BRAS and other cute acronyms
Boom, boom, rattle, rattle as the space shuttle, Atlantis passed over the Inland Empire just before 1 p.m. today, landing at Edwards Air Force Base after being diverted away from Florida by bad weather. Thankfully, after a difficult mission, it has landed safely.
What's left of the city council in Riverside after several incumbents took off on summer vacations after Election 2007 completed its preliminary round met in closed session to discuss whether or not to take further action on the city's SLAPP suit against Ken Stansbury and the Riversiders for Propery Rights group that tried to put an initiative challenging the use of eminent domain on the ballot.
Stansbury told the city council at a recent meeting that it has lost the war but is fighting the battle. He told them that legal think tanks had called the city's litigation against him one of the most egregious examples of a SLAPP law suit in recent history.
The California Court of Appeals' tentative ruling was a setback but not one that flustered Stansbury or his attorney for long. The ruling which stated that eminent domain was a state issue not a local one seems illogical on its face given that it is city councils and county board of supervisors, which both represent local interests, which use eminent domain to sell properties to private developers. That clearly makes it a local issue.
But you know what? Ballot initiatives like this "illegal" one have been successful elsewhere and that's what the city doesn't like about it. Plus, it's never made sense to "assist" an individual or group like the city has claimed it is doing by trying to force them to pay the city's own legal fees which are currently in the six-figure range.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
The tentative ruling will become final if neither party requests oral arguments -- the chance to argue their case in front of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 2, in Riverside. The hearing would likely take place within 90 days of any request, and the final ruling would come after that.
Reed said he will request oral arguments.
Stansbury and Reed vowed to take the issue to the state Supreme Court, if necessary, because they see it as a battle for constitutional rights.
"I'm in it for the long haul," Stansbury said.
And here's a shout out for local heroine, Marjorie Von Poule who has remained determined in her efforts to hold the city council accountable for its decision to restrict public participation at its weekly meetings.
In July 2005, Councilman Dom Betro raised the motion to create further restrictions including barring the city's residents from pulling items from the consent calendar. His motion was backed by Councilman Steve Adams and passed 6-1 with Art Gage casting the sole dissenting vote.
Most of the public who spoke at the city council meeting that evening opposed these restrictions. A couple members of the Downtown Area Neighborhood Alliance supported Betro's motion adding that they were tired of the ranting and raving done by the city's residents and that they should meet with their council members on issues they were concerned about. A councilman's office is one venue for these discussions but for the majority of city's residents, the city council meetings may be a more accessible means to address their elected leaders on civic issues which impact their lives.
Since that date, Marjorie has been up before the city council asking for that decision to be reversed and this right to be given back to the city's residents. The city council led by the newly created BASS quartet has held firm and 100% of the actions taken against city residents by city council members whether it's instructing the city attorney's office to mail out "warning" letters or to expel city residents from the chambers for speaking too loud or addressing individual city council members by name comes from this quartet.
Even Marjorie at the age of 89 was nearly escorted out by several very embarrassed police officers who were told by her that they would have to carry her out. Fortunately, due in large part to Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez, this didn't happen. Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished and a city employee who didn't deserve it was as some have said, treated very unfairly.
Marjorie missed the last meeting and that didn't go unnoticed. She feels discouraged some times like all of us do. But she's very determined to bring the consent calendar back to the people. For her determination, sense of humor at the dais and for being a fearless leader of the Friday Morning Group, Marjorie should be lauded and she's my nominee for the city's spirit award. Unfortunately, she treads on some toes to do what she feels is right so she might just have to settle for the alternate, independent city spirit award. So if you run into Marjorie around town, give her a hand and a few words of moral support. She deserves them.
Go Marjorie!
Some elected officials including those who read here have bristled at the whole acronym thing. Actually, some of them have been clever while others are more sedate. That could change in the upcoming months.
If by chance, Adams gets reelected and William "Rusty" Bailey wins the third ward seat, the new moniker might wind up being BRAS so things could really be a lot worse in the acronym category. Still, imagine all the ways that this new quartet could be protested.
Still, Adams still has to win more voters and Bailey has to win the next round before that potential crisis of a quartet of men being named after a female undergarment may emerge. On the bright side, BABS was submitted as another possible nickname and if you include Mayor Ron Loveridge in this party, there's always BLABS.
Oh dear, that doesn't sound too nice either.
But word is, that BASS believes that Loveridge is too soft on the gavel with the public to be supported the next time around. The problem is, that those who were potentially planning to use this year's elections as springboards to run for the mayoral seat next year have not only failed to win their seats so far but they're broke too. A lot of political ambitions are being postponed or shuffled around into other venues as a response to both the disappointing results of this election cycle. How this shapes the scene in Riverside including at City Hall remains to be seen in the weeks and months ahead.
The ACLU chapter in St. Louis, Missouri has an innovative program to address police conduct inside its city's limits, according to semissourian.com.
(excerpt)
The ACLU scheduled a news conference Wednesday to outline details of the new program, dubbed Project Vigilance.
"Project Vigilant levels the playing field," ACLU spokeswoman Brenda Jones said in a statement. "Police officers who know their misconduct will be reported and probably filmed might be less likely to abuse their authority."
ACLU spokesman Redditt Hudson said last year the program would train residents to videotape police activity while providing them with free cameras to do so. He said the program would also included classes to teach residents of their rights when approached by police.
St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes declined to comment in detail on the ACLU program when asked how it might affect police relations with the community.
"We don't have any opinions or feelings about it one way or another," Wilkes said. "Hopefully it records positive interactions between the police and the community."
I wonder if they would launch a program like that in other places like Los Angeles. No wait, I think in a sense, they already have.
San Jose's city council has agreed that the Independent Police Auditor's office needs to be improved, according to the latest edition of the San Jose Mercury News.
In a room crowded by protesters and police officers, the city council voted against giving Auditor Barbara Attard more power, but called the current system problematic.
Both Attard and the police department chief, Rob Davis brought their stances to the body.
(excerpt)
One issue that remains pending is whether the IPA will get the
authority to review police investigations when people die or get
seriously injured when officers use batons or Tasers. The council
told the city attorney's office to look into any liability issues.
The IPA already can review police shootings when the suspect dies.
Before voting, some councilmembers scolded the police brass and the
IPA for making the conflict about police oversight so bitter.
Councilwoman Nancy Pyle called it "a shootout at the O.K. Corral."
Attard held her ground. She wanted to see more oversight over what she called problems in the department's investigations including the filing of too many of them as inquiries.
(excerpt)
"The issue is not one of bad policing," Attard told the council. "It
is about good government and good oversight."
But police and the City Manager's office told the council that
Attard was basing her case for change on flawed, misinterpreted and
slanted data.
"We do not sweep cases under the carpet that need to be
investigated, " Davis said.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had an update on the situation there involving allegations that the police chief had intervened in the investigation in an inappropriate manner.
Now, apparently the police guild has jumped into the fray involving the police chief and the Office of Professional Accountability Review and has accused that office of overstepping its bounds when it reviewed that case.
(excerpt)
"To me, this is all about good government. Gil (Kerlikowske) assumes
everything we do is politically motivated. ... I wanted it to be
about process. Long after Gil's gone, long after Mayor (Greg)
Nickels is gone and long after I'm gone, I hope there's a process in
place that will help us get some results." -- Peter Holmes, chairman
of the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board, shown
above at his home on Thursday.
"They're supposed to be doing random reviews of investigations, "
said Sgt. Rich O'Neill, guild president. "This report was clearly an
investigation and wasn't just a random sampling of cases as the
ordinance says."
The review board chairman, Peter Holmes, said his goal was not to
antagonize the Police Department. "To me this is all about good
government and about transparency, " he said.
Holmes regrets the controversy that he caused by what is otherwise known as performing his job duties and said that the situation has been hell for him.
Welcome to the world of civilian review, Holmes. Maybe you should drop by River City sometime during a slow period if you want to find out how a city can barely break a sweat on "managing" civilian oversight and still have enough energy left over to some say, "manage" a police department as well.
What's left of the city council in Riverside after several incumbents took off on summer vacations after Election 2007 completed its preliminary round met in closed session to discuss whether or not to take further action on the city's SLAPP suit against Ken Stansbury and the Riversiders for Propery Rights group that tried to put an initiative challenging the use of eminent domain on the ballot.
Stansbury told the city council at a recent meeting that it has lost the war but is fighting the battle. He told them that legal think tanks had called the city's litigation against him one of the most egregious examples of a SLAPP law suit in recent history.
The California Court of Appeals' tentative ruling was a setback but not one that flustered Stansbury or his attorney for long. The ruling which stated that eminent domain was a state issue not a local one seems illogical on its face given that it is city councils and county board of supervisors, which both represent local interests, which use eminent domain to sell properties to private developers. That clearly makes it a local issue.
But you know what? Ballot initiatives like this "illegal" one have been successful elsewhere and that's what the city doesn't like about it. Plus, it's never made sense to "assist" an individual or group like the city has claimed it is doing by trying to force them to pay the city's own legal fees which are currently in the six-figure range.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
The tentative ruling will become final if neither party requests oral arguments -- the chance to argue their case in front of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 2, in Riverside. The hearing would likely take place within 90 days of any request, and the final ruling would come after that.
Reed said he will request oral arguments.
Stansbury and Reed vowed to take the issue to the state Supreme Court, if necessary, because they see it as a battle for constitutional rights.
"I'm in it for the long haul," Stansbury said.
And here's a shout out for local heroine, Marjorie Von Poule who has remained determined in her efforts to hold the city council accountable for its decision to restrict public participation at its weekly meetings.
In July 2005, Councilman Dom Betro raised the motion to create further restrictions including barring the city's residents from pulling items from the consent calendar. His motion was backed by Councilman Steve Adams and passed 6-1 with Art Gage casting the sole dissenting vote.
Most of the public who spoke at the city council meeting that evening opposed these restrictions. A couple members of the Downtown Area Neighborhood Alliance supported Betro's motion adding that they were tired of the ranting and raving done by the city's residents and that they should meet with their council members on issues they were concerned about. A councilman's office is one venue for these discussions but for the majority of city's residents, the city council meetings may be a more accessible means to address their elected leaders on civic issues which impact their lives.
Since that date, Marjorie has been up before the city council asking for that decision to be reversed and this right to be given back to the city's residents. The city council led by the newly created BASS quartet has held firm and 100% of the actions taken against city residents by city council members whether it's instructing the city attorney's office to mail out "warning" letters or to expel city residents from the chambers for speaking too loud or addressing individual city council members by name comes from this quartet.
Even Marjorie at the age of 89 was nearly escorted out by several very embarrassed police officers who were told by her that they would have to carry her out. Fortunately, due in large part to Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez, this didn't happen. Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished and a city employee who didn't deserve it was as some have said, treated very unfairly.
Marjorie missed the last meeting and that didn't go unnoticed. She feels discouraged some times like all of us do. But she's very determined to bring the consent calendar back to the people. For her determination, sense of humor at the dais and for being a fearless leader of the Friday Morning Group, Marjorie should be lauded and she's my nominee for the city's spirit award. Unfortunately, she treads on some toes to do what she feels is right so she might just have to settle for the alternate, independent city spirit award. So if you run into Marjorie around town, give her a hand and a few words of moral support. She deserves them.
Go Marjorie!
Some elected officials including those who read here have bristled at the whole acronym thing. Actually, some of them have been clever while others are more sedate. That could change in the upcoming months.
If by chance, Adams gets reelected and William "Rusty" Bailey wins the third ward seat, the new moniker might wind up being BRAS so things could really be a lot worse in the acronym category. Still, imagine all the ways that this new quartet could be protested.
Still, Adams still has to win more voters and Bailey has to win the next round before that potential crisis of a quartet of men being named after a female undergarment may emerge. On the bright side, BABS was submitted as another possible nickname and if you include Mayor Ron Loveridge in this party, there's always BLABS.
Oh dear, that doesn't sound too nice either.
But word is, that BASS believes that Loveridge is too soft on the gavel with the public to be supported the next time around. The problem is, that those who were potentially planning to use this year's elections as springboards to run for the mayoral seat next year have not only failed to win their seats so far but they're broke too. A lot of political ambitions are being postponed or shuffled around into other venues as a response to both the disappointing results of this election cycle. How this shapes the scene in Riverside including at City Hall remains to be seen in the weeks and months ahead.
The ACLU chapter in St. Louis, Missouri has an innovative program to address police conduct inside its city's limits, according to semissourian.com.
(excerpt)
The ACLU scheduled a news conference Wednesday to outline details of the new program, dubbed Project Vigilance.
"Project Vigilant levels the playing field," ACLU spokeswoman Brenda Jones said in a statement. "Police officers who know their misconduct will be reported and probably filmed might be less likely to abuse their authority."
ACLU spokesman Redditt Hudson said last year the program would train residents to videotape police activity while providing them with free cameras to do so. He said the program would also included classes to teach residents of their rights when approached by police.
St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes declined to comment in detail on the ACLU program when asked how it might affect police relations with the community.
"We don't have any opinions or feelings about it one way or another," Wilkes said. "Hopefully it records positive interactions between the police and the community."
I wonder if they would launch a program like that in other places like Los Angeles. No wait, I think in a sense, they already have.
San Jose's city council has agreed that the Independent Police Auditor's office needs to be improved, according to the latest edition of the San Jose Mercury News.
In a room crowded by protesters and police officers, the city council voted against giving Auditor Barbara Attard more power, but called the current system problematic.
Both Attard and the police department chief, Rob Davis brought their stances to the body.
(excerpt)
One issue that remains pending is whether the IPA will get the
authority to review police investigations when people die or get
seriously injured when officers use batons or Tasers. The council
told the city attorney's office to look into any liability issues.
The IPA already can review police shootings when the suspect dies.
Before voting, some councilmembers scolded the police brass and the
IPA for making the conflict about police oversight so bitter.
Councilwoman Nancy Pyle called it "a shootout at the O.K. Corral."
Attard held her ground. She wanted to see more oversight over what she called problems in the department's investigations including the filing of too many of them as inquiries.
(excerpt)
"The issue is not one of bad policing," Attard told the council. "It
is about good government and good oversight."
But police and the City Manager's office told the council that
Attard was basing her case for change on flawed, misinterpreted and
slanted data.
"We do not sweep cases under the carpet that need to be
investigated, " Davis said.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had an update on the situation there involving allegations that the police chief had intervened in the investigation in an inappropriate manner.
Now, apparently the police guild has jumped into the fray involving the police chief and the Office of Professional Accountability Review and has accused that office of overstepping its bounds when it reviewed that case.
(excerpt)
"To me, this is all about good government. Gil (Kerlikowske) assumes
everything we do is politically motivated. ... I wanted it to be
about process. Long after Gil's gone, long after Mayor (Greg)
Nickels is gone and long after I'm gone, I hope there's a process in
place that will help us get some results." -- Peter Holmes, chairman
of the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board, shown
above at his home on Thursday.
"They're supposed to be doing random reviews of investigations, "
said Sgt. Rich O'Neill, guild president. "This report was clearly an
investigation and wasn't just a random sampling of cases as the
ordinance says."
The review board chairman, Peter Holmes, said his goal was not to
antagonize the Police Department. "To me this is all about good
government and about transparency, " he said.
Holmes regrets the controversy that he caused by what is otherwise known as performing his job duties and said that the situation has been hell for him.
Welcome to the world of civilian review, Holmes. Maybe you should drop by River City sometime during a slow period if you want to find out how a city can barely break a sweat on "managing" civilian oversight and still have enough energy left over to some say, "manage" a police department as well.
Labels: City elections, Making the grade, public forums in all places
posted by Five Before Midnight | 1:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home