Election 2011: The Home Stretch in a World of Uncertainty

Election Day, Tuesday, June 7

Coming soon: Why every dime that City Hall spends should go to a public vote in front of City Council as an example of "discretionary spending" going completely amok behind closed doors comes to light.


Why is the city's Finance Division so understaffed in Risk Management and are the inspectors professionally certified or not?



If Riverside's coffers are so much more flush this year, then why's the civilian division of the police department still shrinking with four more positions freezing in the records division? The civilian division is currently experiencing a 27% vacancy rate after 10 departures in just 60 days. This has caused some shuffling around as some people who attended the annual neighborhood conference noted. But Karen Haverkamp who presented on the Community Services Bureau said that this internal movement helps civilian employees become more "well rounded". Still, no civilian vacancies (except in dispatching) have been filled in four years which is a long time and how many more will attrition out until they are filled. In the past, the city government had borrowed against civilian vacancies for short periods to make payments to other funds including redevelopment.

When Diaz was referred by Haverkamp to answer my question on the issue, he said, that it was a statement,not a question and not worthy of a response. But in actuality through his words, Diaz did provide an eloquent response and I appreciate his candor.

What's the Whistle blower policy in River City?

It's called a piece of paper with writing on it.

The city plasters this bill of rights on many walls in its workplaces, including buildings that are paid for by tax dollars. Including some that still might be owned by the city rather than the Redevelopment Agency so that denizens at City Hall can play innkeeper.

But in reality, the situation is much, much different. Employees who don't want to violate their own ethical code even as their bosses aren't even held accountable by the city's own worthless code are either fired if they're "at will" or pushed to retire or resign. The city when it settles with employees and even while ironing out some of the employee departures will have the employees sign non-disclosure clauses or what's called "gag" orders. The city council will sit in closed sessions being briefed on these troublesome current and ex-employees and it will sign off on settlement after medical retirement after payout for these harassment, retaliation, discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuits without any concern about the common denominators found in each one. Why should the elected officials care that they've reached the point in their own ethical development where the price of silence is paramount to remembering that as a self-insured city, it's the city residents who pay for these transgressions.

Because although Riverside once carried an insurance carrier, it's been proudly self-insured for the past several years allegedly because the insurance carrier's directions to litigate more lawsuits to trial instead of settling them behind closed doors went unheeded. And yet the lawsuits and grievances keep coming, and yes the city's residents will pick up the tabs.

But what you'll find out is that when you need to buy an employee's silence in City Hall, there's another strategy that can be utilized and in fact that was allegedly done inside City Hall for at least three years involving a city employee whose "truth" was worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars expended to maintain a veil of untruthfulness inside City Hall. You won't find this strategy to silence in any lawsuit or courtroom and whether it's been discussed behind closed doors, it probably wasn't at a city council meeting.






But have you heard the story about Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, the one that he thought he could always control until the day it ran amok? Well, imagine that Dr. Frankenstein is the Riverside City Council and mayor and the monster is something that it believed it could control and in fact in some cases reassured people that it could do so. One ex-council member, Dom Betro running for reelection insisted to the Greater Democrats of Riverside early on to vote for him because he was the only one who could control one of the city's employees. The sad truth is that River City's very own version of Dr. Frankenstein might finally be realizing the truth and this unsettling chapter inside City Hall that's due to come to light down the pike might provide evidence why.

For such an honest, ethical form of government, it seems to be paying an exorbitant amount of money that could be used elsewhere to keep the truth buried and certainly out of a public forum like a courtroom.

And as it turned out, that was just the beginning...

Owned by the Redevelopment Agency, Leased by the City
So it could play innkeeper

This is the brand new fire station that's been built on Canyon Crest, after many delays and other obstacles. But this fire station no longer belongs to the city and its residents at least not in the real sense. It's been given to the Redevelopment Agency (which doesn't represent city residents who have no voice in it) to "lease" out to the city and that funding goes into the Redevelopment Agency's loan to the developer who owns the hotel. And it's not the only building that's essentially collateral of sorts or at least an income generator for this "loan", as another fire station along with the Arlington and Casa Blanca libraries are also in this position.

The library is more unique because unlike the other properties, it's not actually sitting in a Redevelopment zone. Remember how the city government and its management team said there was no cost or even risk to city residents on this hotel deal? Well, that wasn't exactly true. But it makes one wonder how many of the city's facilities that it actually still owns that don't belong to the Redevelopment Agency.

If you haven't voted and you're in an odd numbered ward, send in your ballot! The only endorsements on this site is to tell people to vote, to be represented along the ballots counted.

A popular La Sierra restaurant & Predatory towing?

[Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz's decision not to involve an altercation involving two lieutenants has caused some consternation]

News came out last week that Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz and Asst. Chief Chris Vicino had opted not to investigate an off-duty physical altercation between two lieutenants, calling it an "off duty matter". Allegedly the incident was sparked by the involvement of the wife of one of the lieutenant's, a lower ranking officer with her supervisor, the other lieutenant. The lower ranking officer was at the house of the lieutenant when her husband arrived then either entered the house or kicked in the door. The physical altercation resulted after that and the lieutenant living in that house then took vacation time and allegedly didn't want to file a complaint.

Apparently when Diaz and Vicino were told by another party about it, they nixed investigating the incident dismissing it as off-duty. This only weeks after one of the police department's officers was involved in an onduty fatal shooting involving a triangle of sorts between three correction officers that exploded into murder. Does that mean anything like that is going to happen her or this incident is a precursor to that kind of violence? Of course not and that's probably very unlikely, but it'd be a useful period of time for law enforcement agencies to reflect about what as a department including at the very top of management, would be done if there were dynamics in an agency that had produced a violent response. What would an agency do including at the top of its command if it had a chance to look at an off-duty critical incident like that and change its outcome? Were there any missed opportunities?

Because to say that an incident like that involving those three officers didn't throw off early warning signs is probably not the case. It's more likely than not that the Riverside Police Department's own probes into that incident which led to the death of three people in different capacities will reveal that. Were there times where the respective agencies including those who employed them were faced with issues involving the three correctional officers and decided not to investigate them?

This incident's not in that scope but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been looked into on an administrative level.

Because no act of violence by an officer including against another officer should be ignored as an off-duty matter. Whether or not there should be discipline allotted out is one issue that might be debated or decided but the main point is that that the incident shouldn't have gone without an investigation. There were two aspects of investigation here. The first being any type of relationship between the supervising lieutenant and the subordinate officer. That's important for different reasons including ascertaining whether any relationship is not carried out through coercion or a form of sexual harassment by a higher ranking officer against one of lower rank. Is the relationship between the higher ranking officer and subordinate employee consensual or is it based on sexual harassment?

Was that even investigated because of the natural of the differential powers between ranks? Apparently not, if no investigation was conducted.

That type of investigation should be done with great care and no, the police department's handling of Officer Neely Nakamura's interrogation was not an example of great or special sensitivity in doing that. The acting police chief at the time shouldn't tell the management employee to sit and wait to be called in for an interview at his workplace and then treat the subordinate officer like she were a criminal, from the way she was allegedly ambushed in the parking lot by two Internal Affairs sergeants, to the scope of some of the questioning to her needing to be escorted to the bathroom at the division office. But any situation should have been investigated as stated in the department's policy manual in a way that's more dignified and respectful to those being interviewed while still getting the factual information. After all, one stated purpose of that investigation is to protect the subordinate officer from any type of coercion or harassment by the higher ranking one yet it's a police department where a lot of officers either marry or are in personal relationships with other officers in all different ranks. Hence another reason why to be professional and sensitive while investigating. The agency just needs to do it in a less disgraceful way and learn to hold the higher ranking officer's feet to the fire for that situation if that's what it warrants to a greater extent than the subordinate employee instead of the other way around which is often how it has been.

Second, the physical altercation between the two lieutenants should also have been investigated just like similar altercations involving lower ranked officers have been in the past. First of all, entering into someone's house without their permission (if that's what happened) and physical assault causing injuries are potential criminal offenses. And under the department's policy involving Conduct Involving the Behavior of an Officer (otherwise known as CUBO), any behavior that could be criminal is to be investigated, off-duty or not.

That doesn't mean that it's necessarily a crime 0r that action will be taken as if it were a crime. That just means the incident will be investigated for reasons that should be pretty obvious including those making that determination. This investigation should also be professionally done affording both parties and any witnesses their due process rights including interviews where the purpose is to gather the information needed to eventually reach a conclusion or finding on that investigation. An investigation also affords opportunities for the involved parties to deal with what they've done to one another in a way that affords accountability for them and for the department including for example mediation. To ensure that there aren't any future physical altercations including ones that cause more serious injuries and greater consequences. If discipline is required, then that's what an investigation would determine by its outcome and there's due process stages in that process as well.

If there's no investigation, how does the management team including the police chief have any idea what really took place or if it's an incident that's self-limited or one that could lead to further problems down the road? How would they know if it was something that's only a one time situation or an early warning sign of potentially worse incidents down the road? They really can't say if they didn't investigate it.

Not investigating a case particularly involving a higher ranking officer also sends the message to everyone else that there's differential standards of investigating off-duty incidents whether that's true or not. In this case, the perception itself is harmful. It's proven to be that in the past.

This matter has led to people wondering if it was an off-duty incident that was different than past ones involving officers of lower ranks. Officer goes to bar off-duty. Officer goes into bar bathroom and beats up an ex-boyfriend of his girlfriend. After investigation for this off-duty incident, officer gets terminated in part for being less than honest about it in his interrogation. Detective while off-duty looks up a truck parked in his wife's driveway through the restricted DMV database. Detective breaks down or kicks through door and beats up wife's male friend or boyfriend in he house. Detective gets arrested and later charged with misdemeanor crimes. Detective was fired, later medically retired and is going on trial later this month on these charges in hopes of keeping his right to carry his firearm.

Does this mean that the incident involving the two off-duty lieutenants translates to these above incidents or their severity. You can't discern that without an investigation and of course in this case, Diaz ruled against it so that's never determined through the process set up in the policies and procedures to reach that point. And by doing so, he knowingly or not put more fuel on the fire that inside the infrastructure of the police department, it might still matter which team you're on. Diaz has brought a lot of new things and back some old ones like the citizen's academy but one of the most problematic situations in the police department was the divisions created among its ranks particularly at the top through team assignments. The sentiment that promotions rested on who vacationed or partied with which member of the department's management. Were you on one team or another for example and if so, what did that mean for you or your career including assignments, discipline or promotions. If that's not the case for why an investigation wasn't conducted, then it's going to be difficult to prove that to those who know about it.

Diaz and Vicino rightly took the necessary steps of placing more accountability on the shoulders of their management employees namely the captains. Under Leach and DeLaRosa, the captains had apparently filled the role of primarily following specific orders from their superiors rather than been required to make their own decisions or recommendations involving their respective divisions. Rather than making the day to day decisions involving their assigned divisions, they'd wait until someone higher up told them what to do. That form of leadership and management had its consequences for the department and no doubt Diaz and Vicino not to mention Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer (who's busy keeping his profile really low) witnessed that when they arrived last summer. After all, why pay these captains six figured salaries if they aren't acting as managers? It didn't help that the department under Leach and later DeLaRosa apparently fostered such a take no prisoner, cut throat environment among that level so that one's skill with the stiletto proved to be just as important to achieve that high rank. There were a lot of missed opportunities to develop other skills among those who were promoted into the positions instead.

But making decisions for their divisions for apparently the first time has been a struggle for most of them. That's probably why captains were recommending termination for officers 14 months after the clock started ticking under Governmental Code 3304 (d) on their administrative investigations. Maybe why when one captain's son who had been hired as a probational police officer had tried to convince a watch commander at Corona Police Department to release his son from jail there for public intoxication and fighting without leaving a paper trail. Behind this wall of captains are lieutenants who are working their ways towards being future managers with some of them really accepting that challenge and running with it. Trying to become the leadership that the police department needs after its current management is retired.

But Diaz' decision not to investigate this off-duty incident when he had the perfect opportunity to show the agency that all of its employees regardless of ranks or prior teams would be treated to the same standards of personnel investigations is not very encouraging. He made some bold moves in community policing lately, distanced himself from the City Attorney's office but internally, he's got quite a ways to go, it appears to make it not appear so much like business as usual at the Riverside Police Department.

Election 2011: It's in the Mail

[Candidates in Ward One gear up for a political debate at the First Congregational Church]

Elections are always contentious periods and that's always the case in Riverside which undergoes that exercise in some corner of it. This year's no exception with four wards up for reelection although councilman Chris MacArthur is running unopposed.

In Ward Three, Rusty Bailey is expected to defeat challenger Jim Davis to win another term in his ward while it's expected that at least one and possibly both of the remaining two wards will finish their preliminary rounds with two candidates heading towards runoffs in November.

[Four of the councilmen in this photo at the regatta event are up for reelection this year]

As far as elections go, this one started off slowly even though several candidates began actively campaigning last year. This election hasn't been as costly as the last round of contests conducted in the same wards in 2007. Perhaps that's reflective of the recession and people's inability or unwillingness to donate to campaigns to the same degree as they did back before the bubbles burst on the economy and housing. Maybe it's because candidates realized that having powerful war chests just wasn't cutting it, that often elections came down to how much was being paid in shoe leather from walking the wards and talking with people one on one.

Having those conversations on the street, in businesses, churches or people's homes often are the deciding factor in who wins, who loves elections. Councilmen Mike Gardner and Paul Davis perhaps know that better than anyone on the dais having sprung to office through aggressive and persistent grass roots campaigns. It's almost impossible though several losing candidates have tried to get into office not engaging in that type of exhaustive outreach. Campaign signs don't appear to be as effective as people think in comparison to one on one outreach with prospective voters. One hopes that those engaged in the craft of stealing or vandalizing signs which unfortunately has plagued every election cycle to some degree would realize that this is the case Since respecting people's right to public expression and speech on their own properties is over their heads to those who choose to engage in this behavior.

Endorsements either through unions or publications or even blogs have enjoyed a mixed record when it comes to predicting election victories. The fact that so many incumbents have been voted out in Riverside the past several election cycles doesn't exactly speak to the success of this type of endorsement because most of these types of endorsements go to incumbents. Part of this has to do with not wanting to alienate incumbents who the unions might have to deal with after the election.

Most of the campaigns appeared civil although there's been a three way slug fest in Ward Seven where three candidates are facing off in what most likely is the preliminary round of that election contest. Arrows and accusations have been slung between the various candidates which is nothing new. Accusations that candidates have committed felonies and innuendos of incriminating videos have been raised but not much substance to any of that. Candidates being called "old bats" and rumors of temporary alliances between two candidates hoping to face against each other in the runoff. People with different feet in different camps not keeping their options open in who to champion the next round. Also, not uncommon during the preliminary rounds of an election cycle.

In Ward One, there may or may not be a runoff election this autumn depending on how many votes incumbent Mike Gardner pulls in compared to the three candidates running against him. It's harder not to have a runoff than it is to have one with four strong candidates. It's difficult to predict who will face off in the autumn if there's a runoff but it's very likely that Gardner will be one of those candidates. But although the Press Enterprise's Editorial Board appeared to even forget there were three women running in the city council races even in its discussion of its endorsement choices, they all look strong in their contests

It'd be great actually to see the incumbents win and have their collective butts in the seat (if Adams can manage to stay in his seat during a meeting) when the truth about the economic health of the city comes to roost. The massive accumulation of debt in the city including through the Riverside Renaissance program which could put many projects including very necessary ones out of reach for the next 20-30 years. It's very appropriate in some regards for those currently holding those positions to be the ones in the seats when what's really going on with the city's finances and yes, its debt accumulation come to light, most likely within the next fiscal year. Any newly elected council members would need to be fully aware that if they're elected instead that they will be left to deal with the aftermath of the actions taken and the decisions made by those who preceded them.

Even as the city prepares to sign off on the preliminary budget for the upcoming fiscal year, there's still parts of the city's

Because a lot of that money that could have been used is already tied up in bonds or loans for quite a while. The city's been shuffling so much money lately between its coffers and the Redevelopment agency almost as if it's moving property out of a house before the bank changes the locks and interestingly enough, it appears there's still a lot of buying and selling of property. Not to mention giving properties to the Redevelopment Agency as collateral on bonds and loans including the $20 million plus being spent on the new Hyatt hotel. Remember how city council members swore up and down that the city residents wouldn't be left with the bill on the city essentially giving a developer a hotel?

Turns out, that might not be the truth especially considering that the city's now leasing from the Redevelopment Agency (and thus in a sense the state) to use both the Arlington and Casa Blanca libraries not to mention two fire stations including one in Canyon Crest that doesn't even lie within the boundaries of a Redevelopment zone. It will be interesting indeed to see who winds up owning all four installations if the city folds on what it owes on the deal that put them up as collateral in the first place, not to mention if the Redevelopment Agency which now owns the four buildings dissolves before the obligations are paid off. Makes you wonder in this wonderfully flush city (so much better than San Diego and Anaheim which is no better than saying that Riverside's an honest city because it's better than Bell) why there's so much scrambling around with the bucks.

At any rate, these and other issues will be facing those who win election this year whether they're incumbents or newcomers.

Oops! In the midst of an election cycle, Riverside knocks down another historical building. Allegedly by accident. But hey, at least they're not going to turn it into a fast food restaurant there. It would have been great if the Marcy Library had enjoyed more integrity and transparency with the assessment of its true property value not to mention allowing people to participate more in the process of determining alternate uses for city buildings. But that's not likely in Riverside unless you're pushing major money into a political campaign or two. Reading of the people pushing the Lucky Greek (of all the restaurants languishing on "Restaurant Row" due to street construction), it's a given that with names like that, yeah they're going to find a new home for that restaurant by selling or swapping the land for less than what its true assessment value.

But then look at people like Mark and Doreen Johnson who own a Scuba Shop in that area and haven't been given a dime to relocate let alone received an alternative site to place their business. I've seen this vibrant business owner fire some excellent and pointed questions at people at City Hall and it's be interesting to know when the city's going to free up some of its property (and there's been a lot of property transactions in closed session lately) to provide for Johnson and her husband at a discounted value. Maybe that would happen if she were a hefty donor to a political campaign or two or who had powerful friends who did.








Auto Dealers at the auto center in Riverside might also face up to $8,000 a year as part of a assessment for more promotional activities. Those fees will likely be passed to the consumer but it remains to be seen how that will impact sales during a recession that still has the Inland Empire seized in its grip. That will greatly serve to offset its $3 billion in debt which is split in half between the Redevelopment Agency which may or may not be there next month and the Riverside Renaissance which is still over 60% unfunded except through bonds and loans.

Please Pass the Koolaid

Riverside's City Hall claimed that the city's coffers are up even though tens of millions of dollars of money has been moved to the Redevelopment Agency as part of a tremendous gamble that Sacramento either will or will not dissolve its redevelopment agencies in July. If that happens, all that money, will be gone forever as being noncollectable. Poof! Talk about high stakes gambling which means it's very reassuring that the city's found a few million more dollars.

So the city's bringing back tree trimming and hiring more officers but if you remember, the 15 are paid for several years through federal COPS grants and the other eight were part of the 23 more promised earlier by City Manager Brad Hudson after he found several million dollars of unexpected funding last year behind the municipal equivalent of a living room couch cushion. It's just so nice that after several attempts at reminding Hudson that he had pledged the funding of more police positions that he finally remembered.

The increase in revenue is based on projections of sales tax this fiscal year and next and likely will include next to no increases from other sources like property and utilities taxes. But there's speculation that utility rates for water and sewer are set to increase and possibly electric rates as well to pay for the Riverside Renaissance. Also the city placed at least $100 million or more in bonds and loans into the Redevelopment Agency aware that as stated, that this money could be lost for ever if the state dissolves these agencies.

Two pieces of state legislation are going through the assembly and senate houses in Sacramento but will they include provisions in the language to ensure that the loans taken out by cities to pay off the state debt are ever recovered by those cities? Governor Jerry Brown isn't proposing the dissolution of these agencies out of the goodness of his heart or because he believes that these agencies carry serious abuses or other problems. He's doing it to funnel money out of them to lessen the state's budget deficit. But guess what, the same cities with leaders and management employees gnashing their teeth over the "theft" or "robbery" being committed by Brown and company are facilitating that effort by the massive transfers of these funds to the agencies in the first place.

After all, the city council just voted to transfer affordable housing funds to the agency's "inadequately funded" capital redevelopment fund to make an annual state repayment. It did so knowing it might never be held accountable for returning that "loan" back to the housing fund. After all the housing fund was picked for two reasons. The first being that the city doesn't have to pay it back for five years, which gives the agencies that much time to be dissolved which will probably happen by then. Not to mention that this way they and Hudson can point their collective fingers at Brown and Company, those "thieves" and claim that they're forcing the city to give up its affordable housing funding.

But it's the city that is making that happen through its decision to raid Peter to pay Paul rather than lose their ability to play with all aspects of their redevelopment agency until they make that state payment. If the state's truly "stealing" then the city's engaging in high stakes gambling with the funds seemingly with full knowledge that it might never see that money again.

Which of course the city could have done so through other means because it's so flush and all. Okay lovely, now that the city's operating with a surplus, maybe they could find a way to disengage the city's sewer fund from being caught up in an unholy $20 million in loans that were used to fund the purchasing of properties in the downtown area that had nothing to do with making sewer repairs. Wonderfully resourceful except the Sewer Fund's not allowed to be used for these types of loans especially since the money's already been spent.

Public Meeting

No Riverside City Council meeting on May 31 as it's the fifth Tuesday


Wednesday, June 1 at 4 pm. The Community Police Review Commission will conduct this "special" meeting to discuss this agenda including a preliminary briefing on the recent officer-involved death of Virgil Million and the introduction of an independent investigator, in this case a new one of Mike Bumcrot from Mike Bumcrot Consulting who had this contract with Riverside County.

Killing the Messenger Inside a Self-Insured City

[Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz (r. with Deputy Chief Mike Blakely) made the decision not to investigate an alleged off-duty physical altercation involving two of his lieutenants several weeks ago at one's residence. One lieutenant allegedly either entered or kicked his way into the other's residence and then a physical altercation. One of the lieutenants went on vacation soon after and didn't want to file a complaint on the matter while a third officer is applying for assignment to another division. Diaz and Asst. Chief Chris Vicino when notified about it apparently called it an off-duty matter. But as lower ranked officers had been investigated for off-duty incidents including a former patrol officer involved in a bar fight, what's the department's policy on investigating off-duty incidents?]

[Riverside City Manager Brad Hudson (l.) is interviewed by members of the Charter Review Committee]

[Did Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos fire a whistle blower?]




"She was an at-will employee sitting at the pleasure of the city attorney, and ... I determined that the termination of that agreement was in the best interests of the city."



---Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos to Press Enterprise after he fired one of his employees who had dared complain about allegations of favoritism in contracting involving City Hall.

"She was being forced out of her job that she had been working for 14 years for doing nothing wrong, in fact for doing the right thing."

---Sterling's attorney Russell Perry to Press Enterprise

Another whistle blowing employee was sent packing by City Hall, this time Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling was fired by her boss, City Attorney Gregory Priamos on May 13. His statement on the matter is included above and it's actually as eloquent as any string of words that this attorney has ever said during his noteworthy career at City Hall.

This happened around the time or after the SEIU Local, the city's largest bargaining unit announced it was adopting a two-tier pension plan for current and future employees. Actually the deal that it cut for its current employees wasn't too bad. And as for any prospective ones, they can just raise the salaries to make Riverside competitive with those cities around it not engaging in two-tiered pension reform so that they can attract the best and the brightest now that they can't compete pension wise. That's probably going to happen certainly with the police department if say, the two tier was like 2.5 at 55 or something like that. After all, there's certain aspects of working for River City which aren't included in either the recruitment or hiring packages which will be covered in greater depth below.

Like you'd better not do anything foolish like report any misconduct being requested or demanded of you by supervisors in your department or by management. Lately, when that's happened, employees said they've been fired by the city in response and the number of grievances, complaints and lawsuits has grown even higher. They cost the tax payers quite a bit of money from our self-insured little city especially since the city loses many of these cases including at the stage before they would become lawsuits.

At the time that this new deal on pension reform was brokered, employees from Public Works and Park and Recreation, both departments who have representation in the SEIU had made allegations including through Sterling that any attempts to address issues of favoritism in contracting including by City Manager Brad Hudson would be met with retaliation. Has the SEIU or anyone else launched any investigative energy into the allegations made by these employees and others? It's not that pension reform isn't a major issue but some questions should be answered before any union signs at the dotted line for any Hudson "reform" plan.

Did anyone pay attention when a former employee who was related to another one walked away from the city several years after her initial volunteer position became a paid one where she averaged a six figure income at least two consecutive years? She made nearly $10,000 for less than two weeks of work which would average to $240,000 annually and City Hall and the unions are rallying behind pension reform? If I were a member of the union, I'd be asking why this lucrative part-time job position wasn't opened up to the competitive hiring process when the city made it a paying job.

Did anyone pay attention that monies paid directly to this volunteer turned part-time employee came from a variety of city departments that had nothing to do with that position's scope of duties including from one highly restricted funding source monitored by the feds?

If so, what would have anyone done about it? I mean who wouldn't want to make around $150,000 annually for a part-time stint? By the way, this apparently all happened under the watchful eye of the city's former auditing firm, Meyer Hoffman McCann which charged that highly restricted funding source for three audits to it in a single fiscal year but apparently it found nothing wrong with it paying for those expenses outside the parameters of its legally designated purpose. A prior auditor, McGladrey and Pullen LLP, before Meyer Hoffman McCann had found irregularities with how the restricted fund had been spent and advised the city on how to address it.

Apparently the city's response to that was simply to change firms the following year so it picked the one which could tell it what it wanted to hear, that it was perfect.

I had a former city council member at a Finance Committee tell me once upon the news that once again Riverside had a perfect audit by telling me, see Riverside can do something right or something like that. But I just said to him, the other committee members and the auditor from Meyer Hoffman McCann that there's really no such thing as a perfect audit.

This was at about the same time the above behavior was allegedly taking place at City Hall during this so-called perfect auditing period. Probably at the same time other cities like Bell and Victorville were either getting perfect audits and/or even winning awards for them. Riverside apparently also won several financial awards on display on the Sixth Floor when the above was going on. But at this point, many people probably have serious concerns about whether this firm could audit a lemonade stand.

No attorney from Priamos' office or Best Best and Krieger for that matter apparently advised those who were responsible of the problems inherent with these actions.

The situation brings up the thorny issue (for the city anyway) of financial accountability and oversight including the checks and balances that used to be in place between the finance department, the city management and the legislative body before the latter essentially either signed or voted all of those mechanisms away. They allowed the city manager to merge the finance department under his own department. They allowed the city manager to raise his discretionary from $25,000 under George Carvalho to $50,000 under City Manager Brad Hudson. They decreased their oversight over interfund transfers and pretty much did away with the Finance Committee for almost a year after greatly decreasing the times it met about five minutes after Hudson's arrival in June 2005.

They got rid of the Neighborhood Advisory Councils, the committees comprised of city residents in different neighborhoods who oversaw the spending of Community Development Block Grant monies to one that gave City Hall much more power in deciding where to spend the funds or just as importantly to be able to move them around which is why Casa Blanca for example saw quite a bit of its own monies going straight to the Fox Theater. They got rid of the citizens' power to pull items from the consent calendar for discussion and not long after that, packed it with high ticketed items for Riverside Renaissance. There's not as much on that calendar these days because there's fewer funding sources to use and it's getting harder to squeeze blood from that turnip so most of the consent calendar is comprised of special projects being carried out mostly in the wards up for reelection with Councilman Rusty Bailey's ward leading the pack.

[Who on the city council will ask questions about the recent firings at City Hall, given that their constituents will be picking up the dime on the city's "defense" in any resulting lawsuits?]

The city council members who claim that there's no evidence of problems with how the city's spent its money as the debt grows needs to investigate that situation much more closely. Here's a news flash too, it's not the only problematic situation. But during the time period when things like this happen while the city residents are blissfully unaware of them was a perfect storm for such questionable and potentially illegal conduct as it turned out if there's a misuse of funds or the use of any of them was misrepresented or misstated.

And a lot of that lies on every city council member who's been on the dais since 2005. The problem is, that the city needs a city council that accepts that responsibility and its members going back earlier in this decade didn't and don't seem to want it.

But it lies with city residents too who needed to pay more attention to what was going on at City Hall. Yes, going to city council can mean subjecting yourself to verbal insults from select council members, disinterest from most of the rest and even in a couple of cases ejection from the chambers by police officers (and two elderly women experienced this both when a certain formal councilman was mayor pro tem at the time) but it's imperative to speak out and to raise concerns and questions about these issues including the massive debt accumulation and the funneling of money to Redevelopment, gambling with over $100 million of the city's money against the dissolution of these agencies. If they dissolve, that money's gone forever and who on the dais has made that clear? Yes, some guy hanging out closely with some elected official or another is going to start posting stuff like if you like wine tasting, you're a drunk or you're pregnant or you're just "filthy" but that's always been the case in River City particularly during election cycles. So far, those tactics haven't helped elected officials get reelected in this region.

No it's not going to go nicely because often the more there's to be concerned about, the more people respond in that fashion for self-protection. But the city residents need to raise these issues and questions because maybe then the city government will blink its collective eyes, wake up and start asking them as well. What's going on impacts every city resident in this city, it will impact every city resident for the next 20-30 years which doesn't exactly make this city a huge draw for immigration from outside areas. It impacts city employees as well including any of those who will be fired or pushed to retire after signing gag agreements for objecting to questionable orders from above.


It's getting even more clear to anyone with common sense that retaliation's apparently remained a tool used at City Hall as the city governmental officials sit by and watch or praise the employees who are apparently doing it. How did Sterling go from having gone on paid leave of her own volition (not the city's) to being terminated?

What happens is that allegations rise that a city employee refuses to perform an improper or even illegal action and the next thing that happens is bingo, they get fired for forced out of the city's employment ranks through "retirements". Others just leave, giving up employment often at older ages in a city that boasts a 15% unemployment rate that's not dropping anytime soon just to get away from the city's workplace. Some like the former budget administrator of Public Works Sean Gill file lawsuits against the city. Others file grievances, complaints and then go onto filing lawsuits. The city litigates all these cases with costly outside law firms at taxpayers' expense claiming usually through the local newspaper that the lawsuits or claims are "frivolous" and the city will aggressively litigate it.

Does the city have its fingers crossed behind its back while making these statements? That's not clear but what's becoming more clear is that the city's not met an employee's lawsuit that it hasn't loved to settle behind closed doors. Maybe one of the reasons is that it doesn't think much of its chances at taking the lawsuits to a jury trial or maybe it's just because they're spending other people's money and not their own. After all, if Priamos fires one of his attorneys after this person's raised concerns, is Priamos footing the legal bill if he and the city's sued after doing so? No, the city residents are footing the bills for these lawsuits done for the "best interests of the city" but we're not being surveyed on whether we even want the city to first of all, put itself at the risk of getting sued through its own behavior and to settle all these lawsuits.

Because you can bet when the city settles these lawsuits behind closed doors, its spokesperson whether Priamos or one of the city's roster of public information officers will tell city residents and the press that the settlements were also done "in the best interests of the city". If asked, elected officials will tell their constituents the same thing.

Just like they likely do if anyone knows to ask why the city's currently and has been funneling over $100 million in "loans" to the Redevelopment Agency knowing full well that if the Agency dissolves, this money will be gone for good and the city will never get a dime of it back to spend on anything. Because it already spent it on the mechanism that they've been telling the city's residents generates income from the city. No, it doesn't, it creates and builds debt on the city to the tune of $1.5 billion. It's not rocket science to figure out if you've been reading the City Council/Redevelopment Agency agendas for the past six months. Just like it's not rocket science to figure out by reading the agendas that the lion share of improvement projects during that time are going to the wards with councilmen up for reelection in June.

[Foster fired Sean Gill when he did the budget on projects for her department]

What did Foster do when Gill pointed out the allegations that have been made in his litigation filed against the city? What did she say when there were allegations of favortism in contracting involving public works projects that are run under her watch? But wait, weren't these getting the contracts close friends with the city management and/or several city council members including two up for reelection who just happen to be getting the lion share of public works projects on the city council agendas?

[Asst. City Manager Belinda Graham, what role did she play in Gill's firing given that Public Works is under her watchful eye?]

If Graham oversees Foster and Park and Recreation's department head, Ralph Nunoz, what's her response to allegations raised by employees in Public Works that they faced retaliation (and in at least one case termination) after raising concerns about favoritism in contracting. What about when Park and Recreation employees allegedly raised concerns about their budget monies being used to subsidize the City Hall Cafeteria after it wasn't making enough money through its sales?

Since her background is in Development and Redevelopment, what are Graham's comments about the very risky funneling of tens of millions of dollars into Redevelopment in light of its possible dissolution by Sacramento? And why is the city still purchasing so many properties in the light of these increasingly fiscally difficult times?

Self Insured and Proud of It!

We Defend Our City Vigorously Until We Settle and then Bill You!

And oh, by the way, the city is now proudly self-insured, some say perhaps because it allegedly lost its insurance carrier some time back when the carrier complained that the city needed to stop settling too many lawsuits and take them to trial instead. One plaintiff who settled a case against the city in 2008 was told by her attorney that the city would have to pay at least part of the hefty settlement out of its own funding sources because it no longer carried insurance.

But ever since the city had its butt handed back to it on a plate from the $1.64 million trial verdict in the lawsuit filed by Officer Roger Sutton, in 2005, settlements are just the way to go. Either settlements or medical retirements to get rid of the employees that just have to be gone because as Priamos so aptly put it, "for the best interests of the city".

He's both right and wrong with that assertion.

Just business as usual at City Hall as it turns out. Only Priamos doesn't really mean that it's for the "best interest" of the city's residents. How can it be when the city residents, not Priamos out of his generous six figure salary and benefits package, is paying the costs...unless this is Priamos way of saying if the city went to trial instead, it would lose its shirt over and over. Priamos alibi that he provided was the second best and most telling excuse provided by a city employee in about a week's time as to why the city settles its lawsuits behind closed doors instead of taking its chances with a jury in a public courtroom. Remember how Hudson said last week at the ethics complaint hearing involving Councilman Steve Adams that the city settled the lawsuits with former police lieutenants, Darryl Hurt and Tim Bacon to "reform" the police department?

Pretty audacious for a management employee who had been caught essentially by the two of them issuing himself and his staff illegal flat badges (which were also provided to elected officials) and cold plates not to mention being somehow caught up in an illicit gun sale done by the police department, an unlicensed vendor at the time. What kind of management employee views whistle blowing primarily against his own conduct that led to criminal inquiries from an outside law enforcement agency "reforming" the department?

[City Manager Brad Hudson, busy being an agent of "reform"]

But the consequences as well as the apparent rewards of Hudson's "reform" plans will come to light further down the road when it's impossible not to pay attention to the little man hiding behind the curtain.



One that gets away with making statements like that one because his employees aren't paying any attention. After all, how many of them have expressed publicly that he's doing a wonderful job? But then you have one former elected official hoping to be reelected who told one group of potential endorsers early on that he should be the choice because Hudson had gotten out of control in recent years and he was the only one who could control or handle him. But then he could be right because despite what he told his supporters, he and two other former council members were instrumental in trying to bring Hudson into the city's fabric possibly going back to even before his predecessor, George Carvalho had been fired by four members of the city council. Is it possible that one of those who voted to keep him, had done so knowing it was a safe vote while behind the scenes something else was happening?

Carvalho was fired before the launching of the Riverside Renaissance project which hasn't begun to pay for itself as approximately $1.5 billion of it was paid for in bonds or loans and that means that money has to be paid back. Most likely through rates increases for utilities and sewer fees.

Some people including Police Chief Sergio Diaz have avowed that the city will fight more lawsuits filed by employees including police employees but has that happened? Will that happen? It will take more than one of Hudson's at will employees to say so even though Diaz' point is a very good one. Sterling's had already lawyered up before her termination, which began when the city allegedly offered her six months administrative leave pay to go find another job but she refused so Priamos put her on leave. Asst. City Manager of Finance/Chief Financial Officer Paul Sundeen commented on her situation by saying that she had voluntarily put herself on leave.

So that's why she's fired now right, why she had lawyered up while volunteering to not come to work? It's not clear why Priamos or anyone of his over 20 syncopates couldn't have spoken up on this issue rather than a head of another city department but Sundeen was chosen to do it instead. As a result, now his own explanation for the Sterling situation looks suspect in the light of her having hired an attorney and then getting terminated.

At any rate, it looks like it's just business in River City and that it will continue onward as everyone waits to see what messenger will be identified and be "killed" next by City Hall. With all the attention focused on that, rather than the messages that have apparently proved worth terminating employees over to try to prevent them from coming to the light of day.

One alternate look at the picture for public sector employees after they retire even as layoffs are set to begin in Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Strange with all the discussion among local politicians about pension reform, there's not explanation as to why elected officials including those who serve less than eight years even get pensions and generous life-long medical coverage at all. Pension reform should always begin with those who ultimately get to decide for everyone else....call it starting at home first before taking your message on the road.

Public Meetings

Monday, May 23 at 5:30 pm. The revised Charter Review Committee will be meeting to discuss this agenda. There will be some ethics training by Priamos after the committee interviews Hudson and City Councilman Andrew Melendrez.

Tuesday, May 24 at 3pm and 6:30 pm, the Riverside City Council will meet to discuss this agenda. Not much there this week except the usual focus on projects being done in the odd numbered wards, the same ones involved in the current election cycle.

Election Debates and "Reforming" the Police Department, Hudson style

Quote of the Week:

"She was an at-will employee sitting at the pleasure of the city attorney, and ... I determined that the termination of that agreement was in the best interests of the city."



---Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos to Press Enterprise after he fired one of his employees who had dared complain about allegations of favoritism in contracting involving City Hall.




This had been floating around during the past couple of days but guess what, Asst. City Attorney Raychele Sterling has been terminated from her employment in Riverside. The City Council and Mayor Ron Loveridge should call for an immediate outside investigation (outside Riverside) into the firing of her and other recently terminated employees AFTER they relayed concerns about favoritism in contracts at City Hall.

Why is City Manager Brad Hudson being allowed to hire his own investigator to investigat allegations made by city employees of favoritism including the use of Park and Recreation Department Funds to subsidize the City Hall Cafeteria? Why are those who have complained being fired in violation of the whistle blower protection act?

Coming soon:

• In the Shadow of Bell: What city residents can do to learn more about what their city's really doing and what actions to take to ensure accountability in government and how residents can protect their money.
  
• 
  
• More on Brad Hudson's "reforms" of the Police Department and what it means for you. Are Public Safety layoffs and other layoffs in the future to pay off debt and loans the city might never have to repay?
  
• 
  
• The failure of the Ethics Complaint Process and why that matters to City Hall to keep that process weak
• 
  
• Who's really running the city using the B&B rule? Why the city council folds so quickly during confrontations with its own employees like on Tuesday night's city council meeting.
• 
  
• Why the city residents need a real city council not one that backs down to demands by its own employees as happened Tuesday night at the city council meeting
• 
  
• City Hall's over $100 million gamble and what it can mean for Riverside's future
  

• 
  
• The Price of Silence inside River City and its undisclosed costs to city residents and employees. Who walked away with a ton of money?
  
• 
  
• Killing the messenger and how much it's costing city residents when the city violates clearly displayed whistle protection laws as the list of fired employees with consciences grows.
• 
  
• Which four people on the dais has the cojones to call for an outside investigation? Three people, two people, one person? Anyone?
• **

***That pin dropping is the city government doing nothing.***

Oh and by the way, the rumor floating around on Craigslist that began circulating after my last piece on the police department including the dynamics going on inside there and Hudson's reform plan for it, that some cop got me pregnant. Not true. I guess that's some anonymous person's way of broadcasting that they didn't like what I wrote recently. Not to mention what was written about the complaint on Councilman Steve Adams. Someone clearly pissed off about it and this is their way of venting about it, such is the nature of life in River City. But if Mr. Anonymous pissing over anything lately, he'd better be prepared to crap in his pants about what's coming up in the pipeline down the line.

"Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn."


--- George Bernard Shaw




Riverside's SEIU cuts pension deal with City Hall

[The Round Table at the Ethics Complaint Hearing involving Councilman Steve Adams]

Breaking News: Councilman Steve Adams explains why Sewer funds were used to build a road on the Jurupa Avenue extension project. He explained that they were used to build the road because the original planned use had been to cleanup another site. Only problem is, that doesn't make using that source of funding any less questionable. Sewer funds aren't meant to be spent on purposes outside of well...sewers. It just makes it look like Adams is advocating the funneling of those funds through a purpose that might or might not have been legitimate into one that's doesn't seem so on its face.




The ethics panel consisting of five chairs of different boards and commissions heard the ethics complaint that the Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability and members of the Eastside Think Tank filed against Councilman Steve Adams alleging administrative interference for interfering in the promotions of two then police lieutenants, John Carpenter and Meredyth Meredith who were going out for captains. As a member of the RCPA, the biggest frustration with the legal process pertaining to the allegations here which were raised in twin lawsuits filed by two other former police lieutenants, was that it never went to jury trial in a public forum called a courthouse in United States District Court. But it was settled behind closed doors on the eve of the April 20, 2010 trial date for more money than it would have cost to take it to trial assuming that the city prevailed of course. If the city would lose the case at trial and a federal jury issued a monetary verdict, then perhaps the city did save money by settling.

City Manager Brad Hudson explained to those at the ethics hearing his interpretation of why the city did that which was to get rid of the two lieutenants who filed the suit in the interest of reforming the police department. That comment deserves some reflection separate from the ethics hearing and there will be some examples of Hudson's reform program for the police department included in the narrative.

But it would be interesting if the city would take a single case to trial, well at least since getting its rear handed back to it on a plate in the $1.64 million payout by a jury who heard the civil trial involving Officer Roger Sutton back in late 2005. Maybe the city just has a long memory about some things.

Because the city's so convinced it's innocent of any allegations raised against it, that it naturally doesn't take the cases to trial but instead does some saber rattling before settling them behind closed doors. Some say that's why the city is now "self-insured" as it's called. What that means is that the city which used to be insured (until about 2008 when a person who settled a lawsuit against the city said that they'd been told that the city's carrier canceled out so it came out of a city fund), now has to take its losses straight out of its own coffer.

It was interesting as Adams and other witnesses including retired Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel, a close friend of his, provided statements during the hearing along with several as character witnesses for Adams. Miguel Morales who's been a regular fixture at city council meetings and allegedly on Inland Empire Craigslist lately provided an excellent presentation of sorts, unfortunately it was difficult to ascertain exactly what it was he was saying. Something woven together about a grand conspiracy, Paul Davis, the Filthy Five, a plot to bring down City Hall, Paul Davis, election strategies, his realization that one member of the "Filthy Five" has actually been deceased for two years and Paul Davis.

Then Larry Allen who was also providing information for Adams, said that he had nothing to do with the promotion because it had been some rivalry between former Captain Mark Boyer who had been promoted by Leach instead of Meredith. Hudson at the ethics hearing "testified" that he had been the one who flatly refused to approve Meredith's promotion back in late 2005. He had thought about vetoing Carpenter's as a budgetary action because they had three captains already. What was fascinating as some noted was that Hudson's recollection of the events appears to be more lucid three to six years later than it did while he testified under oath several years ago. He did remember enough to tell Allen that he was wrong about his hearsay about Boyer and why was that? Oh yes, because remember Hudson's an at-will employee of who again? The people filing the complaint? The members of the panel? His rebuke of Allen who was doing his best to defend Adams after all, was probably one of the most telling moments about what had really happened but not in the way he probably intended. It'd been nice to see all these people who testified at deposition and those who hadn't spoken yet testify in federal court because the statements at the hearing made it clear that it probably would have been the trial of the year.

Yet the panel never asked questions about why Hudson had made that statement about Allen's comments. They never asked who City Attorney Gregory Priamos was representing when he dropped a few new wrinkles in the ethics hearing procedure because who can fire Priamos again? The members of the public? The members of the panel? Remember, Priamos number one duty as city attorney is to protect the mayor and city council even if he couldn't say from what.

Hudson said that he had never spoken to Adams about any promotional processes but in the depositions it was actually former Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis that appeared more involved in that process of at least one of the promotional processes and no, he didn't take time away from his new career as a municipal management consultant to appear at the hearing.

Former Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel told the ethics panel that he had told both Adams and Carpenter that the meeting that took place wasn't to involve promotions or facilitate any promotions.

It's interesting to see that those connected with the city who gave statements in relation to Adams' actions were either one of his direct employees who'd be Hudson or one who's retired. No currently working city employees appeared at the meeting to provide their input into the record. Not Carpenter, Meredith or even Maureen Mitchell who works for Hudson, but had been the one subjected to being the messenger of bad news to Meredith.


The city council has the power under the city's charter to grant subpoena power to its board, commissions and committees yet it didn't afford this ethics process that power which would be useful at gleaning information. It didn't offer up protection for its own employees to give statements without having to worry about retaliation. It didn't afford any information to the panelists on how to reconcile differences in statements or versions from prior statements (in this case sworn depositions) and what they're hearing. Assuming that all the panelists did indeed read the depositions, none of them addressed or even mentioned the discrepancies in those two versions of events. I don't have any problem with the final ruling of the panel because the process provided to hear this ethics complaint was playing in the city's ballpark with an attorney hired and fired by the city council (which includes Adams) playing referee with only a select roster of witnesses "allowed" to appear and not as sworn witnesses which includes all the related protections and rights.

The panel at times seemed unclear what to do, what avenues to pursue with questioning but then there's no type of training involved in the hearing process which no one knew how it would unfold until Priamos set the rules at the hearing. What was clear from the panel was its limitations and the fact that the allegations in the complaint that were raised in the original lawsuit are beyond an Ethics Code and Complaint process that has pretty much been hamstrung since it was voted in the city's charter in 2004.

Interestingly enough, the chair of the Human Resources Board who sat on the panel came up to me afterward and asked me why I wasted my time there. I guess it's not as big a waste of time of attending his board meetings and asking whether or not his body is going to investigate the allegations of favoritism raised by employees in at least three different city departments or whether they'll even be briefed on them by the Human Resources Department. It's a little bit more difficult for this kind of behavior that's been alleged on different fronts to happen if the oversight mechanisms in place are actually doing their jobs.

When the city settles lawsuits to essentially protect itself from accountability, settling to the point where it has to be self-insured, it robs the residents of the accountability and transparency that is needed when serious allegations are raised. The city always claims through Priamos or one of his syncopates that all lawsuits are trivial and that the city will litigate them vigorously then once they lose a motion of summary judgment or demurrer or just run up against civil depositions that are embarrassing to them, it settles them to avoid that very public day in court.

Candidates Debate at Election Forum Downtown

[Ward One City Council candidate forum at the First Congregational Church in the downtown, put on by the Inland Congregations United for Change]

The Inland Congregations United for Change held a debate forum for Ward One City Council candidates in downtown Riverside at the First Congregational Church. Councilman Mike Gardner, former Councilman Dom Betro and two other challengers Marisa Valdez Yeager and Dvonne Petruzzello made statements and answered questions ranging from the fates of the Fox Theater and different neighborhoods to whether or not they supported having the State Comptroller's office do a forensic audit on the city's coffers.

To the latter, both Petruzzello and Yeager said yes. Gardner said it would be okay but the city has a new independent auditor and Betro didn't really answer the question, changing the subject instead. It was interesting how Betro was all for transparency and accountability unless it's farmed outside City Hall like from some state department. But it's interesting how the female candidates or rather the ones without dais time seemed more enthusiastic about an outside audit of the city's finances.


City Council meetings have become interesting places to attend to raise issues and ask questions about how the city's been spending its money and what accounts it has been using to fund various projects. These days you can ask those questions and even in one case, council members can and the city staff including City Manager Brad Hudson will dance around the answer and never provide a meaningful response. Like the $4.9 million that arose from an unnamed (at least on the report) from the extension of Jurupa Avenue. Even when Councilwoman Nancy Hart asked for that funding source, Hudson flirted around the issue which is kind of unfortunate considering that Hudson is her direct employee. But Hart needs to step to the plate to get the answers to questions that she asks. Where did the $4.9 million come from and why wasn't there a direct answer to that question? The supplemental allocation from city's Sewer Fund (no. 550) was noted as being from that fund in the report related to the agenda item.

[Mayor Ron Loveridge off discussing trade relations with China while allegations of favoritism in the city's contracts are made at home]

With some city officials in China, the city's been awash of allegations and lawsuits

alleging favoritism among the choice of some vendors in contracting for city projects. Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein comments on the disturbing allegations that have arisen in recent weeks. Left to respond to them even the situation involving a deputy city attorney on administrative leave was Asst. City Manager of Finance/CFO/Finance Director Paul Sundeen who naturally said (without investigating) that the allegations of favoritism were false and that the deputy city attorney had placed herself on leave. Her lawyer (and the fact that she lawyered up speaks volumes) said, actually no she was placed on leave by Priamos and is ready and willing to return to work.

As of this writing, she's still not back at work even though this leave according to whoever's speaking for City Hall at the time, was voluntary on her part. Hudson farmed the investigation of the favoritism claims raised by her, public works employees and Park and Recreation employees who alleged that their budget funds subsidized the City Hall cafeteria, to a law firm out in Rancho Cucamonga.

In the meantime, the city's in the final stages of hiring Moss Adams from Oregon to serve as its new independent auditor replacing of course, Meyer Hoffman McCann which is still technically on contract. The firm's hiring will be voted on by the city council within the next 30 days. But what was interesting is if one of the city's finance employees has familial ties with one of the partners of the outgoing Mayer Hoffman McCann. If that's the case then the firm which has run into trouble of late with its less than stellar audits of both Bell and Victorville would still have ties to Riverside.

What's also fascinating is the assorted cast of characters that have shown up some with the volume raised high to lash out at any attempts to do that calling it all a grand conspiracy of the "filthy five", "dirty dozen" (more like the Salacious Sixty actually) that's conspiring to bring down the establishment meeting at a local eatery.

Welcome to Election 2011, its seamier side. The usual allegations of sign stealing in Ward Seven, as has happened in past elections. But regardless, candidates and their volunteers really need to leave each others' signs alone. It's not just the free expression by the candidates which is being violated, it's also that of the individual who has the right to choose which sign to put on his or her property during election season. It happens every election and it's just silly.

Ward One has heated up with the debates and the one that the ICUC put on was great because most of the debates either cost money or had limited seating so this was one where more people could attend them.

But the hottest race right now is apparently Ward Seven and the smartest person is the candidate who is sitting back and watching, perhaps even facilitating his or her two rivals ripping at each other in the preliminary round and their campaign volunteers filing complaints with the city clerk? Ever heard of divide and conquer? Whoever wins that race is going to have to be able to be disciplined and frankly interested in civic business enough to sit in their dais seats during entire meetings to deal with the city's financial meltdown which is inevitable because in the past five years, the city played the grasshopper in its financial planning and spending rather than the ant.

Anyway, mail in ballots have been issued so if you're in an odd numbered ward, it's time to do your civic duty and vote.

RPD Management Warns Citizens About Blogs

Hudson: Two former lieutenants retired and lawsuits settled to "reform" department

[Chief Sergio Diaz hired in July 2010 while his new boss, Hudson was busy reforming the police department]

More admonitions about blogs at meetings including a recent community class offered by the police department by members of police management. Anyone would agree that blogs shouldn't be a person's only source of new but blogs aren't the evil things that they've apparently been made out to be brainwashing the public along with other media. Chief Sergio Diaz had said in a meeting with people in the command staff and above that he was apparently being undermined by someone but when asked more specifically about it by an individual or two, he mentioned the opposition that he got to appointing Capt. Mike Blakely to the deputy chief position from City Hall but did it anyway, while Blakely was in the room at the meeting. So how was that answering the question?

Diaz and his two newer management team members apparently aren't as visible these days in roll calls or at much of the police department these days. Some friction had allegedly been exhibited between Blakely and Asst. Chief Chris Vicino over some actions that took place over some of the divisions including Internal Affairs. Diaz apparently has taken a wait and see approach over those dust ups to see how they fall out. But while he's watching the department and issuing warning about not being brainwashed or unduly influenced by blogs and television media, his boss, City Manager Brad Hudson's been busy making statements at City Hall about the police department.

His latest was at the ethics hearing when he decided even with Priamos in the room, to explain to the panelists why the city settled the lawsuits with former lieutenants, Darryl Hurt and Tim Bacon who if you'll remember through the settlement retired with top level captain's pay and it was retroactive back a couple of years earlier along with cash payouts. But Hudson said that the city had decided to settle with them rather than take them to trial to get rid of them in the interest of reforming the police department.

Say what? That's a new one, coming out of anywhere in City Hall in relation to these lawsuits and their eventual outcome. It's the first news that Hudson has apparently been an agent of reform along with the city council and mayor who employ him over the police department. And that in order to "reform" the agency which had a very difficult 2010, they had to retire out two employees. The same two employees who just happen to make allegations of misconduct involving Hudson, former Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and even members of the city council including Adams. Remember the allegations about some of the perks that Hudson, DeSantis and city council members had enjoyed in relation to equipment usually only provided for police officers? Those arose publicly in the lawsuits filed by Bacon and Hurt and it's just odd that the behavior which put the department and city in a bad spot was attributed to Hudson, DeSantis and others and yet getting rid of those who made allegations against them of inappropriate conduct was seen as "reform".

That in mind, let's take a look at some of Hudson's amazing accomplishments he made while "reforming" the police department. This is all past information that first became public last year but this is just the first time that Hudson's come forward with his resume of reforming the police department so that makes it worth a trip down memory lane.

Hudson got straight down to business when he first arrived in the police...City Hall in June 2005 as it turned out through his assistant city manager, Tom DeSantis. One of the first priorities was apparently to look the part of someone assigned with the mission of "reforming" the police department. Never mind that it had just undergone a five year and $26 million and counting reform process with the State Attorney General's office but even when that sunset in March 2006, the city council and mayor had voted to install an oversight mechanism for assurance that the implementation of the Strategic Plan would move forward. Only Hudson apparently decided instead during the summer that followed that he was going to change the terms of the contract offered to a police practices consultant without telling at least most of the city council. The ultimate in "reform" was when Hudson allegedly went to Asst. Attorney General Lou Verdugo to ask him to use his influence to pressure the consultant to accept a low balled offer instead of what the city council had originally approved.

Reforming a police department at its very best!

It took some effort to get that turned around and finally by autumn, that process was re initiated and the police department was put on track to continue its implementation of its Plan after the city council. But if that was a major reform track being taken by Hudson and his city council, it certainly was an interesting approach.

But perhaps what was more interesting was some mechanisms of "reform" that Hudson and DeSantis implemented before that time period and apparently after it as well. Because if you're at City Hall and you're going to "reform" the police department, you have to be decked out appropriately.


Including apparently adopting the appropriate badges. Just take the police badge below that's issued to the department's police officers and make a few changes....

[Template for a police department badge assigned to sworn officers]

And you get what's below which was created by the Community Development Department for Hudson and two of his assistant city managers allegedly so they wouldn't be hassled if they had to stop their cars and yank down illegal yard signs. If anyone asked them why they were doing it, they could just flash their badges.

How many people truly believe that excuse and that one of Hudson's departments came up with the idea on its own? Well, at least two people.

[One example of Hudson's mission to reform the Riverside Police Department. He even had a badge created for himself to do it?]

But by that time, Hudson and DeSantis had already been reforming the police department in other ways. They were assigning themselves and elected officials what are called cold plated vehicles. Now the whole car assignment policy appeared totally disorganized and its accountability mechanism even more so being stored as it turned out on post it notes but one would think that the assignment of cold (untraceable to the driver) plates would be kind of well you know, restricted to....police officers and only officers in specific circumstances.

Well they may or may not have been restricted within the police department to certain employees but when you're out reforming the police department, you really can't let a little thing like a regulation, policy, procedure or even state law get in your way can you? So the cold plating on cars was carried out during Hudson's reform plan for the police department. The vehicles on this list were traceable to those assigned to Hudson, a couple of his former assistant managers and several elected officials with another one having a car set to be cold plated after being signed off by DeSantis on the bottom but that car was actually never plated out.

[Another one of Hudson's methods of reforming the police department, did he need to equip his vehicle with special plates to do so? His vehicle on this cold plating list was allegedly the Toyota Highlander at the top]

But you can't be a true reformer of the police department without carrying firearms so the dynamic duo reformers Hudson and DeSantis went to equip themselves with Glocks, you know the brand of gun that many police officers including those in the police department carry. They went out for permits and both encountered problems. Hudson apparently substituted as his "residential" address, that for City Hall which doesn't appear to be leasing out living space...yet but did lease or give out space to a private company in the basement for a while. DeSantis actually was assigned a permit by former Chief Russ Leach even though he lived in another city. When the media came sniffing around, that permit was apparently "revoked" and handed off to the Riverside County Sheriff's Department to do instead which it did quickly enough. Quickly enough so that when DeSantis had his little incident in a parking lot in Hemet where a woman filed a useless police report against him for allegedly threatening her and going to his car to get a gun, he might have already received his firearm from the police department he and Hudson had set out to reform.

Anyway, the two of them still needed some guns so they went out to the shooting range at the department to get certified and they are assigned guns during that time with serial numbers that were recorded on those sheets of certification and then somehow wound up matching those showing up on their gun permits as being owned by them.

Uh oh.

How in goodness name did they wind up with guns that were owned by the police department that were never sold, never declared surplus or any of those formalities. But when the whole incident became reported and later investigated by the State Attorney General's office's criminal division, somehow the guns went through two different sales. One through the police department which turned out to be highly problematic mostly because the police department wasn't a licensed gun dealership.

Uh Oh.

Here's some of the paperwork assorted with the sale by the police department and the response from one law enforcement agency outside Riverside that had questions about it.

[Yet another "reform" instituted by Hudson to facilitate the police department as an unlicensed vendor to sell firearms to management employees at City Hall]






[The response in writing from an investigator with the State Attorney General's Criminal Division to former Police Chief Russ Leach regarding one of Hudson's alleged "reforms"---can you guess which one?]

Not to worry! The whole thing got fixed when the sale was either redone (after collecting the illegally sold weapons first) or "laundered" (depending how you look at it) through a private dealership in Riverside. That little blip taken care of, it left Hudson and his staff back to their mission of department reform which they did by allowing the department's staff including its supervision to be depleted through attrition.

When individuals thwarted Hudson's reform process by reporting some of his elements of reform to outside authorities, they allegedly found themselves in loads of trouble. Various leaders of police unions questioned what was going on and either alleged they were threatened with retaliation, discriminated by the promotional process or told by upper management they had "targets on their back". This is when they reported on the above as well as other reform mechanisms like trying to outfit the cold plated cars with police equipment including apparently reversal tires, radios and lights so that employees including the city attorney could "roll" to critical incidents properly decked out.

As a city resident, I had no idea while all this was going on that Hudson and DeSantis were working behind the wings implementing all of the above listed "reforms" to make our police department a better agency. Talk about shock and awe! Maybe the city council that espouses how talented Hudson is these days needs to like pay out some money, some spare change lying around, and nominate him for some policing reform that's out in Washington, D.C. or another important city.

And actually, when it comes to reform, I guess Hudson is modest because he apparently was tied to all of the accomplishments listed in this posting and never shared it with the public so he could be properly congratulated for what he's done. In fact, you know the saying about icebergs, with a man as modest about his achievements in reforming the police department, this is probably only the tip of all the outstanding contributions he's made to ensure that his latest police chief, Sergio Diaz has inherited a department reformed by his boss's efforts.

[Icebergs can be beautiful but can they also serve as valuable symbolism for the extent of credit and knowledge given or known about involving Hudson's amazing mechanisms of reform instituted involving the police department that he hinted at during the ethics complaint hearing?]

Hudson praised himself and the elected officials for making the decision behind closed doors to get rid of two lieutenants in the interest of "reforming" the agency on the eve of their trial in open court on the allegations they raised. But it's strange because most of the "reforms" listed above were illegal practices or at the very least highly questionable so how exactly is that reform, when you take a law abiding agency which is set up to protect and serve and enforce the law and compromise everything it stand for and represents for what's not reform but pure selfishness and ego. To deck yourself out on the props of a law enforcement officer without taking on any of the responsibilities.

One wonders if Hudson and DeSantis while "reforming" the police department ever bothered to survey it's over 600 (well maybe it's over 500) employees now to ever ask if they thought that engaging in the above illegal or highly questionable behavior simply to feed one's egotism was something they wanted the agency that employs them to be identified with.

I would guess that survey was never done by Hudson, that he never asked if it was okay to "reform" the department by for one thing, having it engage in an illegal or highly questionable sale involving its firearms. But then he doesn't have to do that because he's the chief's boss and the chief is his "at will" employee. The city council was more than happy to allow this to go on and when it found out much sooner than most of the public, it didn't say anything about what was going on, only dismissing it as "old news" when it finally did come out or making jokes about what was a serious issue to many people. It wasn't a joke to those employed by the department who were in ground zero when most of the scandals including that of the last police chief broke last year.

It's amazing what someone who engaged in that behavior that came to the public's attention only through two lawsuits filed by former police employees, lawsuits that were settled for a ton of money, can come forward and actually attribute his own conduct to "reform" and that he's got a city council and mayor that probably would have just smiled and nodded their heads while he said that if any of them had been present at the time. Because they're not thinking and they're not paying an iota of attention to Hudson and this was proof of that.

It's not reform, it's some of the more shameful behavior that's been seen and condoned and joked about by our elected leadership. By acting that way, the city council and mayor revealed a lot about the power dynamics at City Hall between them and one of their direct employees. Only the bad news doesn't end there, does anyone believe that to be the case?

Because if Hudson seriously believes that he or the city council are "reforming" the police department through the actions above and by getting rid of employees who report their "reforms" outside the agency, then no thanks but I don't think that's the type of "reform" that's needed by any law enforcement agency.

It's kind of funny that in the midst of all this and the City Hall folks surrounding Diaz and his currently mostly invisible if conflictual management team that he's worried about a blogger. If I were a police chief coming in the situation that faced Riverside last year having to deal with the way my new boss "reformed" the police department, I'd be pretty busy being concerned about that, about the message rather than one of a wide assortment of messengers. Will keeping his boss from instituting further "reforms" be anything less than a full-time job on its own?

When the honeymoon period ends will Diaz have the expertise and the tools to deal with that? That's a question that still awaits an answer. There's been a lot of mentioning in different venues to explain new changes as being "this is how we did it in the LAPD" but this isn't Los Angeles, this is River City, a whole different playing field. Look around at all the city employees from different departments who have filed lawsuits essentially on the same issues (okay maybe that is like Los Angeles a bit) including favoritism in contracting and retaliation for complaints made, which is similar to what happened in the police department.

You see River City is where questionable behavior perhaps even that which skirts the laws is apparently done for good reasons and getting rid of those who complain about it is part of some "reform" process. If that's the case, Hudson and the denizens at City Hall are "reforming" the entire city.

As Alice said during one of her forays to Wonderland, things are getting curiouser and curiouser and so it appears is the case with Wonderland's twin, River City.

Public Meetings

Monday, May 16 at 11 am, the city council and mayor will be interviewing these candidates including former Asst. Police Chief John DeLaRosa as detailed in this blog a while back.

Tuesday, May 17 at 11:00 am, the Riverside City Council and mayor will be interviewing and selecting people to add to the Charter Review Committee according to this report.


Tuesday, May 17 at 3:30 and 6:30 pm at City Hall. The city council will be meeting to discuss this agenda.

Blogger Apologizes for Outage

What a frustrating day. We’re very sorry that you’ve been unable to publish to Blogger for the past 20.5 hours. We’re nearly back to normal — you can publish again, and in the coming hours posts and comments that were temporarily removed should be restored. Thank you for your patience while we fix this situation. We use Blogger for our own blogs, so we’ve also felt your pain.

Here’s what happened: during scheduled maintenance work Wednesday night, we experienced some data corruption that impacted Blogger’s behavior. Since then, bloggers and readers may have experienced a variety of anomalies including intermittent outages, disappearing posts, and arriving at unintended blogs or error pages. A small subset of Blogger users (we estimate 0.16%) may have encountered additional problems specific to their accounts. Yesterday we returned Blogger to a pre-maintenance state and placed the service in read-only mode while we worked on restoring all content: that’s why you haven’t been able to publish. We rolled back to a version of Blogger as of Wednesday May 11th, so your posts since then were temporarily removed. Those are the posts that we’re in the progress of restoring.

Again, we are very sorry for the impact to our authors and readers. We try hard to ensure Blogger is always available for you to share your thoughts and opinions with the world, and we’ll do our best to prevent this from happening again.