"At will" or at risk?

Concerns and questions continue to be raised in the city's recent decision to change three management positions in the police department to "at will" positions. Even as Hudson had said that his office routinely signs contracts of "at will" employees working in the city's various departments and has done this over 100 times, people still question the particulars in this case as they should. The problem is that for the most part, the elected leadership has not taken the lead on this issue.

One assistant chief position and two deputy chief positions had been changed to being "at will" positions. At least two employees have as Hudson said, taken the offer to become "at will" employees of the city, and it's not clear as of yet whether the third has followed suit. It's also not clear whether the two employees who took the "at will" options were asked to make that decision before or after being appointed to their respective positions.

The main concerns that continue to be raised are two-fold.

The first being that if the employees are "at will", does this make them more vulnerable to termination by the city manager's office if that office decides to do so. This concern is particularly keen given that all three of these positions are held by Latino men. Given that several Black and Latino management employees in City Hall were given the same "option" of becoming "at will" employees before being shown the door by Hudson and Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis, people are concerned that this may just be more of the same.

After all, two of the scariest words in the city's employment ranks have been "at will".

Another concern that has been raised by city residents and apparently city employees as well particularly those from the police department is that the three men in the management positions will be serving at the pleasure not of Chief Russ Leach, but of Hudson's office. This apparently has caused a bit of an uproar from those who will be serving under the assistant chief and both deputy chiefs, because there is a belief that those who are now "at will" employees will be carrying out Hudson's agenda and not Leach's. Curiously enough, most of the animosity about this situation seems to be towards Hudson, not Leach which if this is valid observation, tells you who is making the decisions here or at least who is in terms of perceptions that have unfortunately risen as a result of this situation.

City residents are watching very carefully to see what the city does and to see what the police department does, because whether this was the intention or not, the responses of the city manager's office and department will show how much confidence the employees in both divisions have in Leach. Whether this is the case or not, this is what the city residents are looking at, which isn't really fair to Leach.

But the fact of the matter is this. If it's true that the city manager's office is interfering in the appointment and promotion process of the police department at its highest level, that of the assistant and deputy chiefs, then the city manager is showing the police department, the city government and the public that it has little confidence in Leach. If the city employees in the department but elsewhere as well are sitting by and remaining silent on this issue, then the public may interpret the same thing about them as well, whether that is what is the truth or not.
Only one city council member, Art Gage, so far has made any statements of concern about this situation, but you have to remember that Hudson has carte blanche from this city council to do as he pleases as long as he promises in the development arena to give council members what their hearts desire for their respective wards. But Gage did say that a lot of discussion lay ahead on this issue. What kind of discussion will take place in a government that has tried to discourage public participation in the past year remains to be seen.

But what of the city employees themselves?

Instead of asking serious questions of the incumbent elected officials, several labor unions appear instead to be giving their endorsements to those who keep the management team employed that made their lives so miserable last summer. They should instead sit these individuals down as well as other political candidates and ask them serious questions about how they as elected officials view the labor force and how they expect the city manager's office to treat it. The status quo on the dais right now has pretty much answered those two questions through their actions in this area during the past two years.

Remember the Chinese proverb about fool me once, fool me twice.

The police department is given to the police chief to run. The police chief has the powers and responsibilities to hire, appoint, promote, discipline and terminate employment. He or she has the power to appoint personnel to management positions including those directly below him to serve at his or her pleasure, which in this situation are the positions of assistant and deputy chief. Yet, there are individuals who seem sure that the recent appointments were made not by Leach, but by Hudson. There has also been concern raised in the community that these aren't the only positions in the department that will be impacted this way, because of what has been witnessed in other city departments.

The concerns have not really been addressed by those elected to represent the residents in this city raising these concerns. It's not clear if the concerns raised in the department that the management staff is serving at the pleasure of Hudson and not Leach have been addressed either. The time to do so is now.

One department, one chief.

The police department's not the first to face these changes. Recently, De Santis apparently was put in charge of the library system and has been micromanaging that division as well, even to the point of telling librarians where to put library books on the shelf. It makes a person ask, if Hudson is just going to put De Santis in charge of every department, then why does the city employee department heads because apparently the city manager's office and the city council have little faith in them. Or maybe De Santis has too much time on his hands and should have his position changed so he can work part-time on a consulting basis. That will leave him plenty of time to receive training on how to properly conduct labor negotiations before the next round of contract renewals with city employees comes up.

It's believed that micromanagement of the human resources department is what led to the ultimate departure of former director, Art Alcaraz as well.

Hopefully, enough people will show up at the city council meeting on Tuesday evening to raise these issues and promote a discussion at the recent chain of events. Hopefully, the city government will provide a forum at some point for that discussion to take place.




Sentencing in the case of former Riverside Community College administrator and Riverside County Sheriff's Department deputy William O'Rafferty has once again been delayed while the defense attorney raises concerns about potential juror misconduct during deliberations.



In the old courthouse, a case of a felony turned misdemeanor turned infraction was tried, but why was it that Riverside County Superior Court Judge Edward D. Webster waited until the eleventh hour to formally recuse himself from hearing the case?