STOP Roger Dickinson
Vote NO on Roger Dickinson
on November 5th!
Timeline: How Roger Dickinson
Failed Sacramento
September 23, 2010
Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson accepted a $1,000 campaign contribution to his State Assembly campaign account from Teichert Construction. (View contribution report here.)
September 27, 2010
Only four days later, Dickinson accepted ANOTHER $2,900 from Teichert Construction to his State Assembly campaign account. (View contribution report here.)
September 28, 2010
The day after accepting a second contribution from Teichert, Roger Dickinson voted to rezone the property of SMH, a small building materials business run by the Hardesty and Schneider families. SMH competed directly with Teichert Construction and offered lower prices for the same products. Tiechert lobbied the County, and the county rezoned SMH, virtually shutting them down overnight. The very same day, Teichert agreed to help fund the County's aggregate enforcement program. https://agendanet.saccounty.gov/BoardofSupervisors/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=5157&doctype=1
Late 2010
Hardesty and Schneider families filed a federal lawsuit against County of Sacramento and former County Supervisor Roger Dickinson for violating their civil rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment. The lawsuit alleged that the small family business’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated.
November 9, 2011
Roger Dickinson accepted $700 from Teichert for his State Assembly campaign account. (View contribution report here.)
October 17, 2012
Roger Dickinson accepted $3,900 from Teichert for his State Senate campaign account. (View contribution report here.)
June 30, 2014
Roger Dickinson accepted $1500 from Teichert for his State Senate campaign account. (View contribution report here.)
August 29, 2014
Roger Dickinson accepted $1,000 from Teichert for his State Senate campaign account. (View contribution report here.)
October 31, 2014
Roger Dickinson accepted $1000 from Teichert for his State Senate campaign account. (View contribution report here.)
March 21, 2017
A Federal Jury slapped a devastating $107 million judgement against Sacramento County for violating the civil rights of the Hardestys and Schneiders – the largest ever against the county at the time.
Read the judge’s full ruling here:
-
Roger Dickinson was “among the ‘primary contacts’ between Teichert and the County.
-
“The County and elected officials had for years received contributions of large sums from Teichert executives and lobbyists”.
-
“Evidence also permitted the jury's implicit finding that political pressure was applied through multiple meetings involving Teichert, Dickinson…and others from 2009 through 2010.”
-
“Dickinson testified he did not pay attention to when contributions were made and did not know immediately if a contribution was made, Dickinson did confirm an entry in his campaign finance records, which ‘are a matter of public record,’ showed Teichert made a contribution to him the day before the September 28, 2010 hearing at which the Board rejected the Schneiders' appeal.”
-
“These regular contacts and the open communication lines between Teichert, County employees and defendants themselves demonstrate the clear weight of the evidence is not against a jury finding of defendants having an improper motivation in determining plaintiffs lacked a vested right.”
-
“Regarding the county withholding of key evidence from plaintiffs despite Dickinson’s false promise to provide the data: “The jury therefore had substantial evidence to infer plaintiffs were denied procedural due process rights throughout the 2010 hearings.”
-
“Substantial evidence supported the conclusion Dickinson engaged in affirmative acts causing deprivation of plaintiffs' substantive due process rights—namely, the deprivation of their vested right…”
-
Dickinson stacked the deck against the small business when he “called on one of Teichert's attorneys to not only testify but also to introduce an ‘extensive letter, a whole series of exhibits attached to it which cover virtually every issue which was discussed here this afternoon.’ And also “denied Schneider's requested time to review evidence from Teichert.
-
“And Dickinson voted to close the (business) on September 28, 2010…At trial, Dickinson affirmed documentation showing Teichert made a campaign contribution to him the day before the critical hearing…”
-
As noted, Teichert agreed to help fund the County's aggregate enforcement program the day after the hearing.” – the very next day after the county put SMH out of business.
-
“From this evidence, weighing it as instructed…the jury could infer Dickinson engaged in affirmative acts causing the SHM to eventually permanently close without any legitimate governmental objective, but instead to satisfy Teichert as a donor.”
-
“Substantial evidence permitted the jury to infer a significant degree of reprehensibility of defendants' misconduct. First, as previously discussed, ample evidence shows defendants communicating and coordinating with Teichert about the investigation of SHM's vested right. Campaign reporting records show Dickinson's campaign fund received a contribution the day before his vote to close SHM, and Teichert agreed to help fund the County's aggregate enforcement program the day after that hearing.”
-
“Here, the jury awarded punitive damages against Dickinson of $25,000.”
March 31, 2018
In a court filing, plaintiff alleged that the county retaliated against them by dramatically increasing in 2012 the
financial deposit necessary to continue operating…after they filed this case in 2012.
August 19, 2020
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the judgment against Sacramento County: “The County acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in ordering them to cease mining on their property, thus depriving them of their vested right. We affirm the jury's finding of liability against the County as to the Schneider plaintiffs.” Though the court remanded some areas of the suit to the original trial court for additional review of the damages awarded, one judge wrote of Roger Dickinson: “Dickinson voted to deprive the Schneiders of their vested right to appease a more powerful competitor.”
April 13, 2022
The City of Sacramento filed a lawsuit against Teichert Construction, Dickinson’s corporate contributors, for using “improper construction materials and methods…and that Teichert billed the city for materials and labor not used in work." -- City News release. "By filing this lawsuit, the city is holding Teichert accountable for violating its contract and for depriving ratepayers of materials and services they paid for." The City repeatedly asked Teichert to disclose all locations where it deviated from the contract specifications, but Teichert refused to provide the information. The City ultimately launched a comprehensive investigation into Teichert’s work, through which the City found a 90% rate of non-compliant work. Examples of the deficient work by Teichert included, among other deficiencies, not installing special equipment designed to hold meters in place, backfilling excavations with unapproved materials, and using plastic pipe instead of copper pipe. “It is unfortunate that Teichert decided to cut corners and misrepresent its work to the City,” Alcala Wood said. “By filing this lawsuit, the City is holding Teichert accountable for violating its contract and for depriving ratepayers of materials and services they paid for.”
Sacramento sues contractor over water meter installation
September 11, 2023
Roger Dickinson accepted another $1000 political contribution from Teichert Construction for his Sacramento City Council campaign. (View contribution report here.)
October 4, 2023
Roger Dickinson accepted YET ANOTHER $1050 from Teichert Construction for his city council campaign! (View contribution report here.)
August 21, 2024
The County of Sacramento agrees to settle the SMH lawsuit – accepting a total of $78 million in damages to the Hardesty and Schneider families. That’s $78 million in taxpayer dollars simply because Roger Dickinson refused to act with honesty and integrity as a Sacramento County elected official.
November 5th, 2024
Sacramento voters – fed up with corrupt politicians and corrosive corporate influence of their tax dollars – once-and-for-all vote to send Roger Dickinson out of elected office for good!
September 23, 2024
Roger Dickinson accepts YET ANOTHER $1,000 donation from Teichert – just weeks before Election Day – to fund Roger’s effort for City Council! (View contribution report here.)
Vote NO on Roger Dickinson
on November 5th!
Roger Dickinson is a vote you can't afford
In 2010 County Supervisor Roger Dickinson abused his political power to destroy a small family-owned business, SMH, so that one of his campaign donors could eliminate a competitor. In 2017, a federal jury found that the County, led by Dickinson, broke the law by violating SMH’s due process civil rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Under Roger Dickinson’s leadership, Sacramento County succeeded in destroying the business, but the federal jury found the county responsible for $107 million in damages to SMH which was later negotiated down to $78 million. That's $78 million in TAXPAYER dollars. “Dickinson declined to comment...on the jury’s decision that sustained allegations of "malicious and oppressive conduct against him.” (Sacramento Bee, March 23, 2017)
When Roger Dickinson abuses his power, you’re the one who has to pay up.
Now, the same campaign donors that pushed Sacramento County into legal and financial disaster are being sued by the City of Sacramento for billing fraud and shoddy work, costing taxpayers even more – and Roger Dickinson wants to be your next Sacramento City Councilmember. He even took maximum campaign contributions from the same company again just last month.
If Roger Dickinson wins a seat on the city council he’ll have direct influence over the city’s multi-million dollar lawsuit against his favorite contributor. Roger Dickinson’s bad judgement and low integrity cost Sacramento County taxpayers $78 million. There’s no telling how much he’ll cost the City of Sacramento.
We need integrity at City Hall. Roger Dickinson is a vote you can’t afford.