Did Riverside City Hall retaliate against two police lieutenants?

"We do not believe that the allegations have any merit.More importantly, we believe the city will stand behind the police chief's decision to promote the best-qualified candidate."


---City Attorney Gregory Priamos, who always makes statements like this because he's paid to do so. But bear in mind, he made similar "meritless" statements before the city has paid out on the following lawsuits filed against it.



Officer Roger Sutton's racial discrimination/harassment lawsuit: $1.64 million jury's verdict

The Summer Lane shooting lawsuit: $395,000 settlement

The Douglas Steven Cloud shooting lawsuit: $800,000 settlement

The Lee Deante Brown shooting lawsuit: Not finalized yet but this one's settling too.




Why's Priamos on the stump defending the city again and sounding like a broken record in the process? Just read below at breaking news of yet another personnel lawsuit facing the Riverside Police Department, alleging unfair practices by either the city or the department.


Two Riverside Police Department lieutenants said they were denied promotions due to political choices. They are Darryl Hurt, who's African-American and the department's highest ranking African-American and Tim Bacon who's White.

Allegations have been made against different parties in the claim.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



During last year's City Council elections, the lieutenants opposed Councilman Steve Adams, a retired officer. The claim stated that since then, Adams and Councilman Frank Schiavone have made "negative and retaliatory remarks," including Schiavone telling an officer to distance himself from the pair if he wanted to be promoted and Adams telling an officer that he would not be promoted because he was supporting another candidate.



Both have been with the police department for many years. Both were active leaders in the police union which represented lieutenants and captains in the department during labor negotiations, the latest taking place in 2006. Both were allegedly assigned to work as watch commanders in the field operations division after telling Chief Russ Leach they planned to sue the city. Bacon had been heading the department's successful Office of Community Services which houses community policing projects and programs and Hurt had been working as a supervisor in the department's Investigations Division in the department's organizational chart from June 2007 that's included in the police department's annual report.

When the department released its latest restructuring of its well, infrastructure in January 2008, Hurt and Bacon were either replaced or their assignments as in the case of Bacon were consolidated to another division which appears to have little in common with it. Not that a department doesn't change assignments periodically and this department's seems to change its organizational structure rather often, but what's interesting in Bacon's case is that the police chief and the department espouse their commitment to community policing as a philosophy on a regular basis. Which is definitely praiseworthy but an explanation as to why the division that handled it was consolidated into a division which handles several programs and units from Special Operations including the canine unit, TSU and the PACT team has never been publicly explained in great detail so that the public can be assured that the community policing model that the department's supposed to be based upon and emulating is still not only in place, but expanding its operations.

How does shoving this office under the umbrella of another division where except perhaps for Youth Court, it has little to do with any of the other programs and units going to accomplish this? If there's an explanation, the public has yet to hear it. Any discussion about the present and future of community policing is definitely worth the time and energy and would be good for police and community relations.

Through a lawyer, both men filed a claim against the city alleging that the city manager's office and two councilman have retaliated against them for political activism associated with the Riverside Police Administrators' Association (which Hurt served as president on until recently), particularly its involvement with labor issues as well as political campaign issues. Both men were actively involved in the last city election because the RPAA had taken out political action committee status and became more involved in the process like its sibling, the Riverside Police Officers' Association has been doing. And there were a lot of police officers who didn't back former police office, Steve Adams in his attempt to get reelected, including the Riverside Police Officers' Association who backed one of his political rivals instead.


City Manager Brad Hudson, Councilman Frank Schiavone and Adams were listed in the claim by name involving some of the allegations. Schiavone and Adams allegedly made comments that officers wouldn't be promoted either because they made comments supporting a different city council candidate or unless they distanced themselves from their two colleagues. If this is the case and if these allegations are being made, then there needs to be a Riverside County Grand Jury investigation of whether or not the city government truly is interfering with the promotional practices of one of the city's department heads. Including the handling of the attempts by the city manager's office to turn three high-ranking department management positions into being "at will", an action which was rescinded after much protest from the RPAA and the RPOA and City Attorney Gregory Priamos told the city council and city manager this couldn't be done with management positions in either the fire or police departments.

That episode gave the city residents some hints that decision making in the police department was perhaps being done outside of it and if that's the truth about the promotional process, then that's beyond disturbing. And even as the city manager's office has been alleged to be involved in the micromanagement of many a city department, it was the allegations about similar actions involving the promotional process of the police department last year that brought people down to City Hall to speak about it. And the people who showed up then and expressed concerns about that should be even more concerned about what's going on now, not because it's worse but because it begs the question of whether or not it's part of a continuum. The situation which has arisen involving these issues probably needs a good airing out.


When I saw the headline on the news story, I can't say that I wasn't surprised about the claim, not because anyone told me but because no one had to do so. All you really had to do was pay attention at what's now history in this city.

I remember the long, hot summer of 2006 when the city manager's office was so skilled at labor negotiations that they only faced at least two law suits alleging unfair labor practices, a strike vote and numerous appearances at City Hall by members of at least four of the city's labor unions. The protests were unusual in that they involved so many upset unions at one time, more than anyone could recall in recent memory. But is the city still experiencing fallout from that time?

The retaliation apparently started at least back then, before the department began its selection process for the most recent captain position as several city unions and their leadership complained about their treatment by the city during the process of labor negotiations.

In fact, Hurt himself tried to speak during public comment on labor issues involving the RPAA's negotiations with the city and Mayor Ron Loveridge wouldn't allow him to do so and shut him completely off, something which the mayor rarely does unless a speaker is out of time at the podium.

Allegations in the claim include Hudson and his underling, Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis asking for a list of RPAA members who voted to support the lawsuit that union filed against the city in the summer of 2006, telling the lieutenants to "be careful". If that's what happened, that's tantamount to making a threat, you know the ambiguous kind that those who make can't even own up to what they are saying and any allegations of such behavior by city employees should be investigated promptly. In fact, since it's the city council who directly hires, employs, evaluates and fires several employees, this body should take the initiative and initiate the investigation into these allegations including as to whether the two men or anyone else was told to "be careful".

If these allegations are true, then perhaps these city employees should elaborate on what was said and answer this question, be careful of what?


Will this be done? Of course not. Given that two out of seven sitting members of that body are included in the claim and if the city manager's office's actions are given further scrutiny, so theirs will be. And the one thing the city council has proven time and time again is how poorly it is at holding each other on the dais accountable for their behavior.

I was reminded of that last night when one woman spoke during public comment and you could see Schiavone press his button to signal the mayor to cut the woman off likely because she was talking about issues impacting Native Americans which might not be viewed as being germane (as if this city doesn't have any Native Americans, let alone a federal school for students who are Native American within its borders) in this city even though a young woman attending Sherman Indian High School had just been honored by the city council. Mayor Ron Loveridge ignored him and then Schiavone made this slicing motion with his hand which in this context was likely a gesture to the mayor to cut the speaker off. Loveridge still ignored him. It was interesting to watch it play out. The other city council members ignored what was going on, as they might just be used to it what plays out on the dais.

After all, for those who have closely watched the city council's handling of the Ethics Complaint Process during the past two years, know that when it comes to city council members holding each other accountable for what they say, there's no such thing.

And having been treated in public in a sense the way that two male employees in the city could have been treated in private by two councilmen, who face it are so profuse with their personal attacks and criticisms of people who speak at city council meetings, it's hard to simply write off the complaints as these two lieutenants as "frivolous". If it's happened to me, how can I say it's not happened to anyone else? And while I can shrug it off as a useful litmus test of my activism and a sign of immaturity in an elected official, it's not really possible to do like if you're a city employee who works for a city employee, who works for a direct city employee who works for the city council. Only in this case, it wouldn't be clear whether or not some of the rungs on this employment ladder have been skipped over.

I'd love to know for sure that's the case that these are indeed frivolous but it's hard not to have some serious doubt particularly in the case of Adams.

Adams said in public that a speaker who lives in his ward had little or no class. He's made statements in the past saying people have lied. During a Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting, he made personal comments about two people included on a list of Ward Seven applicants interested in serving on the city's Planning Commission. About Mary Lou Morales and presumably Art Garcia, he had said, that people needed to have integrity on the Planning Commission and two of them didn't have any. Garcia and Morales were the two people on the list who had ran against him during at least one election for city council. Adams also verbally attacked another former political rival, James Martin when Martin was simply sitting in his seat at an election forum last year.

Adams is very hard apparently on those who either run against him for office or support those candidates who do oppose him. Some of that is natural during an election where passions overflow and the competition can get heated. But it seems like more and more people are collecting "Adams" stories of these outbursts.

I certainly hear about them when people approach me after seeing me at city council meetings. But the interesting thing is that far from harming people's reputations, Adams' personal attacks appear to actually enhance the reputations of those on the receiving end. One reason, is that people tend to react to elected officials who are responsible for making decisions which impact their quality of life in a negative fashion when they make statements like this. And people have asked me that if they go to speak at city council, will Adams or other elected officials treat them this way? Outbursts like those made by Adams and other (but definitely not all) city officials make it appear that these individuals just aren't up to the high-pressure environment of civic politics if they can't even handle criticisms in a public forum without making outbursts.


These troubling outbursts make it difficult to believe that Adams wouldn't make comments that a lieutenant might not get promoted if he didn't support him politically. If he behaves the way he does in public, what does that say about how he acts in private?

These two councilmen have their days when they make principled statements and fight great fights, though for at least one of them, their better days were in other terms. Then they have their days when they are playing the roles more similar to those which they'd claimed had spurred them to run for political office in the first place. They've become what they once opposed, probably without even realizing it. That's usually the case with politicians.

And these allegations raised by the two lieutenants of what's may have been going on outside the public arena are disturbing indeed.

But ultimately it's up for a trial jury to decide who said what, to who when and that's probably something that's sorely needed in this city is for these issues which continue to plague it to be played out in a public arena instead of behind closed doors so city residents can get the truth about how politics, labor and otherwise, play out in this city. What's been shown in public so far including but not exclusively, the "at will" episode of March 2007 has already at least indicated some serious issues that perhaps are more suited for an outside investigation, including the county grand jury. The irony is, that by nature these mechanisms of accountability and investigation are also conducted in secret.


And my advice to these two lieutenants is that if you want to learn more about how commissioners have alleged similar treatment, go talk to the gentleman who resigned from the Community Police Review Commission last summer and hear his allegations about how he felt treated by the "seventh floor".


To be continued...










I actually attended the city council meeting this week. As far as meetings go, it was fairly short and sparsely attended once people left after the presentations (which are usually the highlights). The summer-like days of past have faded and a cooler breeze accentuated the air around City Hall.



We interrupt this narrative for the following special news bulletin.


Riverside County's CEO Larry Parrish will retire beginning on July 31.



A replacement hasn't been announced. At least not in a public venue. But everyone seems to have their theories about possible replacements to that throne.


More information on this developing story here.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



Wilson said he hopes the county will have a successor in place by the time Parrish leaves.

Riverside City Manager Brad Hudson, who worked previously as executive director of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency, has been mentioned over the years as a possible candidate to succeed Parrish.

Wilson said Hudson would be a viable candidate but maintained "the board will want to look at all candidates."

Parrish said the board would not ask him whom to appoint, but he would help by providing a list of desired qualities.

He acknowledged that Hudson has long been believed to be interested in the position.

"Only Prince Charles has waited longer for a job," Parrish said. "I just have the highest regard for him. That is a name you'll hear."

When asked Tuesday, Hudson declined to comment.







Apparently Councilman Steve Adams wasn't impressed enough with his prior showings in the category of not quite ready for prime time because he said that La Sierra resident and dedicated activist Yolanda Garland had little or no class. Well, he did it in kind of a backhanded way, saying that some people had little or no class, and then mentioned Yolanda's name. But the one thing that people who have been treated in this fashion by Adams can say is that if anything, it enhances your reputation. Like many people who speak at city council meetings, Yolanda is recognized when she goes out in public and many people admire her and her sharp, humorous and always on target commentaries during her three-minute stint in front of the dais. Garland and other city residents have sued the city on land use issues and to hold the city accountable for how it implements two voter-passed growth control measures. The yard sales to raise funds to pay the attorneys are among the highlights of many people's shopping for good finds.

Added to the list of people who live and care about what happens in Ward Seven that Adams has made similar derisive comments about are two people who had run against him for office in that ward who had filled out applications to be considered for appointments to the Planning Commission to represent Ward Seven.


Councilwoman Nancy Hart shook her head vehemently apparently in protest when I mentioned the issues of busing students, displacing students and overcrowded schools. According to this article on the impact of the Grant Elementary School closing, these things would not just apply to students from this school but others in the district as well.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



Closing Grant -- which also has the district's smallest K-6 enrollment -- would cause a ripple effect among the nearest elementary schools that would have to absorb its displaced students.

As many as 260 regular students -- and another 20 students enrolled in special day classes -- would be uprooted from Grant. However, at least 488 K-6 students would change schools through a chain effect caused by its closure, district officials have said.

If Grant closes, the three nearest elementary schools -- Bryant, Magnolia and Pachappa -- would be the main destinations in 2008-09 for most of the students living within Grant's attendance area.

Most Grant students who walk or take the bus to campus will change schools but not their routine, officials said.

But to make room for Grant's projected 280 students, at least 228 students enrolled at the three schools would be moved to other schools with enough classroom space, district officials have said.

Eighty-four students would go from Bryant to Fremont Elementary; 60 would go from Magnolia to Emerson Elementary and 84 would go from Pachappa to Longfellow Elementary. In addition, 34 preschoolers next year would attend Beatty Elementary instead of Bryant.



And some schools including Longfellow Elementary are so crowded, other students in the neighborhoods where they reside are bused off to other schools and the crowding at Longfellow which already exists has led to an ongoing discussion about building another elementary school in the Eastside.




These city council briefs don't do much justice to the drama and flair of the city council meeting experience but they provide brief coverage of the votes. There used to be a time back in the day when there was more news coverage of the city council meetings. Those days are passed.



In case you couldn't attend the 3 p.m budget workshop and many people couldn't, here is the report. Much of it reads like an itemized sheet for Riverside Renaissance which shouldn't be surprising.

The city won't be spending as much. So said City Manager Brad Hudson here.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


The general fund budget he is recommending would be $213.4 million, compared to the $226.5 million budget the council approved for 2007-08. The city would maintain a general fund reserve of $45 million.

The general fund pays for police and fire protection, parks and recreation services, street maintenance, tree trimming and other programs and services.

Hudson said he and his staff saw last August that revenues were plummeting and began cutting spending right away.

City revenues have been lower than originally projected this fiscal year in several categories. Sales tax revenues are the single largest source of city revenues, for example, and are expected to be $52.5 million instead of the $61.3 million forecast.

To make up for the diminishing revenues this year, the city has not hired for positions that were going to be filled, Hudson said, and would do the same next year. Contract workers have been let go in departments such as building and safety, which are not as busy with the decline in development.

City employees are traveling less. The city is postponing buying new vehicles, computers and other equipment, and is deferring maintenance on buildings and vehicles, among other cost-cutting measures, he said.


The city won't be filling some police and fire positions as had been expected but the president of the Riverside Firefighters Association was cool with that.


A public hearing on the city's budget plans will take place on June 10.




Riverside Renaissance of course won't be touched and it's interesting but one question that's come up is that are there any capital projects advertised under the Renaissance banner that are pulling funding out of the city's general fund? Also, is there really much different from the bonds that the city is selling to pay for Renaissance if as one person said after the meeting, the city will be using money that could have been put in the general fund (through property tax increases)to pay off Redevelopment Agency bonds because so much of the owned property in this city including homes lies within the Redevelopment Agency zones.

Meaning that taxes collected on owned properties outside the Redevelopment Agency zones goes into the city's general fund but tax increments that come from properties inside these zones will likely be used to pay bonds. As it is necessary for Redevelopment Agency zones to always operate in the red, this is a difficult cycle to break.




A cement plant near Riverside is filling the air with a toxic chemical, hexavalent chromium. With all the other pollutants in the area, it might seem like this is just another one in the mix, but this chemical is a known carcinogen.



(excerpt, Los Angeles Times)



"We're not aware of any previous reports that a cement factory would have this level of hexavalent chromium-related risk, but the fact of the matter is we have sampled downwind of the facility, we've sampled upwind of the facility, we cross-checked and did backward calculations using air quality modeling, and it's our best professional opinion that this is coming from the Riverside cement plant," said Wallerstein.

"They have very large piles of cement material . . . and we believe that the dust from these piles is causing a downwind hexavalent chromium condition."

A company official said TXI had been talking with air quality officials about the readings, but maintained that the company's plant had not officially been identified as the source of the emissions.

"We're obviously just as concerned as the district is," said Frank Sheets, a spokesman for TXI Riverside Cement. "I think the key here is verification . . . They're making an assumption, we believe at this point in time, that we're the source of that high concentration, and we need to go through a verification process, to verify their findings."




The premiere was almost good enough to be on Broadway, as Wildomar held its first city council meetings since it became a new city.


Columnist Carl Love emotes about the historic event in civic participation and brings up an important point at the end.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



Cashman pushed the envelope even further when he talked about how the new council needed to stay in close contact with its residents. Regular town hall meetings could be a way to achieve that, his colleagues happily chimed in. Fancy that, politicians who want to hear from the public. What exactly are they smoking over there in Wildomar?


An Orange County Sheriff's Department deputy was fired after revealing her grand jury testimony in an investigation regarding the beating death of a jail inmate, to a department investigator.






Both sides of the trial of three New York City Police Department officers charged in connection with the fatal onduty shooting of Sean Bell are waiting for the judge's final decision on the case.



(excerpt, New York Daily News)




Queens Supreme Court Justice Arthur Cooperman got the case on Monday after prosecutors and defense lawyers made impassioned final arguments in the controversial case.

He said he would issue his verdict on April 25.

The arguments were familiar and disarmingly simple: Either the police were reckless and overreacted or the victims were acting like thugs and brought it on themselves.



The job for the judge to make a decision will be difficult.


(excerpt, New York Daily News)



"The defendants were not justified in using deadly force - not from the first shot," prosecutor Charles Testagrossa said in his three-hour closing statement. "We ask police to risk their lives to protect ours - not to risk our lives to protect theirs."

While Bell's parents, fiancée and friends looked on, Testagrossa accused defense lawyers of engaging in "cross-examination as cruel sport" when they grilled shooting survivors Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield about their personal lives and criminal records.

"In all of this we've started to lose sight of the fact that Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield are victims," the prosecutor said. "There's been a lot of blaming the victim in this case."