Mayor Furey Backtracks; Now Swears He Paid Fair Share of FPPC Fine

Mayor Furey’s recent ethical entanglements with illegal campaign contributions have left some, like former Mayor Scotto, proclaiming that the city is looking for character, integrity and honesty in their leaders and that the City Council needs to gain back the confidence of its residents.

On the eve of an important election, new documents released by the FPPC reveal the Mayor now swears he paid his fair share of the $35,000 fine recently levied by the FPPC. This position is a complete about-face from previous comments the Mayor made on the subject.

The settlement agreement with the FPPC stipulated that the Mayor was liable for half of the $35,000 fine with representatives from McCormick liable for the other half. Yet, despite agreeing to the settlement, Mayor Furey boasted at the 12 April 2016 Council meeting that he did not pay his portion of the fine and that McCormick paid the entire $35,000.  At the time the Mayor said:

“I’m not liable for half of that.  I’ve not paid a penny of it.”

That admission was startling as California Government Code Section 89503 prohibits gifts to locally elected officials in excess of $250 in any calendar year.  The question of whether McCormick paid the fine is also crucial because the Mayor participated in a vote involving McCormick’s contract with the city shortly after the fine was paid – an act which would raise conflict of interest concerns per Code Section 87103.

A complaint to the FPPC submitted shortly after the mayor denied paying the fine raised these very same issues.  In response to that complaint, the Mayor enlisted the Kaufman Legal Group who wrote a letter to the FPPC asserting that “Mayor Furey paid his share of the FPPC settlement.”

The FPPC complaint was filed 19 April 2016. On 03 May 2016, Kaufman wrote to the FPPC seeking an extension to the response due date of 04 May 2016. Kaufman ultimately submitted the response on 13 May 2016.

That response included an explanation that Mayor Furey and McCormick had entered into an odd arrangement in which Furey paid all the legal fees stemming from the FPPC case and McCormick paid the fine with the parties anticipating that the costs would be about the same.

Kaufman’s response attests that the Mayor ultimately paid $37,719.27 in legal costs to their firm. Kaufman acknowledged, however, that final invoices were not issued until after the FPPC complaint was filed alleging the illegal gift. Indeed, in a sworn declaration by Mayor Furey included in the response, the Mayor affirmed he did not pay the final legal bills until the week of 09 May – two months after McCormick cut the $35,000 check to the FPPC on 08 March and nearly one month after the FPPC complaint was filed.

The Mayor’s declaration also reveals that $4,536 of the $37,719.27 he paid to Kaufman was for representation of his son. He then deducted that amount attributable to those services and reconciled with McCormick by issuing a payment to McCormick of $908.36.

Kaufman’s response also included a sworn declaration from Richard Roesch, President of McCormick Ambulance, attesting to the same explanation.  Relying upon the letter from Kaufman, and the sworn declarations from Mayor Furey and Richard Roesch, the FPPC has closed the matter and is not planning on taking further action.

Torrance Election 2018: A Referendum on Mayor Furey

This election boils down to a referendum on Mayor Furey. Furey once labeled all his detractors as “Ambassadors of Negativity,” and claimed that “you can’t see the negative side from me because I’ve done a great job.” If you believe Furey and think he really has done a great job then you should vote for him and the rest of team Furey which includes

» Read more

TRAA Response to Refinery Workshop; Guest Commentary by Sally Hayati

Dear Mayor Furey:

Thank you for hosting the Torrance CC Refinery Workshop on August 5th on a weekend to provide extra time.  We suggest a more interactive workshop would be useful in the future, to include a limited duration Q&A period after each presentation.  For example, Dr. Philip Fine of the AQMD made a slip of the tongue, saying “HF” was vented to the flare, instead of H2.  Because this error could cause misunderstanding in audience members, after Dr. Fine finished speaking Dr. Jim Eninger raised his hand in a polite attempt to advise him. But you swiftly silenced Dr. Eninger. A brief clarification could have avoided possible alarm.  Requiring community members to use comment time for questions is not optimal for fostering a meaningful public engagement. Dr. David Hannum’s question during his public comment would have gone unanswered if not for Councilman Herring’s intercession.

At the Workshop’s end you responded to public comments by declaring the city won’t act based on “rhetorical statements, attacks, and word of mouth.” Not one council member spoke up to publicly counter this dismissive assessment of concerned and informed citizens.  The anger heard from a few individuals at the workshop comes from valid concerns, aggravated by the city’s lack of response and promotion of discredited safety claims made by the refinery for modified hydrofluoric acid (MHF). Your continued declarations that the 1990 Torrance-Mobil Consent Decree binds the city’s hands and that Torrance (being merely a city) is helpless to act are wholly unconvincing.  Even the Consent Decree Safety Advisor acknowledged an earthquake could cause a MHF release and the simultaneous failure of mitigation systems (page 41, 1995 report). Even the refinery’s lowball official EPA report acknowledges a 3.2-mile path of serious and irreversible injuries possible from a 5,200 lb. release. The City of Richmond developed its own refinery regulations, but Torrance so far refuses even to throw its support behind AQMD PR 1410 and AB 1645 to ban MHF alkylation at the refinery or to prepare the community for an accidental MHF release.

TRAA’s case against MHF is built on solid scientific evidence, which is why the Norton report and the conclusions of investigations by the US EPA, US Chemical Safety Board, and AQMD are consistent with our conclusions.  The experts have spoken. The EPA acknowledged MHF RMP reports significantly understate community risk and declared that MHF mitigation is not permissible for a worst-case release report (http://bit.ly/2o4fKGj). I am on the AQMD PR 1410 Working Group, which was recently told staff’s “initial conclusion” on MHF (as I said in public comments) is that MHF must go. See page 5 of the attached briefing, posted on the AQMD website (http://bit.ly/2wBHeUh).  

The Greater South Bay was told the dangers of HF alkylation had been all but eliminated in 1997 in Torrance and 2007 in LA at the Valero, Wilmington refinery.  But the risk posed by MHF alkylation is identical to that of HF alkylation. A release of 50,000 lb. MHF from a single tank could result in 16-mile path of serious and irreversible injuries. Failure by the City to act responsibly in the face of scientific facts and evidence regarding the known impact of an MHF release on the citizens, businesses, and workers in Torrance and surrounding cities leaves the City open to fiscally disastrous lawsuits and legal claims.  Relying on self-interested and unsupported assurances of the refinery, discredited by the EPA, the AQMD, and independent experts, doesn’t satisfy the City’s duty to its constituents. 

It is vitally important Torrance pass a resolution in support of AQMD and legislative efforts to ban MHF alkylation and plan and practice drills for MHF emergency preparedness. The AQMD Board needs all the support it can get to act on its staff’s recommendation.

Sincerely,
Sally Hayati, Ph.D.
President,
Torrance Refinery Action Alliance (TRAA)
REFERENCE: Sally Hayati, The Case Against MHF, in Brief, http://bit.ly/2wYarZQ
1 2 3 9