What would Lockyer think?
A year ago tomorrow, the city council met to conduct a workshop on its plans to continue the implementation of the police department's five-year strategic plan.
It's an anniversary of sorts in terms of providing an opportunity to reflect on what has come to pass, what has been done and just as importantly, what hasn't been done in the past 12 months.
The city officials and their direct employees sat on the dais that afternoon. The police department's command staff and community members sat in the audience, while representatives of two of the department's labor unions stood in the back. Everyone who attended came to listen to what would be said by the city government. Each one in attendance with a stake in its future.
These individuals represented the three partners of the police department's reform process, those being the city, the police department and the community. Former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer addressed them in an op-ed piece he wrote that was published in the Press Enterprise at the time his office formally requested that the stipulated judgement be dissolved in Riverside County Superior Court.
Riverside Police Department stipulated judgement information
Lockyer spoke about the problems in the police department that led his office to investigate its patterns and practices at an event in San Diego in 2003.
(excerpt)
"I decided there were systemic problems with the Riverside Police Department", Lockyer said.
"There were a lot of instances in which African-Americans were beaten, Hispanics beaten and tossed in the lake, and Gays and Lesbians harassed and beaten. I spent a year and a half negotiating with the Riverside Police Department for such basic demands as psychological evaluations for officers before they are hired, up-to-date training, community relations boards, availability and training in use of non-lethal weapons, TV cameras in the chief's office and the squad room and video and audio recording in police cars."
The intent of these reforms, Lockyer said, was to break the macho culture of the police department and the racism and sexism that went along with it. Lockyer found that the Riverside City Council balked at signing on to the deal.
"They did some things of their own which they'd done three times before, and each time there had been slight improvements and then things had got worse again," he recalled. "Finally I went to one of the Council meetings and said, 'The choice is, you adopt the reforms or I will sue you and we'll see what the federal courts have to say.'
They said, 'Our constituents don't like outsiders coming in,' and I said, 'I've got news for you. All your constituents are my constituents as well.'
They voted 7-2 for the reforms, and two years later the Riverside police chief, a new one they'd brought in from outside, said, 'Had it not been for Lockyer's intervention, nothing would have changed.'"
Chief Russ Leach was right in his assertion. The city council had fought the consent decree that it was facing for months and even when it was dragged kicking and screaming into a settlement, it never admitted to any of the allegations made by Lockyer's office nor did it take any responsibility for the problems in the department which had led to both federal and state intervention. By the time the final vote was cast in February 2001 to accept the decree, Lockyer had journeyed on down from Sacramento to Riverside to tell them to sign on or face a law suit from the state, a law suit he felt fairly confident about winning. That became clear in both his speech before the city council and in a meeting I had with him that same day.
And sure enough, soon after the city council voted 6-1 to accept the consent decree, only it couldn't be called that because apparently Mayor Ron Loveridge implored Lockyer in his office up in Sacramento to give it another name, because the term "consent decree" just sounded so bad for Riverside. Even back then, image not reality seemed most paramount from those on the dais.
The only person who cast a dissenting vote was Councilman Ed Adkison years before becoming the lame duck he is now. However, it didn't take him long to realize that his decision to vote against it was the wrong one as he pointed out during the workshop last March.
But for the most part, the government in power back then didn't want to step up to the plate in terms of saying that they played a role in what had gone wrong with the police department.
That was interesting, if unfortunate on their part because the state's own investigation had found that the city government was at least 50% responsible for the problems in the police department with special notice being given to former city manager John Holmes and former City Attorney Stan Yamamoto. Incidentally, these two employees left the city soon after the city entered into its stipulated judgement. They would be followed by more than a few city council members. In fact, six years later, only Loveridge remains from that era in the city's history.
The Urban Institute provided an interesting analysis of what happened to the police department during the 1990s when many of its problems had reached the crisis point long before the shots fired on a cold December morning in 1998 at Tyisha Miller were heard around the world.
The Riverside Police Department in the 1990s
Chief Ken Fortier was interviewed by researcher David Thatcher, now a professor at a mid-western university, about what he felt was the community's role in the police department and the city and he said something that is as relevant today as it was 10 years ago.
(excerpt)
"My feeling is there’s some values that have to underlie a good police department, and one of them is really meaningful community involvement.
People have really got to feel—and that’s regardless of whomever in the community, whatever status they come from—they have got to feel that they have an equal footing with those business people at the Chamber of Commerce. [And they’ve got to feel that we will] be responsive and willing to listen to criticism, and willing to react to it positively, in a constructive manner. And that was not part of the culture of Riverside."
That's a sentiment that's been expressed by city residents in Riverside over 10 years later, especially those who have been to city council meetings in recent weeks and have encountered a city council that is less receptive and in fact, more hostile to public input than even its ancestor, the PALM quartet. It's unfortunate that this is so, when Lockyer in his own words had written that he had hoped to see more communication between the community members and the city council regarding concerns about the police department. He had hoped for that to define the new reality that he had set in motion for the city of Riverside and its police department. Unfortunately, the stakeholders in the process haven't come close.
Still, the city officials did not take responsibility for their role in the situation back then at that critical juncture and the decision not to and the denial of that role are explicitly stated in the stipulated judgement. Today, the city council seems to be following the same pattern by saying that well, none of these problems happened when we were on the dais so we don't bear that responsibility. Several council members have told me that, with one of them adding that the glass should be seen as half-full in that there aren't any problems with the city. Let's move on to talking about development.
Perhaps that's true, but what's past is prologue in situations like this one and what happens now on their watch is their collective responsibility. And those words sound so similar to those of the past, the past that existed before Dec. 28, 1998.
So what is the role of the city government today? How about the opposite of what it is instead currently doing which is nothing, out of either benign neglect or the sense that the police department is no longer the shiny toy of choice to play with, so it's time to put it back on the shelf to gather dust. But that change in attitude wasn't to come until after the city council made promises to their constituents that this time things would be different, because they were different.
So last March 28, discussions were held, concerns were raised and promises were made. The promises were as follows, that the city would retain the services of consultant Joe Brann to assist the department in its implementation of the Strategic Plan and that he and the department would report quarterly on the process and its progress. What came out of that workshop was positive energy from the involved parties to keep the process moving foreword in the right direction. What soon followed around July last year, was that the process to implement those promises regarding the Strategic Plan stalled after the city manager's office failed to deliver and didn't seem that interested to even try to do so, at the same time the city council as a collective body appeared unmotivated to keep his feet to the fire. Leach was entering into his quiet period and disappearing from public view, and the city's employees were experiencing their most contentious contract negotiations in years.
In fact, two labor unions, the Riverside Police Officers' Association and the Riverside Police Administrators' Association filed law suits in Riverside County Superior Court and those two unions plus the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the SEIU's general unit appeared en mass at several city council meetings last summer and autumn.
Although contracts were signed with all six of the city's unions by autumn, it soon emerged that the friction between the city's workforce and the city manager's office had only increased. That also mirrors the history of the city and the police department including its labor unions in the 1990s, if you read Thatcher's study.
What happened last summer is detailed in the following column posted last October.
What would Lockyer think?
As the summer became autumn, things didn't get any better.
Soon after, allegations were raised that the city wasn't spending money on the police department as it had while under the stipulated judgement. When the mid-year budget adjustment report came out in January, there were no personnel positions or major equipment allocations included in that budget sheet. In addition, to 25 police officer positions being taken off the table(although five were restored), there had been no allocations for new training for officers in the department. Community leaders at a public meeting had said that they would hold the city council's feet to the fire on this issue, but have they?
Inadequate number of personnel and staffing.
Inadequate and outdated training.
These were statements which are accentuated in the text of the writ of mandamus filed by Lockyer's office against the city of Riverside.
So if the city council has taken to heart the hard-won lessons of the past, why then is it repeating that behavior? Why is it important not to do this and is this a question any of them can even answer?
Here's one answer they can chew on.
Because in the 1990s, the city council neglected to allocate monies for increasing the number of positions in the police department, for updating equipment needs to fit technological development and for creating and updating training programs particularly those that involve the use of force. It was in large part because of this inaction by the city government, that the police department attracted the attention of the federal and state governmental agencies that led to two separate pattern and practice investigations.
In fact, in Thatcher's report, there's an entire section set aside for the budget cuts made concerning the police department by Holmes and the past city council that employed him. That was the beginning of the end for the "old" police department after years of start-and-stall reforms.
Which is why Lockyer said many times that he had to take the city to court to reform its police department in a way that would stick. No more back sliding into the old ways, but instead, foreword movement.
What has followed that is unfortunately more of the same. The latest controversy involving the conversion of several positions in the police department's upper management to being "at will" and with contracts signed through the city manager's office has elicited a lot of concern in both the community and the police department.
City Manager Brad Hudson said by email that this was a routine procedure that at least 100 other city employees have chosen and that they have embraced it including in the case of the police department. But if you talk to city employees, the two scariest words in their vocabulary are the words, "at will".
Just ask former city employees Art Alcaraz, Jim Smith, Tranda Drumwright and Pedro Payne.
Despite the reassurances from the city manager's office, concerns continue to be raised and questions continue to be asked as to why these decisions are being made now, to what extent will the department be impacted and at whose will are these management employees in the department serving. Not to mention whether the city manager's office is influencing promotions in the department as has been claimed.
Hopefully, there will be an honest and transparent process for concerned community members, city employees and the city government to examine this issue and its impact on the police department.
So far, the city council appears disinterested in addressing these concerns and questions, except for Councilman Art Gage who has said that he will foster discussion himself on the situation. Hopefully, other city officials will join him and create a venue where these issues can be discussed, because a lot of people have voiced their concerns and it's up to the leadership to do its part to address them.
Part of the $22 million, five year process of the stipulated judgement was to teach the city how to communicate more effectively and be more responsive to the community and the police department. Now, it's time for the city council to show how much it's learned to show as evidence that it can hold itself apart from its predecessors.
It's an anniversary of sorts in terms of providing an opportunity to reflect on what has come to pass, what has been done and just as importantly, what hasn't been done in the past 12 months.
The city officials and their direct employees sat on the dais that afternoon. The police department's command staff and community members sat in the audience, while representatives of two of the department's labor unions stood in the back. Everyone who attended came to listen to what would be said by the city government. Each one in attendance with a stake in its future.
These individuals represented the three partners of the police department's reform process, those being the city, the police department and the community. Former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer addressed them in an op-ed piece he wrote that was published in the Press Enterprise at the time his office formally requested that the stipulated judgement be dissolved in Riverside County Superior Court.
Riverside Police Department stipulated judgement information
Lockyer spoke about the problems in the police department that led his office to investigate its patterns and practices at an event in San Diego in 2003.
(excerpt)
"I decided there were systemic problems with the Riverside Police Department", Lockyer said.
"There were a lot of instances in which African-Americans were beaten, Hispanics beaten and tossed in the lake, and Gays and Lesbians harassed and beaten. I spent a year and a half negotiating with the Riverside Police Department for such basic demands as psychological evaluations for officers before they are hired, up-to-date training, community relations boards, availability and training in use of non-lethal weapons, TV cameras in the chief's office and the squad room and video and audio recording in police cars."
The intent of these reforms, Lockyer said, was to break the macho culture of the police department and the racism and sexism that went along with it. Lockyer found that the Riverside City Council balked at signing on to the deal.
"They did some things of their own which they'd done three times before, and each time there had been slight improvements and then things had got worse again," he recalled. "Finally I went to one of the Council meetings and said, 'The choice is, you adopt the reforms or I will sue you and we'll see what the federal courts have to say.'
They said, 'Our constituents don't like outsiders coming in,' and I said, 'I've got news for you. All your constituents are my constituents as well.'
They voted 7-2 for the reforms, and two years later the Riverside police chief, a new one they'd brought in from outside, said, 'Had it not been for Lockyer's intervention, nothing would have changed.'"
Chief Russ Leach was right in his assertion. The city council had fought the consent decree that it was facing for months and even when it was dragged kicking and screaming into a settlement, it never admitted to any of the allegations made by Lockyer's office nor did it take any responsibility for the problems in the department which had led to both federal and state intervention. By the time the final vote was cast in February 2001 to accept the decree, Lockyer had journeyed on down from Sacramento to Riverside to tell them to sign on or face a law suit from the state, a law suit he felt fairly confident about winning. That became clear in both his speech before the city council and in a meeting I had with him that same day.
And sure enough, soon after the city council voted 6-1 to accept the consent decree, only it couldn't be called that because apparently Mayor Ron Loveridge implored Lockyer in his office up in Sacramento to give it another name, because the term "consent decree" just sounded so bad for Riverside. Even back then, image not reality seemed most paramount from those on the dais.
The only person who cast a dissenting vote was Councilman Ed Adkison years before becoming the lame duck he is now. However, it didn't take him long to realize that his decision to vote against it was the wrong one as he pointed out during the workshop last March.
But for the most part, the government in power back then didn't want to step up to the plate in terms of saying that they played a role in what had gone wrong with the police department.
That was interesting, if unfortunate on their part because the state's own investigation had found that the city government was at least 50% responsible for the problems in the police department with special notice being given to former city manager John Holmes and former City Attorney Stan Yamamoto. Incidentally, these two employees left the city soon after the city entered into its stipulated judgement. They would be followed by more than a few city council members. In fact, six years later, only Loveridge remains from that era in the city's history.
The Urban Institute provided an interesting analysis of what happened to the police department during the 1990s when many of its problems had reached the crisis point long before the shots fired on a cold December morning in 1998 at Tyisha Miller were heard around the world.
The Riverside Police Department in the 1990s
Chief Ken Fortier was interviewed by researcher David Thatcher, now a professor at a mid-western university, about what he felt was the community's role in the police department and the city and he said something that is as relevant today as it was 10 years ago.
(excerpt)
"My feeling is there’s some values that have to underlie a good police department, and one of them is really meaningful community involvement.
People have really got to feel—and that’s regardless of whomever in the community, whatever status they come from—they have got to feel that they have an equal footing with those business people at the Chamber of Commerce. [And they’ve got to feel that we will] be responsive and willing to listen to criticism, and willing to react to it positively, in a constructive manner. And that was not part of the culture of Riverside."
That's a sentiment that's been expressed by city residents in Riverside over 10 years later, especially those who have been to city council meetings in recent weeks and have encountered a city council that is less receptive and in fact, more hostile to public input than even its ancestor, the PALM quartet. It's unfortunate that this is so, when Lockyer in his own words had written that he had hoped to see more communication between the community members and the city council regarding concerns about the police department. He had hoped for that to define the new reality that he had set in motion for the city of Riverside and its police department. Unfortunately, the stakeholders in the process haven't come close.
Still, the city officials did not take responsibility for their role in the situation back then at that critical juncture and the decision not to and the denial of that role are explicitly stated in the stipulated judgement. Today, the city council seems to be following the same pattern by saying that well, none of these problems happened when we were on the dais so we don't bear that responsibility. Several council members have told me that, with one of them adding that the glass should be seen as half-full in that there aren't any problems with the city. Let's move on to talking about development.
Perhaps that's true, but what's past is prologue in situations like this one and what happens now on their watch is their collective responsibility. And those words sound so similar to those of the past, the past that existed before Dec. 28, 1998.
So what is the role of the city government today? How about the opposite of what it is instead currently doing which is nothing, out of either benign neglect or the sense that the police department is no longer the shiny toy of choice to play with, so it's time to put it back on the shelf to gather dust. But that change in attitude wasn't to come until after the city council made promises to their constituents that this time things would be different, because they were different.
So last March 28, discussions were held, concerns were raised and promises were made. The promises were as follows, that the city would retain the services of consultant Joe Brann to assist the department in its implementation of the Strategic Plan and that he and the department would report quarterly on the process and its progress. What came out of that workshop was positive energy from the involved parties to keep the process moving foreword in the right direction. What soon followed around July last year, was that the process to implement those promises regarding the Strategic Plan stalled after the city manager's office failed to deliver and didn't seem that interested to even try to do so, at the same time the city council as a collective body appeared unmotivated to keep his feet to the fire. Leach was entering into his quiet period and disappearing from public view, and the city's employees were experiencing their most contentious contract negotiations in years.
In fact, two labor unions, the Riverside Police Officers' Association and the Riverside Police Administrators' Association filed law suits in Riverside County Superior Court and those two unions plus the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the SEIU's general unit appeared en mass at several city council meetings last summer and autumn.
Although contracts were signed with all six of the city's unions by autumn, it soon emerged that the friction between the city's workforce and the city manager's office had only increased. That also mirrors the history of the city and the police department including its labor unions in the 1990s, if you read Thatcher's study.
What happened last summer is detailed in the following column posted last October.
What would Lockyer think?
As the summer became autumn, things didn't get any better.
Soon after, allegations were raised that the city wasn't spending money on the police department as it had while under the stipulated judgement. When the mid-year budget adjustment report came out in January, there were no personnel positions or major equipment allocations included in that budget sheet. In addition, to 25 police officer positions being taken off the table(although five were restored), there had been no allocations for new training for officers in the department. Community leaders at a public meeting had said that they would hold the city council's feet to the fire on this issue, but have they?
Inadequate number of personnel and staffing.
Inadequate and outdated training.
These were statements which are accentuated in the text of the writ of mandamus filed by Lockyer's office against the city of Riverside.
So if the city council has taken to heart the hard-won lessons of the past, why then is it repeating that behavior? Why is it important not to do this and is this a question any of them can even answer?
Here's one answer they can chew on.
Because in the 1990s, the city council neglected to allocate monies for increasing the number of positions in the police department, for updating equipment needs to fit technological development and for creating and updating training programs particularly those that involve the use of force. It was in large part because of this inaction by the city government, that the police department attracted the attention of the federal and state governmental agencies that led to two separate pattern and practice investigations.
In fact, in Thatcher's report, there's an entire section set aside for the budget cuts made concerning the police department by Holmes and the past city council that employed him. That was the beginning of the end for the "old" police department after years of start-and-stall reforms.
Which is why Lockyer said many times that he had to take the city to court to reform its police department in a way that would stick. No more back sliding into the old ways, but instead, foreword movement.
What has followed that is unfortunately more of the same. The latest controversy involving the conversion of several positions in the police department's upper management to being "at will" and with contracts signed through the city manager's office has elicited a lot of concern in both the community and the police department.
City Manager Brad Hudson said by email that this was a routine procedure that at least 100 other city employees have chosen and that they have embraced it including in the case of the police department. But if you talk to city employees, the two scariest words in their vocabulary are the words, "at will".
Just ask former city employees Art Alcaraz, Jim Smith, Tranda Drumwright and Pedro Payne.
Despite the reassurances from the city manager's office, concerns continue to be raised and questions continue to be asked as to why these decisions are being made now, to what extent will the department be impacted and at whose will are these management employees in the department serving. Not to mention whether the city manager's office is influencing promotions in the department as has been claimed.
Hopefully, there will be an honest and transparent process for concerned community members, city employees and the city government to examine this issue and its impact on the police department.
So far, the city council appears disinterested in addressing these concerns and questions, except for Councilman Art Gage who has said that he will foster discussion himself on the situation. Hopefully, other city officials will join him and create a venue where these issues can be discussed, because a lot of people have voiced their concerns and it's up to the leadership to do its part to address them.
Part of the $22 million, five year process of the stipulated judgement was to teach the city how to communicate more effectively and be more responsive to the community and the police department. Now, it's time for the city council to show how much it's learned to show as evidence that it can hold itself apart from its predecessors.
Labels: business as usual, consent decrees and other adventures
posted by Five Before Midnight | 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home