Rives representing self in Board battle
Lancaster attempting to remove him as hospital District trustee
LANCASTER — Antelope Valley Healthcare District Director Michael Rives is representing himself against the City of Lancaster, which seeks to remove Rives from the hospital Board due to the incompatibility with Rives’ other elected seat on the Antelope Valley Community College District Board of Trustees.
Lancaster is requesting a quo warranto suit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether someone has the legal right to hold the public office he occupies.
The City is also seeking a $5,000 fine and the award of attorneys’ fees.
Rives ran for elected office about a dozen times without success until Nov. 3. He won election to the AV Healthcare District Board and the AV Community College District Board in the same election.
Lancaster sent Rives a letter dated Dec. 18 and signed by Mayor R. Rex Parris stating a concern that Rives is simultaneously serving as a member of both Boards. The letter asked Rives to resign from the hospital Board by Jan. 3 or face legal action to remove him.
Rives did not resign and has said he has no intention to resign. Rives does not have an attorney and said he cannot afford one.
Dr. Abdullah Farrukh, chairman of the AV Healthcare District Board of Directors, sent a letter dated Jan. 28 to Lancaster City Attorney Allison Burns stating the Healthcare District provid
We are dealing with the result of an election in which the people decided to elect a person to two Boards. The margin of victory indicates that the people knew exactly what they were doing.” — Michael Rives
ed its support and approval for the City to move forward with the quo warranto lawsuit, according to letter.
In his response to the proposed suit, Rives said Farrukh had a conflict of interest due to $4,469 in campaign donations received from Parris that paid for a billboard.
Five candidates were up for three seats on the hospital Board in the Nov. 3 election. Rives finished third with 45,929 votes, more than 3,000 votes ahead of former Director Mateo Olivarez, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office.
Rives won his seat on the AV College Board against one opponent by more than 3,900 votes.
“We are dealing with the result of an election in which the people decided to elect a person to two Boards,” Rives wrote in an email. “The margin of victory indicates that the people knew exactly what they were doing. Unlike other cases in which a person is on two Boards, one appointed or one elected, in this case, the person is elected. Maybe, this has never occurred before in the same election on the same ballot. Who knows? But, the will of the public is sovereign above all else. When you begin trying to overturn elections, you are beginning to end democracy, plain and simple.”
In his response to the proposed suit, Rives cited alleged conflicts of interest in the City’s action, including that City Attorney Alison Burns could not file the lawsuit on behalf of the city because she was appointed, not elected.
Rives also alleged Parris and members of the City Council have a conflict of interest due to property the mayor owns near the healthcare district. Council members Ken Mann and Raj Malhi also own businesses near the district.
In addition, the Healthcare District and the City of Lancaster have a 20-year loan agreement for the development of the future Lancaster Health District, previously known as Medical Main Street. The project is to be anchored by a new hospital.
AV Hospital needs a new modern facility that can meet state earthquake requirements. The existing facility, which opened in 1955, does not meet those seismic standards. The Healthcare District Board tried to pass bond measures in November 2018 and March 2020 to pay for the facility, but both failed. Rives paid for the opposing arguments against the measures in the sample ballot, he wrote in his response.
Rives opposed the measures because he believed the Lancaster Health District would allegedly provide a financial benefit to members of the Council.
Rives also disputed the Parris letter’s assertion about the potential for a significant clash of duties or loyalties for Rives between the Healthcare District and the College District.
AV College’s nursing program uses mutual facilities and training programs with AV Hospital. AV Hospital also offers internships to AV College nursing students. The healthcare District also participates in the college District’s job fairs. In addition, AV College also obtains healthcare services for students and employees provided by AV Healthcare District.
Rives questioned the validity of the agreements between the hospital and college, noting the agreement is not dated. He also alleged the lawsuit is a conflict of interest by the City because three persons affiliated with the Healthcare District were appointed as deputy mayors for Lancaster. In addition, Rives said Kristina Hong, his Healthcare District Board colleague, is on Lancaster’s Healthy Community Commission, as appointed by Parris,
“Section 1099 frowns upon the overlap of responsibilities by these individuals and makes this lawsuit even more of a conflict of interest,” Rives wrote.
The City’s reply to Rives’ response notes he conceded that Section 1099 of government code “frowns upon the overlap of responsibilities: of public officers.”
“Throughout his opposition, Rives attempts to deflect attention from the incompatibility of the two offices he presently occupies by listing a myriad of immaterial and nonsensical ‘conflicts of interest’ alleged to be suffered by other persons and entities,” the city’s reply in support of quo warranto said. “These red herrings do not alter the fundamental issue conceded by Rives: Rives’ concurrent holding of two public offices presents the likelihood of a significant clash of duties or loyalties making the offices incompatible, in violation of Government Code section 1099, and no law authorizes Rives’ simultaneous holding of these offices. Accordingly, the Attorney General should commence a quo warranto suit against Rives or grant leave to Relator to sue in quo warranto.”
In addition, the reply disputed “Rives’ claims that are numerous conflicts of interest involving the plaintiffs, who are either elected or appointed officials in the City of Lancaster in case.” Rather, the reply said, “there is only one plaintiff/relator in this matter: the City.”
The reply also disputed Rives’ claims about an alleged conflict of interest members of the City Council possess.
“However, Rives fails to offer a credible argument or any cognizable evidence to establish that these alleged conflicts of interest have any bearing the present matter,” the reply said. “While individual City Council members may have conflicts with regard to certain real property, those properties have nothing to do with the governance of the Healthcare District or Mr. Rives’ incompatible offices.”
The City’s reply also stated Rives failed to offer any persuasive argument or case law in support of his claims about alleged conflicts of interest for the Hospital Board and fails to establish that any such conflict would have any bearing on the propriety of the instant quo warranto action.
As it relates to the loan agreement between the City and the Healthcare District, the reply said since no member of Healthcare District’s Board of Directors is a party to the loan there is no conflict of interest is present.
The reply also said the Healthcare District’s letter is valid and does not pose a conflict of interest. In addition, campaign contributions to Dr. Farrukh also do not represent a conflict of interest.
“The Political Reform Act, enacted by the California legislature in 1974, expressly excludes campaign contributions from its definitions of gifts and income creating financial conflicts of interest,” the reply said.
As to Rives’ questions about the validity of the school affiliation agreement between the Healthcare District and the College District because it was not dated, the reply said that the Secretary of the Healthcare District, who is responsible for maintaining the records of the Healthcare District in the ordinary course of business, declares under penalty of perjury that the School Affiliation Agreement is true and correct.
“The proper functioning of the Healthcare District is imperative at this time as the City continues to battle the COVID-19 crisis—making it critical that the Board of Directors of the Healthcare District do not have positions that are incompatible with other public offices,” the reply said.
“Furthermore, Rives has offered no cogent explanation or authority to support his claim that offices are not incompatible, in violation of Government Code 1099. For the foregoing reasons, judicial review of the ongoing incompatible offices held by Michael Rives is not only proper, it is essential. Given the issues at stake, the Attorney General should prosecute this suit. In the alternative, leave should be granted to Relator, the City of Lancaster, to prosecute this suit in quo warranto.”