Inland Empire: Letters and law suits

Not guilty, was what former Riverside Police Department officer and U.S. Marine Jose Luis Nazario, Jr. said in connection with voluntary manslaughter charges stemming from the killings of several unarmed prisoners in Fallujah Iraq in 2004. The Press Enterprise wrote an article covering Nazario's first appearance in U.S. District Court on these charges and he paid bail and was released with traveling restrictions.


(quote)


"I'm a United States Marine who fought honorably for this country and am innocent of these charges," said Jose Luis Nazario Jr. during a news conference with his attorneys outside of the U.S. District Court in Riverside.


Now the case goes to a federal grand jury to determine whether or not any criminal case will proceed.


The witnesses who described the killings of the four men haven't been named but they provided the following account.


(excerpt)


An affidavit and criminal complaint filed by a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent included statements from witnesses who accused Nazario of either killing the insurgents directly or ordering their deaths.

According to those statements, on Nov. 9, 2004, Nazario's squad had lost a Marine and later was taking gunfire from a house. After the shooting stopped, the Marines searched the home and detained four men. The Marines found AK-47 rifles and ammunition in the home, according to the affidavit.

During a radio conversation with a superior, Nazario explained that the detainees were not dead and was then told to "make it happen," the report states.

All four men were shot to death.


The Los Angeles Times also published an article on Nazario's court appearance.





The city of Riverside wanted to be so sure people could attend the Board of Public Utilities meeting to provide input on what to do with electric rates that it scheduled that meeting at 8:30 a.m. today. Perhaps it was the board's decision to pick the date and time so soon after the city council meeting when the council members decided to revoke their own approved rate increase for electricity usage in this city. Perhaps it's like the Community Police Review Commission and it needs to have its agendas approved first by the city manager's office and the city attorney's office before it can do anything.

But there should be more opportunities for the public to provide input into this situation and what they think should be done about it.


If you have something to say on the issue, check out the poll at the Press Enterprise.

Letters by people upset about the utilities situation in Riverside are here. You can also email letters to the Press Enterprise's Readers' Forum by using letters@pe.com.

Brian Sorrell wrote an op-ed piece in the Press Enterprise about the pluses of a multi-tiered electricity usage rate system.


(excerpt)


Additionally, given the city's admirable Green Riverside program, it is only reasonable to retain a tiered rate structure that rewards conservation. The modifications to the rate structure are consistent with the city's stated vision: "A Green Riverside is one that respects its natural and man-made environments by acknowledging the significance of what each generation inherits from its predecessors as a legacy on which to build. A Green Riverside is dedicated to conserving natural resources, both as an ethical basis for decision-making and as a strategic/tactical approach to development, maintenance and operation of civic and private enterprise" according to Clean & Green Task Force, May 2006.

For my part, I have been inspired by the work of the Clean & Green Task Force, and motivated by the inclusion of green considerations in the city's general plan. Our highest summer usage for our three-bedroom, 1,500-square-foot house is about one-fourth of the usage mentioned in the article: our 500 kilowatt-hours versus the cited 2,100. Our entire summer electricity consumption is equivalent to one month of that used as a reference point in the article.

In the past year, our utility bills have decreased as our household has continued a concerted effort to use energy-saving light bulbs, to plant more trees on our property, to keep the thermostat at 78 degrees, and to replace old appliances with Energy Star rated equipment.



Food for thought on different sides of the vexing issue.




The filing of a $10 million wrongful termination law suit in federal court by Colton's former police chief has reignited the clash between him and the city's government, according to the Press Enterprise.

Ken Rulon was fired, he alleged, as retaliation for trying to expose corruption in the city's government.



(excerpt)



My badge wasn't for sale or for influence," Rulon said in a telephone interview. "I'm not going to cover up unethical or illegal acts."

Rulon spoke publicly for the first time Thursday after filing a $10 million claim against the city alleging wrongful termination, retaliation for whistle-blowing, defamation and civil-rights violations.


His attorney, Dan Stormer, said he will file a federal lawsuit within six months if Colton, as expected, rejects the claim.

Colton City Manager Daryl Parrish, in a prepared statement, said the former chief's allegations are baseless.

Rulon was fired because of his inability to lead, Parrish said.

The heated exchanges included several unsubstantiated allegations, which could not be verified Thursday.

In his eight-page claim, Rulon alleges high-ranking officials and elected officeholders were uncooperative or put pressure on him to stop a dozen investigations into unethical and criminal conduct of some city officials.

Rulon mentions former Councilman Ramon Hernandez, arrested in August 2006 and charged with 24 felony counts of misusing city funds for sex hot lines and hotel rooms.

"(Hernandez) stated that he did not want any publicity concerning these allegations that might embarrass him or his family," the claim said. "Rulon nevertheless immediately reported the allegations . . . to the San Bernardino County District Attorney."



The Press Enterprise is big on polls and there's one on the Rulon firing and whether or not it was proper.






Here is another letter in the Press Enterprise from an individual I often refer to as the local ambassador of civilian review, retired Det. Granville "Bud" Kelley.


Kelley worked for the Riverside Police Department for many years and is now retired.


He's written many letters decrying both the Community Police Review Commission and the consent decree. Still, he's actively involved in police issues as a member of Chief Russ Leach's advisory board and it seems to be a good fit in terms of the "new" Riverside Police Department.



Yet no one has tried harder to get on the same commission that he's called so many different names from "albatross" to a lynch mob. It's easy to lose count of how many times Kelley has urged for the panel to be disbanded in the past seven years.



Here's the latest letter.





(excerpt)




Armchair officers

Riverside now has a new manager of the Community Police Review Commission, Kevin Rogan ("Watchdog commission gets new manager," Aug. 15). Whether he can be fair and impartial remains to be seen, but he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

What also remains to be seen is if he will be asked to judge actions by our officers that follow split-second decisions. Has Rogan been in the trenches as our officers have, and will he understand the stresses of the job? The fact that he has a law degree does not impress me. Does he have a degree in common sense?

Seems Bill Howe and other board members are worried about the lack of interest in the Community Police Review Commission shown by the citizens of Riverside. Is it possible that the citizens are realizing that their vote several years ago authorizing the commission created an albatross that now hangs around the neck of the Riverside Police Department?

Perhaps the lack of interest stems from board members who realize the difficulty in judging the actions of our officers from a nice leather chair, rather then being in the streets where our officers are.


GRANVILLE KELLEY

Riverside






Even if you disagree with him and many do, you have to admire his passion, his eloquence and his endurance. Hopefully, he will keep those letters coming in to be published in the Reader's Forum.



Why?





Because every time Kelley or anyone else(and it's usually a current or retired city or county law enforcement officer who writes the letters) gets a letter published bashing the CPRC or criticizing it, I receive phone calls or run into individuals who want to receive more information on the commission, want to know when future meetings are held and even those who are interested in applying for the position.



Kelley's name has come up more than a few times as a motivating factor for why it's important to have civilian review in this city. It's a gentle reminder that still hits home for many people that the more the public embraces civilian review, which it did loudly here in 2000 and 2004 and often in between, the less police officers including former ones want it in their midst. But letters like Kelley's do a great job at reminding people of the importance of civilian review.



Do many people attend CPRC meetings? No, not usually. Do many people attend meetings held by the Human Relations Board, the Board of Public Utilities, the Human Resources Board or several other boards and commissions?



Actually, hardly anyone or no one attends the meetings of those boards and commissions unless a pressing issue is on the agenda. The fact is, that many boards and commissions play to empty rooms or houses on a regular basis, yet people still care about them and want them to remain in place doing the tasks that they are assigned to do. This happens for a variety of reasons that are common among the city's boards and commissions.



In fact, many city council meetings play to nearly empty houses once the special awards and presentations have been completed. You have to stand to the side to avoid getting run over by the crowd of people exiting the building once the final award has been given out. Is this a sign that the public has decided that the city council is an albatross around its neck?



That's a rhetorical question by the way. But face it, city council meetings aren't the most happening events either unless a major issue is on the agenda or some councilman has sent out an anonymous pamphlet of sorts to rally the people in a certain neighborhood or ward to storm the meeting to protest an action that usually is still a glimmer shining in an elected official's eye and not reality as of yet.


Also, the CPRC is not just a commission that holds public meetings, it also reviews and some times even investigates citizen complaints. In 2005, more complaints were reviewed involving police officers than had been reviewed in any year since 2002. In fact, this led to an article being published in the Press Enterprise about this chain of events. That trend continued into 2006 which saw even more complaints being reviewed than there had been in 2005, according to a draft of this year's public report. That in a sense shows that it remains viable to city residents as a mechanism.

The annual report is still in progress and hopefully its final version covering last year will be released this year.

The commission currently also investigates incustody deaths. Currently, there are three of them in various stages of investigation and review. The Lee Deante Brown shooting which happened on April 3, 2006 is currently in the process of the drafting of the public report. The other two shooting cases involving Douglas Steven Cloud and Joseph Darnell Hill both of which happened in October 2006 are still under investigation.



What this may show is how much more of a role the CPRC is playing in its role in the community as a body that processes, reviews and issues findings on complaints against police officers and also investigates officer-involved deaths.

One bit of advice for Kelley(and I wouldn't be surprised if he's reading this) is that he should call up Kevin Rogan on the phone to set up a meeting in order to ask his questions and any others because they are good questions and deserve answers from Rogan who hopefully will provide them.






While on the subject of civilian oversight, NACOLE passed along the following announcement.



Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Be Represented
The Independent Police Review is recruiting volunteers for the Citizen Review Committee.

This is an interesting opportunity for anyone who is interested in public service.

The principle duties include reviewing samples of complaints to advise on complaint handling;

working with the review staff to conduct reviews of Portland Police Bureau policies and procedures;

serving as a member of the citizen pool for the PPB Use of Force and Performance Review Boards;

making objective decisions when citizens or Police Bureau members appeal the results of police misconduct investigations;

participating in orientation and training about policing;

and gathering community concerns about police policies and procedures.


Candidates must be Portland residents or business owners, with a lack of real or perceived conflicts of interest, able to make a substantial time commitment, including monthly evening meetings of several hours.

Due to access to confidential law enforcement records, candidates must be able to pass a criminal background check.

The application form is available from the IPR office at 1221 S.W. 4th Ave., Room 320, Portland, OR 97204, or call 503-823-0146.

Online versions are available here.

Applications are due by 5 p.m. Aug. 31 at the IPR Office in City Hall, Room 320, 1221 S.W. Fourth Ave., Portland, OR 97204.

Questions may be addressed to Lauri Stewart at (503) 823-0146.