Another RPD Lawsuit heads to Jury Trial

UPDATE:

 

 

Judge Ronald Taylor Tosses out Nakamura Lawsuit 

 

In the afternoon session, the city's attorneys presented a motion to toss the lawsuit out to Taylor claiming that the Prima Facie hadn't been met. There was a lot of legalese tossed around but basically there were two main points of Taylor's ruling

 

 

1) If you commit a violation you put yourself at risk of being investigated and if there's problematic practices involved in that investigation it's your fault. Something along the lines that you can only be raped if you wear conservative clothing and are a nun.

 

 

2) If the RPD experiences atypical periods of chaos in its history, it's perfectly acceptable if it either doesn't follow written policy or has written policies in place.

 

 

By the way, the jury appeared split right down the middle and split verdicts were highly possible. But why take your chance with a jury when it's easier to convince one judge? Why have jury trials anyway? The city had fought so hard to avoid having a jury hear it, now they fought to prevent a jury from deciding it.  Some jurors appeared to sense from the testimony that not all was right in River City.

 

 

As a decade long watchdog of the Riverside Police Department, this ruling greatly troubled me particularly the argument that if you're in chaos, you don't have to have written rules or follow them. Unfortunately, that's been  longtime pattern and practice of the RPD as historians know and with a Superior Court judge putting his stamp of approval on that, we're all waiting for the next crisis and its aftermath.


The following CPRA request seeking policy and procedure information was sent to the RPD including its Training Division. Upon further review, a separate CPRA request will be sent regarding similar information on "detention" procedures for departmental employees including alleged or suspected victims of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment.


Forwarded Message -----
From: mary shelton <chicalocaside@yahoo.com>
To: "sdiaz@riversideca.gov"
Cc: "cvicino@riversideca.gov" ; "jgreer@riversideca.gov" ; "mblakely@riversideca.gov" ; "JBrennan@riversideca.gov"
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:07 PM
Subject: CPRA Request


April 11, 2013

Riverside Police Department
4102 Orange St.

Riverside CA 92501

RE: Public Records Act Request

Dear Chief Sergio Diaz:

Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to (inspect/obtain a copy of) the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:

Copies of any and all relevant polices, procedures, training (including AB 1825 training) and investigate/interrogative practices involving addressing Sexual Harassment and a hostile workplace environment for both civilian and sworn employees

Background: During recent litigation, it's come to my attention that several, perhaps well intended practices involving the investigation/interrogation of potential sexual harassment victims might cause undue trauma, and a chilling effect on the reporting of sexual harassment/hostile work environment if these practices are still in place. One of them being the means of approaching the victim or any witnesses to set up the necessary interview of him or her to obtain the account of any alleged harassment or policy violations to that effect. For example, showing up unannounced in a parking lot of a city owned facility to escort or transport them for an interview.

Deputy Chief Mike Blakely very helpfully testified in a court proceeding of how the department's management holds that these practices help facilitate the investigation of suspected sexual harassment/hostile work environment and prevent a "chilling effect" against any reports of such policy violations but in known practice it seemed to have the opposite effect. The information requested would greatly help to see what current practices and procedures are and how they stack up with "best practices".

Also I learned in the court proceeding through sworn testimony that the RPD currently has no policies and procedures in writing or otherwise addressing sexual harassment/hostile work environment within the agency itself apart from the city at large. There's been testimony and legal argument presented that the department is a "paramilitary organization" and thus has unique needs and realities separating it from the city. It seems to me if that's the case it should be adopting and using its policies and procedures to address this. Former Police Chief Penny Harrington and I had discussed these issues over time extensively as to what are best practices and how to adopt them. The department's had to grapple with this pressing issue in prior investigations including at the management level so hopefully at that time this status quo of not having an investigative/interrogative procedure in writing was in fact changed.

The commitment to addressing a hostile working environment pertaining particularly to gender was also in a preliminary draft of the 2010-2015 Strategic Plan before your arrival in July 2010.

This email has been carbon copied for informational purposes to the chain of command in your training division. Thank you for your patience in reading this supplementary summary pertaining to this CPRA request.

------------------------

I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.

If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.

If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested.

In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.

If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at 951-233-4205. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $0 before you duplicate the records so that I may decide which records I want copied.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mary Shelton

Independent Citizen Monitor of the Riverside Police Department

 

 

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED....

Internal Affairs Division

 

April 2010

It looks like the lawsuit that Riverside Police Department officer Neely Nakamura filed against the city and four police department employees will be heading to jury trial next week. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Ronald Taylor issued rulings not favoring the city's motions to get the lawsuit thrown out before it sees the light of day.  The defendants were the city, Deputy Chief Mike Blakely, Lt. Mike Cook, Sgt. John Capen and Sgt. Frank Assumma. All of them worked in some capacity for the internal affairs division, which is an agency umbrellaed under the chief's office who at the time was Interim Chief John Delarosa.  Only as it turned out it really wasn't under his command because he would become "invisible" but that'll be detailed more later on.

The morning of April 4, attorneys for both Nakamura and the city spent time behind closed doors in Taylor's chambers fighting over whether or not there will be a trial and if so who'll testify. The main bone of contention involves the testimony of former Deputy Chief Pete Esquival who according to Taylor's ruling will be testifying from the witness stand during the trial.

But after the court of appeals refused to stay the trial proceedings, a jury was selected and the trial got started. 

Minus one defendant.  

Actually first the defendants filed a motion to get Taylor kicked off the bench as the judge but that didn't happen. Taylor who retired from the bench and then returned to hear cases would be the trier of  law.

Then Taylor discharged Assumma from the list of defendants after he decided that Assumma had just been following orders.  He's still set to testify later on in the trial.

That still left the rest of them and Blakely acting as the case agent for the defense.  Nakamura sits at her table with attorneys from Lackie, Dammeier and McGill while the city has Blakely along with three legal eagles most likely from an outside firm.

The witness list is not very long. Nakamura, the defendants, Assumma and some blasts from the past in the form of Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel, former Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and former police chief, Russ Leach.

The witnesses are featured below along with a couple who weren't on the witness list.

Nakamura testified first and I missed most of the initial direct testimony but dropped by for the afternoon session.  The defendants sat in the audience along with Riverside Police Officers' Association President Brian Smith.

A female attorney cross examined Nakamura and spent most of her line of questioning on the sexual relationship between her and Esquivel and the violations of departmental policy.  As well as some questions on whether or not documentation of both POBAR (Police Officer Bill of Rights) and Lynberger (the right to remain silent except in an IA investigation)admonition.   I wasn't surprised to see a female attorney take the lead in the cross-examination for the city and the defendants as that's often the case to keep the jury from thinking the witness who in some cases but not this one might be a victim of sexual harassment is being beaten up by a male attorney.  She seemed to be more aggressive in trial law and procedure than Nakamura's male attorney  Lots of objections flying out and Taylor seemed to be fairly down the middle, not favoring one side over the other which must have greatly alleviated the city's concerns that it had about him when they tried to get him tossed.

Nakamara appeared a bit nervous but poised during what must be very difficult testimony. Hers would by its nature be the trial's most difficult because no other witness has to talk about their sexual history in a department which according to what one witness testified had its last sexual harassment investigation in 2012.  She testified about how humiliated she felt about being acted the personal questions and that the experience was degrading.  The intimidation of being pressured to get into a car in the parking lot at Magnolia Polices Station to be driven by two sergeants all the way across town to the downtown bus terminal which housed the Internal Affairs Division and how she felt unable to leave due to the demeanor and words of the officers there and not having transportation with her.

It was the lawsuit filed by her in 2011 fleshed out in greater detail that comes with spoken words.  But what caught people's attention was the part at the very end of her testimony where she talked about receiving a written reprimand once she'd turned from "witness" or sexual harassment "victim" to "person of interest" and later "guilty person".  Maybe some people would have said that was harsh discipline but she said she accepted it and considered it lenient.

She would be right and that fact struck some people as a bit odd.  Pressure someone in a car without warning, interview them about intimate activities in a conference room, leave them there for a period of time and then some hours later, driving back.  All that and a written reprimand but Nakamura testified to why she felt that she'd received that relatively minor discipline for admitted violations including conduct unbecoming of an officer and a conflict of interest.

"I don't think it was me that they were after," she said, "They were after Pete Esquivel."


Those were her final words on the stand.   An impression on the jury from her before the next witness hit the stand which was Blakely.  

I'd been away with my injured shoulder for a while but I was once again reminded of the police department's dynamic of Spy versus Spy as soon as Blakely started his direct as a hostile witness for Nakamura's side.

Seriously, I was intrigued immediately by his rather descriptive view of life inside the upper echelon of the police department's management including the administration of the Internal Affairs Division. When Nakamura's attorney asked Blakely if he were the head of that division, he said no, that job fell to the police chief and that in between him and the chief was the assistant police chief who during that time period would be John Delarosa.  He then became the acting or interim chief when then Chief Russ Leach took his medical retirement after the infamous Super Bowl Sunday DUI crash.

That investigation led to a fissure in the Internal Affairs Division in that Lt. Cook and two sergeants were loaned out to reporting to then hired consultant from Best, Best and Krieger, Grover Trask. The former District Attorney was paid to oversee the Leach investigation and that left two sergeants in Internal Affairs working under Blakely.

But when it came to investigating a situation that would arise involving Esquivel, Blakely decided not to report any concerns about it to Delarosa but instead went straight to DeSantis as well as City Attorney Greg Priamos.   And in that point of his testimony, Delarosa became "Johnny Who" or the "invisible chief" because considering he and not Leach was the chief in power at the time, he seemed not only out of the administrative loop but invisible as well. The reasoning was that it'd be a conflict of interest because Esquivel wanted the chief's job, had been vocal about it and had criticized Delarosa's handling of the Leach incident.

Priamos agreed with Blakely's concern and DeSantis gave him the authority to continue the investigation. That's when the testimony started about concerns that Esquivel had too many phone calls, the durations and timing of which particularly Nakamura became a concern needing further investigation.

It was actually Capen who brought up the number of phone calls involving Esquivel and Nakamura and that part intrigued me. I had some familiarity with what Internal Affairs did including the fact that the division itself was closely managed allegedly down to the phone call and key stroke by upper management but I wasn't aware that the division itself was involved with monitoring the  phone calls of other people in such detail. Perhaps on some level it makes sense to be able to immediately deal with irregularities in time and duration and sheer number of phone calls between two parties but on a practical sense, even in a medium sized department it would seem to be a logistic nightmare to keep track of everybody who's making phone calls.

That would take so much time considering Internal Affairs does several dozen internal investigations, perhaps a percentage of the few dozen or so citizen complaint investigations and investigation/reviews of officer involved shootings and deaths. Depending on the year that can be quite a workload for a division that's been downsized a bit since 2010.

Then again perhaps it's possible that not everyone was having an accounting of their phone activity and it was mainly Esquival for whatever reason. Another open internal affairs probe, a history of prior concerns or perhaps idle curiosity.  Whatever the reason, the monitoring of Esquivel's phone activity generated enough interest for further probing and that's where Nakamura allegedly came into the situation.

Blakely testified that he was concerned by the "very unusual" volume, duration and timing of their phone calls but didn't act initially because Nakamura was supervised by Esquivel except for the fact that he also told the jury that particular supervisory dynamic concerned him too.  So much so he bypassed the invisible acting chief and went to the defacto chief DeSantis for further counsel on this situation involving Esquivel and what he thought might be his sexual harassment of Nakamura.  Priamos' office was asked to provide guidance as well.

The invisible chief was left out of the loop out of concern that there might be a conflict of interest which was one way of saying that Delarosa wanted the police chief job too without actually saying it.  The defacto chief thus made the decision about the internal affairs investigation but then again the invisible chief was also being investigated in the Leach DUI probe by the city though DeSantis would also allegedly face his own struggles with a similar situation on his own watch with a subordinate employee.

When Blakely was asked about his own relationship with Esquivel, he said he found him to be competent and they worked well together in a "harmonious" manner.  But then returned to the issue of DeSantis, the defacto chief giving him authority to continue doing the investigation of Esquivel's phone activity.

He and Cook were part of a meeting to decide how to handle it including Nakamura. The decision was made to handle her in a "discreet" manner. Capen and Assumma were included in the investigative team due to familiarity with the investigation whether this one involving Esquivel or another one involving Esquivel wasn't clear by his testimony.  But what is fairly well known now is that Esquivel had more than one investigation pending against him.

The decision was made to get hold of Nakamura in a "discreet" fashion because tipping her off about the investigation or its nature might compromise it. Okay but then it got a little bit confusing as to what was "discreet" about it. Blakely testified that it worked out quite well...mostly.

"That was pretty much what I was hoping they'd do," he testified.

Then he added that they didn't know that she'd had prior phone contact with Esquivel while driving into the parking lot at Magnolia Police Station where she saw the two IA sergeants, Capen and Assumma.

Yes it definitely makes sense not to send IA sergeants to pick up witnesses inside a police station like Magnolia's in front of other officers which could compromise an internal investigation. Hence the decisions to place Internal Affairs right next to the Neighborhood Policing Center North at the bus terminal not to mention moving Internal Affairs inside the Magnolia Station itself later on.  These decisions even if necessitated by dwindling budget monies do make it seem like officer confidentiality and privacy is a secondary consideration.

But it seems that absconding a police officer in the parking lot of a major facility filled with police officers including others parking their cars would simply attract attention and notice that something unusual is taking place. It'd be hard not to pay attention to it. It's hard to believe that an officer could be in that situation and not feel like the person investigated rather than a "witness" or "victim" of sexual harassment. With the latter in particular, you'd think you'd take steps to avoid victimization again rather than potentially add to that feeling.

Blakely appeared more ill at ease in parts than I thought he'd be considering he's the case agent and is privy to all the testimony unlike most witnesses in court proceedings. Two areas in particular, the one where he explained how the chain of command in the Spring of 2010 didn't include the acting chief or the "invisible" chief and also when Nakamura's attorney tried to do some comparative analysis on comparing what Blakely said started as a sexual harassment investigation with others of that nature that had been done by the department. As recently as 2012 which wasn't a good year for them, and Nakamura's attorney asked if other victims of sexual harassment hadn't been notified ahead of time for interviews, or whether her treatment was an anomaly.  He's probably smart enough to know when he's being set up for a fall on the witness stand but couldn't do much about it.

Then the city's attorney voiced an objection arguing relevance which made it seem all the more like the department's handling of the "sexual harassment" investigation involving Nakamura wasn't like any past similar cases including the one alleged in 2012. 

Blakely returns on the stand tomorrow for some more direct and then he gets "cross-examined" by his own attorney and so forth. On his tail comes DeSantis who's set to testify in the afternoon session.

RPD's Administrative Headquarters

 

Scene of a power struggle?

RPD Officer Neely Nakamura (l.) getting an award with two colleagues for a business awareness conference 

The medically retired ex-deputy chief will be testifying at the trial

 

 

Will Deputy Chief Mike Blakely be hitting the witness stand and if so what will he have to say?


Witness and Case Agent for the City

And what of former Asst. and Acting Chief John DeLaRosa, will this blast from the past be on the witness test as well to provide his account of events?

Not on the Witness List but Acting Chief and head of Internal Affairs




The former Police Chief Russ Leach is also scheduled to testify.

Witness and former police chief



 

 Yes the former assistant city manager who wanted to be police chief will hit the stand.


Witness and ex-Defacto Police Chief

Current Police Chief Sergio Diaz

Not a witness but no doubt celebrating an RPD lawsuit finally making it to trial.


To Be Continued...

Deputy Chief Mike Blakely seemed much less nervous during his second day of testimony at the trial particularly when the city's attorneys used him as an "expert" witness on the policies and procedures of the Internal Affairs Division including internal investigations.  He testified that Nakamura was given only a written reprimand for her policy violations for several reasons, one of them being that he didn't want to chill the reporting of sexual harassment by victims of it.  That she'd been honest about the conduct and that was to be commended. That the written reprimand would remain permanently in her file in case there was another instance of similar violations in the future.

But even before Blakely hit the witness stand again, both lawyers had a disagreement about the scope of questioning for former Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis who would be testifying that afternoon. Mainly whether or not he could be questioned about his affair with a subordinate city employee that allegedly occurred in 2010.   Obviously the city's own attorneys said no, that it had no relevance even though it seems more than ironic that having the fate of Nakamura decided by someone who'd himself allegedly had an in the workplace affair with his subordinate employee was very palpable in the courtroom.

Taylor ruled tentatively against the admissibility which he later formalized though he told Nakamura's attorneys that if DeSantis said anything that might open the door...then he could bring it up in questioning as long as they side barred it first.

 

 

"I'm extremely concerned about Time Card Fraud."

 

Oh really, Mr. DeSantis?

DeSantis did hit the stand and proved to be calm during most of his time on the stand though he got edgy towards the end. He said that when Esquival came to see him with Cook in tow, that he had said that he was planning on retiring or resigning and then the conversation became more along the lines of how to ensure that he did it all the way down to retirement parties with the dignity and respectability afforded a veteran police management employee. It seemed ironic that though Esquival was viewed as the employee with the most responsibility or blame in the situation according to Blakely and DeSantis had more associations in their respective testimonies especially that of DeSantis with allowing or ensuring for dignity and respect in how they were treated.

But DeSantis kept saying that his greatest concern in the whole situation was whether or not there had been fraud committed by Nakamura and Esquivel in the form of Time Card Fraud.  He mentioned that at least a half a dozen times under oath and Nakamura's attorney didn't act on it.  The city's attorneys including the lead counsel were sitting there just waiting for him to do that and yet he didn't because there was enough information on DeSantis' situation to at least consider that if he had his affair with his subordinate on city time then he might have been guilty of that type of fraud as well.

The most telling moment was when Nakamura's attorney ended his re-direct questioning and then the city's junior attorney hesitated when asked if she had any more questions as everyone waited for her answer. She glanced briefly at the senior attorney and then said no, which effectively removed DeSantis from the witness stand.

Next up is former Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel who will be testifying in the morning. It remains still to be seen which one will show up.   After him there will be former Chief Russ Leach and the trio of employees who may or may not avoid being set up as the fall guys.

A familiar pattern and practice in the RPD.

I Believe Officer Nick Sahagun

Court sets trial date in lawsuit filed by RPD Officer Neely Nakamua...showing the city's own leadershipand legal minds haven't learned from their past mistakes. 




UPDATE:


Controversial hosting of city council fundraiser lands police lieutenant in hot seat at City Hall! 



 
The three amigos plus Deputy Chief Mike Blakely appear to be simpatico with it 

 
Blakely (l.) allegedly just said no to IA complaint on "conflict of interest" against one of the area commanders




But.... 


 
City Manager  Scott Barber is allegedly pissed.



UPDATE:

I was updating blog but fell last week while walking and broke a shoulder, which needs surgery to repair it to work again and hopefully not hurt so much. Nervous about going under the knife but it has to be done.

Thanks to first responders. It was hard at first because people including drivers mostly just looked and drove by so I had to help myself. i've helped people when they've fallen or been in car accidents like i've been taught. it's hard to understand why people ignore people in distress. sometimes just to hold a hand is all you can do but I'm glad I did.
but the responders when they arrived were kind and helpful. people including patients in the waiting room were helpful in ER and during this past week when I couldn't look after myself.

Hoping the surgery's successful. thanks for your support and prayers!  I appreciate it.





Former Riverside Planning Director Ken Gutierrez appointed by 4-2 vote to fill vacancy in Ward Three. 

Runner Up Planning Commission Omar Zaki receives two votes

City Council and newly elected Mayor Rusty Bailey meet to interview Ward Three interim candidates but rumor has it that the choice had already been made behind closed doors regarding a former city employee.  

 Mayor Rusty Bailey presides over the auditions to fill the interim vacancy on the city council dais.  But was this a done deal before they walked in the room?






It's a Mad, Mad World At Lincoln Station:


Sounds Like Team Spirit?




The Police Chief and his Cabinet, but are they even playing on the same team?

And wait, aren't there four of them?
 
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...)


To Be Continued....




 What do the Three things below have in Common?

Part 2 

The City Attorney Strikes Again! 


Has Gregory Priamos been coaching panelists on these Ethics Panels before they hear complaints against his bosses?
 

Jack of All Trades for the Price of One Attorney

City Attorney Greg Primaos to undergo performance review on Tuesday, Nov. 13

 Former Officer Anthony Fletcher

 Strike Two for Former RPD Officer Convicted Again at Trial


Councilman Rusty Bailey leads Ed Adkison in mayor's race

Riverside County Public Defender Gary Windom Removed from Office

PE: Article about City Attorney Gregory Priamos "apology" 




 

 "I wish I’d done this a long time ago. I didn’t think it would really
happen, until it happened.”

---Sahagun, who grew up in the Eastside about becoming an RPD officer at the age of 39 


“Priamos requested that during future meetings, I should stop S1 [Wright] from going too long past the three minute allotted time.”

---Officer Nick Sahagun from his police report 







UPDATE:  City Attorney Gregory Priamos issues public apology and said no one on the dais directed him to direct Sahagun but did he really mean it? 



 Once a Custodian Now a Police Officer

RPOA President Brian Smith's Letter 


Here's a Letter sent to the City Council and outgoing Mayor Ron Loveridge on this issue: 



I was going to write you all another letter about this situation but I caught the letter written by Brian Smith, RPOA president and I can say that what he wrote put you all to shame. He said it better than I could say it. I'm not surprised that Smith did that, he's an intelligent, nuts and bolts kind of guy. He gets to the point pretty quickly.

He's absolutely right. You are throwing Officer Nick Sahagun under the bus by allowing City Attorney Greg Priamos' comments go unanswered. I told you from the start that I didn't believe that the officer acted on his own volition and I did so fully knowing I was right. Even when criticized for it, I stuck to that because it’s the truth and I think on some level most or all of you know it. Even if you lack the moral courage and integrity to do something about it, at least so far but it’s not too late. One of you at least needs to step up, to man (or woman) up and do the right thing.  I think if that happens, the rest of you will have to follow to exchange one form of potential embarrassment for another.

Herd mentality and all that.

I've observed this officer along with the others over the past two years he's worked CC. He's friendly, helps people who ask questions and is very professional. He'd never done anything close to this before so it was kind of surprising to see his behavior change. Then I received information that something happened in the afternoon session where there was some change of protocol made and then I found out that Sahagun actually worked both afternoon and evening shifts which isn't the norm for officers who man these shifts.  Whatever happened with Sahagun clearly happened at some point during the afternoon session which backs up what's in his police report.

That part is crystal clear and the beauty is, you don’t have to be an Einstein or have a PhD to understand it. You just have to have common sense mixed in with a healthy dose of institutional memory.

Then before I even had to request the copy of Sahagun's report under the CPRA, the PE posted it online after it somehow slipped past the city attorney’s office that likely would have squashed it. After all what was Priamos’ first comment?  He didn’t know it was public. I believe he's speaking the truth as what Priamos told him to do. I'm glad he included it in his report. It shows that he pays attention and he's a good listener. It's too bad that the officers who are there primarily for public safety apparently have very little trust in the people on the dais to not do things like what's been done. But at least they apparently understand that the life that they are to save even at the sacrifice of their own can't even sit the attorney down and interrogate him on this "client".  The "client" and I know there is at least one or more among you who's being silent on this doesn't have the integrity to step forward and clear up this matter rather quickly so that Officer Sahagun can get out of the spotlight and go back to focusing on what he's hired to do which to protect and serve the public.

 I believe that the city council should have put a greater priority on scheduling a closed session with your city attorney than the election night celebration or defeat parties. I guess election party night clearly matters more. In fact, it would have shown tremendous leadership from Mr. Bailey to choose to settle this issue and perhaps be late to his own election party because a great wrong has been done here. And the tragedy of it is that except for Councilman Davis, none of you seem to really get it. You say, "resisting arrest can't end well" even though the report doesn't really mention resisting (nor did the initial oral version of it) and there's been no PC 148(a)(1) charges recommended by the RPD. You say you stand by Sahagun (in the same breath as you said you couldn’t stop him once he started) but through your actions you’ve shown the opposite. Smith mentions in his letter that he doesn’t believe he’ll get a response from you based on your past history. Unfortunately he’s probably right.

But this is still all better than avoiding dealing with the pressing issue of your city attorney making comments that indicate that the officer lied on his report.  He then cited “attorney/client” privilege likely to protect one or more of you from accountability for it which instead you view as embarrassment. Your comfort level has trumped the integrity of a police officer that perhaps you know nothing about.  Maybe if you did, it might at least give you food for thought.

Here's a little bio information on Officer Sahagun. He has been a police officer with the RPD since 2007. He was born and raised in the Eastside in our own city, the ward that Melendrez represents. He worked at a Sizzler's restaurant in our city for a period of time and started working for the RPD as a custodian in 1990.  He saw what officers did and wanted to become one himself so in his late 30s, he enrolled and pulled himself through the part-time peace officer's academy at Ben Clark Training Academy.  He was hired by the RPD at the age of 39 after graduating from the Academy with top honors. Second highest in his class in physical skills and at the top academically which I imagine is quite a bit better than Adams did in his own training.

 He has worked in patrol in the NPC West which I believe falls within the wards of Hart and Adams.

His comments on becoming an officer were the following:

“I wish I’d done this a long time ago. I didn’t think it would really
happen, until it happened.”

So this is an officer who wanted to serve the public and reached that point later than most of them to get where he wanted to be. This is an officer, whose primary responsibility is public safety, meaning that if someone tries to harm anyone in the chambers then he’s to stop them even if it costs him his life. This is also an individual who wasn’t even worth holding a closed session today to get to the bottom as to why your city attorney ordered him to discriminate against a particular speaker (mentioning her by name) which is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Likely trumped by a greater desire to hit the party circuit.

Something that Officer Sahagun and all of you took oaths to uphold and protect when you raised your right hand to be sworn into your respective positions. Then one or more of you hid behind the city attorney and ordered Sahagun to go against his own sworn oath because one or more of you couldn’t uphold your own promises that you made when you raised those hands before the city clerk.

This is also the guy you threw under the bus and before you all protest, I think it’d be more prudent at this point to undo the damage which has been done. This “client” needs to just stand up publicly and admit what he or they did. That’s what being an elected leader is all about yet it seems to be the lesson you have the most difficult time grasping.  Everything that happened in 2010 obviously didn’t teach you anything.  But then let’s see, city council is totally silent, city attorney cites “attorney/client” privilege to investigators and a police lieutenant gets thrown under the bus. We all know that if Lt. Leon Phillips hadn’t spent his time in the “penalty box” at Orange Street Station preparing a defense he would ultimately win, he’d be in a lot worse shape today than the police chief who broke the law, the assistant chief who covered it up and those in City Hall who were probably more involved in what was going on with mishandling of the police department by City Hall (in violation of the city charter) than they ever let on.

There’s not much more to say except the city council and mayor has once again deeply embarrassed our city putting it on the international map because coverage of this incident reached Europe over the weekend.  I wish one or more of you would do the right thing but that requires stepping out of your comfort zone and frankly which among you has the courage and moral integrity to do so?  I’d truly have to see it to believe it because I and other people are tired of just hearing about it.

Until then, stop saying how much you stand behind an officer who’s integrity was challenged by one of your own employees who’s currently protected by your mostly blanket silence.  Mr. Adams, when you shake the hands of officers like Sahagun and thank them, are those just words or are you going to back that up with action? Why don’t you lead the movement to get to the bottom of this matter?

Mayor Loveridge, I’d like to commend you on your legacy as mayor. This is a hell of a way to end it isn’t it? Yes, you’ve done some good things, the Mayor’s Use of Force Panel was your most important act but when I think of you, I think of something former CBS reporter Mike Wallace once said during the scandal rocking 60 Minutes when it refused to air a controversial interview with a Big Tobacco whistle blower.

“But history only remembers most what you did last.”

Something to think about when you consider what your last action as the city’s mayor is going to be. It’d be a great legacy if you could be the leader in getting the city council or yourself to come clean about why you’re hiding the city attorney who hid behind a police officer who found himself an unwitting participant in your latest embarrassing scandal. Whether or not he’ll be a casualty of it is entirely up to all of you.

Remember actions speak louder than words. 

Best regards,

Who's Declared War on Whom in RiverCity?

UPDATE:

**JOIN Team Sahagun**

Don't let the city thrown him under the bus



First a Custodian, now a Police Officer 



I wish I’d done this a long time ago. I didn’t think it would really
happen, until it happened.”

---Sahagun, who grew up in the Eastside about becoming an RPD officer at the age of 39



call city council and mayor at 826-5991
or send emails to protest the city hall's actions:

mgardner@riversideca.gov
asmelendrez@riversideca.gov
rbailey@riversideca.gov
pdavis@riversideca.gov
cmacarthur@riversideca.gov
nhart@riversideca.gov
sadams@riversideca.gov
rloveridge@riversideca.gov      






RPOA Weights In; Blasts City Hall

Says Officer "thrown under proverbial bus"
(I do agree by the way) 

RPOA LETTER 
 (Brian Smith wrote a pretty epic letter in my opinion, it's definitely a must read)

 

Meet Chief Gregory Priamos



City Attorney told him to do it 


RPD Incident Report  (N.Sahagun/Romano and supervisor Sgt. Lisa Williams_)   (PDF file for downloading)





Police report involving the arrest of  Karen Wright points finger at City Attorney Gregory Priamos. Priamos refuses to give his side of the conversation with the officer citing "attorney/client" privilege as the story of the latest embarrassment in Riverside spreads across the land...


“Priamos requested that during future meetings, I should stop S1 [Wright] from going too long past the three minute allotted time.”

---Officer Nick Sahagun from his police report 

Glad this finally came out. I never believed for a second this arrest came from anywhere but the city council dais. Now can the CC and mayor explain again in public why they threw the officer under the bus?  And why they denied having any control of the handling of gadflies by the police?   Their change of protocol behind closed doors, if they thought the actions were appropriate?  These and other questions challenged the veracity once again of our city council and mayor. 

I mean if you can derail a promotion or block it with a phone call from somewhere on the dais, it makes you wonder who's really in charge. 




Hyatt Hotel Vs Riverside





The city might wind up owning this hotel...and its debt.




Dan Bernstein writes on the mess with the Hyatt Hotel.


Who wants to bet the developers for the Hyatt don't file a lawsuit and include an injunction against further "loan" payments until the lawsuit is litigated?  I wouldn't bet against this scenario.


The Most Disturbing Officer Arrested Ever

 NYPD Officer Arrested for Alleged Cannibalism Plot

 More coverage on the City Council Arrest:

Los Angeles Times Blog

The Mayor in the blog posting says the city council chair will make the decision on who to expel not the police officers from now on. If the police were always making the decision and the arrest was justified under that discretion, why change the practice now?  Or did Mayor Loveridge just throw the police officers under the bus?

KTLA news report on incident

CBS News in Los Angeles

Press Enterprise on changes to expulsion protocol

Dan Bernstein on the incident 

Fox Chimes in on how she must have gotten under someone's skin 
  

 

Karen Wright handcuffed  after she'd turned away from the podium after exceeding the three minute rule  (picture: TMC)

The police department's newest captain comes to supervise handcuffing of Karen Wright

(Photo: TMC)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin

Eyewitness narrative of incident 

Press Enterprise Alicia Robinson Twitter at meeting

Should City Council critic have been handcuffed at meeting?

Councilman Andrew Melendrez has found himself in between a few political cross hairs for asking the wrong questions

Alas, things are not currently very peaceful in Riverside, or River City as it's affectionately or not referred to by people  who follow the political tides that have shaped the city going back over a century. But while the denizens of the dais had for the most part held their cohesiveness together for the past several years as one regime or another marched in and then were voted out of office, that era might be coming to an abrupt end as there have been some dust ups on the dais and all out war is threatening to break out between various elected officials.  It's getting harder and harder to create a scorecard for all the conflicts that have erupted in public not to mention those brewing behind the scenes.

Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Steve Adams have been at odds with each other to say the least going back even before the last election impacting Adams' ward back in 2011.  In that election, Davis supported Adams' challenger, John Brandriff who hoped to oust Adams but it wasn't to be and Adams quite easily won his reelection. Since then, Adams appears to have been itching to get Davis back for that transgression, that break from the unity that had defined Riverside's dais since well, before Davis got on it in 2009.

Davis has his flaws like any politician. To be one is to be flawed but he's got his strengths too and one of them is breaking from the traditional "go along to get along" and "I didn't see/hear/say that."  Which in some ways sets him apart from the others in the dais.  He asks questions on various issues from the whole AMR monopoly to the issue with the Red Light cameras and it's these two particular issues that quickly enough got him into trouble.

Picture at least six people on the dais doing just this all the time!

But as it turns out, Adams is busy getting ready to go to war with another councilman and that's Andrew Melendrez.  This war is really one that is linked to two major issues, the aforementioned Red Light Camera issue and also the complaint filed against Davis by an employee from the city's fire department. Adams right now is loading himself on information to use as ammo against Melendrez in upcoming days as rumors have been brewing for several weeks that a huge blowup is looming on the dais. 

Meanwhile, several of the city council members and one former one now running for mayor have shown up on an email that was written to Melendrez from political consultant for hire, Michael Williams which looks like some sort of cease and desist notice to Melendrez that he shouldn't be expecting any help from Williams and Company the next time he runs for election which will be for city council next year. All those carbon copied on an email sent by Williams to Melendrez two months ago are clients of Williams either for the mayoral election or for city council.  Missing is Councilman Rusty Bailey who was a client of Williams during his city council reelection bid last year but he's not shown up on the client list for his mayoral bid. 

Williams already had allegedly not accepted Davis as a client when Davis first ran for city council in 2009 because as some have said, he was pressured by others on his client list that they'd rethink their own status with Williams if he accepted Davis. At the time, there allegedly wasn't any bad blood between them, it seemed amicable and civil involving both parties that just wouldn't be working together. But it's clear that judging from Williams August 2012 email, things have changed.

First city council member to appear on the Williams' blacklist during his 2011 campaign

Councilman Steve Adams doing some digging on Melendez and appears on the carbon copy list along with the mayoral candidate that he endorsed of Williams' email.

But even some time after Williams had drafted his email to Melendrez, Adams was off doing his own research on Melendrez on the Red Light camera issue submitting a request for the paper trail between Melendrez and the city on that extremely polarized issue.

Adams sent this email to the city clerk's office to get into that paper trail. 

From: Adams, Steve
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Nicol, Colleen; Morton, Sherry
Subject: Public Records request

Please provide me with any and all e-mails sent or received by Council
Member Melendrez over the last 60 days in regards to the Red Light
Camera Program and or Council Member Steve Adams.

Thank you,
Steve Adams

So what is Adams looking for in relation to that issue? Well the answer's really quite simple. The two erupted in what was one of the most contentious issues to come across the formerly peaceful dais in years. The city council had voted 3-3 (with Nancy Hart being absent) on a motion to keep the controversial, money losing program. Mayor Ron Loveridge cast the deciding vote in favor of the program but it was supposed to come back for reevaluation after a period of time. Imagine the shock of some of those in the dais when their own employee, City Manager Scott Barber tried to keep the program running as  is with some changes without bringing it to the city council for a vote which was the stated purpose of the approved motion. He just said the problems in it had been fixed and that was that.  But the issue being treated like that created a brouhaha and like what happens in situations that cause furor among city residents, it went back to city council and  then the issue arose of putting it on the ballot next June for people to vote on its fate.  But in the meantime...two motions were in conflict, one to dismantle it until the election and one to keep it going until the election.  Guess which one Adams led the charge on?

The Red Light Camera issue is probably the best intended project ever to get totally screwed up so that it became an ineffective, overreaching, nonenforceable, possibly illegal (or at least being seriously challenged as such), costly mess of a program in the city's recent history.  It's not uncommon as a pedestrian to see cars slow down for intersections with cameras and then completely blow the red light of the next one in their path and vice versa. Some people just like to blow red lights period. What hasn't been studied by the city is that there's a relationship between the Red Light Camera program and the decrease in police officers assigned to the traffic division. At one time in the early 1990s, there were about 18-19 traffic officers assigned to the streets but even as Riverside's streets became more congested, there were too few highway off and on ramps and the population grew, the number of traffic officers steadily dropped as low as 13. Were the cameras one way of dealing with this trend in the diminishing of these positions including two that were phased out even before being implemented in 2008?  Did they supplement the traffic officers or supplant them?

Anyway, whatever the merits or pitfalls of the Red Light Camera program, the blowup between Adams and Melendrez if it can be called that happened not because of the issue itself, but by the fact that Adams had actually participated in the vote to decide its fate.  Most people know by now despite the Press Enterprise's initial under reporting of it that Adams' brother, former police officer Ron Adams is one of the retired officers hired to part-time to run the program. At least as of a few years ago, he was paid a salary out of the former city manager's discretionary fund.   But Adams participated in the vote to keep the program going which meant that his brother would keep his job there.  Melendrez questioned that and Adams took offense.  He asked City Attorney Greg Priamos about it and Priamos said that under the law, since the Adams were only brothers and not father and son or married that it didn't constitute a conflict of interest for him to vote.

But Priamos didn't touch the city's ethics code of conduct in his narrative. Under the code, the perception or appearance of a conflict of interest is also governed under the code and its complaint process which differs from the law. Priamos clearly chose to dodge that issue by not including it in his rather expansive narrative on the issue.

The two argued back and forth about it at the most recent and prolonged meeting on the Red Light camera issue and Adams complained that Melendrez had sat in the negotiations involving the contracts with the Riverside Police Officers' Association even though his son, Aurelio was a police officer and a member of that union.  Melendrez said that they could discuss the appropriateness of that but stood his ground on the ethics of allowing Adams to vote on the Red Light Camera program's fate.

At evening's end, the vote was very tight with Hart there to cast her vote and Adams as well. As it turned out, Adams vote to "save" the program was needed which is why he didn't recuse himself.  But no matter how he phrased it, the consensus was that he voted to keep his brother employed by the city and he can't really blame anyone for that. The voters will ultimately be the ones who will decide the fate of this problematic program where any money made seems to go everywhere but back into perhaps funding traffic education programs (which are funded by diminishing sources of  grant money). That would make some sense to put it rather than paying the lion share of money to a private company in Australia that has a satellite office in Arizona.

 But it was clear that Adams and Melendrez only postponed an even bigger confrontation ahead.

Melendrez and Adams also tangled over the complaint filed against Davis by a fire department inspector at a event earlier this year involving a food truck festival which involved a disagreement or argument where Davis allegedly acted disrespectful to and interfered with her performance of her duties.  The employee filed a complaint against Davis which was her perogative under a system that's available. But the investigation including its process was fraught with problems.

The investigation was mentioned as being "independent" meaning by an investigator working for an outside form. That was technically true but mostly due to a chain of events tied with the state's enforcement of employment rules pertaining to PERS retirements. Jeffrey Collopy the investigator who did the investigation was a former employee first of the police department where he retired as a lieutenant and then he went to work for Priamos directly as an investigator in his office. It was only because of the enforcement of new rules involving PERS that he's still not an official city employee today. The investigation of a complaint against an elected official should have been done by a business outside the city's own employment roster but that didn't happen.

Plus the investigation process wasn't explained at all to the public either before it happened or even after.
Apparently some of the members occupying the dais didn't understand it either because Melendrez asked questions about how it had been handled. He'd been ill with a heart  condition when it had been handled so he was asking followup questions on the process and some of them were critical in nature. But this was an appropriate action for him to take to ask questions as part of a fact finding process.

Was investigating a complaint against Davis wrong?  No. But the process followed seems very problematic at best and when an elected official asks questions about it he shouldn't be penalized for it.But apparently Melendrez would be paying a price for his inquisitiveness.


Then Michael Williams  of  Michael Williams Company sent out the following declarative statement on how he felt about the city council and mayor these days. For those who don't know, Michael Williams is one of the top political consultants in Riverside specializing in the area of campaign finance.  He helps candidates throw those parties to attract partygoers who will donate funds to the candidates' campaign chests. He's pretty popular and boasts an impressive roster of clients.  

It was in response to the apparent resolution of the complaint against Davis.


Loveridge. Ron 

From:   : admin@michaelwilliamscompany.org 

To:  Melendrez,Andy

Cc:  EdyAdkison; Loveridge,Ron;steveadamsward7 @yahoo.com;ChrisArthur

Wednesday,August 29,20126:54 PM 

Subject: Yesterday'sCouncilMeeting.

 August 29, 2012 

Dear Andy, This letter pains me to write, you are a very nice man. We probably disagree on alot of issues, but you're a good honest man. I have been extremely disappointed with the current council and mayor of this city. Yesterday is probably the best example of what I'm talking about. Through my extensive rumor mill, there was to be some discussion about misconduct by one of your fellow members. I know you were absent during the meeting, but the result has me very disturbed by the LACK OF WILL TO STAND UP, by this council and current mayor. 

The Dom Betro's/Frank Schiavone's/Ed Adkison's/Steve Adams's/Art Gage's/and yourself were vital in the creation of the Renaissance program and implementation in this city. These people took risks and in some cases it cost them their jobs. This current council has borne the fruits of these risk takers and taken the accolates of this. That's politics. Frankly, I don't know where you come down on the mayor's race, but there needs to have someone in that position and on the council seats who want to STAND UP and not roll over on everything for the lowest common denominator to NOT get anyone upset. If a council can't make a basic decision on conduct and show some leadership, why are they there. At this point Andy, I think that it best that I NOT do your fundraising and frankly, during the next cycle I will just do stuff for Steve and Chris. Davis has won re-election already because NO one will join a chorus. This is very disturbing.

 If this council can't do the right thing against Mr. Davis .... why is the Council there? The bully has won and those that have enabled him totally, in my opinion, lack any character on this issue and others. Some of my past emails also have referred to things that I got involved with this city ...particularily the Fox Theatre. No one listen to me then .... everyone rolled over to a mayoral appointment committee that did exactly what shouldn't have been done ... and you have a $34million White Elephant on your hands---with NO solutions to deal with it. And, I could go on about other issues as well. The Emperor and some colleagues have no clothes ... all of your council members are friends of mine, but the disappOintment with the lack of will to do the right thing is pathetic. Andy, like I said, this pains me to say no to you at this time. But, until I see some spunk (LEADERSHIP) out of this council, I think I'm going to pass on all the races in 2013. 

My best always, 

 Mike Williams 

This Council (with a few exceptions) and Mayor can't stand up 




Williams is right on about the Fox Theater in that it's turned into a white elephant at least financially speaking because it's losing money. But his view that the Renaissance was this great program that involved elected officials taking risks and losing their jobs wasn't exactly factually true. The electeds didn't take the risks themselves, they made sure the public took the risks, after all it's not their money they gambled on and then when it wasn't spent (including utility revenue funds used to pay for expenses outside utilities), the city borrowed, and borrowed and borrowed some more, putting itself in debt over $2.1 billion just on the Renaissance.

The city's going to face major cuts because it won't have the cash to spend. Only last week, reports came in that police chief, Sergio Diaz was telling people including his own advisory board that the police department won't be able to address certain crimes, and that there will be more streetwalkers and such due to the budget cuts to the police department. Other reports include programs like UNET not being adequately funded on the city's side and such including the Vice unit. And if the police department is facing these kinds of budget cuts and more then what does that say about the state of the city?

But will Williams go through with his boycott of Davis and now Melendrez or will he change his mind or just fund other candidates? Stay tuned, after all the email was written in August and there's been some developments since then including one that will surely impact Davis' reelection bid. 

RPOA Declares Neutrality in Mayoral Election

(So now there's at least two of us)

The Riverside Police Officers' Association is neutral in mayor's race according to this letter submitted by its current president, Sgt. Brian C. Smith.

Text of RPOA letter:

To Whom It May Concern: 

After careful consideration and a thorough review process that included one on one interviews and questionnaires, the Riverside Police Officers’ Association has determined that both Mr. Bailey and Mr. Adkinson are exceptionally qualified to serve as Mayor for the City of Riverside.

 The Riverside Police Officers’ Association has decided to stay neutral in this race and not endorse a specific candidate. Each Candidate has wide range of experience and differing views on how to best serve the residents of Riverside and are prepared for the challenges that await them once in office. 

 The Riverside Police Officers’ Association looks forward to working with the Mayor’s office to help promote Riverside as a city rich in history and tradition and a safe place to raise a family. I encourage every registered voter to cast his or her ballot in November! 

Respectfully, Brian C. Smith

I have to say that I thought I would be the only one to not choose to endorse either candidate though I've been pressured about having to endorse one or the other for a myriad of reasons. Not by the candidates so much but by supporters.  If I don't endorse one, I'm getting the other elected as if one vote truly equals a thousand. I'm flattered that they think my vote counts more than I do but I dug my heels in this one and said, no endorsement.   Sorry but my memory of history just isn't that short on either of them. They both have so much to prove and in some cases a very steep curve.  The people looking for a "reformist" mayor, better keep looking because it'll take someone who's never served on the dais to reform what's wrong with city government.

It seems that I'm not the only one. The Riverside Police Officers' Association's own PAC has opted out of endorsing either candidate either and as Smith stated, is taking the neutral position. All I can say is you go, union. I think that the union opted for the right choice in the mayoral race and I applaud it. Whereas the Riverside Firefighters' Association opted to endorse the closest thing to an incumbent (and historically its PAC nearly always endorses incumbents), the RPOA just said no...or if not to the candidates themselves, just that they won't pick one over the other.

Some people might view this as being indecisive but I'm not one of them. It's in fact very decisive. The reasons for my neutrality are the opposite of those stated in the letter. I'm not sure either of them is fit to be mayor not that the mayoral position is that powerful in Riverside and with good reason if you've studied local history going back into the 1920s when you had a Ku Klux Klan guy running for mayor, a financially corrupt government and a police chief arrested for public intoxication. They both would need to prove it to me and that's impossible without serving in the position.

Sometimes history repeats itself. But the union did have a struggle with this one or so I've heard and that's not surprising. It's a thorny issue to decide to endorse...nobody but sometimes it's just what you got to do. Allegedly endorsing either candidate would have created issues with membership that couldn't be reconciled. No matter what the qualifications of the candidates, what the union leadership might have been showing is that it listened as it should do to what its members had to say. That's a very good and important step on its part.

Any endorsement of Bailey would have been highly problematic for its leadership as Bailey had been accused by former Police Chief Russ Leach through his most latest deposition of interfering with the promotional process surrounding now Lt. Val Graham. The city's already paid out settlements to former police employees in part on allegations that Adams had interfered with the promotional process involving two police captains. Leach's second deposition which addressed Adams' alleged involvement stamped him even harder in that camp than his earlier one.

The RPOA wasn't the only police union that apparently opted out of endorsing Bailey as apparently the Riverside Sheriffs' Association did the same thing. Bailey had gone around looking for support among law enforcement and the issues pertaining to his alleged involvement in Graham's promotional process was one he apparently couldn't run away from.

Some also said that some union members were also leery of Adkison in part because of problems associated with the use of police officers by elected officials as "bouncers" to eject public speakers at the dais speaking on issues including two incidents. This happened when people like Dom Betro, Frank Schiavone and Adksion were on that dais, the ones mentioned in Williams' email. One incident involving four individuals including 90 year old Marjorie Von Poule and the other, an 82 year old woman complaining about a city pipe bursting and flooding her house who exceeded the three minute speaking rule.  Police officers were allegedly so unhappy with how a former quartet of council members ran the dais that it was getting harder to find enough of them willing to work security at the city council meetings back then.  Who really wants to be the police officer ordered to eject the 82 year old woman anyway just for speaking past three minutes like she's a criminal?  If someone does something like that, it should be an elected official instead.But none of them could apparently take responsibility for it so they had some officer or officers take the heat for it instead. Then during the first incident, several councilmen allegedly ordered former City Manager Brad Hudson to call up the DA and the detectives at the department to do cases against those four individuals but thankfully everyone they called refused to do it and frankly had other work to do instead as well.

This is just history in case memories have faded  or some people in City Hall don't want it remembered. 

At any way however way the RPOA reached its decision, it made the right one and I think future events no matter who wins (because one of them will) will bear that out. It was the best decision to make and it was the right one.

In the meantime, Rusty Bailey's campaign mailers ignite criticism from the Adkison camp causing many to question the integrity of his Team Bailey campaign.

Photo Gallery

The City Council Chambers while under construction to have prior re-construction undone to bring it up to governmental code.  But are other laws being broken inside it?

 We are family...I got all my brothers and...well that's the way it used to be for the now battling and fractured city council in River City.

Summer's over and city council is once again back holding its regular sessions.  In recent months, the city council have recently  broken away from their "go along to get along" Group Think (tm) way of doing city business and have started jousting with one another. It's hard to keep track of the playlist of who's ticked off at whom because it changes almost every week. Some of that was outlined in the above paragraphs but it's all subject to change at any moment.

One meeting got so contentious that Mayor Pro Tem Rusty Bailey had to take action. Outgoing Loveridge who's been mentoring Bailey has been skipping evening meetings so that it gives Bailey a showcase to show off  his leadership skills to the public both in the audience and watching at home or online. But lately that's meant breaking up some fighting on the dais between some of the other members. As already stated, Bailey and Melendrez have been going at it a bit on various issues.

At one point at a recent meeting, Bailey broke in at some point and asked Adams to vacate after Adams waggled his finger at Melendrez.  It's getting to the point where people in the audience want to hand out boxing gloves or nerf sticks to the battling city council members. As much as Loveridge has been grooming Bailey, he just looks lost up there.

The aforementioned red light camera issue came back to be rehashed all over again and the Press Enterprise blogged about city staff getting dressed down by elected officials as if that's actually news. Okay, the part about the city council members dressing down their city staff most definitely is news especially this part: 

( excerpt, Press Enterprise)

My issue is with staff asking us to rubber stamp something we knew nothing about,” Hart said.

“This is not the way we as a council want to do business,” she added.

Councilwoman Nancy Hart, you don't want to be a rubber stamp, don't act like one!

Maybe Hart's not aware of it, but she's been a rubber stamp used by "staff" for years.  After all, she's the one who as chair of the Finance Committee chose not to conduct meetings unless former Asst. City Manager/Chief Finance Officer/Treasurer Paul Sundeen said there was a reason to meet or anything to discuss. Public pressure put Hart in the hot seat of having to explain her inaction with the Finance Committee and when she tried to do her usual direct examination of city employees adding them leading questions, it didn't acquit her well. Soon after the Finance Committee dusted itself off and started holding monthly meetings apparently finding plenty to talk about from developer's fees to audits to amnesty periods on parking tickets.

But it was when the Finance Committee didn't meet was when most of the questionable expenditures and uses of the city's finances took place.

But the fact that city staff including City Manager Scott Barber (who's obviously picked up a few things from his predecessor) spent money to the tune of $2.5 million this time on that debacle called the Fox Entertainment Plaza isn't really news at all. It's called pattern and practice and city managers have been doing such in Riverside since way before two weeks ago.  And the other times, the city council and mayor sat up there like bobble heads smiling their way through it.




Every scandal that erupted in Hudson's watch was responded to as if the city council were bobble heads who thought if they smiled widely enough and pointed quickly away from the latest embarrassment at a pretty trinket, no one would notice illegal and/or unethical behavior. Point out anything untidy like illegal badges, illegally purchased guns and the city council and mayor would just smile and point out the lovely tree over there...you have to wonder why after that and more happened under the watch of past and current city council members why Hart's only complaining now about being a rubber stamp.

 The Citrus Towers stood at the top of a four way land swap which means that the city will pay $2 million plus annually just to make sure this project has its anchor tenant, Best, Best and Krieger.  Like the top end of any Ponzi Scheme like designed structure or just the first seat filled in musical chairs, this building looks splendid.

Okay, the Citrus Towers looks magnificent and it's filled with Best, Best and Krieger lawyers who vacated their old digs at the Wells Fargo building closer to City Hall to occupy space there. Loveridge even chose to have his very last (and  this time it's true) Mayoral Ball there on the sixth floor. If he did that to dissuade the people from seeing the situation involving the infamous quadruple land swap as a gift of public funds to the two private companies which benefited the most from it, all it did was raise more questions.

Questions like who's picked up the BB&K lease which is quite pricy at its old home and who's paying the $1 million or so of the bond indebtedness at the building on Orange Street near City Hall that's still housing a portion of the Riverside Public Utilities office.  Barber refuses to answer this question asked repeatedly at City Council meetings and in fact the last time it was asked, he was playing with his i Pad.  The answer as it turns out is that the Riverside Public Utilities is paying the "lease" on both buildings instead of just one of them.  It moved its administration and engineering division to space on the 3rd and 4th floor of the Wells Fargo Building (though the marquee of suite space on the ground floor hasn't been updated yet) and the finance division is still housed at its old haunt on Orange Street with the fate of Customer Service currently at its headquarters at a building that was transferred to the RDA before that collapsed unknown as to where it'll be going.

So basically what Barber doesn't want to say and no city council member either wants or allows or cares enough to get him to admit is that essentially the Public Utilities department is paying roughly twice the "rent" it was paying before this land scheme was engineered. If that hadn't happened, then this division would have simply stuck to paying the bond indebtedness on one building.  But the city needed Public Utilities to occupy both buildings so that the unused lease period of one and the bond indebtedness of the other could be paid for by utilities funds and then the cost passed on of course to the consumer most likely through rate increases and new fees and taxes.

Just like anything towards the end of a Ponzi Scheme, this building is a shell of itself with Riverside Public Utilities forced to pick up the tab for a building it barely occupies any longer, save for its Finance Division while it also allegedly picks up the tab for its pricier digs downtown. 

But the part of the land swap that narrowly avoided a bad situation was the police department. Originally the administrative offices at the Orange Street Station were going to fill the vacancy at the RPU building. That of course didn't happen because logistically it couldn't be done in a way that would work for the police  department services being relocated. The police department thus avoided paying $700,000 in renovation and relocation expenses not to mention having the department's budget or the general fund try to come up with the $1 million plus annually to pay the bond indebtedness. The police budget simply wouldn't be able to come up with this cash annually as it stands and it's also unlikely that it wouldn't have to pay at least a sizable portion because the general fund itself (which finances most of the police budget) is not able to really cover the costs either. Why do you think the city put RPU there instead to cover that bond debt each year? Because it has its own financial resources that it generates that the general fund doesn't. 

Imagine what would have happened if the city had tried to force this insane transfer through, given that the police budget is facing cuts at least that's what Diaz and his cabinet have been telling people in the communities of Riverside about police services. He's said to his band of "good" business and community leaders that some crimes won't be policed due to budget cuts. Other members of his leadership inside the department have been at meetings warning of cuts or reduced investment including financially in programs like UNET and Vice.

Chief Sergio Diaz and company have been warning their trusted band of business and community leaders about the impact of budget cuts on future policing

It's not exactly clear why Diaz is doing this or most anything for that matter because he only chooses to explain things to his set. But if it's in hopes that the leaders on his advisory board for example will take their concerns to the city officials to stop the budget cuts or if it's just facing the reality that the city's financially strapped, it's not clear yet.  But it makes what the city nearly did to the police department in the quadruple land swap a crime in my opinion. When the city was preparing to foist an extra start up cost of $700,000 on the department and that's before increasing its annual rent on its administrative headquarters from $1 annually to over $1 million, it should have been anticipating that the worst recession since the Great Depression might impact the city's budget including that of its police department. 

So why when they should have known that the budget could face serious cuts did they choose to help both Mark Rubin (who owns the Citrus Towers) and to a lesser extent, BB&K at what could have been high costs to both the police department and RPU?   Rubin needed to pay the $37.5 million in state bonds with lease revenue generating stream which was to have been the Raincross Promenade luxurious condos turned rental apartments which he hoped would be leased out.  The city claims that all of the units are leased out but that place is still quite dark at night and at any rate if it was fully occupied, it would have used the rent to pay the bonds on the Citrus Tower and the city would have never had to get involved in the business of helping promote private enterprise at the expense of its own city departments. So who was going to benefit from all this. 

Rubin, Citrus Towers: He gets an anchor tenant in BB&K so he can remain eligible for the bonds used to build the Towers by the use of lease revenue generation. Also an anchor tenant can attract more business for high-end office space which is not exactly experiencing a shortage in Riverside right now. 

BB&K:  The city's #1 law firm doesn't benefit as much giving up premium if expensive office space in exchange for what some in the firm have called smaller, more cramped digs at the Towers. And then there was the issue of not completing their lease on the Fargo building space. Presto, the city steps in and offers to finish out the lease for BB&K facilitating the move. 

Cost to BB&K: Maybe slightly higher but thanks to the city, it avoids a lawsuit by building owner for breach of contract.But city risked a lawsuit filed against it for "tortious interference".

RPU:  Winds up having an incremental lease hike as the costs of living at the Fargo digs costs more than what they were paying at the building that housed administration, finance and engineering. Now they're paying two lease tabs instead of one since after the deal with the RPD fell through, they couldn't backfill the space. 

Cost to taxpayers:  higher than what was paid in its current digs. Now it's paying roughly twice as much as earlier which will no doubt be passed on to customers.  

RPD: Would have seen its lease on administrative headquarters go from $1 (until end of 2017) go up to over $1 million annually. Not to mention the $700,000 to relocate most of Orange Street and additional monies of over $1.4 million to do the much needed relocation of dispatch, some of which was grant funded, the rest bond money tied up in the RDA mess. Dispatch was never going to be relocated to the RPU building and could have been relocated independently and in fact was relocated independently from the situation at Orange Street Station.

Cost to tax payers:  Anyone who thinks that it's not going to increase the cost to city residents by multiplying one's "rent" by over a million times, raise your hand. Or that it wouldn't have substantially worsened cuts currently being faced by the RPD to its services as told by Diaz and his cabinet at meetings.

The Fire Station That Just Wants to Be Finished

Construction halted on downtown fire station.  If you're a licensed contractor that can finish a fire station for a good price, the city needs you!

 An older photo of the new downtown fire station which has been in limbo since Edge Construction walked away from it. It does look a bit more finished than this photo but is unable to open.

Or that really pretty looking fire station downtown that hasn't seen a crew construction for months. You see Edge Construction bailed from the project and walked away, something that contractors usually only do when their bills aren't getting paid meaning they're out of liquid cash. But the company has indeed shutting down. Initially Randy Carter, its onsite supervisor at the fire station said the project would be completed but we're guessing that's not happening.What's confusing is that work shut down some time ago allegedly because payments weren't being made to contractors back when the building parcel was tied up in the RDA shutdown.

Councilman Mike Gardner did helpfully respond to an email on the matter.


Mary,

The surety company has taken over construction responsibility since Edge Construction failed.  Work has stopped until a new general contractor is brought on board.  I expect that to be fairly soon.  This may delay opening which was scheduled for right about first of the year.  The length of the delay depends on how long it takes to get in a new general and how long it takes them to ramp back up.

Hope this helps.  I know it is not 100% definitive, but it is the best information we have right now.

Best regards,

Mike



The project is currently on hold for an undetermined amount of time.But this project is included on the Building Watch. We'll all see what happens with this much needed fire station. The only thing that can be said is that hey, at least it's one of two city fire stations (with #4 being the other) that's not collateral on some bond deal including those involving private projects by developers like the Hyatt Hotel downtown.

It's so nice that the city did its best to loan money to a developer to get the Hyatt done on schedule but one of our fire stations which is badly needed is left fallow until at least early next year.

Former City Manager Brad Hudson has left the building but does his legacy live on?

City Manager Scott Barber got royally dressed down by his bosses, was he waiting for his BFF City Attorney Greg Priamos to bail him out?  

But Priamos has been too busy lately with his own problems and wearing his tongue out defending the right for Councilman Steve Adams to vote for a position that employs for his brother.

TO BE CONTINUED....

If Councilman Steve Adams isn't in his seat, it must be public comment time but the beleaguered councilman with the golden tongue is running out of buds on the dais.

In Search of the Naughty Nine?

Riverside's Police Administrative headquarters still resides here but what of the "Naughty Nine"? And how this elite list could wind up costing tax payers.

Did this leopard ever really change his spots?  And why slapping someone on the wrist for an offense that can get them fired isn't always "best practices".

Ever since Chief Sergio Diaz first arrived in Riverside with great fanfare in mid-2010, there's been issues arising within Orange Street Station with what's been going on there.  Whether it's a turf war between two members of Team Diaz leading to a call for a locksmith or a physical altercation between lieutenants that led to Diaz allegedly putting his hands over his ears and walking away from someone saying he didn't want to hear about it. The sudden vacations which arise after allegations of  on duty incidents arise  not to mention the internal investigation involving sexual harassment being done against one captain (who's expected to have the complaint reach that middle finding of not sustained). Then there's  another captain who'd brought baggage into the position from sustained misconduct some years ago facing a new crisis of sorts. That's all sometime after yet another captain allegedly tried (and failed) to get the watch commander of another police department to release his son (who was also hired by the RPD as an officer) without a booking trail.

I look at this and I wonder what the hell is going on here?  And how is this any different than the department under Leach at least when it comes to behavior or misbehavior at the highest levels?

It's hard to know what to make of all this given that the individuals at the very top are supposed to set the example for others in a hierarchical type organization of leadership and management. The public's left in the dark about the mechanisms of accountability used to ensure  that management adheres to professional standards of conduct and when someone who critiqued the Strategic Plan asked about such mechanisms and what they were, the answer simply is that the department doesn't share that information with its partners in the community. Then those in charge of it including Diaz wonder why or flail their arms and get upset when people challenge them or just ask them on that when one of the individuals they chose for a management position gets in trouble. 

What has Diaz actually done with management that's any different? Management personnel got in trouble under Leach, as witnessed by some major retirements on the heels of Leach's own medical retirement. Some apparently still get in trouble now and even when they allegedly commit assault and battery there's no investigation of "private" or "off-duty" matters. Two police officers get different types of discipline for committing sexual misconduct on duty by their chiefs. One, an officer re-offends and winds up being criminally prosecuted and convicted of a felony charge, another, a supervisor gets promoted at least twice. .It's hard to know how to look at these differences in treatment for similar offenses when the initial offenses committed by both most often lead to job termination. If an officer commits a sexual offense on duty and sees that someone above him in rank gets wrist slapped in comparison, does that make it seem like the department takes a hard stance against it or an easy stance or is which you get decided by rank?

Two officers investigated for making the same racial slur. One, a detective is going to get the book thrown at him. The other, the lieutenant in charge of the division investigating him gets nothing...except for a job with the city after his retirement. Once he gets nothing, the detective is retroactively un-disciplined which when you think about it seems fair on one hand but makes the whole incident somewhat bizarre on the other.This was under Leach but is it different under Diaz?

Never a dull moment but it's an issue of concern given how the promise of accountability of upper management and supervision was woven into Diaz' new Strategic Plan as one of its most critical objectives. That was an important stance to take given the crises of confidence impacting the RPD in 2010 where the trickle down effect of management that got into serious trouble including the chief may have contributed to the arrests of more than six officers within 14 months with some of them facing prosecution and conviction for crimes. That didn't just happen in a vacuum. It has partly to do with the very mixed messages that are sent officers when people higher up above them commit misconduct and not only are not investigated but sometimes have been rewarded for it. 

This issue is one that arose and was discussed in a matter of speaking already at the city's highest levels.

With Diaz and two of his cabinet members facing the ends of their three-year contracts in the summer of 2013, what lays ahead for the future of the police department including at its very top? Some say Diaz might be vulnerable and that Barber and he don't have the best relationship in part because Barber didn't hire him. Inhouse criticism of Diaz by several fronts has led to trying times for the police chief though it seems likely at least right now he'll survive that.  Some say that Asst. Chief Chris Vicino has his eye on the spot while others say that it's possible that Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer who's practically invisible to everyone except when they need him to be in a hot seat on a controversial sell like the Red Light Camera program might be leaving. 

If that were to happen, who does the department have to replace him or anyone else for that matter? In the three years that Diaz has been here, who's ready to step up into those management positions? Who won't be bringing a trouble history with him? Will Diaz reign be a decade long like he predicted?

All this remains to be seen.