Serving at the pleasure of whom?

City Manager Brad Hudson has provided some helpful information on the situation involving the conversion of three management positions in the Riverside Police Department to being "at will" and contracted through the city manager's office. Hudson said he believed that all the involved employees had decided to become "at will" employees.

Two of the involved employees are believed to have accepted those terms. It's not clear whether the third one has followed suit. Personally, given the past history of men of color in management positions, if I were in their shoes, I would think long and hard about making this kind of decision with full consideration of what the future may hold.

I would think of the following former city employees when making that decision.


Art Alcaraz, former human resources director

Jim Smith, former budget director, former interim asst. city manager

Tranda Drumwright, former housing and community development manager

Pedro Payne, former Community Police Review Commission executive director



Hudson said that he's not making promotional decisions for the police department, that it was the head of that department who made the decision to offer these positions as "at will" and that the involved employees accepted these terms and the slightly higher annual salary that comes with the package. So in other words, he's doing them a favor just like he's done other city employees similar favors and many city employees have eagerly become "at will" employees. That's very nice of him.

But is being asked to be an "at will" employee truly a favor? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe city managers truly do offer this option to their employees out of a feeling of altruism and concern about the personnel working beneath them.

Okay, if that's true, why is it that the two words, "at will" have evoked such fear in City Hall? Why have those words especially created a climate of fear among Black and Latino employees especially those at City Hall? Where has this fear that permeates the city workforce been coming from?

How many of the Black and Latino employees in management positions who have left or been fired from their jobs at City Hall were "at will" employees?

I know Hudson believes that he's doing the right thing and perhaps at the end of the day, he's correct, but it just seems odd that the top two or three management positions in the police department besides the police chief are now contracting directly with the city manager's office at this point in time. And that all three of these positions are held by men of color has also caused a level of concern in the community.

It's typically the police chief who appoints his or her deputy chiefs or assistant chiefs to become members of his management staff. They typically serve "at will" in those positions at the pleasure of the police chief. He can remove them from those positions and if a new chief comes in, typically he or she picks those who will fill these management positions. These employees often still remain employed with the police department, as former Deputy Chief and current captain, Mike Blakely can attest. But what are the rules now? Have those rules suddenly changed?

There was one question that Hudson failed to address and that's the issue of dismissing these "at will" employees in the police department. Not that that is going to happen with any one of them, but if it did, then who would be dismissing these "at will" employees? Would it be the police chief? Would it be the city manager? Because whoever holds the power to discipline or dismiss controls those employees.

And are these three positions the only ones in the police department that will follow this procedure. That remains to be seen.



If I were a police officer in the department, I would be thinking, who am I working for here? Am I working under the police chief? Am I working under the command of the city manager's office? Am I working under management selected by the chief? Am I working under management selected by the city manager's office? That and about a hundred or so other questions would be running through my mind. Where would the answers to those concerns come from?

It would not be surprising at all if this situation has fostered some degree of confusion, concern and even distrust within the police department, which isn't fair to the employees, the city or the three employees involved. It's not fair for the city's residents to have to learn about this development after the fact, another sign that the three-way partnership between the city, police department and community as envisioned by former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer is not taken seriously by the city. Maybe some day they'll get it.

But whatever turmoil is going on inside the police department if that's indeed the case is occurring behind the blue curtain. The public won't know what's going on unless it boils over and spills out into the community. By then, if there's damage that is done, it will be too late to fix it. History has shown that to be the case time and time again.

Their silence on the issue also leaves the city's residents unclear of who's their leader of choice if they believe they are being asked or told to make a choice between the two.

The city government has been far too quiet on this issue even as the community is trying to ask questions about what's been going on.

Only Councilman Art Gage has responded to inquiries about it, by saying that he's asking for an explanation from Hudson and that he believed that it's the police chief who should run the department, not the city manager. What was interesting about his response is that usually Gage responds to inquiries about the city managers, with an admonition about administrative interference(which is included in the city's charter under a 1995 amendment). However, this time he's stating that he's interested in looking into the issue.

What is also interesting is that if this is a routine activity done by the city, why are there elected officials asking questions about it in these circumstances?

And Gage made it clear that there will be and should be discussion on this issue. What kind of discussion and where and when it takes place is not clear at this point, but there have been calls to come and initiate it by raising concerns and questions over the situation at this Tuesday's city council meeting.

But what of the other elected officials? Their silence on this issue speaks volumes. Hopefully, that attitude will change.

If individuals from the community congregate at city council to press for answers to their questions about this development, hopefully the city officials and their direct employees will be able to provide them. There needs to be at the very least a dialogue on this issue, and there should be one inside the police department as well.





In the Dallas Morning News, there was this article about three police officers accused of serious misconduct in the Dallas Police Department which has left its police chief, David Kunkle in a pickle. He's set up a panel of five lieutenants to investigate the matter.

The allegations of misconduct include the following.


(excerpt)


• That a nearly 29-year veteran officer used pepper spray and assaulted a handcuffed woman who simply talked back to him.

• That another 28-year veteran officer arrested a man for obstructing a road, even though the man was crossing the street in a crosswalk.

• That a nearly 20-year veteran officer falsely arrested a man for evading and resisting arrest and assaulting an officer after police went to a woman's home to break up an argument.


The department said it is taking these allegations of misconduct especially seriously because they were made by another police officers, which was rare in the Dallas Police Department. Of course, it's a difficult road for a police officer to travel after he or she has pointed a finger at a fellow officer. Often times, these officers are ostracized and accused of misconduct themselves.

At least one other department employee said that the three officers were accused because of a grudge against them by the police officer, Nick Novello, according to the wife of officer, Al Schoelen.


(excerpt)


She said Officer Novello is retaliating against her husband for getting him in trouble with a supervisor.

"He's unstable," she said. "[Officer Novello] has serious anger-management issues. This is the only way he knows how to discredit the top three officers."

Officer Novello denied the accusations.

"You've got three rogue officers who work without probable cause and make arrest after arrest," he said. "You have a failure to supervise over I don't know how many years."


Hopefully, Kunkle's panel will be able to get to the bottom of this situation and be able to work on fixing serious problems in the police department.



Whistle blowing is also taking place in the Ocean Beach Police Department in New York state but five police officers claim they were terminated for doing so. Now they are have filed a law suit in Central Islip for $325 million, according to Newsday.


The cost of retaliation against whistle blowers


The officers alleged that they were complaining about rampant corruption in the police department, charges that the current police chief, George Hesse denied in an interview with Newsday. The officers involved in the law suit included Thomas Snyder, Edward Carter and Kevin Lamm.

Allegations made by them and two other officers included covering up numerous acts of police brutality, drinking on duty, associating with drug dealers and sexual misconduct.


(excerpt)


In addition to Lamm, Snyder, and Carter, the former officers filing suit are Frank Fiorillo and Joseph Nofi. In an interview, all five, graduates of the Suffolk Police Academy, spoke of the pride they felt as police officers.

"The academy instills values, morals and ethics," said Fiorillo, who was valedictorian of his academy class in 2002. "When I got to Ocean Beach, I didn't see what I was taught."

The officers described a steadily deteriorating environment under Hesse's leadership, with a disregard for public safety.


Suffolk County's district attorney's office has launched a grand jury investigation into the police department.




In Columbia, Missouri, the issue of civilian review is a hot one, and even the candidates on the campaign trail in the mayor and city council races there are being interviewed for their opinions on the issue.

The Missourian's topic for its "Ask the candidate" forum this week was civilian review. The opinions by those interviewed were split with the majority favoring some form of civilian oversight of the police department.



Councilman Dom Betro had a successful campaign fundraiser last night at the Marriot Hotel, for his battle to maintain his ward one council seat. He wrapped up one important endorsement, when the leadership of the Riverside Police Officers' Association formerly announced its support towards him. A few weeks ago, the Riverside Firefighters' Association also endorsed him.

In an interesting example of how politics make interesting bedfellows, it was only months ago that Betro was chiding members of the Group for not going down to city council to castigate the RPOA for filing a law suit against the CPRC, even though the actual law suit was filed by one officer, Ryan Wilson.

That may prove to make for an interesting marriage indeed. Especially with Hudson and De Santis riding in the back seat of the carriage.

News of other endorsements of the various candidates running for election are sure to come in the weeks ahead.

Another reminder that the following adage is indeed tried and true. There is no such thing as a boring election season.