
that deal was they would have to select an organization
02:44
12
and pay it.
02:44
13
Q.
So they selected the foundation?
02:44
14
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:44
15
MR. WEISSMULLER:
16
THE WITNESS:
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
MS. VENSKUS:
19
T.
20 21 22
Is that a "yes"?
Yes.
02:44 02:44
That's S; right?
Yeah.
02:44 02:44 02:45
(Exhibit T marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS:
02:45 02:45 02:45
23
Q.
Do you see person, Proto- --
02:45
24
A.
Protopapadakis.
02:46
25
Q.
Yes.
02:46
Who's she?
110
1 2
A.
Marine policy specialist.
I don't know if
that's still her title or not, but that was --
3
When was this done?
4
MR. WEISSMULLER:
5
THE WITNESS:
It says --
Okay.
So I guess that was her title
02:46 02:46 02:46 02:46 02:46
6
at the time.
02:46
7
BY MS. VENSKUS:
02:46
8
Q.
9 10
Have you ever -- did -- did you --
02:46
Well, strike that.
02:46
Have you ever seen this letter before?
02:46
11
A.
I have not.
02:46
12
Q.
Okay.
02:46
13
So do you see where -- at the bottom of
the page 1 under "Removal of Condition BIO-1"?
02:47
14
A.
Hm-hmm yes.
02:47
15
Q.
What's BIO-1; do you know?
02:47
16
A.
Yeah.
02:47
That was -- It says down at the bottom the
02:47
17 18
BIO-1 condition.
I believe in the document that
02:47
19
permitted the facility at the time, this was the
02:47
20
condition or meaning -- what's the other term for
02:47
21
condition? -- requirement of -- was for them to -- for
02:47
22
NRG to provide the $5 million initially.
02:47
23
Q.
And then what is ESP-II?
02:47
24
A.
I would assume --
02:47
Well, it says up here on the second paragraph,
02:47
25
111
1
the use --
02:47
2
Q.
Oh, you're right.
02:47
3
A.
So that is probably the name of the project.
02:47
4
Q.
Okay.
02:47
5
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:47
6
Q.
So that's NRG that owns El Segundo Power II?
02:47
7
A.
At the time they did, yes.
02:48
8
Q.
And so it says:
02:48
9
BIO-1 currently requires ESP-II to
02:48
10
provide the SMBRC with 5 million for
02:48
11
restoration projects; correct?
02:48
12
A.
13
No, that's not correct.
02:48
This is -- this is back in the time when using
02:48
14
the term "commission" was generalized and was for the
02:48
15
National Estuary Program --
02:48
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
-- so it did not specifically go to the
18 19 20 21
So --
02:48 02:48
commission, if that's what you're asking. Q.
Well, I'm looking at the top of the letter.
says:
02:48 It
02:48 02:48
Dear California Energy Commissioners:
02:48
22
The staff of the Santa Monica Bay
02:48
23
Restoration Commission thanks you for the
02:48
24
opportunity to comment.
02:48
25
So this Ms. Lia is referring to her -- She's
02:48
112
1
actually speaking on behalf of all the staff of the
02:49
2
commission, and so that's what she's representing to a
02:49
3
government agency.
02:49
4 5
California Energy Commission's a government agency; right?
02:49 02:49
6
A.
That's correct.
02:49
7
Q.
This is on Santa Monica Bay Restoration
02:49
8
Commission letterhead; right?
02:49
9
A.
It appears to be, yes.
02:49
10
Q.
And it has the Great Seal of California in the
02:49
11
bottom right-hand corner; right?
02:49
12
A.
Yes.
02:49
13
Q.
Well, don't you think that the California
02:49
14
Energy Commission is going to think that The Santa Monica
02:49
15
Bay Restoration Commission is a government agency that
02:49
16
they're receiving this letter from?
02:49
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
THE WITNESS:
Objection; calls for speculation.
02:49
I can't speak for what the California
02:49
19
Energy Commission thinks or what their representatives
02:49
20
think.
02:49
21
BY MS. VENSKUS:
02:49
22
Q.
If you were getting a letter that said "Hi,"
02:49
23
I'm the executive director of the California Energy
02:49
24
Commission on California Energy Commission letterhead
02:50
25
with the seal Great Seal of California at the bottom
02:50
113
1
right-hand corner, would you think that it's coming from
02:50
2
the California Energy Commission?
02:50
3
A.
Me, personally?
4
Q.
Do you know if these mitigation funds were
Yes.
02:50 02:50
5
required to be given to a government agency, as opposed
02:50
6
to any old nonprofit organization?
02:50
7
A.
No.
8
Q.
So she says here -- this is that bottom
9
paragraph --
02:50
10
A.
Hm-hmm.
02:50
11
Q.
-- towards the -- the second line down towards
02:51
I don't know.
02:50 02:50
12
the end of that line, it says, to date, the commission
02:51
13
has received 1 million.
02:51
14
But you're referring -- But what you're
02:51
15
suggesting is that she was referring to the NEP and not
02:51
16
the commission.
02:51
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
Is that your testimony?
02:51 And so let's just replace "SMBRC" with
the "NEP" for a minute.
02:51 02:51
20
A.
Okay.
02:51
21
Q.
So this would then read, to date, NEP has
02:51
22
received 1 million.
02:51
23
A.
Sure.
02:51
24
Q.
But the NEP can't receive 1 million because
02:51
25
it's not an entity, it's actually a partnership between
02:51
114
1
three entities:
2
The foundation, commission, and JPA.
02:51
Correct?
02:51
3
A.
Correct.
02:51
4
Q.
So then this sentence is essentially saying, to
02:51
5
date, the JPA, the commission, and foundation as a
02:51
6
partnership has received 1 million.
02:51
7 8
Would that be a fair reflection of the statement?
02:51 02:51
9
A.
No, it wouldn't.
02:51
10
Q.
Okay.
Well, then, please explain to me how
02:51
11
this sentence makes any sense within the construct of
02:51
12
your theory that the SMBRC referred to here is actually
02:52
13
referring to the NEP as a whole.
02:52
14
A.
15
Sure.
02:52
If you'd just replace it with "NEP" and you
02:52
16
would then ask what is the NEP, you would look at the NEP
02:52
17
work plan, and the NEP work plan specifically states that
02:52
18
the funds are received by the foundation.
02:52
19 20 21
So that would be the next logical step in a -in a broader response or letter, I suppose. Q.
Okay.
So what I understand your testimony to
02:52 02:52 02:52
22
be then is what -- instead of saying the SMBRC has
02:52
23
received 1 million, it would have been more accurate to
02:52
24
say -- or that --
02:52
25
The accurate statement would have been to say
02:52
115
1
the foundation has received 1 million; is that correct?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Okay.
That would be correct.
02:52 02:52
Have you ever used a State Water Board
02:52
4
e-mail address in your position as the commission's
02:53
5
Director of Government Affairs?
02:53
6
A.
Yes, I did.
02:53
7
Q.
Have you ever used a State Water Board phone
02:53
8
number in your position as the commission's Director of
02:53
9
Government Affairs?
02:54
10
A.
Yes, I did.
02:54
11
Q.
Did you ever communicate with Molly Martin at
02:54
12
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?
02:54
13
A.
Yes.
02:54
14
Q.
Do you ever communicate with Molly --
02:55
15
I'm sorry; strike that.
02:55
16
When you communicate with Molly Martin, are you
02:55
17
acting in your capacity as Director of Government Affairs
02:55
18
of the commission or in your capacity as Director of
02:55
19
Government Affairs of the foundation?
02:55
20
A.
Really depends on the communication, because it
02:55
21
depends on what she's asking about, since she oversees
02:55
22
the National Estuary Program as a whole.
02:55
23
question about one or the other.
24
MS. VENSKUS:
25
THE REPORTER:
What's the time? 2:56.
She might ask a
02:55 02:56 02:56
116
1
MS. VENSKUS:
2 3 4 5 6
U.
(Exhibit U marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
02:56 02:56 02:56 02:57
So let me just make sure that you understand
that -- or let me ask you this.
02:57 02:57
7
A.
Sure --
02:57
8
Q.
-- do you understand that John Davis is not
02:57
9
affiliated with the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust?
02:58
10
A.
I absolutely understand that, yes.
02:58
11
Q.
Okay.
02:58
12 13
A.
14 15 16 17 18
Does this e-mail look familiar to you?
02:58
It does.
02:58
Okay.
02:58
If you want to take a look, it's just a
long string, I think. Q.
This is another e-mail that you sent from your
Hotmail account; correct? A.
19 20
Just want to establish that foundation.
Q.
02:58 02:58 02:58
Let me see.
02:58
Yeah.
02:58
It looks like that one is, uh-huh.
Is there any particular reason why you sent
02:58
21
e-mails from your Hotmail account versus your
02:58
22
santamonicabay.org e-mail account?
02:58
23
A.
Sometimes by accident, sometimes if the -- the
02:58
24
Outlook server is down, 'cause apparently it's kind of
02:58
25
funky, and then sometimes on my phone, they come in
02:59
117
1
collectively to a combined box, and I might not just
02:59
2
select the -- the .org, and it might just come out --
02:59
3
Q.
Okay.
02:59
4
A.
-- but I try -- I try not to.
02:59
5
Q.
When you're responding to a Public Records Act
02:59
6
request on behalf of the commission, do you make sure to
02:59
7
check your Hotmail account to make sure there's no
02:59
8
responsive documents in that account by accident?
02:59
9
A.
I do.
02:59
10
Q.
So you're sending you -- this e-mail here in
03:00
11
your capacity as Director of Government Affairs of the
03:01
12
commission; correct?
03:01
13
A.
Yes.
03:01
14
Q.
Who is Heather Burdick here cc'd?
03:01
15
A.
She's Tom Ford's assistant.
03:01
And when I cc Heather Burdick, it indicates
03:01
16 17
that this should be put to Tom's attention because of the
03:01
18
volume of e-mails that he receives.
03:01
19
Q.
I may have already asked you this question, and
20
I apologize if I have.
21
answer.
22
I assume I won't get a different
03:02 03:02 03:02
If I did ask the question, and I don't recall
03:02
23
the answer, on the second page of this e-mail thread, you
03:02
24
provide -- it appears, anyway, that you provide a series
03:02
25
of bulleted talking points to Molly Martin.
03:02
118
1
Do you see that?
03:02
2
A.
Yes, I do, yes.
03:02
3
Q.
And the second bullet point states that SMBRC
03:02
4
is designated -- has a designated individual,
03:02
5
Scott Valor, who is its Director of Government Affairs
03:03
6
assigned to respond to these requests.
03:03
7 8
You're referring to Public Records Act requests; correct?
03:03 03:03
9
A.
Correct.
03:03
10
Q.
And that's a true statement; correct?
03:03
11
A.
Correct.
03:03
12
Q.
And is that one of your official duties as the
03:03
13
commission's Director of Government Affairs to respond to
03:03
14
Public Records Act requests?
03:03
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And the third bullet states Scott Valor is a
17
I believe so.
consultant to the commission.
18
03:03 03:03 03:03
Is that a true statement?
03:03
19
A.
It's a generalized statement.
03:03
20
Q.
What does that mean, "a generalized statement"?
03:03
21
A.
I'm consultant to the National Estuary Program,
03:03
22
and I'm assigned to individual tasks for the commission,
03:03
23
but this is a bullet point, not a narrative.
03:03
24 25
Q.
What's the difference between a bullet point
and a narrative?
03:03 03:03
119
1
A.
Length; specificity.
03:03
2
Q.
So -- so it a --
03:03
But is it true that you're a consultant to the
03:03
3 4
commission?
5
A.
6 7 8
No.
03:03 I'm a consultant to The Bay Foundation and
assigned to tasks for the commission. Q.
Okay.
03:03 03:03
So this is not a -- an entirely accurate
statement then.
03:03 03:04
9
A.
That's correct.
10
Q.
So it should have said Scott Valor is a
It is -- Correct.
03:04 03:04
11
consultant to the foundation performing duties on behalf
03:04
12
of the commission?
03:04
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
03:04 On page 4, you -- let's see -- do you
see that -- okay.
I'm on page 4.
03:04 03:04
16
A.
Hm-hmm.
03:04
17
Q.
Do you see at the top where it says Molly and
03:04
18
Tom, and then there's a couple -- there's like four
03:04
19
paragraphs or five paragraphs under that?
03:04
20
A.
Hm-hmm.
03:04
21
Q.
And the second one says:
03:04
22
What you see below is a Groundhog Day
03:04
23
repeat by Davis to SWRCB attorneys.
24
refuses to, quote, accept, end quote,
03:05
25
responses to the Public Records Act requests
03:05
He
03:04
120
1
from SMBRC's designated agent to do so.
2
then it puts parentheses, "me."
And
03:05 03:05
3
A.
Hm-hmm.
03:05
4
Q.
So you're referring to yourself as the SMBRC's
03:05
5
designated agent; correct?
03:05
6
A.
Correct.
03:05
7
Q.
Is it fair to say Tom Ford was aware at the
03:05
8
time that you sent these e-mails that you were in fact
03:05
9
the commission's designated person to respond to Public
03:05
Records Act requests?
03:05
10 11
A.
Repeat that, please.
03:05
12
Q.
Did Tom Ford know that you were the designated
03:05
13
person to respond to Public Records Act requests on
03:05
14
behalf of the commission?
03:05
15
A.
I believe so, yes.
03:05
16
Q.
Do Public Records Act requests still go to you
03:06
17
when they're directed to the commission?
03:06
18
A.
Yes, they do.
03:06
19
Q.
Do they go to anybody else first?
03:06
20
A.
First.
03:06
21
Not that I'm aware of.
No, that's actually not true.
Occasionally,
03:06
22
they have -- this person, John Davis, had sent Public
03:06
23
Records Act requests to Guang-Yu Wang.
03:06
24
Q.
25
respond to?
Then Guang-Yu Wang directs them to you to
03:06 03:06
121
1 2
A.
Or I think he might direct them to Frances who
then directs them to me.
03:06 03:06
3
Q.
But they eventually end up your hands.
03:06
4
A.
That's correct.
03:06
5
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
6
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
8
MS. VENSKUS:
9
11
03:07
(Recess taken.)
7
10
DVD stopped, 3:07.
And we're back on record.
03:07 3:30.
V.
(Exhibit V marked for identification and attached hereto.) MS. VENSKUS:
These appear to be minutes of the
03:30 03:30 03:30 03:30 03:30
12
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation board of
03:30
13
directors for the meeting of August 16, 2007.
03:30
14
This document was provided to the land trust in
03:30
15
PDF format in response to a FOIA request for the U.S.
03:30
16
EPA, and the properties of the PDF file indicate you're
03:30
17
the author of this document.
03:30
18
Q.
Do you recall authoring this document?
03:30
19
A.
Yes.
03:31
20 21 22
for the foundation. Q.
25
And it appears that the meeting took place at
the Del Rey Yacht Club in Marina del Ray.
23 24
I probably did, because that's what I did
Is that the same venue where the meetings of the governing board take place? A.
Correct.
03:31 03:31 03:31 03:31 03:31 03:31
122
1 2
Q.
Items -- Further states the foundation's board
of directors voted to approve and accept a grant.
3
03:31 03:31
Looks like there was no discussion.
03:31
4
A.
Hm-hmm.
03:31
5
Q.
Is that correct?
03:31
6
A.
That's what the document says.
7 8 9
I don't recall
this, no, I really don't. Q.
Do you recall that there was a commission
03:31 03:31 03:31
meeting in which -- before this foundation meeting where
03:31
10
the discussion about this same item took place at the
03:31
11
same time?
03:31
12
There's two parts to your question.
03:31
13
Yes, I recall that the meeting of the
03:31
14
commission preceded this meeting, but I don't recall this
03:31
15
specific agenda item.
03:31
16
A.
Q.
Did you review these meeting minutes and ensure
03:32
17
their accuracy before sending them on to the foundation
03:32
18
board of directors?
03:32
19
A.
Yes.
03:32
20
Q.
It appears that this meeting lasted eight
03:32
21
minutes.
03:32
22
A.
Hm-hmm, yes.
03:32
23
Q.
Is that common for foundation board of
03:32
24 25
directors meetings to last eight minutes? A.
I don't know if -- what you mean by "common."
03:32 03:32
123
1
Typical --
03:32
2
Q.
Typical?
03:32
3
A.
-- it varied, depending on what was discussed.
03:32
4
Q.
So typically how long do foundation board of
03:32
5 6 7 8 9
directors meetings last? A.
I was going to estimate it.
03:32 I would say an
hour; maybe 30 minutes to an hour. Q.
Do you retain copies of the meeting minutes of
the foundation board of directors?
03:32 03:32 03:32 03:32
10
A.
Do I?
03:32
11
Q.
Yes.
03:32
12
A.
No.
03:32
13
Q.
Who does?
03:32
14
A.
It is on the server of the --
03:32
15
Excuse me.
03:32
16
The foundation server.
03:32
You have access to these meeting minutes,
03:33
17 18
Q.
'cause you have access to the server; correct?
19
A.
20
MS. VENSKUS:
That's correct.
21 22 23
Let me specify.
W.
(Exhibit W marked for identification and attached hereto.) MS. VENSKUS:
This is a two-page document which is a
03:33 03:33 03:33 03:33 03:33 03:34
24
staff recommendation from Shelley Luce to the board of
03:34
25
directors.
03:34
It appears to relate to the same agenda item
124
1
4 noted in the minutes that we just reviewed.
03:34
2
Q.
Do you recall this staff recommendation memo?
03:34
3
A.
Let me see the minutes again, please.
03:34
No.
These are not the same.
03:34
4 5
Q.
Does this document look familiar?
03:34
6
A.
Yeah.
03:34
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
let's put it that way. Q.
16 17
Doesn't look unfamiliar,
It's a long time ago.
Are there -- I think you mentioned there's
03:34 03:34
audio recordings that were made of commission governing
03:34
board meetings; is that correct?
03:34
A.
Yes.
I should say, though, I don't know if
back in 2007 that was the case. MS. VENSKUS:
14 15
I think so.
Okay.
X.
(Exhibit X marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
This is an e-mail message from June 26, 2014 to
03:34 03:34 03:34 03:35 03:35 03:35 03:35
18
Karina Johnston, or from Karina Johnston to Molly Martin
03:35
19
at U.S. EPA, and you apparently were copied on this
03:35
20
e-mail.
03:36
21
Does it -- Do you recognize this e-mail?
03:36
22
A.
I have to look at it.
03:36
23
Q.
Okay.
03:36
24
A.
Yes, I recognize this.
03:36
25
Q.
Do you recall that on the Public Records Act
03:36
125
1
request from Walter Lamb of the Ballona Wetlands Land
03:36
2
Trust asking for documents relating to the Annenberg
03:36
3
Foundation's involvement as a partner in the Ballona
03:36
4
Wetlands Restoration project?
03:36
5 6 7 8
A.
Specifically, no, but, generally, yes.
I think
there was more than one. Q.
03:36 03:36
Why wasn't this e-mail provided to Mr. Lamb in
response to that request?
03:36 03:36
9
A.
I don't know that that's the case.
03:37
10
Q.
Well, looking at it, if Mr. Lamb had asked for
03:37
11
documents relating to Annenberg Foundation's involvement
03:37
12
as a partner in the Ballona Wetlands restoration project,
03:37
13
wouldn't this document meet that scope of request?
03:37
14
A.
15
MR. WEISSMULLER:
16
Let me see.
03:37 Objection.
This calls for a legal
conclusion from a lay witness.
03:37 03:37
17
THE WITNESS:
18
MR. WEISSMULLER:
19
THE WITNESS:
Can you repeat the question?
03:37
20
MS. VENSKUS:
Do you want to repeat the question,
03:37
21 22
Am I responding? Yes; if you can.
please, Madam Court Reporter? (Question read.)
03:37 03:37
03:37 03:37
23
THE WITNESS:
Yeah, I believe so.
03:38
24
MS. VENSKUS:
Y.
03:38
25
THE WITNESS:
H'm?
03:38
126
1 2
MS. VENSKUS:
This is
Exhibit Y.
3
My response would be . . . .
Yes.
5
and attached hereto.)
03:38
This appears to be an e-mail communication
03:39
between you and Molly Martin at U.S. EPA regarding a
03:39
10
memorandum of understanding between Annenberg, the -- and
03:39
11
the commission --
03:39
9
Q.
03:38 03:38
BY MS. VENSKUS:
8
03:38 03:38
(Exhibit Y marked for identification
6
03:38 03:38
THE WITNESS:
4
7
That's not a question.
12
Well, let me restate that.
03:39
13
What -- What is the Annenberg MOU that you're
03:39
14
referring to here?
15
A.
03:39
This was, as far as I can understand, a
03:39
16
document signed by Coastal Conservancy Fish and Wildlife,
03:39
17
the Annenberg Foundation representatives, and the
03:39
18
executive director of The Santa Monica Bay Restoration
03:39
19
Commission.
03:39
20
Q.
21
Okay.
And does this e-mail look familiar to
you?
03:39 03:39
22
A.
Yeah, sure.
23
Q.
Okay.
I mean it's from me, yes.
That's what I need to know.
When I ask
03:39 03:39
24
if a document's familiar, what I'm trying to do is
03:39
25
authenticate --
03:40
127
1
A.
Yes.
03:40
2
Q.
-- the document, making sure somebody --
03:40
3
A.
Sure.
03:40
4
Q.
-- didn't impersonate you, or something.
03:40
Z.
03:40
5 6 7 8 9 10
(Exhibit Z marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
03:41 03:41
This appears to be a letter from Frances
McChesney.
11
03:41
03:41 03:41
Do you see that signature on the third page?
03:41
12
A.
That's correct.
03:41
13
Q.
It looks like her signature; correct?
03:41
14
A.
Yes.
03:41
15
Q.
And it's to a member of the public, Mr. John
03:41
16
Davis, in which Ms. McChesney tells the member of the
03:41
17
public that he, quote, may also view some commission
03:41
18
records on its website.
03:41
19
A.
20
MR. WEISSMULLER:
21
THE WITNESS:
22 23
Here.
03:41 All right.
Okay.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
24 25
Here.
A.
03:41 03:41 03:41
It looks like you were copied on this letter.
03:41
Do you recognize this letter?
03:41
I do.
03:41
128
1
MS. VENSKUS:
2
MS. VENSKUS:
03:42
-- and it's all over for us.
03:42 Here's
AA.
03:42 03:42
Q.
7 8
03:42
and attached hereto.)
4
6
We're almost to ZZ --
(Exhibit AA marked for identification
3
5
AA.
This appears to be --
03:42
Why don't you take a moment and look at it and
03:42
then I'll ask you questions.
03:42
9
A.
Yep, okay.
03:42
10
Q.
This appears to be an e-mail from you to the
03:42
11
web support staff at the water resources control board;
03:42
12
correct?
03:42
13
A.
That's correct.
03:42
14
Q.
Is this the e-mail that you send documents to
03:42
15
be posted to the web, the commission website?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
A.
I do.
19
MS. VENSKUS:
20 21 22 23
03:43 Do you recognize this e-mail?
03:43 03:43
BB.
(Exhibit BB marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
03:43
This appears to be an e-mail thread
03:43 03:43 03:43 03:43 03:43
24
regarding -- between you and web support regarding a
03:43
25
decision; add two individuals that were removed from the
03:44
129
1
staff page of the commission's website back on to the
03:44
2
staff page.
03:44
3
Do you recognize this e-mail?
03:44
I do.
03:44
4
A.
5
MS. VENSKUS:
6 7 8 9
CC.
(Exhibit CC marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
This document was obtained via a Public Records
03:44 03:44 03:44 03:45 03:45
10
Act request to the -- from the California Department of
03:45
11
Finance, and it appears that it's a document explaining
03:45
12
the relationship between the commission and foundation.
03:45
13
It's from Marcelo Villagomez who's stating that
03:45
14
you used this document, that is, the attachment document
03:45
15
called "Background Information" of The Santa Monica Bay
03:45
16
Restoration Commission and Santa Monica Bay Restoration
03:45
17
Foundation in one of the commission's governing board
03:45
18
meetings.
03:45
19 20
Is this in fact a document that you used in one of the governing board meetings for the commission?
03:45 03:45
21
A.
I believe so.
03:45
22
Q.
Have you ever read the bylaws of The Santa
03:46
23
Monica Bay Restoration Foundation?
03:46
24
A.
At some point, I think I did.
03:46
25
Q.
Do you know how many versions there are of the
03:46
130
1
bylaws there have been since you started working for the
03:46
2
foundation?
03:46
3
A.
At least three that I can think of.
03:46
4
Q.
When was the last time the bylaws were revised?
03:46
5
A.
I don't recall.
03:46
6
Q.
Can you estimate?
03:46
7
A.
No.
03:46
8
Because I believe they were amended after
I stopped doing that type of work for the foundation.
03:46
9
Q.
Which was when?
03:46
10
A.
I'm going to guess at --
03:47
11
Q.
Don't guess.
03:47
12
A.
Ten to 12 months ago, maybe more.
03:47
13
Q.
Why did you stop doing that kind of work for
03:47
14 15 16
Just estimate.
the foundation? A.
03:47
Because the executive director took me off
that.
03:47
17
Q.
Tom Ford did?
18
A.
Actually, Shelley Luce.
19
longer.
20
Q.
21
03:47
03:47 So it had to be
03:47 03:47
Okay.
Are copies of the bylaws located on the
server at LMU?
03:47 03:47
22
A.
Yes, I believe so.
03:47
23
Q.
Have you ever communicated with elected
03:47
24
officials or their staff regarding the Ballona Wetlands
03:47
25
Land Trust concerns about transparency at the commission?
03:48
131
1
A.
Yes.
03:48
2
Q.
And what have you communicated and whom with?
03:48
3
A.
That's pretty broad.
03:48
4
Q.
Who have you communicated about the land trust
03:48
5 6 7 8 9
concerns about transparency at the commission? MR. WEISSMULLER:
To the extent it involves any
conversations with counsel, I don't want you to answer. THE WITNESS:
Okay.
03:48 03:48 03:48 03:48
BY MS. VENSKUS:
03:48
10
Q.
I'm talking about with elected officials --
03:48
11
A.
I understand.
03:48
12
Q.
-- not attorneys.
03:48
13
A.
I understand.
03:48
14
MR. WEISSMULLER:
15
Your question is broader than
that.
03:48 03:48
16
MS. VENSKUS:
17
Q.
How about this:
Let me restate it.
03:48
What elected officials or their non-attorney
03:48
18
staff have you communicated with regarding the Ballona
03:48
19
Wetlands Land Trust concerns about transparency at the
03:48
20
commission?
03:48
21
A.
So do you want me to list --
03:48
22
Q.
Yes.
03:48
23
A.
-- the offices?
03:48
24
Q.
-- I do.
03:48
25
A.
Bonin, Burke, Pavley, Allen.
03:49
132
1
Q.
A-l-l-e-n?
03:49
2
A.
Yes.
03:49
3
Q.
Which Allen?
4 5
Ben Allen?
State Senator Ben
Allen? A.
03:49 03:49
Lieu, L-i-e-u, Waxman -- What's the former
6
assembly member's name -- or Burke.
7
name.
Don't remember his
Steve?
03:49 03:49 03:49
8
Q.
Which Burke?
9
A.
Yvonne -- Not Yvonne.
03:49 Autumn Burke.
So
03:49
10
whoever she replaced who was termed out, his staff.
03:49
11
Garcetti, Villaraigosa.
03:49
12
Who did Bonin replace?
03:50 03:50
13
Q.
Bonin?
14
A.
Bonin, B-o-n-i-n.
15
Q.
Rosendahl?
16
A.
-- Rosendahl.
17
Q.
Richard Bloom?
03:50
18
A.
Yes.
03:50
19
Q.
Betty Butler?
20
A.
Probably, yeah.
21
He replaced --
03:50 03:50
Bloom.
I think that's it.
03:50
03:50 When she was in -- in office,
yeah, likely.
03:50 03:50
22
Q.
Anyone else?
03:50
23
A.
That's all I can think of.
03:50
24
Q.
And are some of these communications in
03:50
response to inquiries by some of these government
03:50
25
133
1 2
officials or their staff? A.
03:51
It was -- That was the primary reason was they
03:51
3
would call or e-mail and ask, or if they received a
03:51
4
document, they would ask about it or where they could
03:51
5
find more information.
03:51
6
Q.
What about Gloria Gray's office?
03:51
7
A.
Oh, yeah, yes.
03:51
8
Q.
Were any of the communications in writing?
03:51
9
A.
Some probably would have been in e-mails, but I
03:51
10 11 12
Definitely.
think the most were phone calls. Q.
Do you keep record of notes of your phone
calls?
03:51 03:51 03:51
13
A.
No.
03:51
14
Q.
Do you know if the Del Rey Yacht Club provides
03:52
15
its meeting space to the commission free of charge?
16
A.
17
MR. WEISSMULLER:
18
THE WITNESS:
19 20
Yes.
03:52 Yes, you know, or yes, it does?
Yes, it does.
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
03:52
Is there any kind of written agreement between
03:52 03:52 03:52 03:52
21
the Del Rey Yacht Club and the commission regarding the
03:52
22
use of the commission -- the commission's use of the
03:52
23
space there?
03:52
24
A.
No.
03:52
25
Q.
There is not anything in writing?
03:52
134
1
A.
No.
The only thing that would be in writing is
03:52
2
the commission annual calendar which is decided the
03:52
3
December prior to the year, and that is preapproved by
03:52
4
the Del Rey Yacht Club board.
03:52
5
Q.
6
THE REPORTER:
DD?
7 8 9 10 11
03:53 DD.
(Exhibit DD marked for identification and attached hereto.) MS. VENSKUS: Madam Reporter. Q.
13
with these records?
Are you familiar
03:53 03:53 03:53
No.
03:53
15
One moment.
03:54
16
No, I'm not.
03:54
Who's responsible for creating the statement of
03:54
17 18 19 20 21 22
A.
03:53 03:53
These appear to be accounting records from the
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Authority.
03:53 03:53
I will give you my copy,
12
14
03:53
Q.
receipts and disbursements for the authority? A.
The auditor/controller's office for the county,
I believe. Q.
03:54 03:54 03:54
Can you verify whether the majority of the
authority's funds have been disbursed to the foundation?
03:55 03:55
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
Let's go back to this --
03:56
Let's go back to where you get your checks
03:56
25
I don't know.
03:55
135
1
from, meaning, you know, you submit your time sheets, and
03:56
2
then you get paid for the work that you've performed.
03:56
3
I believe your testimony was -- and please
03:56
4
correct me if I'm wrong; I may have gotten it wrong -- I
03:56
5
believe your testimony was that the checks that you
03:56
6
receive are from the NEP, and that it says "NEP" or
03:56
7
"National" -- "Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program"
03:56
8
on the checks.
03:56
9
Is that your testimony?
03:56
10
A.
No, it is not.
03:56
11
Q.
So what entity is on the checks?
03:56
12
A.
The -- It either says The Bay Foundation or The
03:56
13
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation, one or the
03:56
14
other, but they're one in the same.
03:56
15
MS. VENSKUS:
16
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We can switch. This concludes DVD No. 2 in the
17
continuing testimony of Scott Valor.
18
3:57.
19 20 21
24 25
Off the record,
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
This begins DVD No. 3 in the
continuing testimony of Scott Valor. Back on record, 3 -- 4 o'clock. BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
03:57 03:57 03:57
(Off the record.)
22 23
03:57
Do you know what the document retention policy
is for the commission?
03:57 03:59 03:59 04:00 04:00 04:00 04:00
136
1
A.
I don't.
04:00
2
Q.
What about for the foundation?
04:00
3
A.
I don't.
04:00
4
Q.
Why don't you know the document retention
04:00
5
policies of those two entities when you're the contact
04:00
6
person for the requests?
04:00
7
MR. WEISSMULLER:
8
MS. VENSKUS:
9 10
THE WITNESS:
This is EE --
Take a look at these, please.
04:00 04:00 04:00 04:00
Well, hold on a second. Q.
04:00
04:00
I'm not involved in that, so . . . .
15 16
I understand.
retained doesn't --
MS. VENSKUS:
04:00
04:00
Because it doesn't -- How or why they're
13 14
I'm not trying to be argumentative;
I'm just asking questions.
11 12
Objection; argumentative.
04:01 These are
04:01
17
agreement summaries for The Santa Monica Bay Restoration
04:01
18
Authority?
04:01
19
A.
Hm-hmm.
20
Q.
Do these look familiar to you?
21
04:01 Have you seen
these before?
04:01 04:01
22
A.
I think so.
04:01
23
Q.
Well, could you take a look and let me know,
04:01
24
please?
25
A.
04:01 Yeah.
04:01
137
1
Unh-unh.
Actually, no, I'm not --
04:01
2
Q.
Okay.
04:01
3
A.
Let me see the front page again.
04:01
No.
04:01
4
I'm not familiar with these.
5
Q.
You can give them back to me.
04:01
6
A.
Sure.
04:01
7
Q.
I decided not to do anything with that.
04:01
8
A.
Okay.
04:01
9
MS. VENSKUS:
10 11 12 13
(Exhibit EE marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
14 15
This is EE, please.
04:02 04:03 04:03 04:03
And then I'd like you to turn to the last page.
04:03
And do you see there, it's highlighted, Karina
04:03
Johnston, under "commission staff"?
04:03
16
A.
Yes, I do.
04:03
17
Q.
Did you review these meeting minutes before
04:03
18
they were approved by the governing board?
04:03
19
A.
Yes.
04:03
20
Q.
And so is it true that Karina Johnston was
04:03
21
commission staff at the time these meeting minutes were
04:03
22
approved?
04:03
23
A.
Specifically the Santa Monica Restoration
04:03
24
Commission, no, but in terms of the National Estuary
04:03
25
Program, as a whole, yes.
04:03
138
1 2 3
Q.
And why doesn't it say here "National Estuary
Program staff"? A.
4
04:03 04:04
Because back -- What date was this?
04:04
Back in 2010, we -- inartfully, I guess, if you
04:04
5
want to say it -- threw everything together as the
04:04
6
commission.
04:04
7
Q.
So I have the same question --
04:04
Can you hand those --
04:04
8 9
A.
Sure.
04:04
10
Q.
-- to the court reporter, please?
04:04
You already have copies of all those, please.
04:04
11 12
MR. WEISSMULLER:
13
MS. VENSKUS:
14 15 16 17
Okay.
That's fine.
04:04
And you'll have a copy with the
transcript.
04:04
MR. WEISSMULLER:
We'll have a copy with the
transcript. MS. VENSKUS:
04:04
04:04 04:04
Okay.
And then here's FF.
The same
04:04
18
question with respect to the Karina Johnston and the
04:04
19
commission staff.
04:04
20 21 22
(Exhibit FF marked for identification and attached hereto.) THE WITNESS:
Sure.
So the answer is exactly the
04:04 04:04 04:04
23
same as my prior one, and that it was, when we said
04:04
24
"commission staff," we were referring to the entire
04:04
25
National Estuary Program staff.
04:04
139
1 2 3
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
Okay.
04:04 So would it be accurate to say that she
was the staff of the JPA?
04:04 04:04
4
A.
Karina?
04:04
5
Q.
Yes.
04:05
6
A.
No.
04:05
7
Q.
Would it be accurate for her -- for you to say
04:05
8
that she's a staff of the foundation?
04:05
9
A.
Yes, that's correct.
04:05
10
Q.
Would it be accurate for you to say that she's
04:05
11
staff of the commission?
04:05
12
A.
No.
04:05
13
Q.
Did the commission have any staff at this time?
04:05
14
A.
No.
04:05
15
Q.
So all of these people under "commission staff"
04:05
16 17 18
are really either JPA or foundation staff? A.
No.
Every single person on this list was or is
a staff member of The Bay Foundation.
04:05 04:05 04:05
19
Q.
Okay.
04:05
20
A.
Yes.
04:05
21
Except -- I'm sorry -- No.
04:05
22
See, I have to look at this how many times?
04:05
23
Guang-Yu Wang is a staff member of the State
04:05
24
Water Board.
04:05
25
Q.
04:05
But is the State Water Board part of the NEP?
140
1
A.
It is --
04:06
2
No, it's not --
04:06
3
It's not one of the three primary entities, but
04:06
4
the State Water Board provides administrative services to
04:06
5
the commission, and so the State Water Board is described
04:06
6
in the work plan as an entity, one of several state
04:06
7
agencies that provides assistance, for lack of a better
04:06
8
term, to the National Estuary Program.
04:06
9
Q.
Okay.
But I thought that you said that when
04:06
10
you're referring to commission staff here, you're
04:06
11
referring to the NEP, but -- and that there's three
04:06
12
entities that make up the NEP.
04:06
13
But now you're saying there's another person
04:06
14
that's a staff person of an entity that's not part of the
04:06
15
NEP, so I'm a little confused --
04:06
16 17
A.
Let me go back and look at this one.
This is
EE.
04:06 04:06
18
And, yes.
19
Guang-Yu Wang is on this list.
Okay.
So I misspoke.
04:06 So on this
04:06
20
list, all these individuals are employed by The Bay
04:06
21
Foundation except Guang-Yu Wang, who's employed by the
04:06
22
State Water Board.
04:07
23 24 25
Q.
Is "staff" and "employee" the -- are those two
terms equal in your mind? A.
No.
04:07 04:07 04:07
141
1
Q.
How are they different?
04:07
2
A.
An employee has an employment contract,
04:07
3
personnel records, and what have you, and a staff person,
04:07
4
in my mind, the way we use it here, is a person who is
04:07
5
assigned to do -- conduct duties for a particular entity.
04:07
6
Q.
Okay.
7
A.
Which one was this --
04:07
Is this another?
04:07 04:07
8
And then --
9
Q.
Yes.
10
A.
Okay.
11
MS. VENSKUS:
12
15
You don't have it labeled. So I'll put a label on that.
And then we've got GG.
13 14
That's FF.
(Exhibit GG marked for identification and attached hereto.)
04:07 04:07 04:08 04:08 04:08
And these are again meeting minutes,
04:08
16
the governing board of the commission, and I'm going to
04:08
17
hand this to you, but I'll point to the page, the
04:08
18
relevant page.
04:08
19 20
MS. VENSKUS:
04:07
Q.
It says here Karina Johnston, again, under
"commission staff."
04:08 04:08
21
A.
Correct.
04:08
22
Q.
So is your explanation the same as -- as to
04:08
23
this set of meeting minutes as the other ones that we
04:08
24
just reviewed, EE and FF?
04:08
25
A.
That's correct.
04:08
142
1
Q.
Okay.
04:08
2
A.
Done?
04:08
3
Q.
Yes.
04:08
Did Karina Johnston perform tasks for the
04:09
4 5
commission?
04:09
6
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
04:09
7
Q.
So she's only ever performed tasks for the
04:09
8
foundation.
9
A.
10 11
04:10
I -- I don't know.
I don't know.
She did make a presentation to the commission, but I'm not sure if that's considered a task.
04:10 04:10 04:10
12
Q.
The Form 700 we were talking about earlier --
04:11
13
A.
Hm-hmm.
04:11
14
Q.
-- did you provide them to the land trust in
04:11
15
the document production along with -- that was requested
04:11
16
in your deposition notice?
04:11
17
A.
The actual forms themselves?
04:11
18
Q.
Yeah.
04:11
19
A.
No.
20
I believe the production was for
communications.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
A.
No.
04:11 04:11
So they weren't provided. It was -- Let me see.
Where is it?
04:11 04:12
23
All calendar year communications between --
04:12
24
Yeah.
04:12
25
No.
I -- That's e-mails is what I provided.
04:12
143
1 2 3
You wanted the actual form -Q.
I would.
Where are those located, and can you
produce those to us?
4
A.
5
MR. WEISSMULLER:
6
04:12 04:12
Yes.
04:12 We'll take it under submission.
What is it you're looking for?
7
MS. VENSKUS:
8
MR. WEISSMULLER:
9
MS. VENSKUS:
10
04:12
The Form 700s -For who?
-- that are -- that are filed
annually.
04:12 04:12 04:12 04:12 04:12 04:12
11
Q.
With the FPPC; right?
04:12
12
A.
Correct.
04:12
13 14 15
Q.
Well, most are, yes.
Well, what date range?
04:12
Well, you said, I think, you believe -- I'm
04:12
sorry.
16
04:12 I believe you said that you first started
04:12
17
filing them in '04 or '05, so I would want every one
04:12
18
that's been filed since '04 or '05.
04:12
19
A.
20
MR. WEISSMULLER:
21
If we have them. And we'll take it under
submission.
04:12 04:12 04:12
22
THE WITNESS:
Sorry.
04:12
23
MS. VENSKUS:
Do I need to do any sort of
04:12
24
discovery -- a formal discovery request, or can you just
04:13
25
let me know and --
04:13
144
1
MR. WEISSMULLER:
I'll let you know; not
04:13
2
immediately.
04:13
3
BY MS. VENSKUS:
04:13
4
Q.
Do you receive separate paychecks for work that
04:14
5
you perform for the commission, separate from the work
04:14
6
that you perform for the foundation, or is it all
04:14
7
combined in a single paycheck?
04:14
8
A.
9
MS. VENSKUS:
10
04:15 04:15
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
04:14 04:15
and attached hereto.)
13 14
HH.
(Exhibit HH marked for identification
11 12
It's combined in a single paycheck.
04:15
This is an e-mail that was produced today by
you.
04:15 04:16
15
A.
Hm-hmm.
04:16
16
Q.
And I assume this is a true and correct copy of
04:16
17
an e-mail that you sent to Molly Martin and you copied
04:16
18
Tom Ford on it; correct?
04:16
19
A.
Right.
04:16
20
Q.
And it says you and Tom wanted to give her an
04:16
21
update on how the lawsuit is progressing, and it looks
04:16
22
like you offered to set up a conference call to talk
04:16
23
about it.
04:16
24 25
A.
Did that conference call ever take place?
04:16
Not that I'm aware of.
04:16
I don't think she ever
145
1
made it.
04:16
2
Q.
Are you sure about that?
04:16
3
A.
No.
04:16
4
Q.
Do you recall having a conversation with Molly
5
Martin about the lawsuit?
6 7
I'm not sure about that.
Well, first let me ask you, what lawsuit are you referring to?
04:16 04:16 04:16 04:16
8
A.
The present lawsuit.
04:16
9
Q.
Okay.
04:16
10
witness for.
04:16
11
A.
Correct.
04:16
12
Q.
Do you recall having a discussion with Molly
04:16
13
The lawsuit that you're here -- you're a
Martin about this lawsuit?
04:16
14
A.
I don't recall.
04:17
15
Q.
'Cause that was just a month ago --
04:17
16
A.
I understand.
04:17
17
Q.
-- so your recollection is usually pretty good
04:17
18
a month prior --
19 20 21 22 23
A.
04:17
I mean, how good is your recollection?
04:17
Yeah.
04:17
I -- I just -- I don't recall if we had
this conversation or not. Q.
Because, remember how I asked you at the
beginning if you talked to anyone about this lawsuit?
04:17 04:17 04:17
24
A.
Hm-hmm, yes.
04:17
25
Q.
So does this refresh your recollection that you
04:17
146
1
talked to Molly Martin about the lawsuit?
04:17
2
A.
No, it doesn't.
04:17
3
Q.
Is there anybody else that maybe you could
04:17
4
now -- that you need -- if you need to think about it at
04:17
5
all -- that you talked to about the lawsuit?
04:17
6
A.
7
MS. VENSKUS:
8
MR. WEISSMULLER:
9
MS. VENSKUS:
10
13
04:17 Okay.
I need to take five minutes --
Okay.
-- and I will be back.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
11 12
No.
DVD being stopped; 4:18.
(Recess taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
And we're back on record; 4:38.
BY MS. VENSKUS:
04:17 04:18 04:18 04:18 04:18 04:38 04:38
14
Q.
Do you have business cards for the commission?
04:38
15
A.
I do.
04:38
16
Q.
Do you have business cards for the foundation?
04:38
17
A.
I do.
04:38
18
Q.
Does your business card for the commission show
04:38
19
yourself to be the Director of Government Affairs for the
04:38
20
commission?
04:38
21
A.
Yes.
04:38
22
Q.
Do your business cards for the foundation show
04:38
23
yourself to be the Director of Government Affairs for the
04:38
24
foundation?
04:38
25
A.
04:38
I believe so, yes.
147
1 2
Q.
Do you have any business cards for The Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Commission Authority?
04:38 04:39
3
A.
No.
04:39
4
Q.
Do you have one of your commission and
04:39
5
foundation business cards with you today?
04:39
6
A.
I do not.
04:39
7
Q.
Can you please produce those for me?
04:39
8
A.
Yeah.
04:39
9
MR. WEISSMULLER:
We'll take it under submission
04:39
10
just like the other one.
11
down.
04:39
12
BY MS. VENSKUS:
04:39
13
Q.
Let me make sure I write it
Do you have any business cards showing yourself
04:39
04:39
14
to be the Director of Government Affairs for The Santa
04:39
15
Monica Bay National Estuary Program?
04:39
16
A.
No.
04:39
17
Q.
Now, I just want to confirm about this Form 700
04:39
18
business that we were talking about earlier.
19 20
I believe that you said that you fill out and file a 700 form for the commission; right?
04:39 04:39 04:39
21
A.
Correct.
04:39
22
Q.
Okay.
04:39
And there's a document that you produced
23
today, and I'm just going to show it to you here.
04:39
24
It's -- The subject is updated version.
04:40
25
Rene Robertson and has an attachment.
It's from you to And it looks like
04:40
148
1
this is -- the attachment is behind the e-mail --
04:40
2
A.
Hm-hmm.
04:40
3
Q.
-- and it appears that it's the -- the
04:40
4
attachment is called AAA SMBRC FPPC Form 700 filers,
04:40
5
2015.
04:40
6 7
But I don't see you on here, so I just want to confirm that this --
8 9 10 11
04:40 04:40
Is there some other list where you're listed as
04:40
filing the form, or is this just missing your name and
04:40
that's a mistake, or what's going on here?
04:40
A.
No.
04:40
This is the list that is actually filed with
04:40
12 13
the FPPC.
14
and my form is retained by the commission and not with
04:40
15
the FPPC, so she --
04:40
I, as a contractor, file with the commission,
04:40
16
Q.
Okay.
04:40
17
A.
-- so that's the distinction.
04:40
18
MS. VENSKUS:
Okay.
So then we would want those
04:40
19
documents that are retained by the commission, the
04:40
20
Form 700s; okay?
04:41
21 22 23 24 25
MR. WEISSMULLER: I'm wrong.
That's what you asked for.
Maybe
What was -Now is that different from a request you made a
minute ago? MS. VENSKUS:
04:41 04:41 04:41 04:41
I think it's just a -- it's a
04:41
149
1
clarification, because I think originally I had --
2
MR. WEISSMULLER:
3
MS. VENSKUS:
4
MR. WEISSMULLER:
5 6 7
You asked for his document here --
Yeah. -- and now you're asking for
Right.
04:41 04:41
commission documents, 700 forms. MS. VENSKUS:
04:41
That Mr. Valor files with the
commission.
04:41 04:41 04:41 04:41
8
MR. WEISSMULLER:
9
MS. VENSKUS:
Oh.
Got it.
Okay.
10
MR. WEISSMULLER:
11
04:41 04:41
It doesn't . . . .
04:41
THE WITNESS:
We'll talk about it later.
04:41
12
MS. VENSKUS:
II?
04:42
13
THE REPORTER:
14 15 16 17
II.
04:42
(Exhibit II marked for identification and attached hereto.)
04:42
BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
04:42
04:42
This is a copy of four different business cards
04:42
18
for commission staff people.
One is Tom Ford, Director
04:42
19
of Marine Programs; one is Karina Johnston, Director of
04:42
20
Watershed Programs; one is Charles Piechowski, Field and
04:42
21
Research Technician; and one is Ivan Medel, Field and
04:42
22
Research Coordinator, all on Santa Monica Bay Restoration
04:42
23
Commission business cards.
04:42
24 25
A.
Have you seen all of these cards before?
04:43
No.
04:43
150
1
Q.
Have you seen any of them before?
04:43
2
A.
I think I've seen Tom's and -- I'm pretty sure
04:43
3 4
I've seen Karina's. Q.
5
04:43
Okay.
04:43
Do you move any of your e-mails for either the
04:43
6
commission or the foundation into the folder where they
04:43
7
are retained for more than 90 days, or do you let all of
04:43
8
your e-mails automatically delete after 90 days?
04:43
9
A.
You mean, so do I create a separate file?
04:44
10
Q.
Correct.
04:44
11
A.
No.
04:44
12 13 14
My e-mails are in the "in-box" or the
"sent" or the "delete," I guess is what they are, yes. Q.
So do you let all of your e-mails
automatically --
04:44 04:44 04:44
15
Well, let me --
04:44
16
Let's start with the foundation.
04:44
17
A.
Sure.
04:44
18
Q.
Do you move any of your e-mails for the
04:44
19
foundation into the folder where they are retained for
04:44
20
more than 90 days?
04:44
21
A.
No.
04:44
22
Q.
Do you let all of your foundation e-mails
04:44
23
automatically delete after 90 days?
24
A.
Yeah.
25
Q.
Okay.
I do nothing, so --
04:44 04:44 04:44
151
1 2 3 4 5
A.
-- if that's what they do, then that's what
they do. Q.
04:44 Do you know if they automatically delete after
90 days? A.
I assume so, because the -- the size of the --
whatever box it is stays pretty constant.
7
would it stack up. Q.
9
04:44 04:44
6
8
04:44
Right.
Otherwise,
04:44 04:44 04:44
I'm --
04:44
Do you move any of your e-mails for the
04:44
10
commission into the folder where they are retained for
04:44
11
more than 90 days?
04:45
12
A.
No.
04:45
13
Q.
So you let all -- Do you know if your e-mails
04:45
14
automatically delete after 90 days?
15
your commission e-mails.
16
A.
I'm talking about
04:45 04:45
I understand.
04:45
17
I think it would be the same answer.
I assume
04:45
18
so, because of the size of the box, whatever you want to
04:45
19
call it, stays at about the same.
04:45
20
Q.
Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not
04:45
21
you are supposed to move certain e-mails for the
04:45
22
commission into a folder where they are retained more
04:45
23
than 90 days?
04:45
24 25
MR. WEISSMULLER:
Objection.
calls for a legal conclusion.
It's vague and it also
04:45 04:45
152
1
THE WITNESS:
2
MR. WEISSMULLER:
3
THE WITNESS:
Repeat that again, please.
04:45
4
MS. VENSKUS:
Can you restate the question?
04:45
5
THE REPORTER:
6 7 8
Should I respond? Yeah.
04:45
Sure.
04:45
(Question read.) THE WITNESS:
04:45
04:45
No.
04:46
BY MS. VENSKUS:
04:46
9
Q.
You don't know.
04:46
10
A.
I don't know.
04:46
11
Q.
Have you ever read the document retention
04:46
12 13
policy for the commission? A.
14 15 16 17
I think I saw it -You know, I don't know.
Q.
policy for the foundation?
19
MS. VENSKUS:
20
23 24 25
I might have, but it
Have you ever read the document retention
A.
22
04:46
would have been some time ago.
18
21
04:46
No. JJ.
and attached hereto.) And I'll give you their copy when I'm
done asking questions about it. Q.
04:46 04:46 04:46 04:46
(Exhibit JJ marked for identification
MS. VENSKUS:
04:46
This is a screen shot of the commission's
website; this particular page called "Public Records."
04:47 04:47 04:47 04:47 04:47 04:47 04:47
153
1
A.
Hm-hmm.
04:47
2
Q.
See that number under your name, (213)
04:47
3
576-6615?
04:47
4
A.
Yes.
04:47
5
Q.
Does that number ring to you?
04:47
6
A.
No, it does not.
04:47
7
Q.
Where does it ring to?
04:47
8
A.
I think it's a -- I believe it's a -- what do
04:47
9
you call it -- a general line.
04:47
10
Q.
General line for what?
04:47
11
A.
For the commission, so that someone has a -- a
04:47
12
question or whatever, I guess, staff checks that and then
04:47
13
refers it to the right person.
04:47
14
Q.
Do you know who checks it?
04:47
15
A.
I think it's Marcelo.
04:47
16
Q.
And then here is --
04:47
Go ahead and hold on to that for a moment.
04:48
All right.
04:48
17 18
A.
19
MS. VENSKUS:
20 21 22 23 24 25
And this is KK.
(Exhibit KK marked for identification and attached hereto.) BY MS. VENSKUS: Q.
And you see here this is The Bay Foundation
website "Contact Us" Web page; correct? A.
Right.
04:48 04:48 04:48 04:48 04:48 04:48 04:48
154
1 2
Q.
See where it has under contact information
04:48
under phone, it has (213) 576-5665?
04:48
3
A.
Yes.
04:48
4
Q.
That's the same number we just looked at on the
04:48
5
commission website; correct?
04:48
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
So that rings to the 320 West Fourth Street
8
office?
9
A.
I believe so, yes.
04:48
10
Q.
Okay.
04:49
11
A.
Hm-hmm.
04:49
12
Q.
-- to the court reporter?
04:49
13
MR. WEISSMULLER:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
It looks to be the same.
04:48 04:48 04:48
Can you hand those --
Okay.
I marked on one, but --
04:49
Okay.
04:49
BY MS. VENSKUS:
16
Q.
04:49
Do you have any idea why The Bay Foundation
04:50
17
would list a commission phone number on its website as a
04:50
18
place to contact for more information about The Bay
04:50
19
Foundation?
04:50
20
A.
04:50
21
MS. VENSKUS:
22
I do not. Okay.
I have no more questions.
you?
Do
04:50 04:50
23
MR. WEISSMULLER:
24
MS. VENSKUS:
Okay.
04:50
25
THE WITNESS:
We done?
04:50
No.
04:50
155
1
MS. VENSKUS:
2
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
3 4 5 6 7
Yes.
I'm done. Okay.
We're off the record.
This concludes DVD No. 3
and concludes the testimony of Scott Valor. We're off the record at 4:50.
04:50 04:50 04:50 04:50
(Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the deposition was concluded.) -o0o-
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
156
1 2
STATE OF _________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF _______________ )
3 4 5 6 7
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of
8
perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript, and I
9
have made any corrections, additions, or deletions that I
10
was desirous of making; that the foregoing is a true and
11
correct transcript of my testimony contained therein.
12 13
EXECUTED this _____ day of ___________________, 20____, at _______________________, ___________________. (City) (State)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
____________________________________ SCOTT HARLEV VALOR
23 24 25
157
1
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 3 4
I, CARYN CARRUTHERS, CSR No. 4389, RPR, CP, CLR, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, certify:
5
That the foregoing proceedings were taken
6
before me at the time and place therein set forth, at
7
which time the witness was put under oath by me;
8
That the testimony of the witness, the
9
questions propounded, and all objections and statements
10
made at the time of the examination were recorded
11
stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed;
12 13
That the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
14
I further certify that I am not a relative or
15
employee of any attorney of the parties, nor financially
16
interested in the action.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the
18
laws of California that the foregoing is true and
19
correct.
20
Dated this 31st day of August, 2015.
21 22 23 24
_______________________________________________ CARYN CARRUTHERS, CSR NO. 4389, RPR, CP, CLR
25
158
![United' States @Patent H [19]](https://p.pdfkul.com/img/300x300/united-states-patent-h-19_5a272e131723dd5dd4759ee2.jpg)
