Lee Deante Brown: The final briefing part one

The Community Police Review Commission listened as its investigator Butch Warnberg gave the long-awaited final briefing on the fatal officer-involved shooting of Lee Deante Brown. Warnberg appeared more tentative than he had at earlier briefings perhaps aware that the status of the contract involving his firm, the Baker Street Group, had been challenged by Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis in recent weeks.

Attending the briefing were DeSantis and City Attorney Gregory Priamos who obviously had decided that it was important enough for him to personally attend in lieu of sending Deputy City Attorney Susan Wilson who had attended previous meetings centered on the investigations into other officer-involved deaths currently being litigated. Also sitting in the audience were Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa, Sgt. Rick Tedesco and the head of the Internal Affairs Division, Ed Blevins.

It was only the second appearance by representatives of the department's Internal Affairs Division, and the last time they attended a CPRC meeting was in the autumn of 2005 when the commission was discussing the fatal shooting of Summer Marie Lane. After releasing its public report on that shooting, the commission determined in closed session that this shooting had been in violation the department's use of force policy. Now they are back in attendance while another shooting is being investigated by the CPRC.

Their faces didn't look too happy as they sat in the audience listening to the briefing while several of them flipped through the written report. DeSantis motioned interim CPRC manager, Mario Lara, aside at one point for a conference.

Brown, who was African-American, was shot and killed by Officer Terry Ellefson after Brown had allegedly grabbed his taser during a struggle. Officer Michael Paul Stucker had responded initially to calls made to the department reporting a man acting strangely.

Both officers tased Brown at least three times each, both through discharging the probes and by attempting or doing contact tases. Stucker had been carrying an Advanced M26 taser while Ellefson was equipped with the X-26 model. Both are manufactured by Taser International, Inc. and shown here.


Some of the major developments in the case.



DNA: Here, but where?



David D. Wu, a senior criminalist from the Department of Justice performed an analysis on the DNA sample provided from Ellefson's taser by the police department. DNA was collected from Brown, Ellefson and Stucker

According to his test, both officers were excluded as possible donors and Brown was included as a possible donor which essentially meant that a positive match had been made connecting him to the taser.

However, his DNA was not the only one found on Ellefson's taser. At least one other unidentified individual's DNA was also present on the swab taken. Both samples of DNA were on the low end of the scale in terms of the ability of the DNA to be picked up during the testing for an analysis, according to Wu.

A major problem with the testing was that Wu stated in his report that he did not know from which part or parts of the taser the DNA sample was taken. Normally, there would be separate swabs submitted from several different parts of the taser including the grips, trigger and the probes on the end of the taser because it's not enough just to find the relevant DNA but it also matters where it was found, because Brown had been contacted tased by Ellefson several times before the shooting. In this case, there was no such clarification of where the sample had come from. In fact, it was possible that one general sample was taken from all over the taser.

What all this means, was one of the issues discussed at the meeting.


"We don't know where the DNA was taken," Warnberg told the commission,"We don't know if they swabbed the side, the probes or the trigger."


Given that there was one other DNA sample from an unknown donor and possibly others found on the taser, it is definitely possible that the probes located at one end of the device had been one location where a DNA sample was collected. After all, Warnberg had said that it wouldn't be unexpected to find even Brown's DNA on the probes, because Ellefson had contact tased him between 3-5 times. It would be more significant if Brown's DNA had been found on the trigger or the grip, because it would indicate that he had grabbed and possibly aimed the taser. That is a question that now may never be answered.

Unfortunately, the more samples from different unidentified DNA donors that showed up in the sample, the more likely it is that the probes had been swabbed for a sample of DNA because that is where that type of DNA would most likely be found because the possible sources of the DNA might have been people who had been contact tased in the past with that particular taser. Given that the majority of the time the tasers have cartridges on them in order to be ready for future use, that might provide some protection to DNA samples from exposure to the outside elements and slow down their degradation.

If samples were indeed taken from the probes, then that doesn't rule out the possibility that it was the probes that were the source of Brown's DNA found on the taser. If this is the case, then the value of this evidence has lessened.

Warnberg did tell the commission that in his opinion, the DNA samples would be from the last person to handle the taser, however it is likely that the individuals who contributed the other DNA samples pulled off the taser had come into physical contact with the taser via being contact tased in earlier incidents, before the last time the taser had been handled by Ellefson which was seconds before the shooting.



"Drop the Gun", said who?


At the last briefing on the Brown shooting last November, Warnberg said that the night before he had received some new information regarding a statement that had been made on the belt recording submitted by Ellefson that would change his analysis of the shooting. Apparently, the issue came to his attention after he had conversed with an FBI agent out of Los Angeles who was doing a civil rights investigation into the Brown shooting. The FBI agent told him that he had listened to the belt recording and had not heard anything until the Riverside Police Department had told him that there was a statement on the recording that had been uncovered. The FBI agent had listened to the recording and then heard the statement.

What was this statement? It depends on whom you ask. There are two different versions of it in Warnberg's report.

In an excerpt submitted by the investigator of a portion of Ellefson's belt recording, the statements were made as followed.

0 Activated

:01 Ellefson said, "Palm Dart"

:56 Stucker: "Watch the cuff; he's swinging that cuff as a weapon."

1:06 Ellefson: "Drop the gu"

1:07 Shots fired.

1:07 Shots fired.

Here, the statement is attributed to Ellefson and indicates that he had yelled at Brown to drop the gun although on the same belt recording, Ellefson later refers to the "taser" twice.

On Feb. 27, one day before the updated briefing, the police department submitted a transcript of Ellefson's belt recording that had been signed by the officer on that date.



RPD Transcript(no timeline):

Officer Ellefson: "Hands behind your back."

Suspect Brown: (inaudible) "God."

Officer Ellefson: "Hands behind your back"

Unidentified Speaker: "Drop the gun"

(shots fired)

Here, on the police department's own transcript of Ellefson's belt recording, there is no identification provided of the person who made the statement, "drop the gun." The source of the statement could be Ellefson, it could be Stucker or it could be one of the witnesses yelling it after seeing Ellefson pull out his gun before he shot Brown.

Both transcripts taken from Ellefson and Stucker's belt recordings show that Ellefson had told Brown to put his hands behind his back before the shooting, but because neither transcript included a time line, it's difficult to know how to compare the two transcripts except for the fact that the recordings were staggered about 1:35 apart. That might help shed light on who it was that made that statement which is obviously critical information.

Neither Ellefson or Stucker said in their interviews with investigators from the Officer Involved Shooting Team that they had issued commands at Brown to drop a gun or a taser. Ellefson's response to that issue is included below in terms of what kind of commands he was giving after he had fired two shots from his gun at Brown.


(excerpt, transcript from Ellefson's interview as stated in Warnberg's report)

Det. Cobb: "The suspect is--still got the taser in his hand. Are you...and/or Officer Stucker still giving commands to him?"

Terry Ellefson: "...I'm--I was giving commands for the suspect to get on the ground."

There were no statements uncovered on Stucker's recording that indicated that he had issued any commands at Brown to drop the taser or the gun before the shooting. The last statement made on it that was included on the transcript was when Ellefson had told Brown to put his hands behind his back. Earlier in both recordings, Stucker had warned Ellefson to look out for the loose handcuff dangling from Brown's arm because he was swinging it around like a weapon.



Friendly fire by taser:


Warnberg presented a summary of how the incident began and ended that was based on eyewitness testimony, officer interviews and other available evidence. One of the incidents that he included in the narration was when Stucker had been struck by a taser probe and received a considerable electric shock from the probe which at that time was attached by a wire to a cartridge from Ellefson's taser.

At some point in the incident, Stucker had pulled the spent cartridge off of his taser because Brown had pulled one of the probes out and flung it on the ground which rendered the taser ineffective at cycling through the probes. Since it was on the ground, there was no point for Stucker to cycle his taser to incapacitate Brown during the five-second cycle. So Stucker had decided to contact tase Brown instead and attempted one time to do so. However, as he tried to apply his taser, Ellefson decided to discharge his own taser, an X-26 model, at Brown and after he had done so, one of the probes struck Brown, the other penetrated the knuckle of a finger on Stucker's left hand. Stucker's recollection was that he felt an intense shock after Brown had grabbed his arm. After that, he pulled himself out of the situation and turned his back to Brown and Ellefson to address the errant probe in his hand which had been the source of the electric shock. It's not clear how long Stucker had this back turned doing this, as timing problems with both tasers as evidenced in Warnberg's report did not offer any assistance here in establishing a time frame.

One thing that appears clear is that Stucker was probably shocked by the probe in his hand until around the time that Ellefson removed the cartridge. Ellefson then contact tased Brown between 3-5 times at approximately five second durations and had already lost the taser by the time Stucker had turned around to face Brown again and at that time, saw Ellefson's taser in Brown's hand.


Ellefson's taser discharges:

13:48:30 (probes fired)

13:48:36(probes cycled)

13:48:39(cycle)

13:48:49(contact tase)

13:49:00(contact tase)

13:49:11(contact tase)

13:49:17(?)

One immediately noticeable problem with Ellefson's taser discharges which are included along with those of Stucker's in Warnberg's report is that the timer in Ellefson's taser is recording an incorrect time. The clock is set for the first tasing about four minutes before Stucker arrived and seven minutes before Ellefson arrived. Also, if you look at the times that Stucker's taser was discharged, you will notice that his tasings took place after Ellefson's if you were to solely go by what time was given rather than the chain of events.

Stucker's taser discharges:

13:55:48(taser probes discharged)

13:55:55(probes cycled)

13:57:16(contact tase attempted)

In his statement, Ellefson had thought that the probes of his taser had both hit Brown but when he fired it and again when he cycled it, nothing happened, which is why he decided to remove the cartridge off of his taser and attempt to contact stun Brown. Stucker had not had much succss with his taser discharges either, which is why he had stuck his taser in the small of his back and instead deployed his baton, according to Warnberg. Stucker had taken out his expandable baton to hit Brown on the legs after he said that he had seen Brown squatting or sitting on the ground with his legs in front of him and holding Ellefson's taser in his hand. He had hit him twice and was about to deliver a third strike, when he heard two shots fired from Ellefson's gun.

In contrast, Ellefson had said the following about the final seconds before the shooting.


"...and as I moved away, the suspect stood--kind of pushing forward and lunged toward directly at me with the taser...As I was pushing away, I saw that he was bring the taser towards me. And I drew my duty weapon and fired two shots towards his center mass."


Five of six civilian witnesses said that Brown had been sitting or kneeling on the ground when he had been shot. One said that he had been standing. None of the witnesses saw anything in Brown's hands, according to narratives provided of their interviews included in Warnberg's report.

Warnberg hired the firm, Applied Graphic Sciences of San Diego to do forensic illustrations of the shooting taking into consideration reported body positions, bullet trajectory and the autopsy report. Three possible scenarios were presented that put Brown in a standing position(as reported by Ellefson), a squatting position(as reported by Stucker) and a sitting position(as reported by Stucker and civilians). The conclusion reached was as followed.


"According to Doreen DeAvery of Applied Graphic Science, based on the trajectory of the two bullets, it is most likely that the victim was either sitting or squatting."


Which means that DeAvery had somewhat ruled out the possibility that Brown had been standing while shot as reported by Ellefson and the police department during its initial briefing on the shooting. It also means that listening to the briefing probably has been the easiest part of the considerable task that lies for the CPRC ahead as it prepares to draft its public report, during a time period when it has been fighting to maintain its own identity.

The city council strikes back, part two

City Council is always a happening place most every Tuesday and it was no different yesterday with even more city residents being ejected by the city council from the afternoon session of the joint city council and redevelopment agency meeting.


City Council ejects more speakers


At the afternoon session, Councilman Frank Schiavone got sick and tired of listening to people complaining about the city council and told them so, then asked people to come up and provide examples of when the city had taken single family homes through eminent domain and to his chagrin, people began coming up to speak. You can't really blame people if they accept an invitation for them to speak or a dare, the kind that elementary school kids make on the playground.

Yolanda Garland, who had already survived having the city council interrupt her critique of the city's ethics complaint process the week before took the gauntlet challenge and started speaking at the podium. But soon Mayor Pro Tem Ed Adkison took out the city council's current favorite catch phrase and told Garland that she was out of order. What's interesting is apparently the city has gone out and bought Adkison a gavel and he's obviously seeking out opportunities to use it before he departs from the dais after the upcoming election. Maybe next, they'll buy the whole set of them powdered wigs though afterwards, at least one person thought rattles and pacifiers would be more appropriate.

I believe the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland told her charges, "off with their heads" when they displeased her. But our city council picks whatever slogan that will effectively shut down public discourse and uses that one over and over until they get tired. As former Mayor Terry Frizzel told the city council last night, not even the PALM quartet behaved in this fashion. Neither did the previous voting bloc, GASS, for that matter. But GASS is clearly on its way out, evidenced by the voting trends shown in yesterday's commission selection process.

Marjorie Van Poule, who is 90, was going to be ejected next. Two police officers went to her seat when the city council asked for her removal. When Van Poule told the police officers that they would have to carry her, a third officer was brought to her chair, but she left voluntarily. Community activist Mary Humboldt spoke later that night to the city council about what had happened that afternoon, comparing Van Poule to other women in history including Betsy Ross.

At least four individuals were either ordered to leave or were escorted out by the police who are welded at public speakers much more readily than the response the police officers had received from the city council when issues arose in their labor contract negotiation process last summer. Several police officers including Lt. Darryl Hurt learned what it was like to be in the shoes of these residents when they were cut off while speaking during public comment.

The speakers didn't have any complaints regarding the police who they said acted more civilly than the current city council has been but the actions of the city council deeply concerned them. They believed that the city council had taken advantage of the absence of Mayor Ron Loveridge to provoke an incident knowing full well that the code of conduct was on the agenda later that night. Several of them, most noticeably Councilman Dom Betro, came to the meeting in foul moods after the selection process involving the Community Police Review Commission which had immediately preceded the meeting.

Van Poule came back in the evening, not knowing that she had been banned. She was allowed to attend the meeting.

One city resident said after the meeting that two of the most vocal opponents of public speaking sitting at the dais had gone to the city attorney's office to ask it if they could eliminate public comment and were told they couldn't, according to state law.

So the code of conduct is going back to Governmental Affairs Committee for "evaluation" and all three of its members, Schiavone, Adkison and Betro have made it clear through their behavior that they will stifle public comment as long as it is critical of the city council's operations particularly involving the thorny issues of development, redevelopment and eminent domain. City Manager Brad Hudson told a city resident during the meeting that more restrictions are definitely coming.

Just perfect during an election year in that it adds to the drama of the process. A reality that is driving the actions of several people on that dais. Most of the contention by the city council is towards individuals who are speaking out against the development and redevelopment actions in this city. They are speaking out against the truncation of a 20-year development and growth plan into one that is only five years and involving the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars without factoring in any recessions, competition from other cities for the same funding and most importantly, the growth of the city's infrastructure which includes basic services like public works, public utilities police and fire. There wasn't much in the way of building roads and streets or widening many of them which is necessary to handle the increase in traffic this development project will cause if it leads to thousands of home owners(primarily from Orange County) into this city.

Missing from the Riverside Renaissance plan are the two dozen or so firefighters that are needed, along with fire stations that were promised after residents passed a measure to fund the new stations. Missing are two dozen or so police officers that would be needed to both keep up with the growth of the city through annexations and immigration and for the department to remain in compliance with the terms of its since-dissolved stipulated judgement with the State Attorney General's office. Missing are the facilities or upgrade of facilities which will be needed to improve the conditions of the city's ancient public utilities system, though higher rates have already been announced for both electricity and water, especially for those city residents who rely on Western Regional Water District to provide their water from the shrinking supply provided by the Santa Ana river.

But how can basic city services compare to buildings, buildings and more buildings? In the minds of the current city council, they can't. You can't ride a campaign into the mayor's office without a fancy development project, even if it's just an empty one because who will pay for your campaign if the development firms do not want to contribute?

These realities and others have been pointed out time and time again to a city council which doesn't want to hear them or look beyond its recent attack of "gold fever". So they began passing restrictions not long after Hudson was hired on public speaking, including a controversial agenda item on July 12, 2005 which barred community members from pulling items from the consent calendar. The motion to pass this measure was made by Betro and seconded by Councilman Steve Adams before passing 6-1 with Councilman Art Gage casting the sole dissenting vote.

Accompanying these restrictions have been comments made by city council members including lately how sick and tired they are of people coming to the meetings and complaining about them and the city. One of them, Betro, even used the cameras(right after accusing a community member of playing to them) to urge people to get out of their houses and come on down to city council to essentially put a stop to those who have been complaining. Few if any people took him up on his offer, as even the Chamber of Commerce in downtown Riverside apparently had other things to do those evenings.

It's been a contentious year at city council meetings for sure.

Dozens of residents complaining both about the public restriction issues and development issues, not to mention the bodies of three of the city's labor unions coming to city council en mass to speak on problems with their labor negotiation process. Crowds of people packing the chambers in response to circulating emails and fliers on everything from animal control issues to housing projects.

All this has put the elected leadership into a generally testy mood as they probably wish all these people would just stay home. That and the fact that every community member they have to listen to puts more time between some of them and social hour at a nearby bar or restaurant afterwards to unwind from another week of having to sit in the dais and vote for measures that have already been decided long before these meetings and having to sigh, roll their eyes and lean back in their chairs while being addressed by speakers.


More candidates have taken papers to run against incumbent Steve Adams in the seventh ward including Frizzel and Art Garcia. Adams position is particularly vulnerable in his bid for reelection because of his failed attempts to win an assembly seat up in Sacramento in the middle of his current term on the city council. His decision to try to jump ship may not have been viewed by the voters in his ward in a particularly good light. If this is so, then expect a difficult uphill battle for him.



At the Group meeting which will be held at 7 a.m. at the Coffee Depot on Mission Inn Avenue, prospective third ward candidate(and already endorsed by the mayor and four city council members) William "Rusty" Bailey, Jr. Part and parcel of the current election season.

The Community Police Review Commission will meet tonight at 5:30pm to receive its final briefing from its investigator, Butch Warnberg as well as discuss the recent actions which have affected it in the past two months. Recently, the meetings have attracted quite an unusual crowd of assorted individuals.

CPRC: The final selections

More judges are coming to the Inland Empire, according to this article published in the Press Enterprise. Seven judges will come to Riverside County, with eight going to San Bernardino County.

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George testified before the legislation up in Sacramento about the ongoing shortages, which have virtually shut down the civil courts in Riverside County.


(excerpt)


The gap between expanding caseloads and the number of judges available to handle them has continued to grow, adversely affecting the administration of justice," George said in his annual State of the Judiciary address.

The speech was delivered Monday evening to a joint session of the Legislature in Sacramento. George noted that because criminal cases facing dismissal have priority under the law, civil cases are delayed.

"In Riverside, one of the most affected counties because of an enormous growth in population, for two years in a row all civil courtrooms were closed for several weeks," George said. "Civil litigants saw the resolution of their family law matters, contract disputes, housing, probate and personal injury claims deferred and delayed."





The final round of the selection process for two people to fill vacancies on the Community Police Review Commission concluded with the appointments of Peter Hubbard and Steve Simpson.

Hubbard, a manager at American Medical Response and Simpson, a former Riverside County Sheriff's Department reserve deputy both received the required five votes. Sharon Tyrrell, an escrow officer got three votes as did Human Relations Commission Chair Chani Beeman.


The vote breakdown was as follows:



1) Dom Betro: Chani Beeman, Peter Hubbard

2) Andrew Melendrez: Beeman, Sharon Tyrrell

3) Art Gage: Steve Simpson, Hubbard

4) Frank Schiavone: Tyrrell, Simpson

5) Ed Adkison: Hubbard, Simpson

6) Nancy Hart: Beeman, Simpson

7) Steve Adams: Hubbard, Tyrrell

8) Mayor Loveridge: Hubbard, Simpson



Not surprisingly, Hubbard cruised on through the final round despite giving an interview that was only slightly better than his first one last week. But the fact that he had served 10 years on the Board of Public Utilities as a member or an alternate obviously resonated with Loveridge and the majority of the city council.

The city council went for board and commission experience by also selecting Simpson who had done eight years on the planning commission before applying for the CPRC, and had even run for political office in 1978 for the first ward council seat against Loveridge who defeated him. Even Betro had pushed for someone with more board and commission experience saying during the first round how important it was for the new commissioners to "hit the ground running" during the current situation. The only thing, the wrong experienced commissioner was voted on the commission, as far as he was concerned. Betro also stumbled when he began his questioning of his two choices, Beeman and Hubbard by flattering them first especially Beeman which made the road tougher for her.

What happened with Simpson wasn't surprising, because he was expected to pick up some votes if Loveridge and the full city council participated in the process. What was surprising is that it was the dual selection of Simpson and Hubbard which showed how the division between members of the GASS quartet on the city council has widened. It also showed that the former GASS quartet is evolving into something else, as reflected in the Hubbard vote.

People will point their fingers at the GASS quartet, but the only thing its members including sometime member, Loveridge, had in common was that none of them voted for Beeman. Beeman had led a charge against them when they fired former city manager, George Carvalho which she is to be commended for doing. But no matter how much you play nice with the current leadership, they don't forget the past. For most of us who had opposed Carvalho's firing, that's just fine.

Hubbard received support from three GASS members, Gage, Adkison and Adams but not from Schiavone while Simpson picked up three votes from GASS quartet members, Gage, Adkison and Schiavone. Betro jumped in to support the three GASS quartet members with Hubbard and Hart did the same with Simpson.

Both Adams and Hart changed at least one of their votes and for Simpson, picking up Hart's vote along with Loveridge's was enough to get selected.

The Hubbard/Simpson ticket was backed by two quartet members, Gage and Adkison as well as Loveridge.

Tyrrell was backed by her councilman, Schiavone, Adams(who dropped Simpson) and Melendrez even though she lost Hart's vote.

The vote reflected one thing, and that's if you have friends at City Hall like Simpson clearly did as he had either served on a commission or was on a first name basis with nearly everyone or Hubbard, who was a weak candidate but his employer, AMR, is well known to at least the campaign treasurers of most elected officials. His years spent on the Utilities Board obviously introduced him to the inner circle at City Hall, you know the one that allows you to come to board and commission interviews and call elected officials "Ron", "Art" and "Dom".

You can give a great interview like Beeman did especially this round, though she said that she believed the current model was "adequate" when she had complained publicly of its weakness. She is also aware that the community had supported the stronger Berkeley model rather than the hybrid the city council created for them.

One thing that got her was the response she gave to a question asked by Schiavone about how many parents of law enforcement officers would she think was too many on the CPRC. Beeman had trouble with that question and at one point, she answered that if there were any, she herself would come to City Hall and have something to say about it. It was an honest response to a difficult question, but it also showed that while she would complain as a community member, she could also excuse herself from self-examination by saying it gave her a perspective that made her more qualified. That left her wide open. But it's better to walk away from a process having given an honest response even if it's not the *right* one than to be seated on a commission having given a safer response.

She was also female, and even though the women gave interviews that were better than the men, and in Tyrrell's case much better than her first, it's a man's world at City Hall. The two men selected will join a commission that has eight men and only one woman.

The sad thing was that three out of four of the final candidates applying to serve on the CPRC all came from backgrounds where they had extensive experience already serving on the city's boards and commissions. That tells you that there needs to be more work in recruiting candidates and opening up the screening process so that not only those who are have this experience are selected for interviews.


And late in the day, the city council's afternoon session was brought abruptly to a close after three women were escorted out of the chambers by Riverside Police Department officers including Yolanda Garland and Marjorie Van Poule, who is in her early nineties and told officers they would have to carry her. It started when Councilman Frank Schiavone had said during a discussion item on an ordinance to address the issue of eminent domain that he was sick and tired of people coming up and complaining on the issue. He asked for evidence of the city taking houses from people for eminent domain, and when several individuals spoke up, an argument broke out and the police escorted individuals out, the city council banned several of them from tonight's meeting and suspended the proceedings.

Politics and process

Anew police league proposed in the city of San Bernardino according to the Press Enterprise.


Mayor Pat Morris has designed a program that will encourage the interaction between the city’s police officers and the neighborhood youth in order to build better relationships between the two. It took several months for Morris to find funding for the program but he finally did.

The program did have some critics including from the department’s police union’s leadership.


(excerpt)


I know we have a bunch of brand new guys, and you might get a guy who doesn't know what he's getting into," said Rich Lawhead, the union president. "I don't know of many guys who would sign up to do this voluntarily."


Another skeptic was Councilman Dennis Baxter.


(excerpt)


"I'd be surprised that there's even a question at this point," he said. "I would certainly do the research and find out how many people I had to staff it before throwing money at it."




But similar programs have thrived elsewhere in the country and there is hope that this will happen in San Bernardino even as the city also passed a measure approving that over $1 million in city tax funding be spent on paying police officers overtime during the period when 14 newer officers would be trained.






Tomorrow is the second and possibly final round of the interview and appointment process involving three of the city’s boards and commissions. One of them, is the Community Police Review Commission which currently has two openings due to the departures of Bob Garcia who had served two terms and Bonavita Quinto-MacCullum who had declined to be reappointed to another term for undisclosed reasons.

The loss of both Garcia and Quinto-MacCullum means that two of the four Latinos currently serving on the CPRC will be replaced by White candidates. Of the six people who were ultimately interviewed, five were White. The CPRC currently has only one African-American serving on it and that is Jim Ward.

Community members have commented on the decreasing presence of people of color on the CPRC in recent years. There have been people of color who had submitted applications to the Mayor’s Nomination and Screening Committee but very few individuals are selected by that panel’s members for interview and the majority of those have been White.

Only one current commissioner out of nine, is female.

Selections made to fill ward-specific positions on the CPRC have been more ethnic and racial diverse in that two Latinos, Ric Castro from the sixth ward and Frank Arreola from the seventh ward were appointed to serve on the commission by Mayor Ron Loveridge after he received recommendations from the council members representing each ward.

Arreola resigned only one year into his term and is currently working as a legislative aide for Adams, a development which caused some consternation in the community and apparently on the commission as well.

On Feb. 21, only five city council members attended the meeting and both Beeman and Hubbard had received three votes. Simpson and Tyrrell had received two votes. At first, it was thought that both Beeman and Hubbard had enough votes to get appointed on the commission. Mayor Pro Tem Ed Adkison had agreed with the selections of both Beeman and Hubbard, by saying that although he didn’t like moving a person off of one commission and placing them on another, that in this particular situation it was necessary to have people with “committee” experience. Earlier, Councilman Dom Betro had said that it was necessary to have Beeman and Hubbard on the CPRC, because given the “current situation”, the city needed to have individuals who could “hit the ground running”.

Of course, neither Betro or Adkison went into great detail on what this “current situation” is, but here’s a hint, it has everything to do with the recent actions of one of their direct employees. Both councilmen have been very quiet on the controversial actions that were taken by City Manager Brad Hudson’s office last month, which is particularly interesting in Betro’s case because he had initially run for office on a platform that supported the CPRC.

However, it’s an election year for him and he’s probably waiting to see what opposition he will face and from which corner before he discusses the CPRC's "current situation" publicly.

Regardless, it's the first time that any council member besides Andrew Melendrez has addressed the current status of the CPRC, even in an off-handed manner. Melendrez has brought the issue to the public safety committee which he chairs for discussion.

Beeman currently serves as chair of the Human Relations Commission and if selected to serve on the CPRC will step down from a commission which has already seen another chair resign several months ago as well as the recent resignations of at least two other commissioners serving on it. The commission had just recently hired Yvonne St. Pierre to serve as its new director not long ago and has been in a state of transition.

Beeman's selection marks the first time a community member with a connection to the Riverside Police Department will be appointed to the commission. One of her sons is a police officer employed by the city and Beeman has worked closely with the police department including as chair of the Chief’s Advisory Board in recent years. Her selection should be good news to the police department, and it appeared to be good news to members of the Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability. How the community including those members who may file complaints with the CPRC will view it remains to be seen.

Hubbard served for eight years on the Board of Public Utilities and had just termed off of it. He told the city council during his interview that he felt a “void” in his life after his stint and had worked previously as a paramedic for American Medical Response.

Both Beeman and Hubbard live in Betro’s ward. If selected, both would join Commissioner Brian Pearcy as the contingent representing that ward. Every other ward would have one representative on the commission. This trend is similar to what has happened on other boards and commissions.

After that meeting, the city council believed it had selected its commissioners but it was not to be, at least not that day. The process was reopened on a technicality.

City Clerk Colleen Nichols rechecked the rules and discovered that in order to be appointed, a candidate would need at least four votes if the entire voting body was not present at the meeting, five if it is. So the city council decided to convene again on Feb. 28 to reinterview the four finalists and then vote again on who it will appoint to the CPRC.

The breakdown of the initial votes cast at the Feb. 21 preliminary rounds of the selection process was as follows.



Dom Betro: Chani Beeman, Peter Hubbard

Ed Adkison: Peter Hubbard, Steve Simpson

Nancy Hart: Beeman, Sharon Tyrrell

Andrew Melendrez: Beeman, Tyrrell

Steve Adams: Hubbard, Simpson



It’s possible that this weekend was a busy one as several city council members probably went seeking votes for their favorite candidates and one might envy the fly sitting on many different walls. Far from being simply mechanisms from which the public can volunteer its service to the city, many boards and commissions have dealt with and even wrestled with politics, including the CPRC which faced challenges to its existence since the date of its inception in 2000. Entire voting blocs were shaped on the city council through the election process in order to try to get rid of it.

The city's voters thwarted that process in 2004 when they voted to place it in the city's charter but the political battles apparently had just begun when only months later then interim city manager Tom Evans replacing full-time executive director, Don Williams with part-time director, Pedro Payne. After enjoying a brief stint as a full-time executive director, Payne resigned on Dec. 31. A statement released by the city read that Payne had resigned to pursue other commissions. The community knowing how happy he was in his current job didn't buy that explanation.

Payne was the fourth city employee of color to depart from the management ranks at City Hall, since Hudson's hiring. His interim replacement, Mario Lara, who replaced him had worked as an analyst under Hudson and Asst. City Manager, Tom DeSantis. When asked at a meeting what his qualifications were to fill Payne's shoes, DeSantis basically said Lara had worked for him. Well, it seems like quite a few people in directorship or management positions at City Hall had worked for either Hudson or DeSantis which may satisfy those two men, but to many who have watched what has gone on, it seems like more of the same nepotism which has always been a problem in Riverside.

Before Payne's sudden resignation, the CPRC had been micromanaged by Hudson and DeSantis to the point where its members could not even submit a meeting agenda unless it was vetted first by the city manager's office. When Ward had tried to put an item on the agenda for the meeting last month, Lara had shown that he knew which side his bread was buttered when he forwarded Ward's item to DeSantis and then to City Attorney Gregory Priamos who sent it back saying it was "too vague" and the description of the item was over 20 words long. Instead, DeSantis' power point presentation on the proposed changes to the CPRC was placed on the agenda instead.

This month, Ward's agenda item which addressed the recent changes involving the CPRC was included on the agenda in the form of four questions and in its entirety was well over 20 words long. It's amazing that the city manager's office is allowing this discussion to take place at all, but after the community started protesting its recent actions including through their elected officials, what choice did they have?

The city council strikes back

This is not a surprising development in the case of a Chino teenager who was allegedly raped by a Los Angeles Police Department officer. Jeffrey Sandwell, 37, was released from West Valley Detention Center because 48 hours had passed without the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office filing any charges. He could still be prosecuted.


LAPD officer not charged with rape


An article in the Daily Bulletin quoted Sandwell's lawyer, Ira Salzman, as saying that his client was innocent.


(excerpt)



"He did not do what he's accused of doing," Salzman said. "We do not know why this person made up what she made up, but we are going to fight it."




That seems to be putting the cart before the horse because his client hasn't even been charged yet, but a Chino Police Department lieutenant had said earlier that Sandwell would be charged by Feb. 21. He probably won't be charged, as it's rare that criminal charges are filed against law enforcement officers in San Bernardino County and even rarer in Riverside County.




On this week's city council agenda is an agenda item submitted by Councilman Steve Adams, addressing the code of conduct that is enforced at all city council meetings, at least with city residents. These regular reexaminations of this policy appear to be coming more frequently.

The conduct code is primarily geared towards governing the conduct of the elected officials who sit on the dais, but that's not how it's being enforced by the current city council.


Councilman Dom Betro didn't want to hear city resident and property rights activist Yolanda Garland call the ethics code process a "kangaroo court" so he shut her down by immediately saying "point of order" which was seconded by Councilman Ed Adkison. Garland was not being boisterous, she was not being disorderly and she never has been. She just uses her three-minutes allotted time to call the city on its violation of two growth control measures that were passed by the voters, these being Measures C and R. The city still intends to ignore the will of the voters even though a Riverside County Superior Court judge determined that these laws are still in effect.

Garland injects pointed humor in her comments and humor of course, is the sharpest of all tools to use to both educate and make a point. That's why the city council doesn't like Garland, in addition to the fact that she researches the issues so she can speak as effectively as she does every week.

At first Mayor Ron Loveridge, who runs the stage, ignored the two councilmen but he finally called a break. One reason why if he does seek a new term next year he probably won't receive much support from the current city council. Rumor is, that several city council members want a candidate to run who is not as lenient as Loveridge has been at allowing the public to speak.

Betro succeeded in shutting down Garland but only for a five-minute break period while the city council conferred with the city attorney. He's come a long way from the winner of a grass-roots campaign that put him in office four years ago.

So again, the code of conduct is going back to Governmental Affairs where the two councilmen who shut down Garland along with Councilman Frank Schiavone who chairs the committee will tinker with it again. The code has never made a trip to this committee and not come out of it without being whittled down further.

On July 12, 2005, the city council voted to make some changes including one which would prohibit the public from pulling items from the consent calendar for further comment and discussion. That's why you see Marjorie Van Poule speaking on this issue at each and every single city council meeting.

That motion was introduced by Betro and seconded by Councilman Steve Adams. The vote was 6-1, with Councilman Art Gage casting the sole dissenting vote. Most of the public who spoke contested the motion but several members of a neighborhood association in Betro's ward spoke about how sick and tired they were of all the ranting and raving that went on at city council meetings. The city council had decided it was tired too, and so the rule changes began.

That was the last time major changes were made to the conduct code, but more will be on the horizon.

In the meantime, the city council members will remain free to call city residents liars, tell the mayor to stop them from speaking and prohibit anyone from criticizing them at all. These poor councilmen and one councilwoman deserve our sympathy for having made it to the dais without anyone telling them that being an elected official meant having a thick skin and listening to comments you don't necessarily want to hear. When council members and the mayor are elected, that's when they cease to represent only the people who voted for them or as in some cases, only the people who worked in their political campaigns.

Once they take the oath of office, they represent each and every person in their ward or citywide. That's a lesson I don't think any of them have really learned yet. The sad thing, is that several of them are running for second terms this year, having still not learned this. Councilmen who have had residents of their ward criticize them and then ordered the city attorney's office to mail them letters warning them not to disobey the city council or they will face arrest. Garland had already received one of those letters, even though the video tape of the meeting failed to show any disruption from her.

The intelligent thing for Betro to have done in that situation, especially during an election year would have been to sit there gracefully and with dignity and listened to what Garland said. That's part and parcel of being an elected official. Anyone running for office should know that there are perks that come with being in office and then there are parts of it that are not as much fun.

What's most interesting about the reality that this city council is perhaps the most thin-skinned in the city's history, is something that was written in an opinion piece submitted by then State Attorney General Bill Lockyer last year after the dissolution of the stipulated judgement. He had borrowed several statements that are also included in the text of the police department's strategic plan, which includes objectives it will implement until 2009.

Lockyer talked about a partnership that must exist between the stakeholders in the police department for the reforms that had been implemented to remain rooted and to continue growing. Those three partners were the city government, the community and the police department. A further examination of that partnership in the first year of the post-consent decree period will be examined in the second installation of "What would Lockyer think" in the near future. However, it will also be addressed here in terms of how it applies to the reality of the increased inability of the elected government to accept or even tolerate criticism or even differences of opinion in the public arena.

While Lockyer was urging increased communication between the three partners, there were efforts made on several fronts to make it more difficult to do so unless you were praise them. While it's important to include positive feedback in any dialogue with your partners, positive dialogue is not what needs to be protected. What needs to be protected are the criticisms because it's much easier for the city council to sit and listen to speeches which praise them or city agencies than those who criticize them as is evidenced by the placement of further restrictions on what can and can't be said at city council meetings.

Where the police department fits in this equation will be discussed in a future posting. But even it has been a lot more quiet in recent months. That's familiar behavior as well if you have a local history book.

You see, the partners who are city residents for the most part, are not going to be able to meet with their elected representatives especially if it's true as Betro once said, that developers are knocking their doors down for their attention. The reason why many members of the public no longer seek out time with elected officials including Betro(which he also lamented) is because they know that the developers are knocking their doors down and they know that even out of state development interests take priority over ward constituents. Elected officials are also very busy as most of them hold other jobs or run companies and thus the time they have to spend talking to ordinary residents is limited.

This is one major reason why city residents go to city council to speak on issues. Sometimes many will speak on on an issue and sometimes it will be a few or one person. Sometimes they're going to be praising city council and sometimes they are going to be critical of city council. The interesting thing is that because the meetings are televised, you can go to the store, the super market, the movie theater or walk down the street and encounter individuals who watch the city council. Having spoken with many of these people who encourage me to keep speaking, a major topic of interest is how the city council has been conducting itself in recent months.

Even city employees who spoke at meetings were cut off by an elected officials as Lt. Darryl Hurt, who heads the Riverside Police Administrators Association discovered at a meeting last summer.

Still, the election season is young and the filing deadline is still at least a week away. The first round of the election is three months away, with any contestants who don't receive at least half of the popular vote going into the final rounds this November.



Five employees of color in management positions have been fired, demoted or have "resigned" since City Manager Brad Hudson has been working for the city. Who will be next?

Apparently, the next one in line is not working inside City Hall, but further south along the tree-lined road. The diamond in the rough.



"Sentence first. Verdict afterwards."

--Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland written by Lewis Carroll

CPRC appointments: Round two

Last Wednesday, five elected officials gathered at City Hall to interview five candidates to fill two spots on the Community Police Review Commission.

Both Human Relations Commission Chair Chani Beeman and former Board of Public Utilities member Peter Hubbard received three votes and were selected to serve on the CPRC. Sharon Tyrrell and Steven Simpson each received two votes.

It turns out that three votes was not enough for either Beeman or Hubbard so all four candidates will be reinterviewed by the city council and Mayor Ron Loveridge on Tuesday, Feb. 27 at 1 p.m. After that, the choices will be made.


Down to four candidates


The process is being done over because a rule was violated during last week's vote on the appointments affecting three boards and commissions.


City Clerk Colleen Nichols said that if less than the full body of elected officials are present, then four votes are required to appoint a commissioner. If the entire body of elected officials meets, then it will take five votes. So the legally proper thing to do is to undergo the process again.

It was never explained why Councilman Art Gage did not attend the CPRC interviews, as he was seen getting on an elevator on the seventh floor at 12:45 p.m., shortly before the interviews began. In the past, Gage has been vocal in his opposition to the CPRC, but he has participated in the interview and selection process. Mayor Ron Loveridge had a prior commitment and Councilman Frank Schiavone was apparently home sick last week. One would guess that all eight city officials will be present at the next round.

Here are the remaining candidates and their strengths and weaknesses:


Chani Beeman: Current HRC commissioner and former police reforms activist


Pluses: Clearly the most knowledgeable of the applicants, and her appointment should be one that would make some sense for police reform activists and the Riverside Police Officers' Association to support if both are thinking since she's "responsible and balanced".


Minuses: Beeman's the only candidate with a tie to the police department through a son who's a police officer which may be hard to sell to the community that doesn't spend its time at City Hall. Also, her departure from the HRC which she chairs leaves that commission in the lurch during an important transitional period.

Odds: EVEN Betro will have to lobby hard but he'll get the votes and maybe it won't be that much work as he'll just need to pull in two votes from either Love. Beeman's appointment will finally put those GASS rumors to rest. Next time, Beeman, choose a more transparent route to get in.




Peter Hubbard: Former Board of Public Utilities member for eight years. Used to work for American Medical Response as a paramedic.


Pluses: Like Beeman, Hubbard was selected because he had prior board experience, which several councilmen said was needed during the CPRC's current *cough* situation *cough*.


Minuses: He had little knowledge of the CPRC and his main contribution to the interview is that his departure from the Public Utilities Board had created a "void" in his life. Maybe he should take up a hobby.

Odds: 2-1 He benefits from the tide to bring insiders onto the commission so should ride in. He's male and that by itself will bring him the votes.



Steven Simpson: Former reserve officer with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. His claim to fame was bringing in letters of reference from two county sheriffs and a former FBI director.


Pluses: His interview was pretty good, though more knowledgeable about civilian review in general than the CPRC in particular.


Minuses: He mentioned his letter from the FBI director three times. That's well and good but what's more important is what you can bring to the CPRC.


Odds: 7-2 Councilman Steve Adams loves him and he could knock up a few votes over the weekend and sneak on in there.



Sharon Tyrrell: Escrow officer. Graduate of a leadership academy


Pluses: She gave a fairly good interview and clearly is someone who is flexible and can work with other people.

Minuses: She's a woman who's not connected with City Hall and that hurts her chances. And when they encouraged her at her leadership training to apply for a board and commission, they left some of the rules of the game out of the presentation on City Hall 101.

Odds: 10-1 She's too much of an average citizen to have a chance. She'll need to serve on another board or commission first to have a crack at this one.



After the dust settles on the selection process, it isn't clear who will be left standing either on the applicant list or even on the city council since decisions right now may have repercussions especially for those up for election this year. Not to mention which elected official will have the most chips to call in by the end of the process, because often, that's how things work at City Hall. I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine, a certain degree of that attitude is found in any government system. The other name for it is governing by consensus, which is one reason why there are so many 7-0 votes coming from this city's dais. Most community members can see right through it, have and that's one reason why the city council will be sending the rules of conduct to the governmental affairs committee for further pruning according to this report.

That committee's members are Frank Schiavone, Dom Betro and Ed Adkison and all have approved earlier restrictions to public participation at city council meetings. Betro and Adkison in recent weeks have been more aggressive at cutting people off in mid-speech, so expect to see further restrictions imposed like is often the case when this item is referred to this committee.

After all, Betro's impassioned plea to the television viewers at home several weeks ago to come down to protest against those who criticized him and the other city council members didn't produce much in the way of results.

But before that drama resumes, they will have to come to a vote on who to place on the CPRC.

The mantra which will be repeated during the commission selection process is that the CPRC is the most important commission but it sure hasn't been treated that way unless allowing your direct employee, City Manager Brad Hudson, to micromanage it is a sign of affection.

For sure, it's going to be a busy weekend for those currently sitting on the dais. By the time city residents come to that meeting to lobby for their favorites during public comment, the decisions probably will have been made. Just as most of the decisions by the city council are made before they bring the issues to the weekly meeting for a public vote.

But the emphasis will also be on placing commissioners with prior board and commission experience on the CPRC, those who have paid their dues, which is an attitude that should not have been part of the selection process. Even though most of the city's residents will never be seen by the city council as fit to be interviewed for a spot on a board or commission let alone appointed, it's interesting the number of individuals who have simply moved on from one commission to the next, even mid-term. Two commissioners from the obviously-not-that-important Human Relations Commission left that panel to serve on the CPRC which doesn't bode well for it. It does add to the view that many have towards City Hall of belonging to those who work their way into its inner core, only.

That said, the selections will probably be Beeman who gave the best interview and Hubbard who gave the weakest and hopefully, both will be up to the task to work along with the rest of the commission. Though given that the majority of the city council is probably directing its direct employee to weaken the CPRC, it's probably not going to place commissioners on that body unless it is operating under the belief system that they will carry out its mission. So, in a way, it's almost better not to be picked.

The selection process for the CPRC wasn't the only one that has to be done over because of the rule clarification as candidates for the Planning Commission and Board of Public Utilities are coming back for second interviews. Traditionally, intrigue and politics have surrounded the Planning Commission but it's not clear if it has been affected to the same degree as the CPRC.

Canary in the Mine: Finally, a discussion

The Community Police Review Commission will hold a general meeting next week in which it will listen to its investigator, Butch Warnberg, provide a final update into his investigation into the fatal shooting of Lee Deante Brown. Afterwards, the commissioners will begun what is to be an arduous process of discussing the drafting of a public report on this shooting.

Given the obvious chill that has hit the commission in the wake of actions taken after it initiated investigations into three fatal shooting incidents involving unarmed men during a six-month period, it will be interesting to see what transpires during the process of drafting a public report on the Brown shooting.

It's truly amazing that the city manager's office, the police department and the Riverside County District Attorney's office are even allowing this discussion to take place at all, given the intrigue which had taken place during the holiday season centering around the thorny issue of officer-involved death investigations. Were it not for an engaged and vigilant community, it's not clear that these investigations would still exist, even though the CPRC's power to do these investigations is included in the city's charter. The will of the people exercised through the vote of the populace pales in the face of the presence of risk management, five wrongful death law suits and the reality that if risk management and civic liability are the city's main priorities, the community and the police department won't be the better for it. And it's difficult to ignore the five law suits that have been filed in the past 18 months with a sixth one anticipated, when examining the events of the past month or so involving the CPRC.


Brown, a Black mentally ill man was shot and killed by Officer Terry Ellefson on April 3, 2006 at the Welcome Inn of America which is located at the corner of University Avenue and Ottawa. From the beginning, questions were raised when it became clear that the information provided by the police department at its initial briefing on the shooting did not match up with that provided by at least a half-dozen witnesses to the shooting. Despite that, not one word of any part of the witnesses accounts was used by the department to construct that official-for-the-moment account of the shooting. But that's precisely one reason why the CPRC exists to do these investigations in the first place.

That briefing included information provided by Ellefson and Officer Michael Paul Stucker up to just before the point when Ellefson pulled the trigger. From that point on, even Stucker's account of the actual shooting took a backseat alongside the accounts of the other witnesses.

In fact, the last statement that was attributed to the officers about seeing a "power indicator" light on a taser during the briefing was a reference to a statement made by Stucker, but he had never specified what kind of light he had seen on the taser. If his statement is indeed true, then that light would have been the laser sight on Ellefson's X-26 taser located underneath its barrel, not the power indicator which would not have been visible to him. This was one of several inconsistencies in the initial briefing provided by the police department.

Unfortunately, the police department doesn't get a second chance to get their version right. It didn't when it botched on its account of the Summer Marie Lane shooting despite having access to the correct information included in intradepartmental memos which were written and circulated well before that date, according to that case report. So the CPRC has to fill in that gap during its briefings months later. It's also the first time the commission is allowed to ask any questions at all of anyone about a fatal incident, because the police department didn't take questions. Chief Russ Leach who will be delivering the briefings of officer-involved deaths from now on said that the CPRC can ask questions, but they probably will not be answered at that time.

On the meeting agenda is another item, which addresses issues that have recently impacted the commission stemming from meetings that took place late last year. At the most recent CPRC meeting, Chair Les Davidson mentioned that he had attended a meeting in December with other city employees in the interest of disclosing to the commission and the public how many closed door meetings with city employees had taken place where he had been present.

However, it took two months to put a discussion item on the agenda addressing changes that were to take place and were discussed and decided upon behind closed doors. And it remains to be seen if this is really going to be a serious discussion given how the questions were phrased under the agenda item.


The questions are as follows:



1) Commissioners ability to agendize discussion items without prior approval, review or alteration by any city employee


2) Do you believe that the development of a pool of investigative agencies will enhance the goals and objectives of the commission?

If yes, who should select the investigative agencies and how should the cases be assigned?


3) Do you believe that the goals and objectives of the CPRC will be enhanced if we discontinue our parallel investigation and wait until the RPD and DA’s investigation are complete?


4) How do you feel about the fact that city employees can meet in private with the CPRC chair without any public disclosure or public record of what took place, yet our meetings are required to conform to the Brown Act?




This sounds suspiciously like what Commissioner Jim Ward tried to put on the agenda for last month's meeting but his efforts were vetoed by interim CPRC manager Mario Lara, Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and City Attorney Gregory Priamos both behind the scenes and at the general meeting. Instead, a PowerPoint presentation put together by DeSantis was presented instead, which tells you exactly who is defining the meeting agenda. Although the wording of the questions seems to imply that making these changes is *good* for the commission, probably because what they actually are is *good* for the city manager's office and what it believes is best for the police department.

At any rate, it should be an interesting discussion. Just as the selection process that took place on Feb. 21 to fill vacancies in the CPRC was interesting. Back door politics aside, it was interesting to watch city council member after city council member espouse on how important the CPRC was, with Adkison calling it "one of the most important commissions" and even Councilman Steve Adams chiming in on his support of it which apparently goes back to before his first election. Even though only one of his candidates, Peter Hubbard, made it through, Adams like the other council members appeared very pleased with the two individuals selected.

It was a rare moment of unity between much ballyhooed GASS quartet members and the so-called new guard members, which are Councilman Dom Betro and Councilwoman Nancy Hart. GASS is gone, in fact it's responsible for its own dissolution through Councilman Ed Adkison's decision not to run for election and the council's public censure via the Press Enterprise of former GASS member, Councilman Art Gage. It's not so much that he's been ousted, he's just been replaced.

It's been replaced by something else entirely, more focused on the Riverside Renaissance, less focused on micromanaging city managers. And the irony is that most of the people who protested the ouster of former city manager, George Carvalho would probably when asked, say "George who"?

What's so puzzling is that amidst all this good cheer and vocal support of the CPRC, is a city manager employed by these same individuals who has tried just about everything to weaken its implementation, obviously on the direction of those who employ him or at least a voting majority. Events which may or may not be related to the sudden departure of former executive director, Pedro Payne.

Two new commissioners on the CPRC? Not really

The interviews of the Community Police Review Commission to0k place at City Hall today and by the end, there were two commissioners picked. Those were current Human Relations Commission chair Chani Beeman and former Public Utilities Board member, Peter Hubbard.

Five city council members picked the new commissioners with Art Gage, Frank Schiavone and Mayor Ron Loveridge sitting this round out.

Beeman was picked because of her knowledge of the CPRC and the hard work she had put into the CPRC, said Mayor Pro-Tem Ed Adkison. Councilman Andrew Melendrez praised her "openness" and Councilwomen Nancy Hart said she had shown a "total commitment to the community".

Even though Beeman has a son who is employed by the city as a police officer, that was not an issue with her selection process. In fact, Beeman said that having a son in the police department was more of a reason for them to appoint her to the CPRC because she had sh0wn her commitment to the process through the community and within her family. One wonders if the community who access the CPRC to file complaints will share that sentiment, given that Beeman is the first commissioner ever selected to have any ties to the Riverside Police Department.

Complaint filing has been virtually at a standstill since the resignation of former executive director, Pedro Payne in January. People cite the current crisis of the CPRC as a reason not to file because they are uncertain of its future.

The city council was suitably impressed enough with Beeman to forget that she had not been submitted as a candidate until after the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee had already picked seven other people to be interviewed last month. The public was not even notified of her interview until just before the interviews began but then when it comes to what happens at City Hall, the public is usually the last to know. And unlike with the other applicants, no copies of her application and/or resume were made available to the public.

Not exactly transparent, though you couldn't really question the fact that she did have good qualifications. But if you publicly espouse the importance of transparency and maintaining transparent processes as much as she has, then you should be including yourself among those who practice it.

The Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability members who attended were very happy with her selection as they should be. One of their own was finally selected after seven years.

Given Beeman's track record, which she mentioned, of dealing with police issues in a "responsible and balanced" manner, it's clear that the police department and its officers should and probably will applaud her selection to the CPRC. Why not, as Beeman has worked closely with them through the chief's advisory board and in other capacities.

Beeman's selection may finally be the one thing that both the RCPA and its often times adversary, the Riverside Police Officers' Association support in a process both entities have disparate feelings about. That may be a good thing and it remains to be seen where it will go not to mention interesting. However, despite that, a process of equity, fairness and openness was compromised by the actions taken today and whether or not it's for the *right* reasons doesn't change that. Despite what were probably good intentions by Beeman and likely Betro who submitted her name at the 11th hour, this latest development adds insult to injury to a community body that's seen more than its share lately.

No other CPRC commissioner who was selected in the city's annual open process ever went through the process that put Beeman on the commission. All of them submitted applications, all of them had the information on those applications provided to the public, all of them were included on a list provided to the public ahead of time and all of them were evaluated and selected at the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee just prior to the interview date. Betro served on that committee and had plenty of opportunity to bring up Beeman as a possible applicant but he never did.


Hubbard and Beeman, both White, will replace two departing Latinos, Frank Arreola and Bonavita Quinto-MacCullem. Many who are Black and Latino who have applied haven't been interviewed so there's not much interest in the process by members of those communities. Why apply to serve on a board or commission when the selection process favors those the city council is already familiar with? It's become even more clear that to have a shot at sitting on several boards and commissions you have to pay your dues through City Hall. If those are the rules, however unwritten, then those are the rules, but if so then they should be listed on the applications that are filled out by most of the people who apply for these positions, who are doing so because they really want to make a difference even if they have never actually stepped foot inside City Hall before.

After all, my own councilman offered to place me on the Human Relations Commisson at that Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee if I would say I was interested. I turned him down because there is a process in place for all city residents to go through to apply to serve on boards and commissions and it is important to honor that process. I then told him to go out into his ward and recruit a field of applicants because there are a lot of people out there who are interested in serving on boards and commissions. People who respect what boards and commissions do and want to be part of it.

Hubbard didn't say much in his interview, except he repeated the words, "fair and equitable process" a lot. He used to work for American Medical Response which has donated money into the campaign of practically every city council candidate who has ever run for office.


Hubbard was lauded as being "informed" and "committed" by Councilman Steve Adams. Another candidate, escrow officer Sharon Tyrrell received several votes but not many comments from council members except from Hart who said she liked her upbeat attitude.

The interviews took up several hours as each candidate came in the room to be interviewed, perhaps believing that they had a shot at being selected to serve on the CPRC. If only that was how the process really worked in this city. An unwritten rule appeared to be that to serve on the CPRC, you had to first serve on a prior board or commission. It wasn't a requirement that had ever been invoked during the interview and selection process of CPRC commissioners before this day.

Betro, who appeared pleased to see one of his campaign workers be selected to serve on the CPRC said that it was important to pick people with prior board and commission experience so that "they could hit the ground running" in light of the current situation with the CPRC. It's just too bad they couldn't have shared that with the several dozen people who had applied for the two available positions thinking they had a chance to serve in this city in a voluntary capacity. It's also too bad that none of the city council members including Betro have accepted responsibility for their roles in the "situation" currently involving the CPRC and one of their direct employees.

The Human Relations Commission has lost its second member to the CPRC in recent months. Commissioner John Braniff was pulled off of the HRC by Adams to fill the vacancy in the CPRC after Frank Arroela resigned. Adkison said that although he was apprehensive about pulling people off of boards and commissions and placing them on others, he believed it was suddenly necessary, because he believed that the CPRC was one of the most important boards and commissions in the city. But so is the HRC, and it's unfortunate that our boards and commissions process has come down to commissioners moving from one body to the next in mid-term. That shows that being inside the process at City Hall seems to be the most important requirement of serving on the CPRC.

Art Arredondo, the only applicant to be interviewed who wasn't White, had some good ideas for the CPRC. He should bring them back in 5-10 years when the city government is ready for them. One of them was to have youth representatives on the CPRC to speak on issues pertaining to the interactions of law enforcement officers and young people.

He didn't appear to be that knowledgeable about the CPRC, but then many of the applicants weren't.

Steve Simpson, a former reserve sheriff deputy with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department toted reference letters from former sheriff, Cois Byrd, current Sheriff, Bob Doyle and a former FBI director. He said he had seen good police practices and bad police practices.


"I feel very strongly about eliminating bad police and protecting good police," Simpson said.


He did respond to a question asked by one council member about how the community perceived the CPRC. He said that any answer would be based on a "political judgement".


"I have no agenda," Simpson said, "My agenda is fairness."

Beeman gave an excellent interview, saying that she had been one of a "handful of people who addressed these issues in a responsible and balanced way". She added that her experience on the chief's advisory board was one of many ways community members could engage their police department.

Hubbard didn't know much about the CPRC either, which means he won't be hitting the ground running exactly. But like Beeman, City Hall is very familiar with him and he's got prior service on a board or commission.

Tyrrell said, that in her opinion the police department had come a "very long way". She said that once she had worked near a coffee shop where officers hung out near the Magnolia Plaza. After listening to a group of them badmouth the department, she had contacted the department to tell them and it had been taken care of, she said. Now, there were still officers at the coffee shop but they were more professional.

"Just a totally different atmosphere," she said.

She had no clue about what the CPRC did, and no prior board or commission experience though she had spoken at city council meetings in the past. She was in third place by only one vote after they were cast.

Advice to Tyrrell, besides the obvious which is to educate yourself on a board or commission and its operations before applying to serve on it, would be to try out for another commission first, leave during the term when you've had enough and apply again for the CPRC. You might actually have a chance then.

Interviews and inquiries

Today, the city council in Riverside interviewed seven prospective applicants to serve on the Community Police Review Commission. The interviews began at 1 p.m at City Hall in the Seventh floor conference room.


Art Arrendondo

Steven Simpson

David Baker

Rachelle Merrihew

Sharon Tyrrell

Peter Hubbard

Robert Norton


These individuals were selected from all the applicants at a Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting, but there were no obvious favorites.

Usually what happens is each applicant goes into the conference room where all the city council members and mayor are sitting around a table and is asked one question by each person. Sometimes the questions are fairly good, other times not. Each applicant spends about 15 minutes in his or her interview and it's fairly clear who the city council is familiar with and who they aren't by the banter that takes place.

After the interviews are completed, then the city council usually votes there to decide who will fill the spots on the board or commission in question. Today, those will be the CPRC, the Planning Commission and the Board of Public Utilities. The CPRC's interviews will take place between 1-2:45 p.m.



The city's Web site has been updated with the job description for the CPRC manager, which the city has launched a national search for after the abrupt resignation of Pedro Payne in January.


CPRC Manager job description


Applicants need to have a Bachelor's degree and preferably a Master's in either criminal justice or public administration or something equivalent and have worked five years or longer in a work-related occupation at a governmental agency.

What's more interesting than what is in the job description is what's missing from it, including one major charter-mandated power which will be the subject of a future posting.



The city council meeting last night was as always, good theater.

Councilman Dom Betro shut down public comment after city resident Yolanda Garland began speaking about what she called the "kangaroo court" ethics complaint process including the hearing on the first complaint that was heard by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee last week. By coincidence of course, Betro was the subject of that complaint.

Councilman Ed Adkison soon chimed in and both badgered Mayor Ron Loveridge(who runs the floor) to shut Garland up. Loveridge called a five minute break and Betro, Adkison and Loveridge held a impromptu discussion with City Attorney Gregory Priamos who hopefully informed them of the recent Baca v the Moreno Valley Unified School District decision that supported Garland's position. At any rate, the meeting eventually resumed and Garland was allowed to speak on why she believed that the ordinance to limit roosters was too much cluck cluck about nothing, given the laws in place to address this problem.

Betro had already complained on several occasions about people making negative comments about the city government and the city at the mike and on one occasion, even urged people through the television cameras to come to meetings to put a stop to all this negative rhetoric. Here's one word of advice, if you truly have such thin skin that you have to resort to doing that then you probably shouldn't seek higher office. If you are so quick to censor city residents from speaking during the time set aside for them to do so to spare your own feelings or concerns about being reelected, then perhaps politics is not the field for you. Judging by last night's production, I don't think acting is in the futures of any of these elected officials either, but it will make for an exciting election season!


The fate of the 25 staffing positions in the police department is that there likely won't be any additions to the roster in the near future. After listening to Asst. Tom DeSantis try to explain the situation, I was left with the feeling that the city is too broke to hire them. Which is very interesting given that with all the spending going on for Riverside Renaissance, you would think that not only would there be enough money to hire the 25 officers but these hirings would have been included in the Riverside Renaissance as the accompanying infrastructure upgrading which should be part and parcel of any responsible development project. The problem is that the elected officials have got a really, really bad case of "gold fever" and aren't exactly seeing reason right now. You build more buildings including homes, you attract more people, you need more police officers, firefighters, utility projects, public works projects and street work to accommodate this growth. They don't see it that way. They just see the buildings, bells and whistles coming into their wards and in some cases, are using this new accelerated development to dream of seeking even higher office.

Unfortunately, the failure to add positions in the police department to accommodate the growth of this city in size and population puts the department at future risk of violating provisions of both the Strategic Plan and the remaining components of the dissolved stipulated judgement which are still in effect. Why is that? All you need to do is study the text of the law suit filed by then State Attorney General Bill Lockyer against the city and count how many references are made to inadequate staffing leading in some cases to failure to implement programs or even to comply with state law. Why this city even wants to revisit its problems of the past let alone potentially relive them through making the same mistakes can only be written off as "gold fever". The difference is that the city government knows better or should know better this time around.

When past is prologue.

There was an update on the status of video recorders thanks to Adkison, in that the city has 13 of them installed in squad cars. That might be good, except that number has held firm since 2005 when on the eve of the dissolution of the judgement, the city promised to purchase more recorders. In fact, the city council approved a motion to spend $500,000 on this equipment. What exactly is going on depends on who you ask. DeSantis said that the city was still researching three vendors and didn't give a date for purchase and installation. Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa told the city council when prompted that the department was looking at two vendors and installation may begin in several months.

The status of the quarterly reports which the city council had approved through a motion passed last March 28 is less clear. It appeared that the city government and its staff haven't given them much thought lately. Councilman Andrew Melendrez couldn't remember if he was on the council at the time but he was the one who suggested the regular reports. He did step to the plate and ask about them but never really got an answer from City Manager Brad Hudson.



City officials from Atlanta, Georgia took public comment on how to implement its proposed civilian review board. About 20 community members spoke before the public safety committee of the city council on their ideas of what kind of civilian oversight they supported, according to the Atlantic Journal-Constitution.


Police board selection a key issue for Atlanta



To be updated after the interviews...

Playing it by ear: Could audio recordings be mandated by law?

Here it is, a press release from the California Secretary of State office about a measure which may come to the public for a vote soon. You can find some information about it here. A letter from the proponent of this ballot initiative was sent to then State Attorney General Bill Lockyer last November.

The proposed initiative was assigned on record by both Secretary of State Debra Bowen and State Attorney General Jerry Brown.



California Petition Would Require Audio-Visual Record of Contacts Between Police and Public

February 15, 2007 News Release

A notice posted on California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Website outlines a petition that would "require peace officers to create an audio-visual recording of all contacts with or searches of citizens." The petition "Requires that a copy of the recording be provided to affected citizens who are arrested and charged with a crime."The costs are unknown, said the notice, but could potentially cost"hundreds of millions of dollars on a one-time basis, with ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars."

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -DB07:005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Evan Goldberg February 13, 2007 (916) 653-6575

Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation Recording of Contacts with Peace Officers. Initiative Statute. SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced today that the proponent of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for her measure.

The Attorney General's official title and summary of the measure is as follows: RECORDING OF CONTACTS WITH PEACE OFFICERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Requires peace officers to create an audio-visual recording of all contacts with or searches of citizens.

Requires that a copy of the recording be provided to affected citizens who are arrested and charged with a crime.

Mandates dismissal of pending criminal charges for arrests after January 1, 1996, if the individual charged did not receive a copy of an audio-visual recording of the related contact or search.

Requires two-thirds vote of Legislature to amend provisions.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance offiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown net costs to state and local governments, but potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars on a one-time basis, with ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars. (06-0041.)

The Secretary of State's tracking number for this measure is 1236 and the Attorney General's tracking number is 06-0041. The proponent for this measure, Rosalyn Jamison, must collect the signatures of 433,971 registered voters, the number equal to 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election, in order to qualify the measure for the ballot. The proponent has 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by July 13, 2007.

The initiative proponent can be reached in care of Finish First, Inc.,ATTN: Mr. Jamison, 3824 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 117, Los Angeles, CA 90010. No phone number was provided.

###


This initiative if passed could require the Riverside Police Department to expand its current audio recording policy to include all professional contacts and not just those that its officers initiate with the public. Expanding the current policy is something that many community members have supported and have even asked the department to do. After all, it makes sense to do so for all involved parties, given that the audio recorder is actually a tool that if used properly, can protect both the community and the police officers.

Community members, even leaders have shaken their head in puzzlement as to why the Riverside Police Officers' Association under the leadership of then Officer Pat McCarthy had fought the expansion of a policy that would offer them protection from false allegations by members of the public against officers who were doing their jobs properly and in a professional manner.

The Community Police Review Commission have said on several occasions that it was through listening to the belt recordings submitted by police officers that they were able to determine that complaints were unfounded, rather than assigning them a "not sustained" finding. That was one of the reasons why the commission on two separate occasions submitted a policy recommendation to expand the policy to include all professional contacts. That policy recommendation was rejected by Chief Russ Leach twice. The same police chief who complained at a recent community forum and rightfully so, that he had not received very many policy recommendations from the CPRC in the past two years. It's a lot tougher to support and thus sign off on a policy recommendation like this one than on other recommendations that suggesting amending other current policies that should have been updated years ago with all the parties realizing that.

One of the most frustrating things that community members often feel is that the leadership of both branches of the police department works hard not so much to protect the department's good officers, who are behaving in an ethical and professional manner, but those officers who are behaving badly or in a manner that is not professional. Officers that exist in every law enforcement agency. Officers who obviously would have much to fear from a policy like this one.

Whether it is due to a feeling that officers need to support each other right or wrong to maintain a cohesive bond amongst them, or due to the city's need to constantly assess the financial risk that the department is placing it in and hide it from the public, the community believes that the refusal of the department to expand the audio recording policy is yet another example of the department circling its wagons against the scrutiny of any officers whose bad behavior would be exposed by having it recorded and listened to. And that apparently includes the department's own scrutiny of its own on this level.

Even though officers are required to record all of their contacts with the public, the department's supervisors apparently only listen to recordings when a complaint is made. That's unfortunate, because the recordings of both professional encounters of police officers with the public and those that are less than professional could be used as training tools especially for newer officers. If you are paying for the equipment and the storage space for digital recordings which will be held for a certain period of time, then you might as well make the most use out of them as is possible. The equipment and especially the necessary storage places for digital recordings does cost a lot of money. So do consent decrees and civil litigation if the police officers are missing very important evidence to defend their actions.

Then there is the unknown variable for community members which is the compliance rate by police officers to the current audio recording policy. In 2005, the CPRC delivered two "misconduct noted" findings in relation to officers who had failed to activate their recorders when required to under the policy. When the policy was first implemented, there was apparently an unwritten "grace period" for officers before the policy would be fully enforced. That grace period had ended in August 2003, according to then Asst. City Manager Penny Culbreath-Graft. But there has still been a push to expand the policy even further.


The passage of this initiative by the voters, if it makes it on the ballot would make this point moot. Of course, it probably would have to get past the signature gathering point(after of course, being amended or resubmitted to address the obvious typo in the text) to get on the ballot and past a formidable if somewhat disappointing campaign launched by the state's law enforcement unions to pass.



Atlanta, Georgia is pushing for a stronger form of civilian review of its police officers. Even though the city currently has a civilian review mechanism in place, its members have not met in five years and it's cited as being too weak, according to this article posted by NBC news in Atlanta. This time it's the police killing of Kathryn Johnston, 92, which has led to the push to create a stronger, more independent review board with subpoena power.

Leading the charge at city hall, is an elected official. It's always amazing to read articles about how city officials in other places besides Riverside actually advocate or even fight for stronger forms of civilian review rather than claim to support it up front and then undercut it behind the scenes through their direct employees. No one currently sitting on the dais has that kind of courage. Not those who personally oppose what the voters wanted. Not those who say they support it but remain silent on it because they are worried that if they do voice their support of it, then the RPOA will run a candidate against them. Maybe they're waiting until the end of the filing period for city council candidates to show some courage?

(excerpt)


The FBI and Fulton County's District Attorney are already investigating the raid for possible criminal charges. But City Councilman H. Lamar Willis thinks that isn't enough. He wants to set up a stronger civilian oversight pannel he calls a Citizen Review Board.

Unlike the old one, his would have subpoena powers and be able to conduct its own investigation at the same time as other authorities, not just after they have finished.