Election 2007: Lights, camera and action

Candidates running for city council in Riverside are going at it on a variety of different fronts, with just weeks before the votes will be cast to round out Election 2007.


But first, the Press Enterprise Editorial Board has announced its endorsements. There shouldn't be any need to post them because they should be fairly obvious at this point but here they are.



Ward One: Dom Betro

Ward Three: William "Rusty" Bailey

Ward Five: Donna Doty Michalka

Ward Seven: Steve Adams



There's more to say for the reasons the editorial board backed these four candidates but what struck me is that one man's "independence" is another man's "lack of trust".



In front of the cameras, the candidates asked questions, answered them and sparred with each other, according to the Press Enterprise.


No verbal blows were spared in Ward Five as candidates Chris MacArthur and Donna Doty-Michalka went at it on of all things, the immigration issue. MacArthur apparently doesn't have much to say at least about civic issues so he attacked his opponent.

Michalka who's already working with city council members has at least been more inclined to at least discuss local issues.


(excerpt)


MacArthur said "the critical issue of the race" was whether Michalka approved of her employer's acceptance of Mexican consular identification cards to allow immigrants to open bank accounts. He questioned her on it.

"Chris, Chris, Chris," Michalka said. "This is not an issue with which I have control or concern," she said.

She is not a policymaker at her credit union, she said, adding that she strongly opposes illegal immigration.

For her part, Michalka underscored her 25 years of community volunteer involvement and her recent work with Councilman Frank Schiavone to repeal an electricity rate hike that generated very high bills for many customers of Riverside Public Utilities this summer. She asked why MacArthur did not get involved in the issue.

"The difference in us -- I show up," she said.




Councilman Dom Betro, the incumbent from Ward One decried the downtown area being "held hostage" by property owners, when it came to whether or not he supported the use of eminent domain. So see, eminent tool is a tool to save you, the city resident from those horrible hostage takers.


(excerpt)


Betro said the city has acted to turn around a sleepy downtown that has been held hostage by do-nothing property owners. The city Redevelopment Agency has yet to become owner of any parcel through an eminent-domain court decision, he said, because the agency and owners have always reached a settlement before trial.

But Gardner said using eminent domain for redevelopment is wrong and so is using the threat of eminent domain as a negotiating tool.

"I believe the role of government is to do for you, not to you," he said.




If this is the rhetoric that's going on, no wonder Gardner's apparently slightly leading the unofficial polls for the Ward One race from both sides. If Betro and his supporters think the downtown small business owners or families like the Guans, a large number of which are Asian-American and Latino are committing hostage taking, then it's likely these business owners might think that the city's committing grand theft against them.

Some advice for Betro would be that if you're going to threaten business owners with eminent domain or "friendly condemnation" to refrain from using this kind of language about them. Your intention might be to defame them as akin to criminals victimizing the city, but you're actually giving the public a good look into who you are.


One thing that surprised me is that Press Enterprise Doug Haberman actually included this kind of behavior in his article. It doesn't seem like his publication likes covering the issue of eminent domain much unless they can hunt down a property owner who will help them sell the image of it not only not being a bad thing to use to get property to private developers but that it can actually be good for you!



Betro's stance that the city has never used eminent domain because the owners always settled before the actual trial date to impose it is also ridiculous. That would be like saying that prosecutors never prosecuted criminal cases because those they charged took plea bargains before they could have gone to trial. Very few cases, civil or criminal for that matter, go to trial with the majority of both being settled or dismissed before reaching that point. Betro in his comments shows that he's splitting hairs and that threat of eminent domain isn't the same thing or similar as actually enforcing it. I imagine that if it was his business that was being taken he wouldn't quibble over such small details.


Predictably, both Ward Three candidates appeared to have hashed over the same topics. Gage said he had fixed Ward Three's problems including the problems with crime on Antitoch Avenue while Bailey said that he has the endorsements of most of the elected officials on the dais because Gage is not a "team player".

Finally, in Ward Seven's race, incumbent Steve Adams who spent most of last year running for state office, is talking about everything that he's done apparently including on the campaign trail. His rival and former mayor, Terry Frizzel is revisiting the theme of this election in terms of what government is doing to people in this city instead of for or with them. Now there's a concept.


(excerpt)


"I'm running to give City Hall back to the people, where it belongs," Frizzel said.




That's the thread of what is behind the anti-incumbent sentiment that marked the first round of elections earlier this year. The feeling by people that the local government is doing things to people without providing them with enough of the appropriate forums including public meetings to respond. People feel if they want to work with government then they have to have a lot of money or they have to throw all their support behind political officials on the dais by being involved in political campaigns. After all, city officials have and do reward those who are loyal to them, with appointments to boards, commissions and the city's task forces. They put their suppporters on these mechanisms, telling people that their peeps will fix things or even save the day, when what fixes things or saves the day, is collaboration between the people of the city of Riverside and those they vote to represent them. If the politicians own peeps can truly turn problems around so quickly, then that just shows how politicized those processes have become under the current city government.

We don't need key people from the camps of elected officials to "fix things" certainly not problems that those currently on the dais either failed to address themselves or perpetuated in the first place. What we need is more avenues for residents of this city to work on these problems including by voicing their concerns about them instead.





Back in Ward One, both incumbent Dom Betro and challenger Mike Gardner are laying out their thoughts on the issues.

One exchange of sorts that was particularly intriguing was that involving public participation in local government. The difficulty of doing so under the current BASS quartet was one reason cited for the anti-incumbent trend that marked the preliminary round of Election 2007.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


Gardner said he promises to listen, return all phone calls within 24 hours and respect opinions. He wants to restore trust in the city's government.

"I think people feel that City Hall is doing things to them and not for them," he said.

If elected, Gardner said he would work to restore citizens' rights to publicly comment at council meetings on items on the consent calendar, a privilege that was eliminated more than a year ago, he said.

"The (consent calendar) items are supposed to be routine and noncontroversial," he said. "But regularly there are expenditures in the millions of dollars and people don't have the opportunity to talk about them."

Betro said the decision to eliminate public comment on consent-calendar items was a matter of efficiency. Before the change, it was difficult for the council to get a word in because of all the public comments. There are other ways to voice concerns, he said.

Gardner said he realizes a balance is necessary, "but I don't think you do that by taking away what is essentially a basic right to address your government," he said.




You have to give Betro some points for fessing up to the fact that he played such a primary role in removing the right for people to pull items from the consent calendar at city council meetings. Now if only his backers would do the same about their part in this action that took place on July 12, 2005. If it's something that they strongly support, then they should be out there stumping it as a great thing. But they haven't been.

At the time it took place, those who voted on the action including Betro lay the responsibility for it entirely at the door of several members of the public. However, most responsible and politically self-assured elected officials do not take actions like this in response to their vocal critics and when they do, they take responsibility for them. Most of them realize that listening to criticism as well as flattery and praise is part and parcel of being an elected official. What's amazing in Riverside is how often this latest batch of elected officials forgets this.

But Gardner's right in his statements about the types of items that are now winding up on the consent calendar, especially those involving millions of dollars in expenditures and the vast majority of the Riverside Renaissance projects. It's clear that the city council clearly doesn't want to hear any criticism or even any questions about items on the calendar.



The chance of restoring the right to pull items from the consent calendar is unlikely with BASS in place, especially if Rusty Bailey gets elected in Ward Three. Besides Gardner, the only other candidate who strongly favors restoring this right is Ward Seven candidate, Terry Frizzel.



Gardner's concern about items getting placed on the consent calendar in order to avoid discussion and debate involving rather sizable expenditures is shared by others as well especially when people find out exactly what those items entail.



One of those was a "status report" on the UCR Charrette development project that was mixed in with the usual 20-30 other consent calendar items despite the fact that it had changed greatly since the last time that community members were allowed to provide public input on it. One of those new changes to this plan was a component which would have recommended having children living in the Eastside clean up University Avenue. Even Councilman Andrew Melendrez appeared shocked to see that on an updated report on the project, which he again expressed at an Eastside public forum on Oct. 4.



Since the University Charrette program is geared towards primarily benefiting the UCR students, perhaps they are the ones who could be used as free labor to clean up University Avenue instead. That's one possible suggestion to the development experts at both UCR and the city who dreamed up the latest round of changes to this program.



It should be enough that residents of the Eastside do a lot of the cleaning in alleys and streets that the city's services should be doing, but to assign children to doing it to pave the way for development that is not for them or their families but for UCR students doesn't seem quite right.



Yet despite the changes to a multi-million dollar and then some project, this item still wound up by the consent calendar where it was put there by the city manager's office.

To restrict the right to pull items because too many comments are being made by constituents to their elected officials in a public forum is utterly ridiculous. If you have people who are that concerned, you should be increasing their opportunities for input not restricting them so you can get out of a city council meeting within two hours after it begins and hit the local watering holes. Does Sire's restaurant close before 8 p.m. these days?

There are other ways to voice concerns, Betro said. Betro is correct in this statement, but what it really shows is that you can be critical or "concerned" about what the city council is doing and they don't mind as long as you air your concerns behind closed doors and not in a public forum, particularly right now. Plus, the response times for city council members to requests made by the public for further information on an issue or to requests for dialogue on an issue vary greatly, and do elected officials gravitate more quickly to those who praise them in public for that reason?

It's refreshing to see it all laid out what the sentiment is by the two candidates on such a critical topic in the minds of many city residents, including several who expressed dismay in an earlier article as well as in letters to the editor about the conduct of elected officials on the dais at city council meetings.




In Ward Three, incumbent Art Gage and challenger, William "Rusty" Bailey are going at it again according to the Press Enterprise.

Gage said he's been out walking the precincts and that hundreds of people have been asking him questions as to why Bailey was in the military and even graduated from West Point Academy but was never sent overseas to Afghanistan or Iraq like nearly every other military personnel in the United States including several relatives of mine.


(excerpt)


"I'm not accusing him of shirking anything but it certainly is an overwhelming campaign issue," he said.

Bailey said he's been knocking on doors since February and not one resident has asked him why he wasn't called up to go to Afghanistan or Iraq.



The unintentionally funny part of the article was when Gage expressed his concern that Bailey would be beholden to developers, because development firms have been dumping money into Bailey's campaign, particularly during the past month or so. But the truth is, the development firms have been dumping a lot of money in this election. Betro, Bailey, Donna Doty Michalka, Chris MacArthur, Steve Adams and yes, even Gage are all receiving money from development firms in their respective campaigns.


(excerpt)


Bailey said no developer who contributed to his campaign has asked for anything in return except access.




That already puts these firms way ahead of the average voter. Yes, money does talk but development firms probably don't ask for anything in return from someone who hasn't been elected yet. Cart before horse and all that.







A man wrongly arrested by Corona Police Department officers last year has filed a law suit against that department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, according to the Press Enterprise.

Also included in the law suit is the Riverside County Public Defender's office.


After being arrested, Marvin Washington tried to tell everyone it was a mistake and asked them to verify his story by checking his fingerprints, but guess what? No one did. So after spending two months in jail, he was sent back to Mississippi where apparently someone finally did and a judge there finally declared that his arrest was a mistake.


(excerpt)


Washington appeared before Judge Michael Taylor on Oct. 9. It didn't take long for everyone in the court to agree they had the wrong man based on the differences in Social Security numbers and other identifiers.

The judge looked at the mug shot of the man wanted in the warrant.

"You're tall," he told Washington, according to a transcript. "But you're not quite that tall."

"No, sir," Washington replied. "I'd probably be playing basketball if I was."

The judge apologized and released him.


Now all the involved agencies are passing the buck.


(excerpt)


The truck driver and former Marine said he lost his job as a result of the mix-up. He and his wife, Earma, also had to move out of their Corona home and into a Riverside apartment because they couldn't keep up with the mortgage payments.

"I tried every step of the way to get someone's attention," Washington, 47, said this week.

The Corona police and Riverside County sheriff's departments, and the public defender's office declined to talk specifically about the case, citing the pending litigation.

Responding to a records request from Washington, Corona Police Chief Richard Gonzales stated in a letter in March that "our officers are only able to act on the information provided at the time of your arrest which, in this case, indicated that you were the subject of the outstanding warrant."

Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez, a Sheriff's Department spokesman, said in an e-mail that without obvious indications the person arrested is not the person in the warrant, such as "wrong race, obvious age difference," jail staff would not investigate further.



Apparently, another Marvin Washington who was four inches taller, 40 pounds heavier and with a different social security number. The other man had a birth date within eight days of Washington. But he was mixed up in a system where even his own assigned public defender apparently for expediency sake tried to get him to admit to being someone he wasn't.




In a phone interview, Taylor said he felt for Washington.

"It's always important law enforcement make sure they have the right person," he said.



No kidding.











In Oxnard, a Black motorist is suing that city's police department for racial profiling and excessive force, according to the Los Angeles Times.


(excerpt)


The confrontation with Allen came as he was sitting in his vehicle with a friend, who is also African American, the lawsuit said. Police cruised past them twice, prompting Allen to leave his vehicle and enter his home nearby.

When two officers tried to question him, Allen refused, saying he was pressed for time and that he was not on parole or probation, according to the suit. The officers asked for his ID, and as Allen was attempting to retrieve it from his car, another pair of officers arrived and tackled him to the ground, the suit says.

His shoulder was dislocated during the scuffle, Allen claimed.

"Despite the plaintiff's obsequious compliance with every request made of him and despite having offered no resistance, these three to four police officers battered [him] by striking his legs, shoulders and back while he lay on the ground," the suit says.






Four San Antonio Police Department officers were suspended due to improper body searches, according to the Houston Chronicle.


(excerpt)


Two patrol sergeants, Marc Randle and Roy Miller, were suspended for 45 days, while two female officers with the department's Tactical Response Unit, Yvette Coz and Diane Tritley, each received a 10-day suspension.

The suspensions are an "acknowledgment of the fact that innocent victims' rights were trampled upon," said Janice Maloney, an attorney who filed a federal lawsuit that claims the officers violated the group's civil rights and searched them without probable cause.

Chief William McManus declined to comment, citing the ongoing lawsuit.

But City Attorney Michael Bernard said the suspensions don't justify the civil suit. Rather, the officers were suspended for breaching the department's policies.

"The police chief obviously thought (the officers) violated some process of the office," Bernard said. "That does not mean the chief feels they violated anybody's civil rights."












In Braddock, Pennsylvania, an officer was was caught on video punching a man who was handcuffed, according to the Pittsburgh Channel.


Officer Kevin Lukart struck the man as he was being led after being arrested to a squad car. And as it turns out, the man who was arrested on suspicion of burglary wasn't the only one there who had an arrest record. So did the officer who punched him.

Lukart had worked as a police officer and had been arrested while working there.


(excerpt)


Team 4 investigator Paul Van Osdol has learned that Lukart was fired from one police job after getting arrested and left another job under a cloud.

Seven years ago, Lukart was in the news when he was a police officer in Apollo. He was accused of exposing himself to a 17-year-old girl while on duty and charged with attempted indecent assault, corruption of minors, indecent exposure and open lewdness.

There are no court records from the Apollo case, so the outcome is not known. The Armstrong County District Attorney said it's possible the case was expunged, which would explain why the records from the arrest do not exist.

Fetterman said he knew nothing about the Apollo arrest until Team 4 told him.

Last year, Lukart lost his job as a police officer in Irwin.

"I know there was a problem," Irwin Mayor Daniel Rose told Team 4, but he did not provide details.

Despite those two incidents, former longtime girlfriend Nicole Nastari told Team 4 that Lukart "is one of the best police officers I ever met in my life."






Mayor John Fetterman defended the officer but admitted that he had no idea that Lukart had been arrested until a media outlet told him about it. That of course is very reassuring to know.



Popular Mechanics has a great article on determining whether or not you are prepared for natural disasters and if not, how you can prepare.