Update: Parkinson unaware of tax liens?

May 14, 2010

Ian Parkinson

In response to allegations that San Luis Obispo County Sheriff candidate Ian Parkinson was untruthful when he said that he has never had any tax liens, attorney John Ronca said his candidate had paid off three liens and asserts Parkinson did not remember them because the amounts were so small.

“After reviewing the printout and checking the county records, Ian does not deny that liens were filed, he simply did not recall them on the show, nor does he recall them now,” Ronca said in an e-mail to Dave Congalton at KVEC radio. “The bottom line is that Ian was completely honest on your show when he said he always paid his taxes and that he was unaware of any tax liens.”

Ronca said he reviewed county records and found that all of the liens were more than five years old and the amounts were under $240.

He, however, failed to mention a 2006 lien on a property Parkinson owned in Monterey County that was also listed in the e-mail.

In 2006, after Parkinson failed to pay a property tax bill of $1,546 for a home he owned at 44250 Via Canada in King City, the Monterey County Tax Collector placed a lien on the property. More than a year later, on Aug. 31, 2007, Parkinson paid the bill, according to the Monterey County Tax Collector’s office.

In San Luis Obispo County, if a recreational vehicle owner fails to pay their boat taxes on time, the county sends out a notice of intent to place a lien on the property. If the property owner does not respond to the notice, a lien is place on the boat, said Art Bacon, San Luis Obispo County principal financial analyst.

In the 2007/2008 tax year, the tax collector sent Parkinson a notice of intent to file a lien if he did not catch up on his delinquent taxes. He paid the bill prior to a lien being recorded, Bacon said.

In the 2005/2006 tax year, Parkinson failed to respond to the notice and a lien of $164 was placed on his boat. Shortly afterwards Parkinson paid the tax and the late payment fines.

In the 2002/2003 tax year, Parkinson again failed to respond to the notice and a temporary lien of $201was placed on his boat.

In the 2001/2002 tax year, Parkinson owned two boats. The tax collector sent him notices of intent to file liens on both vehicles.

When he did not respond to the notices, the county tax collector’s office filed liens of $237 and $222 on the boats. Parkinson paid both liens off within a few months of the recording.

In the 1999/2000 tax year, the tax collector sent Parkinson a notice of intent to file a lien if he did not catch up on his delinquent taxes. He paid the bill prior to a lien being recorded.

The sheriff oversees a staff of 375 and a $57 million budget. The department patrols all unincorporated areas in the county and several cities including Nipomo, Shandon and Avila Beach.


There seems to be a bigger flaw as Parkinson continues to violate California State Law by wearing a law enforcement uniform in his political ads. Government Code § 3206 “No officer or employee of a local agency shall participate in political activities of any kind while in uniform.”

Part of legislation intended to prevent governments and public officials from unduly influencing elections. Other statutes prohibit improper use of badges and improper campaign practices. Based on this legislative intent, a court could find a violation if a public official engaged in political activity wore apparel that so closely resembled his prescribed uniform that a reasonable voter would believe he was in uniform. According to a legal opinion by the Santa Barbara County Counsel as linked below on page 75. Look it up for yourself.



I think your citation of the Government Code also applies to Joe Cortez; His picture on the campaign posters has him wearing his chief’s uniform.


Actualy it does not since he is not currently a government employee. He is falsely representing himself as a peace officer (penal code violation) when he is not currently sworn and he is exposing the City of Pismo to liability for violating the Fair Political Practices act since you can still read the city name on his photos, only in mirror image. Check out the above legal opinion by Santa Barbara county. Very fascinating how few have researched the position they are attempting to hold.


This issue doesn’t appear to mean much to Ian Parkinson or the Tribune; small story in the Tribune (several days later in an “oh by the way” manner…) and a non-reassurring response from Parkinson. His preparation to be the Sheriff has clearly not had the attention that he should have given it; especially given his voter information guide candidate opening statement saying he has “been training to be Sheriff his entire adult life”. If these are examples of how much attention he pays to his most important life goal; then is he likely to fall short in other critical areas as well? Any candidate that has been training his entire adult life for public office should know by now their background will be scutinized top to bottom.

It is apparent that Parkinson has issues about either staying on top of his finances or representing the facts when questioned about them. His quote in the Tribune about he won’t be writing checks as the Sheriff is an indication of his sense of responsibility and attention to important details (I can’t believe he threw his wife under the bus). Will he be equally asleep at the wheel during his tenure as Sheriff managing a $57 Million budget? He may not “write the check” but just as he should be accountable for his joint personal finances he is accountable to us for the check being (or not being) written? Who will thrown under the bus at the Sheriff’s office when things don’t go right?

Additionally, this points to the controversy about his education shortfall (he says he only needs 6 General Education units to complete his bachelors degree, but hasn’t produced the transcripts to verify this statement). Maybe those 6 missing units were classes in economics and ethics. Ian produce the documentation and make these issues disappear or if you cannot then maybe you should step aside. I am not sure I would hire a recruit Deputy Sheriff that couldn’t pass these basic background tests of ethics, let alone hiring the applicant to be THE Sheriff?

Deflection and unethical behavior is what got us to where we are, we don’t need more of it.

Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/05/18/1145559/political-notebook.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1599647#Comments_Container#ixzz0oPO0SgDw


Cindy! Your fingers are quicker on the keyboard than your brain can work. That’s for that post. I agree.


Mad, It looks like your fingers were a bit quicker on the keyboard than your brain can work.

What the heck? Glad you agree with something, but what?


Awwwwww shucks …………… Even the Mad Hatter sticks foot in mouth once in a while. Oh Well, have a good day to all. Even you Cindy, Cynthia, the expert typo expert can have one to.


If you haven’t taken the time to look at the poll New Times is running, newtimesslo.com, for sheriff, you should. From 11:30Pm last night to 7:30am this morning, over a 1,000 votes were posted. Mr Parkinson was behind at 11:30pm, but he’s now way ahead. I’d bet, if someone were to take the time to check, those computers at the sheriff’s department were working overtime during the graveyard shift last night. Can’t even get an honest online vote. What’s the world coming too?


Those votes couldn’t have come from the graveyard shift at the sheriff’s office; they don’t have that many people on after midnight.


Parkinson is accustomed to cheating. He could have put a call out to CO Unions across the state and got LE from all over to place those votes. There is no way so many people just so happened to log on in that short time and all vote for him after he was lagging for all those previous hours.

Nothing about Parkinson ever adds up.


So the Tribune had a mention of Ian Parkinson and his tax liens today, bottom of first page, section 4, with the completion of the story on the very back page of the paper. I wonder if they are going to rethink their endorsement; somehow, I doubt they will though. I emailed Ben Hall and asked him if he supported random, unannounced drug testing of law enforcement officers and he said yes, even though the officers would think that they are not being “trusted”. I also asked him about a citizens oversight committee or review panel, and his response was that he thought that would cost too much to the taxpayers; I thought that response was weak since those citizens would most likely be volunteers, but he did state that there would be expenses based on their having access to documents and legal help.


“”he supported random, unannounced drug testing of law enforcement officers and he said yes, even though the officers would think that they are not being “trusted”

Bob, I don’t like hearing this. I’m pleased he supports drug testing, what I don’t like is this business about trust issues. Seems to me if the deputies are trustworthy and want to be trusted then they wouldn’t have an issue with it. Are we dealing with children here?

Regarding the citizens oversight committee, does he think we can afford the $3.6 Million that Hedges cost us? An oversight committee may have gone a long way in curbing the behavior of both Hedges and

the over zealous behavior of some of his deputies.


Trust issues, I sure hope the LE doesn’t think that drug testing indicates that there are trust issues. We plain don’t trust them ‘all’ and I had a discussion about that with at least 18 or maybe more people just last Sunday. There are psychiatrist that say there are officers who have been allowed on the force that they consider to be psychotic. There have been at least 5 murders and beatings resulting in permanent brain damage. Then there are just the pay out’s for brutality where someone was innocent but managed not to die. There are drug smugglers on the force, who are most likely dealers and we wonder who they deal to. There are drugs missing from the evidence lockers at the Sheriffs station which is why Parkinson said that auditing the evidence locker would be on his ‘to do’ list.

WE demand drug testing, we demand an internal review board. Any Sheriff that isn’t willing to give us that without an excuse isn’t worth a vote.


Interesting, I just did a search of the Trib site, the article did NOT come up. I wonder where it is.


I can’t find it either. I was told that it’s there and that Parkinson supporters are trashing CCN as a bunch of liars for spinning a non issue etc. What people don’t seem to get is the fact that Parkinson lied and then claimed he didn’t remember which is not believable considering all the offenses he incurred. What’s obvious is that he was caught off guard and his nature being what it is, he instinctively lied. Which puts a damper on any statements that claim he’s fast on his feet!

What a dummy and a lying one at that.


Here is the link to the article hidden on the Tribune : http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/05/18/1145559/political-notebook.html


here is where this arrogant A.H. gets my knickers in a bunch, he now says that he didn’t understand the callers question exactly which lead to the “lie” so is he now saying english is his second language , it was a simple question, can you tell us why we should think you can handle a big budget when you have had so many tax liens in your past ten years, answer not me wrong guy i always pay my taxes.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, give us all a break and admit that you lied and got caught, you are highly deficient in the amount of formal education a man in your firls at this level should be required to have and that at best you have slid by in taking as many short cuts as you can. Do you kiss your mom with that lying mouth?

here he is as a child, mom: Ian did you break that window with a baseball?

Ian: no mom I have never broken a window with a base ball

Mom: oh my big truthful boy!

next day………………………….Mom Ian the neighbor has video of breaking her window why did you lie?

Ian, I broke it with a football it was the truth I answered you with yesterday

Mom: you have to pay her for it now you know

Ian, have her remind me in a year if I should forget ok?


how is he campaigning and Captaining at the same time? Sure hope he doesn’t forget something like, oh I don’t know doing any campaign business at all on the city’s dime is so so wrong


Do you mean like driving the city car out to tour the jail for his campaign? He wouldn’t do that, it is against the law. Kind of like wearing a uniform while campaigning. Oh wait, I guess that is him in a blue suit with a shiney badge on his web site.


Ladymama – “here is where this arrogant A.H. gets my knickers in a bunch, he now says that he didn’t understand the callers question exactly which lead to the “lie”

I don’t think you mean A.H., I think you mean I.P.?

SSC – “I guess that is him in a blue suit with a shiney badge on his web site.”

Humm, I heard that it is not legal for officers to pose on a private web site wearing their uniform and badge. Not certain if that is true or not but I would think the police would know that. Is this law why you mention his uniformed presence on his web site?

I know the rest of what you mention is against the law.


Yes, I included the link to a Santa Barbara County Counsel opinion that came up on a google search. It is illegal for Parkinson to wear a uniform during his campaign or use images of himself in uniform in his campaign. The prohibition is found in the Government Code relating to political activites and not one a general law enforcement officer would review. But, a candidate is expected to follow all of the rules and his campaign committee should have guided him, unless he has ignored them as well.

See information starting at about Page 75: http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/counsel/PDF_Files/Eaglet%20Guide%202007%20–%20Book%201.pdf


This is circulating around the net here. Two questions were posed to Joe Cortez, here are his answers. One observer, a former criminal defense attorney who is very suspicious of law enforcement because of numerous brutality situations (here and elsewhere) was mightily impressed and feel this candidate is very rational for a police officer. That person now has a Cortez sign in his yard.


I see the issue as a 3-legged stool. One leg is border security which the federal government is failing miserably on. The second leg is a workable guest worker program which is also failing miserably. The Dept. of Labor can easily track the number of guest workers our nation will need each year (or each season as the case may be) so why not put an easy, fair, timely process in place to provide temporary documentation to allow these workers to come here without hassle to do the jobs we need done. Jobs that our citizens don’t seem willing to do. The third leg is a more responsive pathway to citizenship. An antiquated, cumbersome system only encourages illegal immigration. So in summary, I’m for strong borders, a workable guest worker program, and a responsive pathway to citizenship.

Now, as a law enforcement administrator I have a hard time coming to terms with the recent law passed in Arizona. Police chiefs and sheriffs are charged with maintaining public safety. To do so we need effective laws that encourage people to come forward as victims and witnesses and to report crimes and suspicious behavior. For the past 2 decades we have been preaching community-based policing during which time we have spent tremendous energy, money, and resources trying to hire cops who were a good fit for their communities, and willing to engage the public as partners in keeping their communities safe. All that work has effectively been pushed to the side in Arizona as there is now a very large group of people that have been driven into the shadows for fear of deportation. As a result of the new law are these people more likely to report employer abuse? Domestic violence? Child abuse? Gang violence? Drug dealing? Child prostitution? Most assuredly not. And that’s my concern. From a public safety standpoint, the new Arizona law will result in the unintended consequences of providing much less incentive for victims and witnesses to come forward, and make life much easier for those who prey on the undocumented workers among us. A lot of good work over the years in building community trust has just been kicked to the curb.

Medical Marijuana:

I’ll support the law. Dispensaries operating in compliance with the state attorney general’s guidelines (cooperative or collective) will have no problem from me. I also believe in jurisdictional integrity meaning that if an incorporated city allows a dispensary in their community it is their issue to deal with. I’ll not use the resources of the sheriff’s department uninvited in any community.


If you really support anyone but Parkinson or Lenthal, and truly want this to be an honest horse race (as much a politics ever is), send your candidate some money. Both Lenthal and Parkinson are being supported by some big money interests, and the rest of candidates are really being out-spent. Name recognition is important. Help your guy get his name out there.


I’m with you CitizenR and if people can’t send money contact your candidate and ask for signs. If you live in an area or know someone in an area where you can strategically place a sign, do it. It’s true that name recognition is important. Some people don’t do their homework and vote for the guy who they saw the most signs for thinking that he must be the best, since they saw so many SIGNS.

Get the word out and ask your friends who they are voting for? Talk to them, word of mouth works. There’s a time to keep your mouth shut about politics and there is a time to speak up. This is a time to speak up. I told my manicurist and the entire salon that I was voting for Cortez and why yesterday. No one at the salon had made up their minds at that time. Hopefully I helped them out. :)


It also helps it you can post to multiple forums, post on your social networks, letters to the editor, etc. Also, go to the Newtimes website — they are doing a poll — and vote for your guy. When I last looked Parkinson was well in the lead.

Paul Anthony

I took your advice and went to Cortez’s website to request signs and emailed them via his site.

The email was kicked back to me as undeliverable.

There is no phone number available.

If anyone from his campaign can fix this, thanks.


They had a problem with that e-mail address. They have a new one up on the site.


I got 4 sign’s from them yesterday.


Here is the email that works. cortezforsheriff@charter.net

Every time I explain the facts to folks they switch to Joe.

Paul Anthony

Hotdiggiteydog how about explaining the facts in a great sound bite type thing so others can share it like Cindy did? Cindy, you too?

Talking points. Good stuff. Have at it.


His phone number is 295-6057


This has been such an interesting and enlightening story that certainly has impacted the community. Throughout the blogs are innuendo about other scandals and skeletons in the closets of each of the candidates. If there are any substantiated information that would be of value to the community, now would be the time to share it. I personally don’t want to hear who is sleeping around with whom. But, would appreciate any facts relevant to the capabilities and performance expectations of the Sheriff. We really cannot afford another Pat Hedges mini-me as our Sheriff. While I have chosen a candidate based on what I believe to be the best qualifications, my ballot remains unchecked on my desk next to the computer. Karen, what say you?


Saveslocounty, I suggest you contact the candidates, ask your questions, etc. (maybe you already have). I did this and I am supporting someone I did not anticipate supporting due to many innuendos made regarding him which were not accurate. Go with your gut, it is usually right. Don’t let another persons bias or possible misinformation sway your decision. Thank you for doing your research and voting.


Actually I have personally spoken to each of the candidates about their vision, except Mark Adamsl. Some at Farmer’s Market and others at their tables at other community events. Based on the information provided, I felt the Lenthall would take care of business and had the most applicable experience with his service on the Board of Supervisors. My final decision was made most recently after listening to Parkinson on the podcast, not on the contents of the CCN articles. However, If there is more garbage to come out, I would like to hear it before filling in the bubble Barring Mr. Lenthall telling a lie, I am pretty well committed to supporting his bid for Sheriff. I would love to see a run off between Lenthall and Joe Cortez so we could learn even more about both of these highly qualifies professionals. As people, I like all of the candidates and feel they are really nice people, even Adams who I met long before the campaign. Parkinson, followed by his attorney’s release, was a predictable response which caused me to lose respect for him. That is too bad and I do feel sorry for his mistake and the negative impact on his reputation and that of his family. Had he stood up and boldly claimed he made a mistake by trying to conceal his errors, I would have dismissed this entire incident and moved on. I have taken this campaign much more seriouse than any in the past. The community and the staff at the Sheriff’s Department deserve much better leadership. I realize that supporting Lenthall has given me some thumbs down marks, but I have gone with my gut as to whom I believe would do the best job, just as you have suggested. Thanks for your imput and it is unfortunate that most people will not dedicate sufficient time and research in selecting the best candidate.


I would also like to see a runoff between Lenthal and Cortez but I don’t think that’s likely. It’s more likely that Parkinson will be in that runoff. If it comes down to P and L I’ll be voting for L.

I don’t necessarily have anything against L. He is well educated, eloquent and experienced in both LE and administration. The problem is that he marches to his own band and often dismisses the voice of his constituents and even that of his advisers. I feel that he got in way too deep with the developers and that left a sore spot on my elbow. Apart from that, he seems like a nice enough man however we so happen to have a difference of philosophy.

Hopefully the runoff will include Cortez. I have every reason to believe that Cortez can win in a runoff.


I’ll be voting for Cortez.

P.S. I notice there are plenty of P & L supporters trolling. They are counting on us to split our votes. I agree that Cortez can take this if he makes it to the November ballot.


Does anyone find it a bit suspicious that Mike Brennler, Dale Strobridge’s partner, in a business that handles salary negotions with several law enforcement agencies in the county is a financial contributor to Joe Cortez’s campaign? It seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me.