Tuesday's child is full of grace

The economic picture for local city and county governments in the Inland Empire continues to worsen with each passing week. Due to anticipated decreased growth or increases in both property taxes as well as sales taxes, many local governments are planning to make cuts in their upcoming annual budget.


So how will that impact Riverside? Just ask Asst. City Manager of Finance Paul Sundeen.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



In Riverside, the largest Inland city, property tax revenue is expected to grow by 8 percent in the current fiscal year, down from the 11 percent the city first estimated, Finance Director Paul Sundeen said.

For next year, the city had estimated in October a 5 percent to 7 percent increase for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

Now, those estimates are down by half. Sundeen said the city is confident it can get a 2 percent increase in property tax revenue but hopes for 4 percent growth.

Sales tax revenues in Riverside are dropping by 5 percent, or about $3 million, Sundeen said.

"Car sales are not doing as well. That is a big piece of our sales taxes," he said. "Secondly, the construction industry is down. The combination of those two are the principle reasons the sales taxes are dropping.

"As we sit here, we still plan to have a balanced budget," he said.

Sundeen said there are no talks of layoffs, but vacancies likely won't be filled.

So how will the city cope?

"The obvious way is to look at all of our programs, and to the extent the council sets priorities, our programs will be drawn back a bit," he said.




The first harbinger of depressed sales tax revenue was actually apparent last year when City Manager Brad Hudson warned that the revenue from sales tax for the 2007-2008 fiscal year would be less than seen in previous years, including a lower cash flow from auto sales.


Mayor Ron Loveridge did not elaborate much in his State of the City address last week on the budget cuts, but there was some hint in his words of the decisions that Hudson will face in the months ahead. Departments in some cases have been asked to produce two separate budgets, one for 5% cuts and one for 10% cuts. However, at least one city department anticipates a 15% budget cut. There will be likely be some sort of hiring freeze, meaning that vacancies won't be filled. One of the most notable being a deputy chief position being vacated by David Dominguez who will become the next chief of Palm Springs Police Department next month. The fate of other promotions within the police department that were vacated or to be vacated through retirements is unclear.

Riverside Renaissance is all paid for, either through other sources of funding and likely, borrowing as well. No worries there, says the city government including its mayor. And that is what truly matters. If some city services get decreased or eliminated, well that's just life or you need to get one.



More discussion whether it's a difficult fiscal year or not, on the planned renovations of the downtown main library and the museum. Whether to do each project separately or as part of a combined effort. Over 300 people showed up at a public meeting that was scheduled in the middle of the day, filling up the city council chambers as the Board of Library Trustees and the Metropolitan Museum Board jointly received input on the process. The fact that in this venue, the views expressed by individuals overwhelmingly supported separate renovation plans for each facility, it didn't seem to really move the city council members present at the meeting in that direction. While it's important to get more insight and views of different city residents, it's also important to not keep searching for those who will espouse your specific viewpoint either.



If you're interested in the plans for the renovation of the public library, the Board of Library Trustees will be meeting on the fourth Monday of each month at 4:30 p.m.


For more information call (951) 826-5213.




And indeed this board has already met on this issue, according to the Press Enterprise.



(excerpt)


After analyzing staff reports, studies and demographic data, the Riverside library board determined that it needs 123,000 square feet of total library space.

In a surprise move at Monday's monthly meeting, the board voted to inform the City Council about the library's space needs to serve a projected 84,320 users to 2025.

"I fully expect them not to give us that much, because I don't see how we can afford it," said Trustee John Schreck, who compiled all the information.

He calculated that the proposal would involve an additional 20,000 square feet of space and $2.5 million more than an architect's original $25 million expansion plan.

Polled by the board before the vote, all six library staff members present approved of taking the recommendation to City Hall.





There is a vacancy on the Board of Library Trustees for the fourth ward and the city council members and mayor who currently serve on the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee have apparently discovered that this board exists given their additional interest in filling this vacancy with just the *right* person. It's nice to know that the Board of Library Trustees is finally topping the "what's in style" list in terms of fads but the timing of this interest is well, most interesting.



The Metropolitan Museum Board will be discussing and taking public comments on the expansion of the downtown museum on the second Tuesday at 4 p.m.



For further information to leave messages for Board members call Toni Kinsman at 826-5273.



As soon as this board joins its sibling on the "what's in style" list, there will be a note of it made here.


Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein has his own ideas for balancing the budget in a manner of speaking. O-kay. Maybe you need to go back to the drawing board there. And sometimes a flute is just a flute as Sigmund Freud probably wouldn't say.




On Feb. 5, the city will be hosting a reception for Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez who will be off to Palm Springs to serve as its new chief. It will be in the Mayor's Ceremonial Room at City Hall at 5:30p.m. and he'll be honored by the city council at its 6:30 p.m. meeting. More than one person described his departure as "bittersweet" meaning that they wish the best for him in the greener pastures of his new job but will miss him here. It's nice to see the city honoring him while he is departing but it would have been nice for the city to have treated him better while he was still working here particularly in the past year or so.

So Dominguez is the latest recipient of the "you don't know what you had until it's gone" award for the City of Riverside and he was included on a list of Black and Latino city employees which included Art Alcaraz, Jim Smith, Pedro Payne and Tranda Drumwright as employees that let's just say, weren't very much appreciated by those in power at City Hall. The employees listed here and who are current and were prior recipients of this unofficial award were some of the best and brightest on the city's roster and in Drumwright's case for example, she was told by another employee that she wasn't seen as "management material" despite her tremendous educational and work credentials. She wasn't seen as "management material" whereas a less experienced White woman was, because she was a Black woman. Smith also watched a White man he had once supervised elevated above him in a permanent assistant city manager position.

Like Dominguez, employees like Smith and Alcaraz were hired in very good positions elsewhere. So other cities and entities have gained what we as a city have lost because of attitudes which frankly, shouldn't have followed us from one century to the next.

Now, they are all pretty much gone despite their hard work and talent that they put into their jobs and it's the city's loss and the loss of the city's residents as well. But for men and women of color in management positions, this hasn't been the kindest or warmest city for quite a while now especially since the new city management team has come aboard. Some of the others have had receptions too, which though nice offer a tone of irony to the situation and unfortunately a dose of hypocrisy as well.

But what's especially nice about the situation is that Dominguez was singled out for his new job based on his wealth of experience working with and alongside community members and organizations. Not exactly something he received as much credit as he should have in some circles here but it was obviously highly valued elsewhere. Which puts Palm Springs above Riverside in valuing community involvement in its employees.

But if you have good employees who are working in a political or labor environment which doesn't favor them, then there should be people doing what no one should have to do and that's defending their right to be there. Some fellow police department employees of Dominguez did that for him almost a year ago at a community meeting at the Coffee Depot. More people need to do that for city employees like him as well.

One lesson learned, is to find a city employee or two whose work you value and tell him or her that you do today. So while we wish Dominguez the best in his new venture, there's a lesson that should have been learned before this to remember as well.






This post has been repeated at Inland Craigslist. "Get a life and some makeup," it states. Apparently not an Avon lady making a sales pitch, but someone trying to get a rise out of someone else by castigating their looks. It's interesting how anonymous people never make these kind of comments regarding physical appearance about men, almost as interesting as the fact that they seldom if ever make these kind of comments under their real names. If someone is engaging in making cruel comments such as these, then telling this individual to get a life would be a wasted endeavor. Personally, I'd rather read 100 posts about the Longest Walk which is actually quite interesting, than one post of this ilk which says more about the person who writes this kind of thing than the person it's about.

Not that I don't know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this cruel behavior, as usual by someone who can't even put their name to it. I've been treated the same way, many times. About my clothes. My looks. My hair. My underwear. And not once, with anyone's name attached to it or at least not a real one. Why? Because it's called being a coward. Nothing more, nothing less. That's pretty much it. It's all about trying to get a person to silence him or herself, but the thing to do when you're treated this way is to take a look at what you're talking, or writing about as something that needs more scrutiny. And often with men, it's their ideas that get criticized, but with women, they criticize our ideas and speech through castigating our looks as if the women they harass care about what someone like that thinks or even less likely, whether someone like that considers them attractive or not.

It's ironic the excuses people give for writing anonymous notes that castigate people on things other than their opinions on issues, including attacking physical appearance. Some of them go even further and say that they have the right to define what a real woman is. They say they do it for the city, the police department, perhaps even God and country. They never say they do it because they're just mean individuals who are lashing out to feel better about themselves. But is it really any of those things or just an excuse or an opportunity to be cruel? It's not easy to figure that out given that none of them do leave their real names.

Not that it's just members of the public that are impacted. During the long, hot summer of 2006 when the labor unions were undergoing the worst year of contract negotiations in recent memory, some of them complained of being penalized for speaking at public meetings on their own time. Others allegedly faced retaliation of one form or another including recipients of a threatening flyer that was apparently sent to try to intimidate them before they were going to be interviewed for an investigation in one of the city's departments. One union's members were bashed in a letter sent out by one of the councilmen running for office last year.

This isn't an easy city or an easy political climate to express opinions on issues that differ from what the city council wants, the city government wants or the status quo, pretty much whoever you are. You do so and you'll be treated accordingly.

Whether it's city council members saying you are a liar, have no ethics or no integrity either from the dais at city council meetings or inside subcommittee meetings as happened recently at the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee when Councilman Steve Adams bashed two former candidates who ran against him during elections who had also applied to be interviewed for the Planning Commission. Some city officials are apparently so insecure about being criticized on an issue they support that rather than simply thanking an individual for their comments, they have to give a speech afterward defending that issue as if that's necessary for people watching to decide whether or not to support an issue. If they were truly confident that the issues that they defend would pass the muster of the vote of either the city council or the public, then they wouldn't find it necessary to do so over and over.

With an environment like that among elected officials towards those who criticize their actions, it's small wonder that you have people crawling out from assorted rocks to write online comments purportedly giving people hair and makeup advice or taking some photograph of you and attaching it to a rant. No wonder at all and the scary thing is that these individuals have deluded themselves to really believe they are defending the city's honor or something of that nature. Of course, it doesn't help when a creepy and harassing email taken out in an account in your name traces back to the city's ISP service as its point of origin.


And if you have a city council member who says something like the following.


"You need to have integrity to apply for this commission and two of the people here don't have any."


Which is exactly what Adams did several weeks ago. If you want to hear his comments, they are on the recording for the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting that took place on Jan. 15. Most elected officials in this position of deciding would simply say they are concerned about a candidate's lack of community involvement or say they should have been living in the city longer. Adams obviously couldn't go that route so he just said they had no integrity, but at the same time he was showing exactly how he viewed himself in that area. Showing rather than telling.

At any rate, what to do if an elected official makes the above statement?

You can respond like this.


"I really appreciate that Councilman [insert name] but I'm still going to apply for this commission."


If an elected official calls you a liar or says that you're lying at a public meeting, here's a possible response.


"I got that [insert name], but I'm still going to speak out on this issue."





Of course, this can be most difficult because most often, elected officials make these comments when the subject of them is unable to respond even to defend his or herself. If this is the case, then wait for another city council meeting and just briefly and courteously say the above comment and then move on with your other planned comments. Don't let them discourage you into silence, by these remarks. Keep participating in your elected government.

And if you do address them by name and are not complimenting them, then Loveridge will probably tell you that you have to address the entire body. That is, if another elected official doesn't helpfully bark out, "point of order" to do so. This however, applies only to criticisms and not compliments.


For example, which comment below will elicit this type of action?


A) "[Insert Name] is withholding information from the body."

B) "[Insert Name] looked amazing in his brand new suit at the reception the other week. Did you note the exquisite pattern on his tie?"

Take your guess.


Also, from time to time, elected officials will compliment your manners and style of commenting and then say, "you're really a cut above [insert name or names]" or "you're not at the level of [insert name(s)]. However, before you are pleased at what the elected official has just told you this or you fail to see it for the strategic move that it is, remember this. The next week, they could be saying that you've got no ethics, which may cause your head to spin around faster than Linda Blair's did in The Exorcist not to mention the confusion which often comes with doublespeak which is an unfortunate side effect of politics in Riverside and other places as well.


So you have to take even compliments from politicians with a grain of salt. They may or may not mean them or they may actually believe them then but not later, and that's the nature of the game. It doesn't matter how nicely you behave or how politely or how well they have already said you conduct yourself. If you disagree with them on an issue particularly one they feel passionately about, you will be treated this way at some point. Even well-respected community leaders who have always been polite to elected officials have been called or labeled as liars by one elected official or another. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is, as musician, Bruce Hornsby might say.


It has everything to do with them especially during an election year, not with you, so keep focused on the issues involving the city that you feel passionate about, whether it's the library, parks, public participation or others. Keep speaking on these issues. And if you get insulted for it, just thank them courteously for their comments and keep on being active.

The interesting and sad thing is that other elected officials who don't directly participate will sit and watch because this is how business is conducted and I suppose they really know no other way to do it. In a sense, that's their operational culture. If anyone runs for office in the future, they will have to make the decision at some point if this is behavior that they will either engage in themselves or will support tacitly or otherwise. It's on a list of a lot of considerations when running for a political position but once you get there, it's hard to sway that climate.

And until we have a generation of politicians in office who will reject this attitude, it's likely here to stay for a while.





Opening arguments are beginning in this police officer's trial on charges of molesting two teenaged girls.




The latest issue of Urban Politics by Nick Licata addresses the future of civilian oversight in Seattle. Licata is the strongest proponent of civilian review and the Office of Professional Accountability and supports appealing the recent court decision in favor of the Seattle Police Department's police union.


(excerpt)


I believe that the City should appeal the decision. It may also be necessary for the City to appeal a final PERC decision to the Superior Court if PERC proves to be incapable of weighing public concerns that go beyond those of the police guild's membership.

The struggle that goes on in Seattle between the Police Guild and the City in defining a workable and fair citizen oversight mechanism is one that is taking place in city after city across the U.S. At a recent conference of the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), a speaker noted that European police unions were the easiest to work with on establishing police accountability functions; while Canadian police unions were more difficult; and that those in the U.S. were the hardest. If true, that would mean where unions have the most political influence and the best compensation packages, the acceptance of civilian oversight is easiest. Perhaps it is so difficult in the U.S. because police unions feel that they have so little of each.

In any case SPOG has filed more ULPs than any other union with the City of Seattle, and their willingness to file them does not seem to be slowing down. SPOG President Rich O'Neill told the Seattle Times that the police guild expects to file another complaint with PERC on another ordinance (122513) that I sponsored and that was passed unanimously by the Council. It requires that the Chief of Police and the OPA Director provide written explanations when they disagree on the final disposition of a complaint investigation, and to require that the OPA Director provide a written explanation when his or her recommendation to sustain a misconduct complaint results in no discipline because the complaint investigation was not completed within the time period specified in the applicable union contract.

SPOG's attitude has been consistent. They insist on bargaining almost any oversight of police officers. But they have also consistently opposed such measures - although a recent quote in the Seattle P.I. from O'Neill suggests that if their union receives a high enough payment then civilians can have an oversight function to promote greater police accountability:

"I'm not saying it's impossible to get it. All I'm saying is let's see how serious they are about wanting it."

Which brings this discussion back to the bargaining table or the courts to determine: "What is a mandatory subject of bargaining?" That is what this fight is about in legal terms. In practical terms it's about protecting civilians from police abuse and promoting fair and accountable policing in a manner that is respects employee rights.

I will continue this pursuit and I hope the Council, the Mayor and the public does as well.





The Seattle Police Department Police Officers' Guild issued a press release in response.



January 25, 2008

TO: All Media Outlets

FM: Richard F. O'Neill, President
Seattle Police Officers' Guild

RE: PERC Rules that Seattle Ordinance Violated the Law

In May 2006 the Seattle City Council passed an ordinance, spearheaded
by Nick Licata, that allowed the OPA Review Board access to unredacted
files from OPA investigations. The council also changed certain
confidentiality requirements for the OPA-RB members in an attempt to
hold the members harmless in the event that unredacted file
information was improperly revealed to the public or the media.

The Seattle Police Officers' Guild filed an Unfair Labor Practice with
the state and argued that the ordinance violated state law. A hearing
was heard before the PERC examiner in April 2007. On January 23, 2008,
the Washington State Public Employee Relations Commission released
its' ruling in favor of the Seattle Police Officers' Guild. The
commission stated that the city "unlawfully violated the obligation to
bargain in good faith when it unilaterally adopted a change in the
confidentiality and redacted files rule utilized by OPARB and OPA."
The commission voided the Licata ordinance and further ordered the
city to purge all findings of the OPARB based on unredacted files and
to return all unredacted files back to the OPA.

SPOG President Rich O'Neill said that he was elated by the decision
and that this is a major victory for SPOG. "Hopefully, this sends a
clear message to the city council that the way to seek changes in the
police contract is at the bargaining table and not by passing an
ordinance."

The official notice is attached to the press release. For more
information contact SPOG at 206-767-1150.





A blue ribbon panel had both good news and bad for the Kings County Sheriff Department.



(excerpt, Seattle Press-Intelligencer)


The Blue Ribbon panel was formed in 2006 after the Seattle P-I's "Conduct Unbecoming" series exposed a system of poor oversight in the Sheriff's Office for deputies accused of misconduct. It urged sweeping reforms in oversight of the Sheriff's Office and had been holding public hearings last year on adopting those reforms.

In its report, the panel urges the county to amend its charter to grant Rahr more authority in negotiating with the deputies' union over working conditions. In past contract talks, the sheriff offers recommendations to the county executive, who negotiates wages, benefits and working conditions. But the sheriff does not sign the contract.

"This arrangement creates a structural impediment to an effective and accountable outcome that best serves the interest of the public and the employees of the Sheriff's Office," according to the report.

"Without this authority, it is difficult and unfair for citizens to hold the Sheriff accountable for leadership and oversight of the office."

This is interesting, given that for many law enforcement agencies, the head of them is not necessarily involved and in some cases encouraged not to be stuck in the middle of negotiations between law enforcement labor unions and the city or county management. Yet, the chief or sheriff of those agencies should and is held accountable in terms of leadership responsibilities by the public.

During an interview, former Bolingbrook sergeant, Drew Peterson cut it short when questioned about the investigation into the disappearance of his wife, Stacy including questions about the blue barrel that he and a relative allegedly carried to his SUV about the time his wife disappeared.

Peterson was more interested in participating in a dating game put together by a radio show. Perhaps he knows something that everyone else does not.


(excerpt, Chicago Sun-Times)



Peterson tried to halt the line of questioning, saying he'd agreed only to talk about the ''Win a Date with Drew'' contest that he had wanted to have.

When Smith said he'd never agree to limit what he could ask about, Peterson became perturbed.

''OK, I guess I got to walk away. Have a good day, Mr. Shepard,'' he said before pulling the microphone off and walking back into his house.