Do commissioners serve at the will of City Hall?

"The horror of that moment," the King went on, "I shall never, never forget." "You will though," the Queen said, "if you don't make a memorandum of it."


--Lewis Carroll who was passing through River City last night



Last night, the Community Police Review Commission conducted a meeting which will probably live in infamy at least for a while. It's not in the Press Enterprise as of yet but you can read about it here.

Warning, for those who look at city politics through rose-colored glasses and believe everything outside of that vision is not true, you should probably stop reading at this point.

Last week, Commissioner Steve Simpson had resigned from the panel he had served on for only four months. His resignation was the fifth among commissioners that took place in the last nine months. That's only counting commissioners, mind you, not executive directors.

However, Simpson became the first of that group to come to the meeting and explain exactly why he had resigned and the tale that unfolded put a harsh light on the relationship between the body and what Simpson called the seventh floor of City Hall.

While making his final comments, Simpson said that he had been contacted earlier this summer and had met with CPRC Chair Brian Pearcy who pretty much laid down the two choices that Simpson faced. Either play ball with the city and tone down his demeanor down or face expulsion from the commission. Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly who Pearcy represents at the monthly meetings. Is he speaking for the commission or the seventh floor?

It doesn't seem nearly as hard to figure out what role he played in meetings with Simpson if what Simpson said had happened is what took place. But did Pearcy support Simpson's position at all to be an independent thinker or just lay down the rules sent out by as Simpson said, the seventh floor?

These "counseling" sessions as Simpson called them, took place not long after Simpson clashed with City Attorney Gregory Priamos on Priamos' legal interpretation on several issues including the definition and procedure with issuing minority reports in relation to officer-involved deaths. At the time, Simpson alone was defending Commissioner Jim Ward's right to issue a minority report on the Lee Deante Brown shooting even though Simpson said he disagreed with Ward's view on the shooting.

Simpson told commissioners and audience members at last night's meeting that he had tried to get an item placed on a meeting agenda to discuss the hiring of an independent legal counsel for the commission. However, according to him, Priamos had vetoed that agenda item, his reason being that the issue did not fall under the purview of the commission. Was that the real reason, and should Priamos had been placed in the position of making a decision like that which could potentially alter his own role in the commission's operations?

The logical conclusion that would come out of such an exchange is that it puts an exclamation point to the argument of why it's so important for the commission to retain its own legal counsel. The commission needs an attorney that assists it in performing its duties, not serves to simply obstruct its abilities to do its duties to protect the interests of the city. The city attorney's first allegiance is not to the commission but to the city including its risk management division. If the two entities come into conflict, which side does the city attorney's office take? The CPRC's or the city?

He's just got a job that he's paid to do and he knows who pays him.

It was not the first time either the city manager's office or Priamos' office had vetoed an agenda item submitted by a commissioner for inclusion on a meeting agenda. Earlier this year, when commissioner Jim Ward tried to submit agenda items related to the events surrounding the CPRC that had taken place behind closed doors at City Hall last year, his items were also rejected for one reason or another for several months.

In the case involving the discussion of retaining independent counsel, it is clear that there was an obvious conflict of interest involved here if the attorney currently being used by the city for the commission nixes an item that would potentially impact the further use of his office.

Actually, there had been precedent for not only discussing the hiring of a separate attorney for the commission but actually doing so in connection with the commission's decision in 2004 to subpoena police officer, Tina Banfill Gould to appear before the body to answer questions in relation to the 2003 fatal shooting of Volne Lamont Stokes. That was back in the days when Priamos and other attorneys in his office were too busy doing other things to even attend any CPRC meeting including one specifically set up to ask questions of his office in 2004. So it's interesting that now even discussing the issue of independent counsel is out of bounds for a commission that once retained one. But times and leadership have changed since then.

So Simpson got a lesson on who was really in control of the panel that he had joined to do his part to help a process along. Just as those who had departed sooner had done, though unlike him, they left in frustrated silence. Former Commissioner Bill Howe affirmed that contention in his own speech telling the commission that he had spoken with those who had resigned and they had told him that frustration with the city manager's office's micromanagement of the panel led to their departures.

So, last week, Simpson made the difficult choice that he felt he could live with best, which was to leave the commission on his own terms. After all, he had said at his first meeting that he was nobody's lap dog and he meant it.

And that apparently is what the city wants on its commission. It wants lap dogs. Because if this wasn't true, then Pearcy would have been standing up for the right of his fellow commissioner to freely express his concerns and views on issues impacting the commission at City Hall. Instead, Pearcy apparently did the bidding and all the work of the city by trying to say he had to toe the line or else. And yes, there was an "else" because there were those at City Hall who wanted to expel Simpson from the commission as early as June and possibly sooner than that.

Simpson definitely wasn't going out without something to say about it. And although traditionally departing commissioners are given an opportunity to make speeches which usually are lax in terms of time limits, Pearcy cut Simpson after the five-minute mark and told him he had reached his time limit. That action was symbolic of what the body has become particularly under his chairmanship, a position he only received after the city manager's office and city attorney's office had muddled up the election process to the point where few people understood exactly how Pearcy was elected.

Originally, Ward had led the votes over former commissioner, Les Davidson when seven out of nine commissioners had voted on the election. Two had originally not voted because they had just joined the commission. When allowed to vote, Peter Hubbard chose Davidson without having even attended a commission meeting and knowing which was which. Simpson chose to abstain from voting at the time because he didn't know either Davidson or Ward and wanted to see them both in action before voting.

But one difference between Hubbard and Simpson is that Hubbard manages a company called American Medical Response that is an independent contractor to provide ambulance services as a component of the public safety division of the city. The public safety division which also includes the police and fire departments is currently under the helm of Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis. Which is why it wasn't so surprising to see Hubbard jump to DeSantis' defence during a discussion involving the annual report at the most recent special meeting held by the commission on the Brown shooting.

Simpson is retired and had been a former reserve officer for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. He is not working for the city in any capacity, either as an employee or representing an independent contractor.


Davidson ultimately won the muddled election but soon stepped down from the commission giving and Pearcy, who was vice-chair moved up to the presidency position.


While addressing those on the dais, Simpson included the following recommendations in his speech. He urged the commission to think about them. But by cutting Simpson off, Pearcy spoke for all of them by saying that they weren't interested in even listening to them. Only Ward really had anything of substance to say about Simpson's departure and the two in many cases, were polar opposites on issues.

But the community which has been thoroughly disregarded by the city probably could benefit from reading them. At the very least, they are good topics for discussion.



Simpson's recommendations:

1) That members of the CPRC be selected by the mayor and confirmed by a majority of the city council. Removal of a CPRC member shall be, however, reserved for the CPRC and only effected by a 2/3 vote of the full commission

The only problem is then there would be friends of only one politician instead of friends of seven. Why not go back to giving everyone an equal chance of consideration? See what they bring to the table, not who has the best seat at the annual mayoral ball or who throws the best block party. Do not tell other elected officials that you will hold your nose and vote for their guy or gal if you will do like for them. It often seems like the decisions are made by council members before the interviews are even held. Provide the public with copies of applications and resumes for all candidates, not just several of them. If you want to backdoor someone at the last possible minute, backdoor their applications and resume with them. That's just common courtesy.

2) That the CPRC "executive director" be selected solely by the CPRC and serve at the will of the CPRC by a 2/3 majority vote of the full commission.

3) That the CPRC "executive director's [sic] manager's salary be based upon 75% of the city manager's annual compensation package.

In actuality, the current executive manager, Kevin Rogan is said to be making $80,000 a year which if true, makes him the lowest paid executive director/manager in the CPRC's history. Starting pay for this position in 2001 was about $85,000 a year. Rogan's predecessor earned at least $105,000 annually.

4) That the CPRC have full access to an attorney whose sole mission is to support the CPRC and is---in no way---in the city chain of command.

Ah, but even mentioning this for possible discussion not only was vetoed by the city's attorney, but Simpson's future on the commission began to get a bit more shaky.

5) That the CPRC shall have a roster of qualified investigative firms who will be updated regularly and can be called upon, as needed, to insure accurate and credible results and;

Earlier this year, three city department heads tried to not only reduce the independence of those assigned to the commission's officer-involved death cases by trying to choose the investigative firms themselves, but they also tried to restrict the commission's ability to do its own independent and timely investigations. Only an outcry from the community including by community leaders put that plan on hold for the time being. Of course, until there's another officer-involved death for the CPRC to investigate, there's no way of knowing whether or not it even still has the power to investigate.

6) That the CPRC reflect and respect the notion that it is "advisory" to the city manager and the city council--nothing more, nothing less. But, it is, however, morally accountable to the citizenship for issuing true and honest deliberations, reports and communications to the citizens--not clouded by political pressures!!

They are pretty solid and reflect his observations of the panel's work during his brief stint serving on it.

His inclusion of the item addressing the practice of city council members removing commissioners unfortunately stemmed from attempts that were contemplated at the end of June to try to remove Simpson for being mentally incompetent. I had once been approached by one councilman on the street who asked me questions about Simpson's mental competency after this councilman had read this blog relating an incident involving a clash between Simpson and Priamos. This councilman wasn't the only individual raising "concerns" about the mental competency of Simpson as he mentioned the name of another elected official who apparently had discussed the issue with him and in fact, the councilman who approached me already seemed to be considering possible replacements for Simpson. Except for the initial two interviews conducted during the selection process last March, it's not clear whether or not these two elected officials ever spoke with Simpson to give them a better understanding of his mental competency.

This development occurred soon after Simpson clashed with Priamos during a meeting where Simpson had protested one of Priamos' legal interpretations of whether or not the commissioners could release minority reports and if so, how it would be done. But in reality, based on the conversation with the city council member, the vacancy appeared to be almost as important than either Simpson's removal or his mental competency and after hearing what Simpson had to say, especially involving his meetings with Pearcy, that appears to be the case. It also speaks to how politicized the selection process for the CPRC has become, where it appears that it's more important for elected officials to trade political appointments, to get or try to get their own people on than in selecting individuals who truly represent a cross-section of the community.

It also wasn't the first time I've had an elected official deliberately mislead me to try to get me to do or support something he was doing even without an accurate explanation of what that "something" was. It was pretty sobering to realize last night after listening to Simpson's account that this councilman may have not been as sincere in his concern on the issue as I thought he was. After all, one issue that apparently didn't arise in Simpson's "counseling" sessions with Pearcy was the issue of mental competency so that's a straw man argument in this equation.

The second recommendation offered up by Simpson, is wishful thinking. Although like Simpson said, the executive manager is to serve two masters, in reality he only can serve one and that "master" is the one who can fire him. Like most management employees, the executive manager of the CPRC is an "at will" position, and he serves not at the will of volunteers serving on a board or commission but at the will of the city manager. Who can fire the executive manager if he causes displeasure? The city manager or the commissioners?

No "at will" management employee can truly have a mind of his or her own and act independently under the current regime at City Hall. After all, if that were true, several employees who "resigned" in the past several years would still be working for the city including the last executive director of the CPRC and possibly former Human Resources Director Art Alcaraz who allegedly stepped down in the face of being asked to change hiring practices in his division. The city even attempted to convert "at will" positions in the police department several months ago, until it was stopped by problems involving legality surrounding the issue and a lot of protest.

The commission itself has faced changes imposed on it by City Hall and will face even more in upcoming months, none of which will have considered the input of those in the community. Community members are not considered real "stake holders" of the commission that many fought and worked for in the community to bring to fruition in a city where its city government for a long time wanted no part of civilian review. The community has not been asked even once what it thought about the changes made to the seven-year-old panel by those at City Hall.

It's become the latest toy of the city manager's office until that office gets tired and puts it back on the shelf to gather dust and move on to some other shiny plaything.

What's ironic about this sorry episode and everything that preceded it, was it reminded me of an admonition former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer gave to the city after the dissolution of the stipulated agreement between the two last year.

Lockyer said that the city, the department and the community had to work as equal partners in the continued reform of the police department. Yet, when it comes to a mechanism demanded by the community, implemented by the city which was set up in part to oversee the department's complaint process, the city and the department work together to get what they want and leave the community once again out in the cold. Those actions done largely by those who weren't witnesses to what preceded the consent decree in terms of the state of the city and police department, have shown that important lessons remain unlearned by all three partners.

But bravo to Simpson for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said. It's too bad his topics didn't elicit much discussion from the five commissioners who were able to show up. And it's indeed a pity that in order to show moral courage, to say what needed to be said and to ask the same questions the community has been asking for the past year to no avail, one had to resign from the commission first and return to being a community member.




A Temecula Police Department officer who was charged for accepting a bribe had his hearing postponed until October. He's no longer working for that agency and joins the growing list of deputies who work for Riverside County being prosecuted for an assortment of crimes.




Also, shock waves were set off by the abrupt resignation of Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle who was in his second term in the position. Doyle will be working for the state's parole board upon approval of his appointment by the state senate.

More information was provided in this updated article.


It appears that not only were there tensions between the Riverside Sheriffs' Association and Doyle but with other people as well.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


Doyle's resignation comes amid public clashes with Supervisor Jeff Stone and an increasingly public rift with District Attorney Rod Pacheco as he resisted some of their initiatives. There are widespread rumors that Doyle and Pacheco -- the county's top two law-enforcement managers -- barely speak to each other.

Clashing County Officials

While most of Doyle's first four-year term went by without discord, the past two years have been marked by public disputes between Doyle and Supervisor Jeff Stone, a close Pacheco ally.

Doyle declined comment on his relationships with them.

Pacheco also declined to discuss the rift, saying he personally liked Doyle and had spoken to the sheriff at the recent opening of a new sheriff's substation in Perris.

But, Pacheco said, "We need a solid, reliable partner. We need a collaborator. We need somebody who is willing to make sacrifices, somebody passionate about protecting the citizens."

"We cannot afford discord," Pacheco said.

It isn't known how this latest development in county politics will impact next year's supervisor race between Bob Buster and Frank Schiavone. The latter received the endorsement of the union which has backed both Schiavone and earlier challenger and current CPRC commissioner, Linda Soubirous because of its opposition to Doyle who was supported by Buster last time. It remains to be seen how much money the RSA will toss in this county race given Doyle's pending departure.





The Riverside Unified School District has three seats on its board that are up for grabs this November and prospective challengers are already dropping their hats in the ring.



Is the Back to the Grind coffee spot a victim of the city's SmartPark program? The city claims it's working well and it's been of great assistance in getting its own employee's vehicles off the street and into the new garages. In other words, it's helped the city to address its own parking shortage involving its employees. Yet business owners in the downtown area say they are losing sales revenue since the program was implemented. What is its ultimate fate? Remember, this is an election year. Anything can happen.


I hope to see "Back to the Grind" stick around. It's worth more in my opinion than the half-dozen or so Starbucks that will be surrounding it some day.


Here's a motto. Support Riverside Renaissance, because we are worth it. Not that I disagree but I don't think it's "worth it" or I'm "worth it" if it comes at the expense of other people, meaning small business owners, many of which are Asian-American or Latino, who spent years paying business taxes into the coffers of the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership for exterior improvements they would never see, the lack of which would later be used to define their businesses as "blight" and thus subject to eviction for businesses which cater to a wealthier, Whiter crowd, aka as the people who are really "worth it".

Those used car lots might have been an eyesore to some but their owners contributed through business taxes to the beautification efforts of the pedestrian mall. Without these folks, it would have been that much harder to achieve that goal.

Do I believe that Riverside as a people are worth having improvements? Hell, yeah. The difference is, I don't subscribe to the principle of that all people are equally worthy but some are more worthy than others. Everyone, rich, poor, middle-class, in this city is worthy of improvements but who's paying the price for those improvements that are to be exclusively enjoyed by others?