City Council: Talking while elderly
The intrigue surrounding the placement of the Colton Police Department's police chief on administrative leave continued.
Cassie MacDuff, a Press Enterprise columnist writes about it here, providing an outline of recent events leading up to the controversial decision to place Chief Ken Rulon on leave, while an investigation into allegations of misconduct is ongoing.
Those allegations were listed in an anonymous letter that was sent to the Colton City Council. Rulon also faces a law suit filed by four officers who alleged that they were denied promotions and experienced retaliation against them.
(excerpt)
Rulon won't comment, referring calls to his lawyers.
Randal Quan, a lawyer representing Rulon on administrative action the city takes against him, said his client's reputation has been sullied by being removed from office.
"To suffer such embarrassment, as far as I'm concerned, is intentional infliction of emotional distress," Quan said.
There were also allegations that the law suit filed by these officers was in retaliation for discipline given to officers and that Rulon was being punished by Colton's city manager for reporting the conduct of a former city councilman, Ramon Hernandez to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office. But then Colton has had several corruption scandals involving its elected officials including charges against four previous council members for accepting bribes on development deals that it's hard to see how the problems involving yet another one would raise an eyebrow in that city. Still, tit for tat, is not a strategy that goes totally unused by elected officials throughout the Inland Empire.
More coverage of the situation in Colton can be read in this article published by the Los Angeles Times.
Meanwhile, the discussion continues on the Press Enterprise's letter page about the expulsion of four city residents from a Feb. 27 city council meeting in Riverside. On that day, Councilman Frank Schiavone had invited speakers to provide evidence that the city had ever taken single-family residences through eminent domain. Justin Tracy who was expelled wrote a letter about the incident, and what individuals are already calling the new quartet on the city council. This quartet called BASS, which is Ed Adkison, Dom Betro, Steve Adams and now Schiavone has become increasingly displeased with what city residents have been saying at the city council in recent months especially pertaining to the thorny issues of development, redevelopment and eminent domain.
(excerpt)
Schiavone asked whether anyone in the audience knew of any home that the city had taken by eminent domain. This question was poor judgment on his part, if, in fact, he really did not want anyone to respond.
What caused me to stand and speak to the council on my way out of the chamber was the rudeness of Adkison declaring Marjorie von Pohle out of order and requesting a police officer to have her removed.
Van Pohle is 90 years old and is what Tracy called, a "matriarch". In fact, she has her own seat in the city council chambers with a plaque honoring her commitment to attending meetings, awarded to her by a city council from a different era.
She told the two officers who came down to escort her out that they would have to carry her. Ultimately, the city council allowed her to remain in the chambers. Van Pohle wouldn't be the first elderly woman that the city council had ordered police officers to escort from the chambers.
Last year, Adkison yelled "point of order" and ask the police officer to escort another elderly woman from the podium because she had exceeded the three-minute limit rule. The police officer did but looked extremely embarrassed to be doing so. What was the woman speaking on that led her to go over her time limit? She actually lived outside the city limits by a few feet and a pipe belonging to the city had ruptured, flooding her property. She just didn't know what to do about it so she came down to City Hall to address the city council about it. Since she wasn't actually from Riverside and had never attended a meeting, she didn't know about the speaking rules.
Chances are, she'll never be back even if the city causes some other damage to her house.
The compassionate and prudent thing for the city council to have done was to tell her to talk to the relevant city employee about it and then designate that city employee to talk to her, as it has done in other occasions. But this city council, at least these four members of it, are behaving in a fashion which is too emotional and egocentric at the moment to be prudent, let alone compassionate.
Contrast the behavior of these four with the conduct of their colleagues, Andrew Melendrez, Art Gage and Nancy Hart who have not engaged in this behavior. One of them, Melendrez, also cast the sole nay vote against a proposal by Mayor Ron Loveridge to allow the governmental affairs committee to push for more restrictions on the code of conduct. Gage has also promised to vote against any restrictions that come back from that committee as he has in the past.
And who is on the governmental affairs committee? Three out of the four members of this new quartet that has decided it doesn't want to listen to any complaints the city residents have about the development projects in this city, even those that violate voter-approved growth control laws. It's interesting to notice that two of the members of BASS and the governmental affairs committee have already endorsed their fellow member, Betro in his upcoming election.
Salvador Santana also wrote a letter on the issue which was published.
(excerpt)
What has been taking place lately at the Riverside City Council meetings, where disturbances have affected the normal procedures?
There are existing rules and a code of ethics proclaimed in council resolutions 21247 and 20987 that regulate and determine how the business of government must function in an efficient and orderly fashion. Such provisions apply to the public and to officials as well. There have been infractions from both sides during recent City Council meetings.
Santana had been nearly escorted from the podium by the police after Adkison yelled "out of order" at him and ordered a police officer to escort him away for talking on a subject not under the city's jurisdiction. Santana had been talking about the national elections.
The city council has also been sending out letters through registered mail to an increasing number of people for violating the conduct code and the letters state that if they do it again, they may be arrested. The letters are signed by City Attorney Gregory Priamos so the individual never learns which elected official made the complaint since in most cases, it's probably not the entire city council advocating that the letters be sent. Most likely, it's the same people who are yelling, "out of order" each time they get criticized.
After the expulsions, Yolanda Garland and Van Pohle received "repeat offender" letters, this time through the regular mail from Priamos.
The particular use of "out of order" which is most currently favored by city council members is applied under a section of the conduct code which prohibits addressing city council members individually during a speech, but it's not uniformly enforced. For example, if you praise a city council individually, you probably won't be interrupted by an "out of order" retort, but you will if you are criticizing that elected official and that indeed has been the case. This provision of the code of conduct is unconstitutional, both on its face and in its selective enforcement.
In a recent Press Enterprise article, Councilwoman Nancy Hart said the city council members should calm down and not let themselves be undone by two or three people living in a city of 300,000.
And speaking of the city council, one of the items under the closed session's agenda for next week was the discussion of the personnel grievance arbitration of two police officers, Emilio Angulo and Juan Munoz. Arbitration is the process used by the city to protest decisions or resolve disputes between the city's employees and their employers just as it's also used in other cities and counties. The city council will be receiving legal counsel from its attorneys to determine how to proceed with this matter.
Agenda #10-Emilio Angulo and Juan Munoz v the City of Riverside
Cassie MacDuff, a Press Enterprise columnist writes about it here, providing an outline of recent events leading up to the controversial decision to place Chief Ken Rulon on leave, while an investigation into allegations of misconduct is ongoing.
Those allegations were listed in an anonymous letter that was sent to the Colton City Council. Rulon also faces a law suit filed by four officers who alleged that they were denied promotions and experienced retaliation against them.
(excerpt)
Rulon won't comment, referring calls to his lawyers.
Randal Quan, a lawyer representing Rulon on administrative action the city takes against him, said his client's reputation has been sullied by being removed from office.
"To suffer such embarrassment, as far as I'm concerned, is intentional infliction of emotional distress," Quan said.
There were also allegations that the law suit filed by these officers was in retaliation for discipline given to officers and that Rulon was being punished by Colton's city manager for reporting the conduct of a former city councilman, Ramon Hernandez to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office. But then Colton has had several corruption scandals involving its elected officials including charges against four previous council members for accepting bribes on development deals that it's hard to see how the problems involving yet another one would raise an eyebrow in that city. Still, tit for tat, is not a strategy that goes totally unused by elected officials throughout the Inland Empire.
More coverage of the situation in Colton can be read in this article published by the Los Angeles Times.
It will be interesting to see if this situation will be the straw that breaks the camel's back in a city that is pretty thick with wrongdoing conducted by its elected officials. Has there been wrongdoing also conducted by its employees, be it Rulon or City Manager Daryl Parrish? Has the relationships between the city council and its city manager, and the city manager and his police chief been compromised and if so which of the two?
If the police chief is suspected of misconduct of any form, then it's the city manager who must act, but if the city manager is acting on behalf of his boss, the city council, is it for reasons that are honest and promoting accountability of his department heads, or is it for retaliatory purposes under direction of his employees, the city council?
There are already so many circumstances in this case as there is with the history of Colton to be concerned about, in terms that due process and an honest redress of grievances will be followed involving Rulon, Parrish but also those in the department who made allegations against Rulon. The residents of Colton should demand no less.
Is a city manager beholden to the city council or the truth? And what's to be done if the two come into conflict which may be the case here.
Meanwhile, the discussion continues on the Press Enterprise's letter page about the expulsion of four city residents from a Feb. 27 city council meeting in Riverside. On that day, Councilman Frank Schiavone had invited speakers to provide evidence that the city had ever taken single-family residences through eminent domain. Justin Tracy who was expelled wrote a letter about the incident, and what individuals are already calling the new quartet on the city council. This quartet called BASS, which is Ed Adkison, Dom Betro, Steve Adams and now Schiavone has become increasingly displeased with what city residents have been saying at the city council in recent months especially pertaining to the thorny issues of development, redevelopment and eminent domain.
(excerpt)
Schiavone asked whether anyone in the audience knew of any home that the city had taken by eminent domain. This question was poor judgment on his part, if, in fact, he really did not want anyone to respond.
What caused me to stand and speak to the council on my way out of the chamber was the rudeness of Adkison declaring Marjorie von Pohle out of order and requesting a police officer to have her removed.
Van Pohle is 90 years old and is what Tracy called, a "matriarch". In fact, she has her own seat in the city council chambers with a plaque honoring her commitment to attending meetings, awarded to her by a city council from a different era.
She told the two officers who came down to escort her out that they would have to carry her. Ultimately, the city council allowed her to remain in the chambers. Van Pohle wouldn't be the first elderly woman that the city council had ordered police officers to escort from the chambers.
Last year, Adkison yelled "point of order" and ask the police officer to escort another elderly woman from the podium because she had exceeded the three-minute limit rule. The police officer did but looked extremely embarrassed to be doing so. What was the woman speaking on that led her to go over her time limit? She actually lived outside the city limits by a few feet and a pipe belonging to the city had ruptured, flooding her property. She just didn't know what to do about it so she came down to City Hall to address the city council about it. Since she wasn't actually from Riverside and had never attended a meeting, she didn't know about the speaking rules.
Chances are, she'll never be back even if the city causes some other damage to her house.
The compassionate and prudent thing for the city council to have done was to tell her to talk to the relevant city employee about it and then designate that city employee to talk to her, as it has done in other occasions. But this city council, at least these four members of it, are behaving in a fashion which is too emotional and egocentric at the moment to be prudent, let alone compassionate.
Contrast the behavior of these four with the conduct of their colleagues, Andrew Melendrez, Art Gage and Nancy Hart who have not engaged in this behavior. One of them, Melendrez, also cast the sole nay vote against a proposal by Mayor Ron Loveridge to allow the governmental affairs committee to push for more restrictions on the code of conduct. Gage has also promised to vote against any restrictions that come back from that committee as he has in the past.
And who is on the governmental affairs committee? Three out of the four members of this new quartet that has decided it doesn't want to listen to any complaints the city residents have about the development projects in this city, even those that violate voter-approved growth control laws. It's interesting to notice that two of the members of BASS and the governmental affairs committee have already endorsed their fellow member, Betro in his upcoming election.
Salvador Santana also wrote a letter on the issue which was published.
(excerpt)
What has been taking place lately at the Riverside City Council meetings, where disturbances have affected the normal procedures?
There are existing rules and a code of ethics proclaimed in council resolutions 21247 and 20987 that regulate and determine how the business of government must function in an efficient and orderly fashion. Such provisions apply to the public and to officials as well. There have been infractions from both sides during recent City Council meetings.
Santana had been nearly escorted from the podium by the police after Adkison yelled "out of order" at him and ordered a police officer to escort him away for talking on a subject not under the city's jurisdiction. Santana had been talking about the national elections.
The city council has also been sending out letters through registered mail to an increasing number of people for violating the conduct code and the letters state that if they do it again, they may be arrested. The letters are signed by City Attorney Gregory Priamos so the individual never learns which elected official made the complaint since in most cases, it's probably not the entire city council advocating that the letters be sent. Most likely, it's the same people who are yelling, "out of order" each time they get criticized.
After the expulsions, Yolanda Garland and Van Pohle received "repeat offender" letters, this time through the regular mail from Priamos.
The particular use of "out of order" which is most currently favored by city council members is applied under a section of the conduct code which prohibits addressing city council members individually during a speech, but it's not uniformly enforced. For example, if you praise a city council individually, you probably won't be interrupted by an "out of order" retort, but you will if you are criticizing that elected official and that indeed has been the case. This provision of the code of conduct is unconstitutional, both on its face and in its selective enforcement.
In a recent Press Enterprise article, Councilwoman Nancy Hart said the city council members should calm down and not let themselves be undone by two or three people living in a city of 300,000.
And speaking of the city council, one of the items under the closed session's agenda for next week was the discussion of the personnel grievance arbitration of two police officers, Emilio Angulo and Juan Munoz. Arbitration is the process used by the city to protest decisions or resolve disputes between the city's employees and their employers just as it's also used in other cities and counties. The city council will be receiving legal counsel from its attorneys to determine how to proceed with this matter.
Agenda #10-Emilio Angulo and Juan Munoz v the City of Riverside
Labels: business as usual, City elections
posted by Five Before Midnight | 7:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home