theSheetNews.com

Unresolved issues still remain, however

The long-awaited outcome to the Dick Luman personnel appeals hearing was announced Monday. With 2-1 votes across the Board, all disciplinary actions against Luman were sustained, “based on the evidence provided.” This means Luman will not be reinstated in the Mono County workplace at this time.

Personnel Appeals Board Chair and Mono County Supervisor Tim Hansen was the lone vote against sustainment of disciplinary action.

The Board met in closed session for its deliberations, but planned to work with County Counsel Stacey Simon to produce a written statement of facts that would eventually be disseminated to the public to explain how it came to its decision.

Following the reading of the decision, Luman’s lawyer, Katie Bellomo stated one last concern for the record.

Bellomo felt that Appeals Board member Ken Goode should have recused himself from the hearing panel when his wife came under investigation for embezzlement from the County.

“I didn’t want to bring this up before because I didn’t want to offend Mr. Goode and have him vote against my client,” Bellomo said. “But he should have recused himself due to this conflict.”

In April, the Mono County District Attorney’s Office was alerted to an allegation of misappropriation of funds from the Bridgeport Public Utility District. The DA’s Office then conducted an investigation, which revealed that former General Manager Cheryl Goode issued herself numerous unsubstantiated payments. On May 17, Goode turned herself in at the Mono County Jail.

Simon stated for the record that she did not believe a conflict existed.

On Tuesday, in a phone conversation, Luman told The Sheet, “The outcome was what the union and the county had to have.”

“It was what I expected,” Luman said. “The outcome had to set the County apart from the allegations.”

Luman expected that Brett McCurry’s hearing (which is currently being scheduled) would only last a few days and that McCurry would be put back to work. It is what the County and the Union have to have because McCurry is a Union shop steward, Luman said.

He did not, however, believe that things for him were over.

“There is still more to come out,” he said, in relation to his worker’s compensation case.

According to John-Carl Vallejo, who represented the County in the Luman hearing and will also serve as its lawyer in the McCurry and Jim Kerby hearings, each individual has a choice of whether or not to have their hearing held in open or closed session. Luman chose open session, as has Kerby. McCurry’s hearing will be held in closed session. Kerby’s hearing dates are also currently being scheduled.

As for the outcome of the Luman case, Vallejo declined to comment until after the Appeals Board’s report was disseminated.

Continued investigation

During her June 11 testimony in the Luman hearing, Mono County Director of Facilities and Risk Management, Rita Sherman revealed that the County had begun to investigate whether or not Luman had been collecting unemployment and disability checks, concurrently. Collecting two forms of compensation from the County at the same time is not permissible and could be a felony, Sherman said.

Bellomo asked why Sherman had not reported the issue earlier, and Sherman explained that the County had not received the disability information until the previous week.

Sherman provided the document with the information in question. The mailing date on the documents was May 22, 2012. It was a notice of Lien Claim from the Employment Development Department (EDD) to Mono County. In the document it states, “Because you [County] are not paying this individual Worker’s Compensation benefits or are paying benefits at less than EDD’s weekly rate of $637, EDD began paying UCD [Unemployment Compensation Disability] benefits on 11/24/11 and is continuing to pay benefits.”

Sherman and the County were investigating because Luman was not terminated from the County until last December 13. The overlapping dates appear to show that Luman was receiving administrative leave pay and disability at the same time.

On June 11, Bellomo stated that the issue would need to be resolved before the conclusion of the hearing since it spoke to Luman’s credibility.

On Monday prior to the lawyers’ closing statements, the issue had yet to be resolved. Bellomo stated that she had at first planned to put Luman back on the stand to rebut Sherman’s accusations of double dipping, but since the accusations were not relevant to the case at hand, Luman would not go on the stand again, but he would be “expecting an apology from the County.”

“The Board needs to decide if these vague but outrageous accusations are within the scope of the hearing,” Bellomo said. She suggested Sherman’s testimony regarding the issue be stricken from the record.

“You can’t just throw out defamatory accusations without any due diligence,” she said. “These types of accusations would have consequences in a courtroom.”

Vallejo disagreed with striking the information from the record, as this would leave the door open for the Board to strike other evidence as well.

“The Board will decide the relevance,” he said.

Appeals Board members Ralph Obenberger and Ken Goode agreed that the information should remain on the record.

“There has been a lot of stuff brought up during this hearing that has nothing to do with the incident,” Obenberger said. “County paperwork does have cross dates [between disability and unemployment pay]. The Board will give the testimony the weight it deserves.”

Hansen, on the other hand, was in favor of striking the testimony from the record.

Is Mono County trying to cover something up or is defense attorney Katie Maloney Bellomo trying to make the personnel hearing of Dick Luman as burdensome and costly to the County as possible? Those were the arguments that Bellomo and County Counsel John-Carl Vallejo bickered about on Wednesday morning as the hearing continued into its fifth day.

The parties reconvened on April 18, following a cancellation of the April 13 hearing date due to weather.

Last week the personnel appeals board had voted to overturn a previous ruling it had made, and decided that it would now allow new evidence not initially presented to come forward in the appeal. This determination flung the hearing into turmoil, and Bellomo had requested time to regroup and decide whom else she would need to subpoena for questioning.

Vallejo stated he had one document and one additional witness, District Attorney George Booth, to add to his case.

By Wednesday Bellomo had requested 10 additional subpoenas in addition to the more than 10 she had requested at the beginning of the hearing, which was the reason behind Vallejo’s comments about burden to the County.

“Ms. Bellomo is on a fishing expedition; she’s just subpoenaing everyone,” Vallejo said. “The County is just worried about an undo waste of resources.”

Bellomo, however, pointed out that it was the County that asked that new evidence be allowed.

“I didn’t move to expand the scope of the case,” she said. “It’s not a delay tactic on our end.”

She added, however, that now that the door had been opened she wanted to investigate everything thoroughly.

“What’s being hidden here, what’s going on behind the scenes,” Bellomo asked. “Is the Sheriff’s Department catering to one of the parties in the case?”

Bellomo was referring to the reports taken by the Sheriff’s Department at the time of the incident that were then transferred to the District Attorney’s office. The validity of those reports in conjunction with the transcripts from the York Insurance investigation was brought into question.

Since day one of the hearing, Bellomo has raised questions about the outside interviewer who was brought in to investigate the incident in relation to workers compensation. Steve Woods, the investigator brought in, was employed by York Insurance Company, which had some connection to the County. During her cross examination of Mono County CAO Jim Arkens in the first week of the hearing, Bellomo had asked whether or not York was the County’s insurance agency dealing with worker’s compensation at the time of the investigation. Arkens stated that York was not the insurance company but the County’s third party administrator.

“Trindel is our insurance company,” Arkens said. “York doesn’t determine if we will pay a claim, they just process it once Trindel decides.”

Vallejo saw this as one of the reasons why the County needed to defend itself against alleged bias, which was why he fought for the new evidence to be allowed.

On Wednesday, the appeals board approved nine of the 10 new subpoenas Bellomo was requesting. The only one they did not allow her to issue was the subpoena for Undersheriff Ralph Obenberger.

Obenberger is sitting on the appeals board, and as County Counsel to the Board, Stacey Simon pointed out, “If Mr. Obenberger is going to be subpoenaed then it puts the Board in an awkward position.”

Bellomo, however, felt that Obenberger should step down from the Board since he would be called to judge people in his own department.

“He should have stepped down from the start,” Bellomo said. “The appearance of propriety and fairness is very important as a judge. You don’t get to judge if you made decisions in the case. It is necessary to call Obenberger because whatever is going on here goes to the top.”

However, she conceded to the Board’s decision to have him carry on at the dais.

Testimony

One of the witnesses whom Bellomo called on Wednesday was Deputy Mark Hanson. Hanson was responsible for interviewing the parties present at the incident in the days directly after it occurred. He spoke with Brett McCurry, Jerry Vande Brake, Mike Rhodes, Jim Kerby and Dick Luman.

Hanson wrote up a report detailing these interviews. He turned in his report to his superiors at the Sheriff’s Department. Since parties involved in the incident wanted to prosecute one another, the report was passed on to the District Attorney’s office. According to Hanson, this was standard protocol.

In that original report, Hanson wrote that McCurry was the aggressor, not Luman based upon recollections from all parties except McCurry.

“Luman acted in self defense based upon the witness statements I received,” Hanson said. “McCurry blocked Luman’s exit from the office, which caused the hands-on approach. If McCurry had let Luman leave the room, the fight would not have happened.”

After Woods interviewed the parties later on, Hanson was asked to listen to the transcripts from these interviews and write a supplemental report on anything that had changed from his original interviews.

“Jerry Vande Brake’s story changed the most significantly,” Hanson testified. “Which is why I wrote the first supplemental report.”

According to Hanson, when he interviewed Vande Brake his account of what had happened was that McCurry had blocked Luman from leaving the room. However, in the transcripts from the Woods’ interview, Vande Brake stated that Luman had walked rapidly toward McCurry and that Luman was the aggressor.

“If Vande Brake had said this during my interview with him, it would have changed the outcome of my report,” Hanson said.

Hanson concluded by saying that by the end of the incident he felt that it was mutual combat because both men were holding onto each other saying, “let go.” He clarified, however, that mutual combat doesn’t necessarily mean that both people are being aggressive.

Several more witnesses were called following Hanson. The day was expected to end with additional questioning of Vande Brake.

Due to scheduling conflicts the hearing will not resume until June.

Justice may be blind but it shouldn’t also be deaf and dumb.

That was a sentiment expressed publicly by Mono County citizen Jeff Hansen during day four of Dick Luman’s Personnel Appeals Hearing. Luman’s hearing is one of three appeals against the county regarding the disciplinary action that followed what the county deemed a mutual fight in the workplace on Oct. 3, 2011.

A week into the hearing, Personnel Appeals Board member Ken Goode changed his mind on an important Board ruling, seemingly in an effort to not sit deaf and dumb on the dais.

Previously the Board had voted 2-1 to block any new evidence materials from being used in the hearing that had not previously been used in Luman’s Skelly Hearing (A Skelly Hearing is part of the the county’s due process obligation prior to an employee termination). Goode and fellow Board member Tim Hansen originally voted to keep new materials out, while the third, Ralph Obenberger was amenable to allowing certain new evidence to be presented. Obenberger felt that anything that occurred after Oct. 3, 2011 should not be allowed but any supporting materials that led to Luman’s termination should be allowed.

Even with the extensive discussion and vote from the Board on that first day, the issue continued to come up.

“We’re still just accusing him of getting into a fight and lying about it,” John-Carl Vallejo, who is representing the county in the hearing, had stated on that first day. “We’re talking about supporting evidence. The Skelly hearing doesn’t require every shred of evidence to be given to the employee.”

Stacey Simon, who is serving as advisory counsel to the Board, agreed that there is no rule saying every shred of evidence must be presented at the Skelly.

“It’s a fast process,” Simon said. “The employee just needs a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Skelly.”

But Luman’s attorney, Katie Maloney Bellomo strongly disagreed.

“You must give an employee notice and allow them to defend themselves before action is implemented,” Bellomo said on April 4. “I’m going to argue on the basis of the Skelly case, that’s why the employee receives a Skelly hearing. You can’t enter new evidence because his job has already been terminated and he therefore wouldn’t have the opportunity to be heard before his property [job] was removed.”

Bellomo had also pointed out last week that new evidence would allow her to subpoena more witnesses and present new materials as well, which would greatly lengthen the hearing.

Even with the potential of dragging the hearing on into an unforeseeable future, Goode gave in to Vallejo when the topic was raised for the third time on April 11.

“There are incredible allegations against the county and it will need to defend itself against the alleged bias,” Vallejo said on Wednesday. “We need to reopen the evidence issue from the Skelly hearing.”

Vallejo explained that if the county were prevented from bringing in new evidence, it would be a huge issue for its case. Vallejo claimed that allegations regarding Luman’s workers compensation denial and its relation to an alleged bias from the county’s insurance company were the items to which he referred.

Goode seemed to hear him. He called for a closed session between Board members.

The Board emerged after lunch with a new split vote. It was now 2-1 in favor of allowing new evidence materials. Hansen remained against changing the original ruling, claiming that it protected the county.

Vallejo said he expected to have one new document and one new witness for the county under the Board’s new ruling. The new witness is expected to be Mono County District Attorney George Booth.

Bellomo, however, claimed she would now need time to restructure her argument of the case.

“I was not at all prepared to go forward on this changed ruling,” she said. “I strongly feel that the [new] ruling is incorrect.”

After a half hour break for Bellomo to gather her thoughts, she told the Board she was not ready to move forward any further that day.

“You will be reopening the county’s case to put in this new information, so I won’t proceed until the county completes its case,” she said.

Vallejo, however, argued that the county would merely be rebutting evidence that alleges the county is biased.

“The county’s case is closed, we would just be presenting rebuttal evidence and witness,” Vallejo said. “The county has the burden of proof here, just like in court, so we go first and last.”

Simon, however, pointed out that according to Mono County’s Personnel System Code, both parties are allowed the opportunity to rebut.

“The appointing authority or department head shall present its evidence first. The employee may then present evidence and each shall then have the right to present evidence in rebuttal,” according to section 2.68.302, F in the code.

The hearing will need more time than originally expected. The Board recessed until Friday afternoon, April 13 to give Bellomo time to figure out whom else she might like to subpoena, who she will need to re-subpoena, and to decide if there is any new evidence she might want to present.

With scheduling conflicts between all interested parties, the new timeline for the Luman hearing may very well stretch into May, effectively putting Jim Kerby’s hearing on hold until Luman’s is completed. The evidence ruling from the Board will apply to Kerby’s hearing as well.

At the start of the hearing it was explained that the Personnel Appeals Board acts like a judge. Judges reserve their rights to change their rulings at any time, and therefore the same prerogative is given to the Appeals Board.

Luman’s testimony

Luman originally took the stand to tell his side of the story on Friday, April 6. Brett McCurry, the other individual involved in the incident that Mono County deemed a mutual fight, had been on the stand on April 4 (see last week’s story “Luman Challenges Termination”].

However, Luman did not get to say much on April 6. A comment that the Appeals Board Chairman, Tim Hansen made prompted Goode to question Hansen’s impartiality. At first, Goode requested that the chairmanship be transferred to Obenberger, but then he conceded to have the clerk transcribe Hansen’s comments for further review. The Board recessed until Monday, April 9, when, after review of the transcript, Goode withdrew his motion to remove Hansen from the Chair’s seat.

The comment in question was transcribed as follows, “I mean this is good testimony that I’ve been awaiting for three days to hear actual facts about this case opposed to: he drove fast and squirted cinders on Mr. Arkens’ car. I mean, you know, we’re getting down to facts …”

Goode had been concerned that Hansen was being prejudicial. He felt Hansen was saying that with Luman’s testimony they were finally hearing the truth. Hansen claimed he just meant it was valuable and relevant testimony.

With the Board remaining as originally seated, Luman continued his testimony on April 9.

Bellomo started her questioning by asking about Luman’s injuries from the Oct. 3, 2011 incident. Luman stated he had suffered a hernia, which required surgery, as well as a broken rib.

Bellomo then had Luman testify to McCurry’s character. Luman stated that he had witnessed McCurry in confrontations with other employees on several occasions. Luman also testified that the mechanics had met at least twice to discuss McCurry’s aggressiveness with Jerry Vande Brake, their supervisor.

Luman’s testimony differed from McCurry’s as well as Vande Brake’s in several ways. Perhaps most significant was when it came to the alleged threat that Luman was said to have made to McCurry prior to the start of the alleged fight.

McCurry had fallen down his stairs at home a month or so before the Oct. 3 incident. He claimed he had tripped over his dog, but according to Luman, the employees at the shop were making jokes behind McCurry’s back regarding the incident because they believed McCurry had been drunk and had fallen down the stairs because of his intoxication.

On the day of the Oct. 3 incident, Luman testified that shortly after McCurry came into Vande Brake’s office and Kerby began to explain his allegations against McCurry, McCurry called Kerby a bold-faced liar and got in his face, saying “You have a problem with me and I want to know what the f**k it is.”

McCurry eventually backed off and that, according to Luman, was when he said, “And I suppose you didn’t call Mosley [another employee] and I motherf**kers, either.”

McCurry allegedly told Luman he would have the balls to say it to Luman’s face if he was going to say it.

That’s when Luman said, “If you had the balls to say it, you’d probably be falling down your stairs again.”

While McCurry and Vande Brake took this as a threat, Luman testified that he meant it as a wisecrack.

“I meant that if he had the balls to say it, it would probably be because he was drunk and his mouth would be loose,” Luman said. He claimed he was referencing the wisecracking that had been going on in the shop regarding McCurry’s previous accident.

Luman then proceeded with the rest of his testimony about the alleged fight, which he claimed was actually an attack by McCurry. The recollection of how the incident occurred varied greatly between the two men’s testimonies.

Kerby, the fourth party in the room during the time of the incident was suppose to testify in the Luman hearing on Wednesday, but due to the Board’s change in ruling, had not yet been given the opportunity.

Board member’s impartiality called into question … again

Dick Luman briefly took the stand in his own appeals hearing on the afternoon of April 6. But before he could really get into his testimony the bias of one of the Personnel Appeals Board members was called into question. The question forced the hearing into a premature recess until Monday, April 9.

As Luman was being asked by his lawyer, Katie Maloney Bellomo, to recount some occasions in the workplace that showed the demeanor of Brett McCurry, Luman’s alleged assailant, Mono County’s Counsel, John-Carl Vallejo objected to prior instances of conduct being used to determine the incident at hand.

The incident at hand is a fight that occurred between Luman and McCurry in the Mono County workplace on Oct. 3, 2011. Luman contests that it was not a fight, but that he was assaulted and then unfairly terminated from the County. Read The Sheet’s earlier story by clicking here.

The Appeals Board Chairman, Tim Hansen disagreed with Vallejo.

“You’ve gone back into everyone’s behavior,” Hansen said, referring to a story that Vallejo had earlier in the hearing asked Mono County CAO Jim Arkens to recount about Luman’s erratic driving behavior. The story showed Luman in a negative light.

Hansen then stated that with Luman’s testimony the Board was finally getting down to the facts after three days of listening to other testimony.

Shortly after his statement, his fellow Appeals Board member, Ken Goode asked that the three Board members be allowed to meet briefly in closed session.

When they returned from behind closed doors, Goode explained that he had raised a concern about Hansen continuing as the Board Chairman. He made a motion that Hansen step down as Chairman and that the third board member, Ralph Obenberger, be appointed the position.

It came out that Hansen’s comment about finally hearing the facts had seemed prejudicial to Goode and made him think twice about Hansen’s position. He felt that Hansen was making the statement that now that Luman was on the stand, those listening to the hearing would finally be getting the truth.

It was the second time in three days that Hansen’s impartiality was called into question. On the first day of the hearing, Vallejo had objected to Hansen sitting on the Board because of his friendships with many of the people involved in the hearing.

On Friday afternoon, Hansen responded to Goode’s concern by saying that his comment had been misinterpreted and that the stuffy room and the long day were making it difficult to concentrate and express his thoughts accurately.

Two questions then hung in the air: what were the exact words Hansen had used, and was a change of Chairman in the middle of the hearing allowed?

The Board decided to take a recess until Monday morning in order to allow Clerk/Recorder Lynda Roberts to download the digital recording of the hearing and transcribe verbatim the words that Hansen had spoken.

The hearing will reconvene Monday, April 9 at 9 a.m. at the Bridgeport Courthouse.

A fight in the Mono County workplace on Oct. 3, 2011 led to the termination of two public works employees and a three-month suspension without pay for a third. Some County employees are pointing to this incident as a demonstration of problems within County management. Problems that have been described by some as “management through intimidation.”

Dick Luman and Brett McCurry were terminated following the Oct. 3 incident. Jim Kerby was put on suspension.

This week, the Mono County Personnel Appeals Board, made up of Tim Hansen, Ken Goode and Ralph Obenberger, heard an appeal of Luman’s termination.

Luman served as a Mechanic for Mono County for more than 15 years. On the morning of Oct. 3, he joined his co-worker Jim Kerby in their supervisor’s office. Kerby had asked Luman to join him as a witness to what he was going to report to Fleet Services Supervisor Jerry Vande Brake.

The week prior to Oct. 3, tensions between Kerby and Road Operations Supervisor Brett McCurry had come to a head. According to McCurry, who took the stand on Wednesday, Kerby felt that McCurry made him look bad in front Public Works Assistant Director Jeff Walters regarding an issue over a Kubota tractor.

According to McCurry, Kerby was one of a handful of employees who took issue with the fact that McCurry served as both a union representative as well as a supervisor.

“Jim was one who had issue with this,” McCurry stated while under oath. “He gave me a lot of dirty looks and blank stares.”

McCurry went on to say that Luman had been displeased with the union contract recently negotiated with the County.

“He thought the union should have worked harder to get a better contract,” McCurry explained.

Throughout the County’s questioning of McCurry on Wednesday, it became apparent that Kerby had often complained that McCurry was harassing and threatening him in the workplace.

The day following the Kubota incident, McCurry said he asked Kerby what was wrong because he sensed Kerby was bothered by something. Kerby stated his concern about being made to look bad.

“I told him that I had just been offering suggestions,” McCurry testified.

The discussion then became heated and McCurry claimed that Kerby told him to “get the f*** out of my shop.”

This was the situation that Kerby planned to discuss with Vande Brake on Oct. 3.

It also became apparent during testimony on Wednesday and Thursday that besides asking Luman to be his witness, Kerby had also told him that McCurry was calling him a motherf***er behind his back.

Shortly after Kerby and Luman began talking with Vande Brake on Oct. 3, McCurry also showed up at Vande Brake’s office. Vande Brake said he waved him into the room in an effort to air the disagreement out and bring it to closure.

According to McCurry and Vande Brake, McCurry stood in the doorway of Vande Brake’s small office to listen.

The question of whether or not he had been calling Luman a motherf***er was raised. McCurry said he had not been calling Luman that and if he had he would have said it to his face.

Luman then allegedly said “If you had the balls to do that you might find yourself falling down the stairs again,” in reference to an accident McCurry had a month earlier when he fell down the stairs at his home.

According to McCurry, he told Luman that he took that as a threat. He then testified that Luman walked toward him, grabbed him by the shirt and pushed him out of the office into a bookcase, and that was when the fight began.

Vande Brake agreed that he took what Luman had said as a threat, but testified he did not see who touched whom first and was unsure who started the fight.

Either way, according to testimony from Walters on Thursday, both men were at fault for violating the County’s zero tolerance for workplace violence policy. After interviewing the parties involved, Walters believed neither was acting in self-defense and neither was a victim in the situation. Both McCurry and Luman were equally accountable which is why they were both terminated, according to Walters.

As for Kerby, he was put on suspension because of holes in his story when he was interviewed following the incident, according to Walters. Kerby’s credibility became damaged when he claimed McCurry had bumped Kerby’s chest with his own. Neither McCurry nor Vande Brake had alluded to this happening when they were questioned following the incident.

Kerby also seemed to have trouble understanding and answering the questions posed to him during the investigation, according to Walters, which led him to question whether or not Kerby was telling the truth.

Katie Maloney Bellomo, legal counsel for Luman worked on highlighting the friendship between McCurry and Vande Brake. She also directly asked Vande Brake if he liked Luman to which Vande Brake responded, “no,” but added that they had learned to work together.

Bellomo was expected to further present her case in the coming days.

At press time, McCurry, Vande Brake, and Walters had all taken the stand and given testimony. The hearing was expected to proceed through Friday, April 6, and potentially into Monday, April 9. Jim Kerby’s hearing was scheduled to begin on April 9, but was expected to be postponed until April 11 if Luman’s had not been completed prior to closure of business on Monday.

McCurry will also have an appeals hearing but it is not scheduled until June.

Initially Luman’s hearing was only anticipated to last for two days, but several procedural and housekeeping issues delayed things. The entire morning of April 4 was spent discussing whether or not materials that had not been made available at the Skelly hearing could be introduced at the Appeals Board Hearing. Ultimately the Board decided 2-1 to not allow any new materials or evidence to be introduced.

According to Mono County Counsel Stacey Simon, the appeals board hearing is part of the County’s due process for an employee post-termination. Prior to termination, the employee is allowed a Skelly hearing, which is the County’s due process for an employee prior to termination. If the employee is still dissatisfied following the outcome of the appeals board hearing, he or she would then appeal their case to a court of law.

Also on the morning of April 4, John-Carl Vallejo, County Counsel representing the County in the hearing, stirred the pot by objecting to Hansen’s inclusion on the Appeals Board.

“The County needs a fair hearing too,” Vallejo stated. He asked that Hansen recuse himself from the Board because he is friends not only with Luman, but also Kerby as well as Bellomo, who will also represent Kerby. *Note: An earlier version of this story stated that Vallejo also wanted Hansen to recuse himself because he was a Mono County Supervisor. In fact, Vallejo stated that he was more hesitant to make the objection because Hansen is a supervisor.

Vallejo also stated that Hansen had been speaking ill of CAO Jim Arkens in public, adding to what Vallejo believed was a bias on Hansen’s part since Arkens was involved in the disciplinary action among the men.

“Your accusations are irrelevant,” Hansen said. “You are acting as a poor loser because things aren’t going your way. I’ve known Dick a long time but that doesn’t mean I can’t be impartial. Arkens is not even connected to this. This is out of hand. I don’t intend to step down but I will let my fellow board members make the call.”

Following a closed-door discussion, Obenberger and Goode stated that they felt Hansen could be fair and wanted to keep him on the Board.

Luman was expected to take the stand either late Thursday afternoon or Friday to give his side of the story, which he told The Sheet “would be eye-opening.” Read about his testimony here at www.thesheetnews.com.

Look out, Mammoth. Here comes Dick Swagger.

By Wolf

In our final installment of the Mammoth Rocks Tribute Band Interview Series we talk to Dick Swagger of the Hollywood Stones. Seeing as Keith Richards is in and out of rehab, your odds of seeing the actual Rolling Stones live are about as good seeing a Jonas Brothers greatest hits album. The Hollywood Stones (performing Aug. 28) have been around for 16 years.

Sheet: How did the idea for this tribute band come about, besides the obvious love for the Rolling Stones?
Swagger: I was in Hollywood trying to get a band together to play some original music and keep my voice in shape. I had some friends that were doing a Queen cover band and they were getting booked a lot. So I hooked up with their agent and got some guys together.
Sheet: What era of the Rolling Stones do you guys perform?
Swagger: We mostly do the Mick Taylor era, that’s the look we’re going for. But we play mostly ‘60s and ‘70s Stones as far as the songs are concerned.
Sheet: There’s a lot of Rolling Stones cover bands out there. How do you set yourselves apart?
Swagger: Over the last few years some other Stones cover bands have been popping up … I stay in contact with most of them, and we’re all good, there’s no beef. Except for this other group called Sticky Fingers. That was our original name, but we had to change it because they were stealing our gigs. They played in Mammoth last summer, and I’m positive that they were booked by the promoter with the idea that they were us.
Sheet: Tell me a bit about you’re resume, it’s seems like you’ve gotten a lot of accolades from people like Dick Clark, Slash from Guns ‘n Roses, and  the L.A. Times.
Swagger: We’ve been playin’ for 16 years so we’ve played just about everywhere. We were on the Dick Clark show “Your Big Break.” That was our connection with him.
Sheet: What about Slash?
Swagger: We did a show in Hollywood with Slash. He’s a pretty laid back dude. You know, he wears flannels and chucks. He’s definitely the opposite of Axl Rose. I don’t know how those guys were in the same band together.
Sheet: I think just about every human is the opposite of Axl Rose. Is this a full-time gig for you guys? I’ve always imagined a member of a tribute band who’s secretly a dentist during the week.
Swagger: It’s hard to get gigs midweek and California is expensive, especially when you’ve got car payments and a mortgage. It’s tough to be just an entertainer. I’m a contractor for a phone company on the side.
Sheet: Do you ever take the character “Swagger” beyond the stage?
Swagger: No, once the costume comes off that’s it. I mean, early on we did some crazy stuff but we’ve definitely mellowed out a bit.
Sheet: So have you  ever met the actual Rolling Stones?
Swagger: My brother has. He’s a professional photographer. I don’t know if he’s met Mick, but he’s met Keith Richards. He’s on tour with Ringo right now.
Sheet: How many times have you seen them perform?
Swagger: Ah man, probably 14 times. The first time I saw them was in 1981 for the “Tattoo You” tour, tickets were $12.50. You can’t even park for $12.50 anymore. I saw them on their last tour at the MGM Vegas and I bought two tickets and it ran me around $700!
Sheet: No tribute band discounts?
Swagger: Nope. No deals.
Sheet: If they ever saw you perform, do you think they would show you love?  Because Super Diamond has played with Neil Diamond a few times and he loves ‘em.
Swagger: Um, yeah it’s hard to say. I really don’t know. I don’t think they would go out of their way to check us out. But we used to play every Thursday at this club in LA, and I guess one night Mick Jagger showed to see us but he showed up on Tuesday instead. When we played that Thursday we we’re kinda hoping he would show. He never did.
Sheet: Typical Jagger … spacing on the date.
Swagger: It’s kind of a funny story. The manager at the club was pissed off at him because he supposedly walked out on his tab. But really it was his entourage just putting drinks on his tab. He never even ordered anything. The manager was venting for days about Jagger’s stupid looking sweater.
Sheet: When I see a tribute band of a group I’m a big fan of, I instinctively expect them to not live up to expectations. I’m sure you’re aware of this fan mindset. How do you deal with that kind of pressure?
Swagger: We just come out and kick ass straight away! A lot of times we don’t even have a set list. The Stones didn’t do that. We just work off the crowd.
Sheet: So you guys take requests?
Swagger: Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. It’s impressive when you yell out a song and the band plays it.
Sheet: Are there any songs that you guys are sick of?
Swagger: Yeah, I’m a little tired of ‘Start Me Up.’ Mostly because they play it 3 or 4 times during football games. It’s always like, “Staaaart me up” every 5 minutes. I’m not tired of playing it, just tired of hearing it all the time. Besides a lot of our fans like the b-side stuff anyway.
Sheet: Being from the LA area it must have been pretty easy to find a group of musicians that also looked like the original members of the band.
Swagger: Well, you can do a lot with wigs and make-up. It was a bit of luck I guess. Everyone in the group is a musician first. But we try really hard to create the image, whether it’s the clothes the body movements or whatever.
Sheet: Do you think if you were ever in a room with a bunch of other Mick Jagger impersonators, a Jagger-off might ensue?
Swagger: If you can arrange it I’d show up. Instead of a room full of Elvises, it would just be too many Micks, we could even do the parachute thing. But I think I’d rather see a room full of Keiths.
Sheet: What are you going to open with at Mammoth Rocks? I know you at least pick your opener.
Swagger: It depends, probably something hard and kickin.’
Sheet: Come on, gimme something.
Swagger: I don’t know … maybe “Start Me Up.”