Election 2007: I (heart) the CPRC and other lines.

Yesterday, at the corner of 14th and Market, about 10 members of Save-Riverside and a certain simian gathered to demonstrate by holding signs, stating that they were against eminent domain abuse and to vote for anyone but Councilman Dom Betro.

What they received in response were numerous cars honking their horns in support, people giving their thumbs up and individuals stopping their vehicles asking them for more information and Web sites that they could read. Then there was also the story or two about Betro's infamous temper and what it's like to be on the receiving end of it.

The members said they were surprised at the enormous response they received. But it might be a sign that it's time for change in Riverside. And with at least one current city council member or two facing great difficulty on the campaign trail, perhaps that is what will happen when the votes are counted in June.



The Community Police Review Commission was the subject of a campaign brochure circulated by the campaign of William "Rusty" Bailey campaign, which decried the fact that in two elections, the Ward Three incumbent, Art Gage, has accepted huge sums of money from the Riverside Police Officers' Association.

At least $15,000 according to the campaign brochure.

I received several copies of this latest campaign advertisement, the first I've actually seen from the Bailey campaign. It begins with this statement.


(excerpt)


Since 2000, the Civilian Community Police Review Commission has protected Riverside citizens, their tax dollars and the Police Department from law suits.


So why does Art Gage want to get rid of it?




Actually, this is a commonly used argument, that the CPRC has prevented law suits. And that was what the statistics showed until last year when at least five law suits were filed in relation to four officer-involved deaths. And in addition to those law suits, other law suits were filed against the police department in federal and state court particularly during the last six months of 2006. These law suits were filed during time periods when both the police department and the CPRC were experiencing serious problems with their operations.

The CPRC probably doesn't prevent law suits directly to a great degree although it may reduce their numbers. Its greater role that it plays is through trying to implement changes in the police department largely through policy recommendations. Only the city and the police department can ultimately prevent or reduce the number of law suits that are filed against it. What the CPRC reflects is the health of both of these entities. The canary in the mine, not the mine itself.

The city including its risk management division has chosen to blame the CPRC, the canary in the mine, for these law suits and has acted accordingly against it during the past six months. This has led to the loss of its executive director and the resignations of at least four commissioners in six months. It has slowed the review of citizen complaints and pretty much stalled the investigation of officer-involved deaths that occurred last year.



Lee Deante Brown: The CPRC is currently drafting a public report on this shooting, 13 months and much in the way of theatrics by the city, after it happened.


Douglas Steven Cloud: The CPRC and police department have been investigating this shooting for the last seven months. Expect to see a long delay before the CPRC is able to construct its public report on this shooting as this shooting is expected to be even more contentious than the Brown case.


Joseph Darnell Hill: The CPRC and department have been investigating this shooting for seven months. It trails the Cloud shooting.




Bailey answers the above question that he raised by stating that it's because Gage is looking out for "special interests" groups, not the city's residents. This is illustrated by a hand clutching many dollar bills of undetermined denominations. But the message is that Gage caters to special interests rather than responds to what his constituents want.

Meaning that apparently he is stating that he's carrying out the wishes of the RPOA and not the voters, who just as they did in every ward in the city, voted overwhelmingly to put the CPRC in the city's charter. In large part because of actions that Gage took against the CPRC during the budget reconciliation hearings in 2004.

Most of the information provided by Bailey on this issue in his brochure is correct. Gage twice tried to cut the CPRC's operational budget from just over $300,000 to about $5,ooo. But on one of those two occasions, he did receive a second on his motion, albeit a weak one, from Councilman Steve Adams, who back then had received over $15,000 from the RPOA.

Two council members, Frank Schiavone and Ed Adkison both refused to support Gage's motion even though they too were heavily backed by the RPOA. Both said after the first session that although they didn't support the CPRC, they believed that if it was in place, it needed the money to operate properly. When they said that, they were almost believable. Except for the fact that it was probably Mayor Ron Loveridge who brought Gage's scheme to a halt by threatening to do what he had never done in 11 years as mayor and that was to veto the vote of the city council if enough of it backed Gage.

The GASS quartet could only count to four, not five in this case.


So their insistence later on that the reason the GASS quartet ejected Gage from its membership was because of actions he took against the CPRC is a joke and why it's a joke is explained in part by Press Enterprise columnist Dan Bernstein in a recent article.


(excerpt)



The critique that smacks of the aforementioned chutzpahcrisy is Gage's attempted strangulation-by-purse-strings of the Community Police Review Commission.

Back in '04, Gage's knuckleheaded move to choke-off commission funding didn't get (or rate) a second. But the surviving commission, never all that vibrant to begin with, has been hollowed out by the city manager's office. On New Year's Eve, the commission's director finally quit -- this after the CM's office had ordered him to stay away from community meetings on the ludicrous grounds that his mere presence betrayed a bias against police. Did the council -- including those still fuming over Gage's 2004 stunt -- whack the city manager for this? Nope. They're fixing to enlarge his already well-endowed paycheck with the aid of that bottomless treasury.




At the time that Gage had tried to cut the CPRC's budget, the Charter Review Committee including several members like Art Garcia and Rose Mayes were paying very close attention to these and other maneuvers made against the CPRC and the fact that the majority of the city council at that time, was backed by the RPOA which had shopped around for candidates to run who hated the CPRC and then dropped enormous checks into their political campaigns. The RPOA also walked precincts for both candidates as well as for Paul Fick in Ward One.

So Garcia and Mayes came up with the idea to include a ballot initiative for the CPRC in the list of proposed initiatives to bring to the city council in July 2004. And that's what they did, and Bailey who was also on the committee then voiced his support of that proposed initiative.

Later on, the city council did as well when it voted to trust the wisdom of the voters and placed all of the proposed charter initiatives on the autumn ballot. In fact, that charge was led by Adkison and Schiavone, who ironically played a pivotal role in providing security for the CPRC. The voters in Riverside did the rest or so they thought seriously underestimating the ability of their city government to undermine their will.

Gage cast a vote against that motion, telling the city council he wanted to go through each one individually and it's probably true that he would have raised an objection to the inclusion of the CPRC initiative. But the push by "Fred" made that point a moot one.

Bailey's brochure then goes on to state that the CPRC exonerates the officers 94% of the time. Actually, the figure is closer to 88% but as long as it's Asst. City Manager Tom De Santis who makes the final disposition, this figure and any other is meaningless. After all, the CPRC only has power and independence if its differential findings from those of the police department are included and given serious consideration in the final disposition. And it's probably a given, that De Santis with his Crown car and his concealed weapons permit and some say a fantasy about being in law enforcement not to mention a responsibility for protecting the city from civil litigation, will pick the police department over the CPRC every single time. After all, some say another goal of his is in a sense, to run the department.

The only reason that we don't know for sure, is because De Santis and his boss, Brad Hudson refuse to release statistical information on how cases with differential findings are ultimately disposed like their predecessors did. In fact, they insist that no such written records are kept.

This differs markedly from records that were kept by Hudson, De Santis and their predecessors. In fact, the CPRC included some of these statistics in one of its earlier annual reports. The statistics were that during a three year period, the findings of the CPRC and the police department differed about 20 times. Of those 20 times, the city manager's office sided with the CPRC four times. The other 16 times, the city manager's office either sided with the police department or reached a compromise between the two conflicting findings.

Is it true that Hudson and De Santis really don't keep similar statistical information in writing? And if so, why?


Bailey's brochure is surprising in that so far the CPRC has not become the issue introduced by the candidates that it should have been for this election, though it's become an issue in the communities and the topic of much concern and discussion. But what this election cycle is showing is how much distance has developed between those who sit on the dais and those who they purportedly represent. And the incumbent who one would think would raise the issue would have been one who ran on his support of the issue last time and that was Dom Betro.

But Betro and his backers including those who include their roles as creators of civilian review in their resumes have been silent this time around, almost as if they are hoping that no one will bring it up. But Betro has also been endorsed this time around by the RPOA which still opposes the CPRC as much now as it did in 2000.

And that's the flaw in Bailey's brochure and the reason why is because he's condemning Gage for taking money from the RPOA now and four years ago and then trying to undermine the CPRC when the fact is that most of the council members who have endorsed Bailey also accepted endorsements and money from the RPOA and have done little to stem the actions by the city manager's office and the city attorney's office against it in recent months.

One could argue that the city government was only warming up during the previous six years that it challenged the right of the CPRC to exist and that the action really started after the city's residents told it not to do so in the only way it could collectively. One could argue that an endorsement from the RPOA doesn't necessarily mean the same thing that it did four years ago, given that the Copley Press decision has caused many of the law enforcement associations in California to shift their focus back to the judicial system. If the RPOA acts against the CPRC again, it most likely would be through litigation filed against it or a temporary restraining order filed against the police department in connection with officer-involved death cases rather than trying to shift the political balance of the city council.

Last week, the city council voted to place two new commissioners on the CPRC. One of them smacked of a political appointment given that this individual had accepted some say, over $100,ooo in political endorsement money from the Riverside Sheriffs' Association and thousands more from the RPOA when she ran against Bob Buster for the County Board of Supervisors seat. Gage was one of three city council members who did not cast a vote in support of Linda Soubirous. In fact, Gage didn't cast a vote at all.

He said his reason was that he didn't want to vote for Soubirous because of the money that she had received from several law enforcement unions and the message that voting for her would send to the communities. In fact, Gage said he didn't support the inclusion of anyone on the commission coming from a law enforcement background. The fact that the vote was cast through secret ballots and that he apparently already knew what the outcome would be just goes to show that the decisions are made by the council before the official votes are taken in a public or even a private arena.

So ironically, the CPRC's biggest opponant on the dais essentially cast the most principled vote. And who said election years are boring and not filled with surprises?






Things are heating up in Berkeley after the city council voted 7-0 with two abstentions to appeal a decision on a case filed against the city by the Berkeley Police Officers' Association, according to this article in the Daily Planet.

With over 60 citizen complaints currently on the back burner, this city government felt it had to take action and it's refreshing to read an account of a city government who remembers who it represents.


(excerpt)



In Berkeley, however, “the Association has not weighed in on the [proposed] regulations,” City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque told the Daily Planet, saying that the BPA attorneys said they were going to put a proposal in writing, but never did.

“They never sent us anything,” Albuquerque said. “I consider them to be obstructionist.”

“They’ve been using stalling tactics to hold off our hearings,” Urbi said.

Attorney Jim Chanin, a former PRC commissioner who helped found the commission 30 years ago, agreed: “They don’t want closed hearings,” he said. “They don’t want civilian review.”



Of course they don't. What police labor union in this country has embraced civilian review with open arms? First they litigated against it, then they politicized it. Then after the Copley Press decision, they came full circle and are back filing law suits in the courts against it.

But by doing this, what they are essentially doing is providing free advertising for the public as to why civilian oversight is so necessary. That's when the police departments that they work for aren't doing it for them including but not limited to the Los Angeles Police Department, the New Orleans Police Department, the Cincinnati Police Department, the Maywood Police Department, the Oakland Police Department, the Port of Seattle Police Department, the Atlanta Police Department and the Austin Police Department.


It's also interesting to know that there are city attorneys in other California cities who actually use the word, "obstructionist" rather than through their own actions, epitomize its meaning.

The Berkeley Police Officers' Association wants to "meet and confer" on the changes, but members of Berkley's civilian review board figure that if they hold any hearings, open or closed, at all, they'll all be heading back to court.

Berkeley's neighbor, Oakland faced a similar situation but the government there voted to hold closed hearings to address its citizens' complaints.



But it's nice to read about cities where the local government's actually fight for civilian review not try to undermine it.




Atlanta's civilian review board is supposed to be up and running but the selection process of those who were to have served on it has stalled according to an article posted at Creative Loafing.

In addition, there has been no money allocated for the independent board which will have subpoena powers by Mayor Shirley Franklin during the upcoming fiscal year.


Oops, was that deliberate or an accident?


(excerpt)



Councilman H. Lamar Willis, the lead sponsor of the ordinance to assemble the Citizen Review Board, says it's up to Franklin's administration to push the ordinance forward, and he's frustrated by the lack of progress. "We can essentially pass all the legislation we want, but if they don't choose to implement it, you still have a problem," Willis says.

According to the ordinance, the 11-member board – which will be appointed by city officials, neighborhood planning units, and business and legal groups – is supposed to be confirmed within 90 days after the law was passed.

More than 60 days have passed since Franklin signed the legislation and no appointments have been made. "I thought it would take 30 or 45 days to appoint members," Willis says. "I put 90 in there just to be safe."

However, Joe Morris – the city's deputy chief of staff – says progress has been made. He says the mayor's office is working to identify funds for the board, and that they have narrowed down their nomination to sit on it. "Here's the problem," Morris says. "The council formed the board, the mayor signed the legislation, but there has been some back and forth about who actually has ownership."





Who has ownership of it should be the community, not governmental leaders who appear to be caught up in their own collective egos. What makes this situation all the more appalling was the searing indictment that the city's police department received from among others, the U.S. Justice Department in the wake of the horrific shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.



Every time a city official decides to aid and abet in tactics to stall the creation and implementation of this vital body, they should hold a picture inside their minds of the last few moments of Johnston's life slipping away from her as she lay handcuffed and bleeding from six bullet wounds on the floor of her own house. They should see three of the city's police officers scurrying around her violated household trying to find anything that would cover their butts and when that failed, planting drugs in her basement. After all, they had broken the law just to get into her house.



They should see the face of Frances Thomas, 80, who faced off against three armed men who could just as easily been burglars as they were narcotics officers. Perhaps, it wasn't until Thompson saw what happened two months later to Johnston that she realized she had been but a hair-length away from death herself.



What does the need for civilian review have to do with all this?

Well, according to records that were just released, Atlanta's Office of Professional Standards had only sustained about 3% of the complaints that it received. Last year, that number dropped to only 2.5%, paltry compared to the national average of about 15%. Awfully low figures for a department that federal agencies believe is "rife with corruption", but those numbers should not be surprising given what is coming out about how the Atlanta Police Department was conducting its business and protecting its own.

No betting person would take odds against the fact that after the U.S. Justice Department has completed its investigation, it most likely would have found out that among other things, the department's complaint investigation system was complicit in the corrupt behavior coming from inside that department.



Jury selection continues for the trial of a former San Bernardino County Sheriff Deputy who shot a U.S. airman last year. The prospective jurors filled out questionnaires asking them their views on different issues including law enforcement and 12 were finally selected. Ivory J. Webb is expected to start his trial Monday related to charges he faces in the shooting of Elio Carrion.


(excerpt)



Keene said jurors with a strong faith in public institutions can turn on defendants if their confidence is shattered during a trial.

"They feel betrayed," Keene said. "They can turn more aggressively than people with less idealized expectations."

Keene said jurors are more open about their values in questionnaires than during courtroom questioning.

All 12 jurors said Webb's status as a deputy during the shooting will not affect their impartiality.

Only one, a 39-year-old black man from Fontana, said his opinion would be influenced if Webb does not testify.

Jurors appeared to be indifferent or had positive feelings about serving on a jury that could hear testimony through June.

"I feel that it's a pleasure that I am called to help bring justice to my hometown," wrote a 27-year-old black man and phone-line technician from San Bernardino.