Election 2008: He said, she said, they said, we said

"I just can't imagine a plausible argument against identifying people in our country especially in light of 9-11. I would be more concerned with people who are more reluctant to get I.D. cards."


----Ward Four Councilman and Riverside County supervisor candidate, Frank Schiavone at a city council meeting on July 22, 2003 where an agenda item on Mexican Consulate I.D. cards was presented by Mayor Ron Loveridge. The item was ultimately pulled off of the agenda amidst arguments against it including one presented by then Deputy Chief Andrew Pytlak.




"Despite opposition from the Riverside Police Department, Schiavone urged the City to honor I.D. cards given by the Mexican government to illegal aliens"


---Statement included on a campaign brochure put out by Bob Buster for Supervisor.




"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."


----Lewis Carroll





The first quote listed above was one included in an article published by the Los Angeles Times on July 23, 2003 in its Inland Empire version on page one of the B-section. According to the article, Schiavone along with Loveridge had supported the I.D. cards introduced by a representative of the Mexican Consulate because it would help immigrants prove their identity. Loveridge mentioned that it would do so in cases where they were being cited for minor criminal offenses and in his report, to "establish a friendlier rapport with law enforcement".

According to the same article, the Riverside Police Department represented by Pytlak (because Chief Russ Leach was on vacation when this meeting took place), opposed the plan citing security risks. What is interesting is that at least at this point and time, the same argument that the department was raising against accepting the cards was the opposite of the one being used by Schiavone in that while the department believed the cards created security concerns, Schiavone said that the cards increased public security. His reference to 9-11 in the above quote was cited as his example to live by and it appears from his quote that he's responding to concerns about public safety raised by members of the public perhaps that spoke and sent emails arguing against accepting the cards and perhaps the police department as well. He then added that he couldn't think of any argument that could oppose his own.

But at the time, the police department's management representative had just presented one.

Not much happened to resolve that impasse because the item was ultimately pulled and postponed for further discussion down the road. No one including Schiavone voted for or against the cards during that session because there was no vote to accept or deny them on the table. But after reading brochures and listening to recordings of several current or former Riverside Police Department employees making statements that Schiavone never voted to approve the I.D. cards and he never forced the police department to accept or honor them, it seems to muddle the issue rather than clarify it. It's not until doing a little research into this July 22, 2003 city council meeting where the issue arose that it's easy to see how confusing all the recollections of how it went down are in revisiting it.


And the reason they are confusing now nearly five years later is because the vote involving the acceptance of these cards didn't actually play out in a way that provided much closure on the issue to decide who was really for or against the cards and who was urging the city to accept them. So as a result, it makes all the parties appear on the surface to be technically correct in some respect but then it seems that although there's conflict between different factions of who said or did what, when, there's some strawman argument thrown in for good measure. Instances where one side claims the other said something they didn't and then sets up their argument against these statements that were never actually made. That's what is particularly interesting about the audio recorded messages. They appear to be responding to claims that weren't made and talking around the ones that were made. They should be, because even though those making the statements said they did it to clarify the issue usually on behalf of the department, the labor unions, the fire fighters (who including Chief Tedd Laycock appear to have been quiet so far), it's really about getting votes for their candidate. It certainly presents the police department in a different light and a discomfiting one at that.


In that sense, Chief Russ Leach's assertion in a paid political announcement on the radio is technically correct, in that Schiavone never voted to approve the cards, but what's not said is that no one including Schiavone voted to deny the cards either at that city council meeting. It's debatable on whether it's indeed correct or not that Schiavone forced the police department to accept the cards because the vote wasn't taken. At any rate, it doesn't matter because the allegation raised in the Buster campaign's brochure quoted above wasn't that the department was forced by Schiavone to accept the I.D. cards, it was that Schiavone had urged the city to honor them. The city, of which the police department was just one part of.

In a sense, the Buster campaign's statements are also technically correct in that they alleged that Schiavone urged the city and did not allege that he'd voted in favor of the measure. But what both parties' statements bring to the table is a feeling of what would have happened if the agenda item hadn't been tabled by the city council that day and would the statements that are essentially true on a technicality today been made or refuted three years later during an election?



So what would have happened if the item had been the subject of an actual vote for or against on July 22, 2003 and hadn't been pulled? Would Schiavone have voted for it? Would it have passed? And if it passed and if he voted on it, would the city have then forced or urged (and it's likely that the latter would be used to do the other) to accept the I.D. cards? If this scenario played out, it would be fair to say that on the public record through his vote, that Schiavone (along with those who approved the cards) had forced the police department to accept them. But it didn't. And individuals are claiming something that's true but might not be true if the agenda item had actually gone to a vote and since no vote was taken including by Schiavone on that day, it's

Regardless of the outcome, it's fair enough to say that Schiavone urged the city to accept the cards if what he was quoted as saying at that meeting in the Los Angeles Times is what he said. What the Los Angeles Times article stated conflicts with allegations that Schiavone forced the department (which weren't made at least in this brochure) but appear to have been made on the audio advertisements.


This is about how this issue has been portrayed several years after it was debated in Riverside in two political campaigns for one county seat on an issue which at least on Schiavone's side wasn't an oft-mentioned one by him at least at city council meetings as well as others until just recently. His explanation to me of his decision not to vote for Prop. 187 (whose provisions are now ones Schiavone has promised he would enforce in his campaign statement and at least one brochure) because he hoped that immigrants would bring the patriotism they learned from living in the United States back to Mexico showed that his views were more nuanced than presented in this campaign but that was then and this is now. And somehow rather than addressing the serious issues that have long been present in Riverside County, it's coming down through paid radio announcement, computerized phone calls from Massachusetts and brochures about who's the "toughest" on an issue that until recently, you didn't hear that much about.

The focus on undocumented immigrants as being gang members, in jail and leeching from the county's social services is one that isn't exactly new as members of other racial minorities have been stereotyped in the same way including during elections. But it's not even accurate. Most undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central American countries come to the United States to work and support families in their home countries and it's ironic that the stereotypes are being flung by political candidates who work in industries like agriculturel and home construction which traditionally have and continue to hire many undocumented immigrants to keep labor costs down and profits higher. Yet, there's no discussion about the role of these immigrants in labor but only in spreading the perception that it's all about stealing county resources from politicians that because of their backgrounds, should have a better understanding of this labor force.


Far from stealing resources, they add resources to the system that they never collect on. Why would the majority of undocumented immigrants rely on public services when most of them don't want to draw attention to themselves because of their residency status? After all, many of them never collect on the income taxes and social security money that is paid out by their employers or removed from their pay. In some states, that adds up to tens of millions of dollars or more annually. In some cases, much more.

Many police agencies including that in Riverside have expressed frustration at not being able to reach out to undocumented immigrants who are crime victims or witnesses to crimes because many undocumented immigrants don't want to draw attention to themselves and many come from countries with corrupt and violent police forces. But they are also less likely to report police misconduct as well. One reason why some of the biggest police scandals in Southern California including the Rampart Scandal in Los Angeles (as the Rampart precinct has a high number of undocumented immigrants) and the city of Maywood had been taking place before the stories about what was going on within them became public.

This is the first time that department representative after department representative has publicly voiced through a political campaign their concerns about "illegal aliens" on such a massive scale and it's ironic indeed that it's actually been during an election process. The department has essentially made one point through its participation in a political campaign clear. If you are undocumented and a crime victim, you probably shouldn't come to us.

The sentiments of using an issue which certainly isn't even in the top five critical county issues that I've heard about to inflame voters to support them is enough so that there's a bunch of folks in different venues rewriting the history for both sides of what took place at a city council meeting nearly five years ago or tweak their stances around what actually happened so their claims are technically accurate but also make it clear that the two sides aren't even having the same conversation. And the funny thing is, that since all sides seem to be embracing the same stereotypes, you wonder if it weren't an election year and there wasn't a competition going on, if they'd be involved in an argument at all.

It's not pleasant to watch an election come down to who can appeal best to those It's not pleasant to watch police department management employees do the same to stump for a candidate who just happens to be up a little bit higher on the city's food chain than they are. It's not pleasant to watch a police chief "speak" up for labor unions who are more than capable of speaking for themselves, though if you read his deposition on the case of Ryan Wilson v the City of Riverside, he had said that he would join in with "my police association" to push for the removal of one of the Community Police Review Commission members, a statement that might make other chiefs like William Bratton who's headed three law enforcement agencies and even his predecessor in Los Angeles Bernard Parks blanch.

It's one thing for police leaders to support their officers and even agree with them on issues, it's another for them to identify so closely with law enforcement unions in their agency. It's rare that police chiefs associate so closely let alone identify themselves as part of police associations because most of them realize what a mine field the entire can be to navigate through and how important it is for police chiefs to remain apart from the labor unions which include their employees as members.

Hopefully, there will be more of a focus on the issues like "out of control spending" (as claimed by Schiavone though Riversiders might apply that observation to Riverside Renaissance), development, traffic, provision of services including public safety to unincorporated areas vs contract cities or cities that have their own services. More cities becoming just that, cities, not to mention annexations within the county. Issues with the expansion of civilian and business use of March Air Base and the DHL disaster. Issues including concerns about parolees and sex offenders outnumber those of undocumented immigrants but not much in the way of canned messages through the telephone on how "public safety" will be handling them. Hopefully, when the candidates are done trying to bash each other over the I.D. card issue, they'll spend some remaining minutes until election day addressing all of these in their campaign materials and talk at least as much about what they plan to do than what the other guy is not doing.

But Riverside, city and county, have always had their own brand of politics and people shrug. After all, in several years the collective memory of the county's voters might actually be that they elected the new sheriff in town. For being a large city, Riverside's politics are much more small-town than even in many cities its size. In that sense, it's interesting to watch them play out especially during election time.

The election took a bizarre turn with these recent brochures, phone messages and radio advertisements. It's a reminder of how politics often play out in smaller towns than in larger cities and counties.


But Schiavone's past comments are certainly more nuanced than the arguments about the cards which technically speaking were cards issued by the Consulate to anyone who applied for them from that country and that included legal immigrants but it seems that when it comes to those which aren't White, few people know the difference or bother to know the difference.

Some have said the I.D. card is a distraction issue and yes it is. But it's being used by both sides to distract each other and the voters to the point where it's taken a life of its own. But with two weeks to go before the final vote is taken, that remains to be seen when discussion will take place involving the issues that county residents if not the candidates who hope to represent them are talking about.











Capt. Mike Blakely and Asst. Chief John De La Rosa attended the public safety committee meeting to give a briefing on the police department's mental health training and response program created and implemented by the department.


Some of the first officers to attend the training in the spring of 2007 were members of the Riverside Police Officers' Association's safety committee. They provided a useful critique of the program to its directors, according to the department's representatives. Since then, about 212 police officers out of 395 total and the first two dispatchers have completed the 30-hour training course.

Yet to be determined is how the Riverside County annual budget and any cuts towards mental health services will impact the availability of county employees on the teaching curriculum for the course. Already paid for at least for the upcoming fiscal year is a pilot program teaming police officers with mental health experts that is hoped to begin in July.






Divided are the members of Riverside City Hall's blue ribbon panel on the proposed expansion of the downtown library and museum, according to the Press Enterprise. Only one person supports the joint expansion that City Manager Brad Hudson had envisioned but the other ones are divided into two factions what the relationship of the two institutions will be.

The role of public comment in the process was also discussed. Public comment as you know often appears to be the four-letter word in the city these days. That's fostered by apparently two city council members who are very vocal about patting themselves in the back for reducing the number of city residents attending city council meetings and providing public comment.



(excerpt)



The council created the task force and gave it 90 days to come up with its recommendations. But consultant Jeffrey Scherer told the panel he believes it will need more time, especially to allow for more public participation.

"I just think it would be shortsighted to rush this," he said.

The task force was originally set to hold its final meeting June 7 but revised its schedule.

It now plans to meet from 3 to 7 p.m. June 6 to come up with tentative recommendations. It will then hold a large public meeting to take up to two hours of public comment from 6 to 8 p.m. June 18.

The task force will deliberate and vote on its final recommendations beginning at 3 p.m. June 25.







To the tune of $7 billion, the Los Angeles City Council has approved its final budget for the upcoming fiscal year.



(excerpt, Los Angeles Times)



In their effort to reach the goal of hiring 1,000 police officers, council members unanimously hiked fees by at least $98 million, forcing the public to pay more for trash removal, parking and other city services.

The council backed the mayor's plan to reduce animal shelter hours and scale back park maintenance, along with other cuts.

But with a $293-million shortfall expected for 2009-2010 and a $343-million gap projected for 2010-2011, more serious reductions would be needed next year unless the region's economy rebounds, city officials said.

"It is bad for next year, and we shouldn't sugarcoat it," Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said.





In Riverside, Dan Bernstein, who writes columns for the Press Enterprise writes about how the Alvord Unified School District board voted against naming the new high school after the first Black United States Supreme Court justice. Apparently, Riverside Unified School District Board Member Tom Hunt had some choice words about that.




Will Menifee become a city? That issue had residents on both sides of it coming out for a discussion in Sun City.




Should cities allow elected officials access to their credit cards? Different cities have different answers but many don't seem too thrilled to do so, namely Colton. That's where a former city councilman abused the credit cards to among other things, call phone sex lines.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



A number of political reform experts said there are no silver bullets to guard against an individual's bad judgment or misdeeds, and they have recommended against cities issuing credit cards to elected officials.

JoAnne Spears, executive director of the nonprofit Institute for Local Government, said her organization took a position in 2004 discouraging the issuing of city credit cards to elected officials after several high-profile cases of credit card abuse.

The consequences of misuse can be severe: Several Inland officials have been convicted of misappropriation of public funds, a felony charge that can bring prison time.

"I think 95 percent of elected officials are responsible," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. "But one bad apple will take away the credit.

"I suppose it would certainly make taxpayers feel better to not have the credit cards flying around," Stern said.






Four of the Philadelphia Police Department officers involved in the videotaped beating and kicking of three Black men who were held down by other police officers after a pursuit have been fired.


(excerpt, CBS-News)



The police department made the disciplinary decisions after reviewing frames from enhanced tape of a video shot by a television news helicopter on May 5, Commissioner Charles Ramsey said Monday.

A total of 19 officers - 18 city police and one transit officer - were involved in the apprehension of the three suspects.

Two of the officers are relatively new to the force and can be terminated immediately, Ramsey said. Two others are being suspended without pay for 30 days with intent to dismiss.

Three other officers are being suspended and one sergeant is being demoted.




A police officer in Boston busted for drug trafficking was sentenced to 26 years in prison.



(excerpt, Boston Globe)




"The people who wear that badge have a sense of honor," US District Judge William G. Young said, glaring at Pulido, the ringleader of one of the most notorious police corruption scandals in recent Boston history. "You are . . . dead to that sense of honor."

A federal prosecutor, who described Pulido in court yesterday as a "jack of all crimes," requested the 26-year sentence. Pulido's public defender said the former officer's crimes had been fueled by steroid abuse and urged a sentence of no more than 20 years.

Pulido, who abruptly pleaded guilty to drug traf ficking and conspiracy charges in the middle of his trial last November, apologized to both the Boston Police Department and his former force, the MBTA Transit Police Department.

"It was my lifelong goal to be a Boston police officer," said Pulido, 43, clad in a khaki jumpsuit and white sneakers, reading a handwritten statement in a soft voice. "No one is more disappointed than I am in myself."




A young woman that was assisted by former Bolingbrook Police Department sergeant, Drew Peterson was questioned extensively by investigators about the disappearance of Peterson's wife, Stacey who has been missing since last October.