CPRC: Love it or leave it, it's here

My blogging on the book, Good Cops, attracted the ire of someone at Craigslist who obviously doesn't like the Community Police Review Commission.


(excerpt)


Having just read the blog portraying itself as dedicated to "continuous oversight of the Riverside(CA)Police Department" I believe that the record needs to be set straight.

Fact: Measure II in Nov 2004 did not get on the ballot because of a groundswell of the electorate. In fact there was only a small number of people (as is usually the case in little Rivercity) who wanted to oversee RPD. As Mary correctly states, had it not been for our former council friend A. Gage, the charter measure would not even have appeared on the balott. Way to go Athur.

Fact: The Civ PR Commission was not chartered at the demand of the majority of Rivercitians. Nope, only 40,756 people voted yes. Why is that important. Because it clearly indicates that less than 14% of all City residents supported the ballot measure. So much for a mandate!!! http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/rv/meas/II/

So stop overblowing this mary. We know that you like drama, but stick to the facts.



Actually, my anonymous critic, Gage only receives some of the credit for the CPRC's appearance on the 2004 ballot along with an assortment of other charter initiatives to be passed or not by the voters. Even more credit on the dais goes to former Councilman Ed Adkison and Councilman Frank Schiavone who voted in July 2004 during a city council meeting to approve all of the proposed charter initiatives to include on the ballot because, as they told people both in the audience and through cable television, they wanted the voters of this city to decide for themselves which of the initiatives would become new charter amendments.

Both Gage and Mayor Ron Loveridge were trying to go through the list sorting through individual initiatives, more concerned about whether or not their personal favorites would make the ballot, as Loveridge hoped with one which allowed him to pick committee chairs or the ones they disliked wouldn't in the case of Gage and what would become Measure II. Adkison and Schiavone made the right choice, and without their incentive and leadership, some of these proposed initiatives including the one regarding the CPRC wouldn't have made it on the ballot. Both of them oppose the CPRC, so they deserve a lot of credit for putting their feelings on the issue aside and allowing it to be included on the ballot. Though maybe they didn't believe it would actually pass the muster of the voters because one of the people who gets a bit peeved whenever I mention the passage of Measure II is, Schiavone.

Also greatly aiding the efforts to pass Measure II was the counter-campaign launched by its most ardent opponents, the Riverside Police Officers' Association. The insert they sponsored that appeared in several issues of the Press Enterprise basically implying that if Measure II passed, officers' hands would be "tied" and response times might suffer. That ad campaign led to sharp criticism by Press Enterprise columnist, Dan Bernstein and the newspaper's editorial board and it turned off a lot of on-the-fence voters as well. Some thought it was opportunistic to blame response times which are adversely impacted by very real staffing issues in the department that's several steps behind the huge population growth, on the CPRC for a political campaign.

The campaign wasn't much to celebrate even if you did support the ballot measure because it showed a very isolated, insulated police department and it wouldn't be surprising if police officers working for the city either didn't vote on the measure or even voted for it, not to support civilian review but simply to protest against the advertisement campaign put on by the union which was purchased by dues in the political action campaign fund donated by its members.

While it's true that voters' turnout was lower than it should be in a democratic republic like this one, what this anonymous commenter isn't telling you is that despite that, the measure to put the CPRC received the majority vote in every walk-in voting site and all but a handful of absentee precinct sites. Combining the two forms of voting together for each precinct and this ballot measure received the majority of votes in every precinct, in every ward, from one end of the city to another. That's a pretty strong statement coming uniformly from across the city.


Despite the fact that it passed in every precinct in every ward, there were and are political officials who oppose it and Gage was one, who tried to defund the CPRC by up to 95%. But the momentum for a ballot measure actually began before Gage did his thing during the budget reconciliation hearings. Concerns raised by city residents after Gage and Steve Adams in particular were elected, set the wheels in motion for the Charter Review Committee to draft its initiative to put the CPRC in the city's charter.

It's interesting when you talk about civilian review and the CPRC in this city like I do a lot. Concern about these issues and support for this type of body crosses racial lines, economic lines, age lines and political lines.

The below argument raised by the anonymous commenter holds an obvious flaw. He or she's assuming that all of Riverside's approximately 300,000 residents vote which would include many people including children, teenagers and noncitizens in this category. After all, only registered voters could cast a vote in the election. Turnout for that election was fairly good, because it was also a presidential election and you'd have to take about 60% of that vote and then compare it back to the figure for the percentage of registered voters, not the general population.


(excerpt)


Nope, only 40,756 people voted yes. Why is that important. Because it clearly indicates that less than 14% of all City residents supported the ballot measure. So much for a mandate!!!



And if so few people in Riverside truly supported the measure according to how the commenter read the situation, then that's still more people than voted against it. So if a very small percentage supported Measure II, then an even smaller measure of people opposed it. This line of reasoning makes no sense because even it doesn't support the contention of the anonymous commenter that very few people supported the measure.

Not overblown. Not much drama here. Certainly not very many exclamation points.

In addition, the CPRC doesn't oversee the RPD. It reviews complaints that are filed by that department against police officers. Even outside law enforcement agencies such as federal and state agencies rarely serve an oversight function over law enforcement agencies with less than several dozen having experienced that. Riverside, is included in that list and unlike many law enforcement agencies made two lists, not counting the investigation conducted by the Riverside County Grand Jury in 1999 and 2000. It's not the city's voters that decide whether or not this happens particularly at the federal and state level, but the individuals in charge of the respective agencies whether or not to launch lengthy and very expensive investigations into the patterns and practices of law enforcement agencies. Many law enforcement agencies don't get considered for investigation by even one outside agency, in part because of the expenditures but Riverside's ended up high up on two lists of agencies to be investigated. Riverside's was in a minority and for good reason, reasons that the city spent $22 million trying to remedy as it essentially rebuilt its department.

These outside agencies investigate and if necessary, they sue the agencies to promote reform inside them. Most cities and counties ultimately settle with these agencies inside or outside of court. Riverside settled with the state and entered into its mandated reform process, coming out at its end the better for it because people worked hard on the program.

However, in cities like Oakland, a law suit filed by city residents in U.S. District Court can initiate such a process as well and put a law enforcement agency into federal receivership.











Longtime Asst. District Attorney Randell Tagami is stepping down from his position according to the Press Enterprise.


(excerpt)


Tagami, now assistant district attorney, has seen many changes over the three decades he has been with the office, including the departure of longtime District Attorney Grover Trask, who opted not to run for re-election after serving more than 20 years at the post. Tagami, 59, is retiring at the end of the week.

"It's time to move on," he said recently, as he sat in his third-floor office at the Southwest Justice Center. "It's time to let someone else take over and see what they can do."

It is a different time and office than the one Tagami joined on Christmas Eve so many years ago. There were fewer than 100 attorneys working for the agency then, compared to 230 now. Tagami works out of a modern building in a growing part of the county, much different than the dingy, dark office space occupied in Riverside by staff members in the 1970s.

It was trial by fire, Tagami said, as attorneys handled everything from traffic tickets to murder cases. Tagami said attorneys handled 50 to 60 trials a year.

"Sometimes you'd be handed a file and told to report to a department for trial," Tagami said. "There was no time to prepare. You had to be quick on your feet, literally. You're walking to the courtroom having to learn about the case you are about to try by reading the file."



A retired Riverside Police Department officer, Tony Garcia, returned to working for the city as one of the downtown ambassadors.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


Garcia -- whose brushed-back brown hair, salt-and-pepper mustache and ever-present shades still lend the look of a police officer -- is one of four "ambassadors" hired by the Riverside Downtown Partnership to assist visitors to the area and provide a little extra security.

Ambassadors are on the streets seven days a week, in several shifts that start at 10 a.m. during the holidays and end at 2 a.m. They roam the downtown pedestrian mall and the surrounding streets and patrol parking garages in the evenings.

Garcia explained how he works on a recent morning near the nonprofit Downtown Partnership's offices on University Avenue.

"Basically I just scan around and if somebody's looking for something, I help them," he said.

The ambassador program has been around in different forms since 2001, said Janice Penner, executive director of the partnership. But the ambassadors have been paid employees only since September 2006. The job pays $10.50 an hour plus benefits.

Ambassadors report more than 600 incidents in a given month -- from giving directions to out-of-towners to spotting graffiti to asking loiterers to move along to calling police to report a crime.

Garcia says he took the job almost a year ago as a way to get out of the house. But the self-described "people person" says it also reconnected him with the best part of his former occupation -- helping others.

"And when I approach someone positively, it's good for the city," he said.

Riverside police Lt. Chuck Griffitts, commander of the downtown area, said the ambassador job suits Garcia, whom he describes as "a pretty mellow guy."

"I think he's doing all the things now as an ambassador that he got into" police work for, Griffitts said.




A database publishing the names, titles and salaries of San Bernardino County employees is the center of controversy.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


The newspapers had a legal right to post the names of county employees. But it was clearly the wrong thing to do. The danger and the possible embarrassment posed to these hard-working public servants far outweighs any public benefit. Keep in mind the vast majority of the county employees who were exposed are not elected officials, administrators or department heads. They are people with modest incomes who have dedicated their lives to making our county a great place to live and work.

I am proud of the work performed by county employees. But I am especially proud of the county employees and other members of the community who expressed their feelings and, at least for the time being, caused these two newspapers to rethink their actions.








"Don't suffer from PTSD. Go out and cause it."


This is the slogan of a police academy class in Boise, Idaho, according to Yahoo News.


PTSD or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is a medical condition resulting from experiencing a traumatic event like a violent crime or serving in a war zone. Many didn't find the adoption of such a slogan very funny.


(excerpt)


Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney, who attended the Dec. 14 graduation, pointed out the slogan to the academy's director, Jeff Black, minutes before the ceremony began, Raney said. A photograph of the program was e-mailed anonymously to news outlets throughout the state.

"That's not something we encourage or condone," Black said. "It shouldn't have been there. It was inappropriate."

Black said the class president was ex-military, and that the slogan "slipped in." He declined to identify the graduate. Black said future slogans would be vetted by academy leaders.





Thirteen deputies were suspended after a high-speed vehicle pursuit according to the St. Petersburg Times.



(excerpt)


One sheriff's cruiser skids out on a patch of sand, colliding with an oncoming vehicle. Another blows a tire and pulls out of the chase. Two deputies, blinded by the dust kicked up by the stolen car on a lime rock road, crash cruisers through a T-stop intersection. One drives through a fence, the other hits a dirt berm and goes airborne.

Except, this script is real. And Sheriff Richard Nugent is not amused.

The sheriff suspended without pay a sergeant and 12 deputies involved in the 6 p.m. Thursday pursuit through Spring Hill and Royal Highlands. He said the risks "way outweighed" the possibility for arrest, especially because the incident only involved a stolen car and the deputies involved knew the culprit. The deputies violated multiple elements of the agency's pursuit policy and endangered many area residents, he said.

Each deputy has read and signed the pursuit policy. The latest memo went to all deputies a week before this incident.

"We are not going to tolerate it," Nugent said during an interview in his office Tuesday. "We are not going to allow our folks to jeopardize the safety of civilians out there."


The bulk of the blame went to the sergeant in charge of the deputies as the agency called the incident, "a breakdown in supervision".








In Bolingbrook, the holidays are somber as more questions are raised in the disappearance of Stacey Peterson now missing for nearly two months. Her husband, former Sgt. Drew Peterson is the focus of most of the inquiries, having been officially named as a suspect in her disappearance.


(excerpt)


Drew Peterson, 53, who resigned from the police department after being named a suspect in his wife's disappearance, has told reporters that when he awoke around 11 a.m., his wife already had left.

About noon, Sharon Bychowski, a neighbor and friend of Stacy's, phoned Drew and told him she'd been to the market and had some candy for the kids.

Drew Peterson stopped by about 1:15 p.m., saying he had to run a brief errand, and returned about 15 minutes later, Bychowski said.

By mid-afternoon, around 2:30 or 3 p.m., Bosco said, Cales tried to call her sister.

Cales said Stacy had told her two days earlier that she feared Peterson might harm her and that she planned to talk to a divorce attorney on Monday.

Stacy Peterson had told family and friends that her husband — whom she'd met six years earlier, when she was 17 and he was married to his third wife — had become increasingly controlling, following her, tracking her with GPS and calling her incessantly on her cell phone.

Two weeks before she disappeared, she had gotten a new cell number after she found her phone bill in her husband's briefcase, some of the some numbers highlighted, Bosco said.




In Boston, the commissioner of the police department there said his hands were tied in terms of not being able to fire a police officer after he was given probation for punching his girlfriend off of a bar stool.


(excerpt, Boston Herald)



Boston police Commissioner Edward Davis said last night that when it came to punishing Murphy within the department, the Baltimore judgment amounted to a dismissal of legal charges.

“The lawyers told me that with what happened down in Baltimore, there’s no conviction for a domestic violence, that’s the key component of it,” Davis said.

Murphy and the department negotiated his punishment and agreed he would receive a 30-day suspension, but 25 days would not be served if he kept out of trouble for a year. Murphy began serving the five-day suspension last Wednesday.

Murphy, who earned $169,469 on a base salary of $78,436 last year, has been on paid leave since the April assault.





A CHP officer was caught trying to steal $1 million in cocaine from an evidence locker, according to the Los Angeles Times.



(excerpt)


Joshua Blackburn, 32, of Murrieta, a six-year veteran, was being held at the Orange County Jail on $4-million bail.

"This is an extremely serious crime," said Susan Kang Schroeder, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney's office. "This is somebody the public put their trust in, so it elevates the case."

Blackburn's attorney, John Barnett, declined to comment except to say that his client had never been in trouble. CHP officials also declined to comment, and a call to Blackburn's home was not answered.

Blackburn is expected to be charged with transportation of cocaine, possession for sale and burglary, Schroeder said. His arraignment was set for Wednesday.

The crime came to authorities' attention about 4 a.m. Friday when CHP officers noticed that someone had broken into the evidence room, Schroeder said. They contacted the Santa Ana Police Department and the district attorney's office, which conducted an investigation.

Blackburn was arrested later that day, Schroeder said.


"We have recovered all of the cocaine involved and feel confident that there are no more [stolen] drugs floating around," she said.







Springfield, Massachusetts, is getting its new civilian review board but did its mayor-elect make the right choice by having his chief-of-staff lead it?


(excerpt, The Republican)



The nine-member board is responsible for reviewing citizen complaints against the Police Department, and serving as a link with the community at large. In October, Ryan appointed Melinda A. Pellerin-Duck as the full-time coordinator for the board, setting her annual salary at $60,000.



Sarno, who takes office on Jan. 7, said he will void Pellerin-Duck's appointment and salary, with Jordan taking over the duties as part of her $75,000 chief-of-staff position. By combining the jobs, the city saves money, Sarno said.

"I have the utmost confidence in Denise Jordan," he said. "She is eminently qualified with her civil rights background and her overall background."

Ryan urged the city's Finance Control Board last week to support his view that a full-time coordinator is needed for such a critical position, as recommended strongly by a consultant.

Having the job handled on a part-time basis "is seriously undercutting what should happen," the mayor said.




Naturally, the old mayor wants a full-time position which was also recommended by a consultant so he's asked a budget committee to make that recommendation which has ruffled the feathers of his successor. Riverside can relate as in 2005, right after the city's voters put its civilian review mechanism in the city's charter, interim city manager, Tom Evans decided to cut the executive director's position into a part-time job.