When the Clock Strikes Past Midnight

If you use Blackberry to get your emails, you're out of luck today. Massive Blackberry server outage all over United States...How long to fix it? Not known at this time.

[Employees of the Riverside Police Department and Fire Department receive accolades and induction into the Riverside Unified School District Honor Roll for saving the life of Arlington High School Head Football Coach Patrick McCarthy (l.)]

[Riverside Police Department Officer Richard Glover who also is an assistant football coach at Arlington High School receiving his award]

[Deputy Chief of Personnel Mike Blakely and Chief Sergio Diaz witness the award ceremony while the fate of Glover's career remains in their hands 14 months after the alleged incident took place]

California State Governmental Code 3304 (d)


(excerpt)



d) (1) Except as provided in this subdivision and subdivision
(g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other
than merit, shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other
allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is
not completed within one year of the public agency's discovery by a
person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of
an act, omission, or other misconduct. This one-year limitation
period shall apply only if the act, omission, or other misconduct
occurred on or after January 1, 1998. In the event that the public
agency determines that discipline may be taken, it shall complete its
investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed
discipline by a Letter of Intent or Notice of Adverse Action
articulating the discipline that year, except as provided in
paragraph (2). The public agency shall not be required to impose the
discipline within that one-year period.
(2) (A) If the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct is
also the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal
prosecution, the time during which the criminal investigation or
criminal prosecution is pending shall toll the one-year time period.
(B) If the public safety officer waives the one-year time period
in writing, the time period shall be tolled for the period of time
specified in the written waiver.
(C) If the investigation is a multijurisdictional investigation
that requires a reasonable extension for coordination of the involved
agencies.
(D) If the investigation involves more than one employee and
requires a reasonable extension.
(E) If the investigation involves an employee who is incapacitated
or otherwise unavailable.
(F) If the investigation involves a matter in civil litigation
where the public safety officer is named as a party defendant, the
one-year time period shall be tolled while that civil action is
pending.
(G) If the investigation involves a matter in criminal litigation
where the complainant is a criminal defendant, the one-year time
period shall be tolled during the period of that defendant's criminal
investigation and prosecution.
(H) If the investigation involves an allegation of workers'
compensation fraud on the part of the public safety officer.
(e) Where a predisciplinary response or grievance procedure is
required or utilized, the time for this response or procedure shall
not be governed or limited by this chapter.
(f) If, after investigation and any predisciplinary response or
procedure, the public agency decides to impose discipline, the public
agency shall notify the public safety officer in writing of its
decision to impose discipline, including the date that the discipline
will be imposed, within 30 days of its decision, except if the
public safety officer is unavailable for discipline.
(g) Notwithstanding the one-year time period specified in
subdivision (d), an investigation may be reopened against a public
safety officer if both of the following circumstances exist:
(1) Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to
affect the outcome of the investigation.
(2) One of the following conditions exist:
(A) The evidence could not reasonably have been discovered in the
normal course of investigation without resorting to extraordinary
measures by the agency.
(B) The evidence resulted from the public safety officer's
predisciplinary response or procedure.
(h) For those members listed in subdivision (a) of Section 830.2
of the Penal Code, the 30-day time period provided for in subdivision
(f) shall not commence with the service of a preliminary notice of
adverse action, should the public agency elect to provide the public
safety officer with such a notice.




On Tuesday, Jan. 18 at around 6pm, a group of individuals including Riverside city employees appeared at a Board of Education meeting of the Riverside Unified School District to get awards and induction into the RSUD's Honor Roll for saving the life of Arlington High School Head Football Coach Patrick McCarthy after a severe infection caused him to go into cardiac arrest right in the football field during a practice. Assistant coaches Zaza Ralph and Richard Glover, a Riverside Police Department officer sprang into action taking emergency measures to resuscitate him until emergency personnel from the Riverside Fire Department arrived to apply further emergency measures before transporting McCarthy to a hospital where he struggled to survive for several days but a little more than two months later, he was standing at the podium at the Board of Education meeting which was filled with people witnessing the ceremony. Speakers including McCarthy cited the bravery of those who were involved including Glover and said if they hadn't acted that McCarthy wouldn't be alive today. Both Chief Sergio Diaz and Deputy Chief Mike Blakely attended and stood up proudly when introduced in front of the school board as they should after those awarded including Glover were given standing ovations. Both men play pivotal roles in a situation involving the young officer as it turned out in a situation that's started over a year ago.



But what might not have been known by most of the people attending the event was that Glover hadn't been able to wear his police uniform in months and that he had actually been placed on paid leave pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation that has been in the works since about November 2009. They might not know that right now, there's allegedly a recommendation to terminate his employment and that of another patrol officer sitting on the desk of a high ranking management employee. And that the investigation against him and other officers has possibly exceeded its statutory limitations according to state law and the police officer bill of rights yet the management level of the department has either made or received recommendations to discipline them anyway for allegations it has apparently sustained.

It's an investigation and review process that's sparked many questions as it probably should. As it should have months ago so what happened? Because what's resulted is a quandary that taps into many issues involving the problems that have plagued the department's personnel and investigation process for the past few years. Problems that needed solutions before this investigation even got started and long before it got caught in a quagmire where it still remains.


The investigation allegedly originated from an arrest that had been made that had been the subject of a complaint and the investigation was conducted involving Glover, Officer Michael Bucy and later the supervising sergeant who were involved with its handling. An investigation where the direction that it has taken appears to be as prolonged as any investigation possibly could be, and one that has sparked some degree of controversy in whether or not the department has followed state law regarding instituting disciplinary actions of its officers. Not to mention that it seems to be an investigation that no one including in upper management appears to want to deal with as it meanders on past beginning its second year even as a recommendation for rather serious discipline of the two patrol officers has been presented. It appears to be the proverbial hot potato for quite a few people and that's exactly what it shouldn't be at all. Too many lives are involved in a situation that has become uncomfortable to being addressed, it's the first major disciplinary action by the new regime and so far it had seemed like there's been fumbling of the ball up to that point.

Not that by itself, investigations stretching out close to the one year mark aren't anomalies particularly in the area of citizen complaints, as statistics released have shown.

These statistics have shown that the department had already been struggling with the length of time it took to conduct its investigations particularly those involving complaints filed by the public for quite some time long before this particular investigation even began.

For the past five years or so, the average length of time it's taken to investigate both category I (more serious allegations) and 2 (those less serious) has ebbed and flowed but for the most part, has taken at least for citizen complaints often much longer than six months. Much longer than the recommended 60 or 30 days respectively (RPD Policy 4.12 D 5,6) to even reach the Community Police Review Commission if they're complaints under its jurisdiction. And for the most part, it's the category 2 complaints which have run up the highest number of day before completion according to those same statistics. That might be due to several reasons including prioritizing major investigations over minor ones and the fact that the vast majority of category 2 complaints are handled by field sergeants, a rank that's become pretty depleted in the past several years due to their positions being frozen when vacated.

Investigations involving personnel complaints filed against police officers have averaged up to 200-300 days at times to even reach the CPRC according to statistics released by that board on a monthly and annual basis. Yet the department assures both complainants and likely police officers not to mention members of the CPRC that there has never been an investigation that it's done which has extended past the expiration of the governmental code cited above, 3304(d) which states that an officer can't be disciplined more than 12 months after the initial suspicion of misconduct by that officer. The code cites a list of exemptions to that rule, which include the conduction of a criminal investigation/prosecution (which takes priority), investigations conducted by other law enforcement agencies (i.e. the FBI) or the incapacitation of officers involved in the investigation as subjects or witnesses.

Criminal charges were never filed in relation to this case and no civil litigation was initiated either yet the length of investigation and the holding pattern that emerged afterward for more months seemed endless. And in most cases involving the police department, officers are still disciplined (most often by termination) within 12 months of the suspicion of misconduct even in cases where they are being prosecuted on criminal charges. Former officers Robert Forman and Anthony Fletcher and Det. Scott Impola were all fired within six months of criminal charges being filed and well within the 12 months of when the clock was started under 3304(d). There's probably other similar examples where the clock didn't run out on investigations that became criminal cases. When the department strongly believes there's serious misconduct that has been sustained or will be, it acts decisively, it doesn't meander and malinger on an investigation past a year and then engage in a game of musical chairs handing it off to the one left standing to make the decision on what discipline to give out.

So then what happened here in this particular investigation which has presented a situation where officers might get disciplined possibly terminated after the 12 month mark? Even if the department can foster a reason, an exception to waive the requirements of the governmental code, will it past the muster if this disciplinary action is later appealed through arbitration?
Not very likely, given past decisions which heavily favor police officers who have faced serious discipline including termination and likely it would hinge on 3304(d) which means it mostly likely would be tossed out.

But this case hasn't even gotten that far.

So far it's been going on 15 months without any resolution to it and it has generated some degree of controversy as to why it took this long, putting the careers and lives of those involved on hold for over a year and the ultimate outcome for even longer than that. The concerns had included how the investigation into the complaint was handled in the first place including how it proceeded through the chain of command especially during the disciplinary process. It's a process that's not had any winners and has raised questions about how the investigation and disciplinary process is handled by the Riverside Police Department. An agency which already has some interesting history with how it disciplines in different ways for the same offenses. In the same department for example, one detective got a notice with an intent to terminate for alleging lying about making a racial comment several years before he had been investigated for making one last year. An investigation which was one that apparently took priority over this " very serious" one. Even though those involved in both cases sat in the same penalty box.

Another detective had made used a racial slur in roll call during training and had originally been facing a severe suspension. But he wound up with a written reprimand because the lieutenant of the Internal Affairs Division which had been investigating that detective for making the "wet back" comment had himself used that same slur in another training exercise involving the City Attorney's office in front of someone assigned to that office. The lieutenant hadn't really gotten any discipline against him for his slur so they had to go back and reduce the discipline recommended for the detective that his division had investigated for using the same slur, to a written reprimand. It's really hard to look at this ridiculous exercise in showing that accountability for misconduct is something that clearly doesn't trickle up the chain of command and take a law enforcement agency and how it handles that issue very seriously. One person loses their job, one gets a change of disciplinary action and the other gets to retire and then get rehired by the city to work where, but in the City Attorney's office. So at least in that case, the assignment of discipline to an officer seems somewhat capricious? No, the lesson that this situation sends to everyone is that the higher you are up in the chain of command, the less the discipline is that you receive. Because there's quite a large gap between a termination, a suspension, even a written reprimand and a retirement and another job with the city. If that's how discipline was carried out in practice or even as the rule, then it wouldn't seem to be a trustworthy process at all.

Then there was the officer who wasn't issued a notice of intent to discipline for sustained misconduct until 13 months after an incident and since they couldn't give him the disciplinary action that they had intended legally under 3304(d), they decided to "discipline" him through a "non-disciplinary" transfer out of a special assignment. What made that an eyeball rolling event was that the notice of the non-disciplinary transfer was actually written on a memo that had on the top of it, "notice of intent to discipline". What was humorously ironic in a Wonderland kind of way ultimately became very expensive when that episode played out in front of a civil jury about five years ago.

Another long-time detective had committed a serious act of misconduct within his assigned unit and the captain at the time in investigations had recommended that he receive a written reprimand violating departmental procedure that required one of the three following disciplinary actions: suspension, demotion or termination. The assistant chief in that situation then recommended a suspension while the police chief ultimately terminated the detective who then won his job back in arbitration, the city appealed it, lost and then ultimately paid him a medical retirement.

A patrol officer committed sexual misconduct on duty and wasn't terminated but then several years later was arrested and prosecuted for oral copulation under the color of authority and sexual battery and today, is a convicted felon and registered sex offender. Plus he was ultimately fired from the department.

But then the department took back the one police officer whose firing had been supported by arbitration and by Riverside County Superior Court for some inexplicable reason. The officer didn't stay in the department very long before regressing back to the behavior that got him terminated but this time the department didn't fire him, it paid him out, most likely on a "medical" retirement.

It's more than likely that most of the cases don't appear to be like these ones and that they have outcomes that make more sense including when it comes to issuing disciplinary action. At least one would hope so especially in the case of employee terminations. But it's problematic when the process goes astray even once because of the serious implications involved and how they impact people's lives.

Because it's one of the most serious actions that a police department can take and one that's required to adhere to state law including requirements involving statutory periods. An accountable and responsible law enforcement agency would see that it did just that as well as honoring the laws which require departments to have an accountable citizen complaint process, laws which were alleged to be violated by former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer in his lawsuits against Riverside in 2001, which of course was settled in the form of a five-year stipulated judgment. But was proper process followed here with this 15 month process of investigating misconduct allegations, sustaining them and then making recommendations and ultimate decisions involving any disciplinary action. And if the process wasn't followed correctly with Bucy and Glover's investigation, then why not?

There's been some talk about how major this case was in terms of what happened but if that's the case why did it sit for months essentially allowing the clock to run out? Shouldn't the most important investigations be the ones that get completed on time? Yes, investigations shouldn't be rushed to the finish line and risk being compromised in the process but there's plenty of room for taking great care in conducting them and in getting them completed before the 12 month mark. If this investigation really was so important, the situation so grave, it certainly wasn't treated that way. It was treated like it somehow became politicized along the way inside the insulated walls of the RPD. It also raises the issues of how investigations are prioritized within the department. Are the most serious ones treated as the highest priorities or those that become the most politicized? Past practice had often appeared to be that investigators would be placed on one case, work on that one and then be pulled off to deal with a newer one that was suddenly even a higher priority. Is that still the way business is being conducted, hopefully not because it's pretty easy to identify the inherent problems with that type of organizational system.

But this case itself is odd in more than one way including through the recommendations on disciplinary action which have been made so far. Because the discipline recommended in this investigation also diluted itself the higher up it went.


It's kind of difficult to look at this important and often very arduous process of deciding whether to assign discipline to an officer and if so what with an unjaded eye. If it seems that accountability for sustained misconduct goes down, the higher the rank then that hardly seems appropriate either and it sends a very disturbing message. Why should a detective get suspended or even written up for a racial slur whereas a lieutenant gets nothing, retires and earns another job with the city? Officers should get disciplined for that form of sustained misconduct but the severity shouldn't lessen the higher up in the chain of command that it goes. With increased privilege and power which is enjoyed at the higher levels such as supervision and management, comes responsibility and accountability as well.

What kind of message does that send to the department but also to the community, whether the community knows it or not? Because this type of behavior is often symptomatic of deeper problems that the community will become aware of perhaps in a big way down the road even if it's not aware initially. Riverside's definitely seen that scenario play out in technicolor several times.

Glover and Bucy were featured in earlier postings in the Mad, Mad World at Orange Street Station during the time period last spring when both of them and at least four sworn employees spent their days sitting in the Orange Street Station in a situation called the "penalty box" after being removed from their field operations or investigative assignments. That's the place where Lt. Leon Phillips was put as Former Acting Chief John DeLaRosa told officers at roll call to be trained for a "special assignment" rather than being disciplined. But a week later, he was given his notice of intent to terminate. Some special assignment. The "Penalty Box" as it's called might have some purpose but it's become more politicized than anything else, the fact that it has a name bears to that.

The only other thing that Bucy and Glover had in common was that both had testified in the late 2005 criminal trial of that former officer who was convicted of one count of oral copulation under the color of authority, Robert Forman. Bucy had testified as a former trainee of Forman but his testimony had actually hurt Forman because he had testified that his field training officer had been strict and meticulous about details whereas Forman's entire defense had been built on the premise that he had become a lazy, complacent officer.

Glover had testified that he had been at the scene when Forman and one of the alleged victims had been involved in a petty theft misdemeanor that Forman also had been convicted of at trial. But it seemed clear that the officers at the scene of that situation involving an angry prospective john who alleged he had his $100 stolen by Forman and the victim had no idea that anything illegal involving Forman had taken place.

But what happened last spring was that two officers were taken out of the patrol division and placed in the "penalty box" while the investigation of a complaint appeared to be in limbo months after much of it had allegedly been completed. If the investigation was so serious as had been claimed, why did it take so long, and why were the officers assigned to the Orange Street station for months before being placed on paid leave about two months ago? After all, an investigation involving a former detective who made a racial remark was apparently deemed more important and the highest priority by Orange Street Station about the same time that allegations raised by the detective involving an altercation with a management member hit the press. But yet, the situation was so serious the officers had to be removed from their field assignments and put on some form of desk duty yet for a long while it seemed as if the department's management (which itself was undergoing major changes) was content to run the clock out. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

The investigation finally made it to the desk of newly anointed field operations captain, John Wallace who was given the task, of making the recommendation for the disciplinary action imposed on the officers and sergeant nearly 12 months after it had first been noted. The newly appointed members of the management team apparently didn't want to get involved in making that recommendation themselves, leaving it up to Wallace who was left to come up with his own decision or to seek advice from other parties including his executive lieutenant, Gary Leach. A bit of a different protocol than in cases with former management personnel who had been more hands on with it than had the captains.

But for a while, it put Wallace in the hot seat.

[Field Operations Capt. John Wallace took two months of review to recommend termination for the two patrol officers and a suspension for their supervising sergeant]

Wallace who spends much of his time in his office at Lincoln Field Operations Station remained in there even when Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer recently attended several roll call sessions without him. He rose up quickly through the ranks mostly through interior assignments becoming a captain before the age of 40 and had a flair and talent for writing which led him towards drafting quite a bit of the original Strategic Plan. He had also applied for the chief's position vacated by Russ Leach and had made the list of final candidates for interview. Apparently he had asked the police unions for their support of his candidacy but they demurred, perhaps because several of their members had their eye on another candidate in the finals.

But this captain who had tried out for the chief's spot ironically was left with a very important decision to make which was to issue a recommendation for the officers involved in the case. Not an enviable task to put it lightly given that it had taken so long for the process to even get that far. That put him from the start in a position that wasn't very fair to be placed in.

It allegedly took him about two months to decide on what disciplinary action if any to recommend against the involved department employees and it was apparently a difficult process because upper management left it up to him to decide on what to recommend. And at the end of that period of contemplation, Wallace finally did.

For Glover and Bucy, he allegedly recommended that their employment be terminated. He went a little easier on the supervising sergeant who received a recommendation of a suspension which was between 1-2 work weeks. If that's the case in terms of what was recommended as discipline for the involved parties, it raises an immediate question as to why the supervising sergeant would be receiving lessor discipline than the officers under his watch. Isn't it to be the other way around, because the department has preached that accountability increases with movement up the chain of command. But then you have to look at the Leach incident for guidance where the lieutenant wound up being the only party involved who at one time faced a loss of income being factored into his eventual pension, with the demotion that never came to be. After all, if that's how the management at City Hall issues out discipline, the department after all, is underneath that same management.

Still, it appears a bit odd, the fact that the involved officers faced a loss of employment while their supervisor (who's still on duty) received a recommendation of lessor disciplinary action. The recommendations allegedly made appear to go against the mission statement of the police department in that accountability for actions and misconduct increase the higher up the structural hierarchy that you go. If a supervisor supervises officers who commit behavior that is deemed by a captain to deserve termination and then gets a recommendation for lighter discipline, what does that mean exactly?

But anyway, at about the 14th month, the investigative packet wound up on the desk of Asst. Chief Chris Vicino for its next stage of handling.

[On Asst. Chief Chris Vicino's desk sits the package involving the involved officers and supervisor]

Vicino has to review an investigation that took 14 months to reach his desk, two months outside of the statutory limitation for disciplining officers which recommended termination for two patrol officers and there had been an inverse correlation between the severity of recommended disciplinary action and the ascension in rank of those involved. It puts Vicino in a difficult position of whether or not to accept or reject the recommendations for disciplinary action, one of the first critical and very involved decisions he has made since his arrival involving an investigation that had put the department in the position of potentially violating the state's peace officer bill of rights and 3304(d) unless the department can come up with an exemption. But Vicino has experience as an interim chief in Pasadena Police Department and has been a force out on the trail of the solicitation of input from different corners for the department's upcoming strategic plan so the task that has been assigned to him is certainly within his scope. Diaz himself comes from a police department where the chief had different and somewhat more limited powers of disciplinary action than is the case in Riverside's department. Does he view the issue similar to what happened back at his haunt or as it is in Riverside? Diaz has had his missteps since becoming chief but he's had his visionary moments too. But what defines a chief ultimately are the bigger tests that he or she faces and this is one of them.

What decision Vicino and possibly Diaz make remains to be seen on the investigation process that dragged on past its year. It's not likely that the officers will be fired, especially given that Diaz attended an award ceremony for one of them but will they be given lesser disciplinary action in hopes they won't contest it in arbitration? If the officers were terminated, they have nothing to lose and perhaps everything to gain by taking their case to arbitration where likely it would get tossed given the high rate of discipline overturned during this civilian process. But in the meantime, they face economic hardships that come along with the waiting game for a case to reach, to be presented and decided upon by an outside arbitrator.

Still it raises questions and revisits concerns that have been raised about the investigation and review process of complaints by the police department which has been a dilemma in the past five years. The situation has been raised as a "what if", in what would the department or city do if the ultimate discipline was recommended after the statuory of limitations had passed? Well, in this case it might have happened and is no longer a hypothetical.

Running the clock and playing fumble the ball with such an important process violates so many individuals rights. The complainant doesn't benefit if an allegation is sustained against an officer who then can't be legally disciplined. The officers don't really benefit either from having cases drag out so long either. Their lives are put in hold without any resolution in sight. But is the police department able to resolve its ongoing issues with complaints that average 200 days or more to reach the CPRC? The attempts made so far including having two lieutenants in the division at one time haven't produced long-term results and it's ironic that once again the complaint system has been compromised in its effectiveness not too long after then State Attorney General Bill Lockyer alleged that it was in violation of the state's penal code, necessitating rewriting and reform.

It remains a challenge for Diaz and Vicino, for newly anointed CPRC manager, Frank Hauptmann, for the commission itself, for complainants, for officers like Bucy and Glover and those who represent them. For those who investigate and review complaints including City Hall. But what will be shown here by the ultimate outcome is what kind of decision making has been brought into the police department, and the difference between what's management and what's leadership. Something that's been lacking in this investigation for too long. If people's careers and lives are at stake including officers, they and their process deserve much better than this as do the individuals who file complaints.

What's really needed at this point is serious dialogue among the different players including those in management, supervision, the police bargaining units and the CPRC about what this process is going to be. Because even if this investigation were the only one to experience serious problems, that won't be for long. The intelligence and commitment to improving the police department in the wake of the problems which gripped it are certainly there inside the department, but what is most important is the will to address this situation which has placed doubt in the complaint investigation and review process which needs to be removed. Everyone involved in this tangled mess of a process deserves at least that especially when the decisions made have a profound impact on people's lives and livelihoods.

It's awesome when leaders of departments appear when their employees are being recognized for heroic deeds but it's more important to make sure that the processes that these employees are involved in are what they need to be, to be fair and just for all parties. A process that doesn't realize that isn't ultimately worth very much in the end and inevitably serves as the definer of the leadership and the department itself.

And it seems that there needs to be much more work done on that process. The minds are there to do it, but will they be up to it, is the question.




The Press Enterprise Editorial Board weighs in on the proposed banning of most mobile food trucks. Too bad, it would bring a lot of people to the nearly dead downtown.

Public Meetings

Tuesday, Jan. 25 at 3 and 6:30 p.m., The Riverside City Council will be meeting to discuss this agenda including its plans to do some resolution over Governor Jerry Brown's proposed shutdown of redevelopment agencies.


Also in closed session, the federal lawsuit filed by former Riverside Police Department Officer Jose Nazario comes up for an update.


Wednesday, Jan. 26 at 5:30 p.m. The Community Police Review Commission meets in the city council chambers to discuss this agenda. It will be the first meeting where newly hired manager, Frank Hauptmann will appear.

Public Reception

Tuesday, Feb. 1 at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will finally be holding a welcoming reception for newly hired CPRC manager, Frank Hauptmann in the Mayoral Ceremonial Room about a month after he actually started his employment.

January 2011: What Does the Future Hold?

[Riverside Police Department Deputy Chief Mike Blakely and Chief Sergio Diaz attend the award ceremony of a patrol officer whose career remains in the balance pending the outcome of a game of hot potato at the upper echelon of the department]

Version 8.0.2

CLERKDB8Repository

Could not connect to the Laserfiche server.

User Name

Password

Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 8.0.2 © 1998-2010 Laserfiche

Above is what greeted me (and probably everyone else who tried to access) this weekend when I tried to research documents on the laserfiche at the city's Web site. It's been having this problem of going offline occasionally, on the weekends indicating that perhaps an update or upgrade is being done if not on a database, a server that it might share space with or have some connection to that's somehow causing the laserfiche system to go down. The City Clerk's office has been notified and database was returned to service on Tuesday morning. But there needs to be some investigation done by the city's Information Technology division as to the cause of these occasional outages given that they always seem to happen on the weekends.

[Chief Sergio Diaz, Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer and Asst. Chief Chris Vicino all hailed from elsewhere before coming to Riverside]

[Deputy Chief Mike of Administration and Personnel Mike Blakely (l.) has returned to the position that he held when he arrived in the early 1990s]

A new year, 2011 has started and a lot has changed since this time last year including new faces on the canvas in Riverside. Who would have guessed last Jan. 17 that there would be three new management employees inside the police department including Chief Sergio Diaz? Or that the city would be short an assistant city manager, Tom DeSantis or a Community Police Review Commission manager, in Kevin Rogan? Had 2010 been the year of the interloper, the invasion from outside Riverside? There's been talk in the community about how a department that had averred to rebuild its leadership internally during the stipulated judgment to reflect more of a "business culture" had wound up resembling an episode of Survivor Island soon enough.

But then 2010 wasn't an ordinary year as it turned out.

Especially for the police department which as of January 2011 looks much different than it did just one year ago. Departing were its police chief of nearly a decade, Russ Leach as well as Asst. Chief John DeLaRosa and Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel. Replacing them were three outsiders including two from the Los Angeles Police Department. These were Chief Sergio Diaz, Asst. Chief Chris Vicino (hailing from Pasadena Police Department) and Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer. The Riverside Police Department had promised about 10 years when it hired an outside police chief that the next one that would place him would be from inside the department. Of course that didn't happen and it wasn't possible given that the department's highest management collapsed like a house of cards in a sea of revelations that unfolded last year. But that was hardly surprising given the stiletto sticking that had been taking place at that level for several years as some aspiring captains were able to take advantage of actions taken against others during the promotional process including one candidate who had her promotion vetoed by City Hall allegedly by a sitting councilman within several hours after being told she would be promoted. Another captain candidate had to nix shopping Riverside and meet to "clear the air" with that same councilman at an eatery in Corona when his own promotion was stalled. But within 12 hours of that meeting, he was promoted to the captain's rank.

The city and Diaz were probably aware that there were very limited opportunities to promote individuals from inside the department into upper management positions largely due to the somewhat micromanaged promotional process at that level from forces inside City Hall, elected and appointed. Not to manage the highly contentious and often cutthroat atmosphere that developed as a result. Former Capt. Mike Blakely who had entered into the police department as a deputy chief appointed by former Chief Ken Fortier another outside chief, had been left adrift by the abrupt departure of Fortier in a sea of controversy in 1997. Of all the captains, Blakely had been the only one who had seemed to thrive in the chaos that defined much of early 2010 in the department, putting his nose to the grindstone and when the officer he mentored became acting chief, things got very interesting indeed during the brief DeLaRosa/Blakely tenure of leadership.

Even before that, the department suffered from very high vacancy rates at nearly all levels, both sworn and civilian. The percentages ranked from 33% at the lieutenant's level to 20% on the civilian side and about 12% overall as positions that were vacated by attrition were frozen and left unfilled by the city management office. Mirroring conditions that had existed the last time the city had been impacted by a severe recession in the late 1990s which left the department in such a state that according to then State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, it was inadequately staffed to do any of its jobs including community policing. Training budgets had been cut, including POST required by 25% just as it had been reduced in the 1990s.

Being the head of either labor association on the sworn side of the department required hazard pay given that two former members of the Riverside Police Administrators' Association and one past president of the Riverside Police Officers' Association sued alleging retaliation for their involvement in labor activities. RPAA president, Lt Darryl Hurt and PAC member Lt. Tim Bacon had been heavily involved in the contentious "at will" situation that arose involving the controversial attempts by City Hall to convert two key management positions in the department to being "at will".

The city denied that the process had gone very far during the brouhaha that was played out at a March 2007 packed city council meeting but in actuality, both DeLaRosa and Esquivel had signed contracts, they had just disappeared and couldn't be found by City Attorney Gregory Priamos for about three years according to a California Public Records Act request that had been filed back then. Then out of the blue, the contracts reappeared in the defiant hand of City Manager Brad Hudson at a city council meeting shocking more than a few people. But yes, the contracts had been "found" and guess what, they bore the stamp from Priamos office on them, which just goes to show that when Priamos does these exhaustive searches for public documents maybe he'd better include his own office.

But Hurt and Bacon had been busy with other projects including uncovering the whole unseemly guns, badges and cold plates scandals and the city was getting ready to pay out quite a bit to keep that "old news" (as one councilman called it) from coming to light. Well the best laid plans of men often don't quite work out and the information came to light anyway and played out But by that time, they had sued alleging that the department had denied them promotional opportunities and had retaliated against them in other fashions. A lawsuit ultimately settled that offered them pensions as top level captains retroactive including back pay to a couple years earlier plus cash payouts. Quite a bit generous for what Priamos likely at one time called a frivolous action that the city would defend itself against vigorously.

Then not long after, former RPOA president, Det. Chris Lanzillo also filed grievances and a federal lawsuit alleging that he had been retaliated for his involvement in union activities and particularly after he had confronted DeLaRosa during one of his "rally around the leader" visits to roll call sessions in late February and asked him why it had taken so long for the Leach incident to be handed off to the California Highway Patrol. Lanzillo had a claim denied, then a tentative settlement hammered out with DeSantis which then got vetoed in closed session before another settlement was made not long after that. But Lanzillo spent some time in the "penalty box" at Orange Street Station with Lt. Leon Phillips who had been transferred from his watch command to sitting at a desk all day along with officers who had allegedly committed misconduct so serious that the department's management kept them there, waiting until the disciplinary clock ran out on their cases.

Phillips of course had allegedly been busy researching his own case file and hadn't been transferred there to await disciplinary action with a scarlet letter attached at all. When speculation had steered towards Phillips' transfer having to do with discipline he would face in the Leach incident, DeLaRosa naturally ran all the way across town to roll call to assure the troops that no, Phillips wasn't being sent to Orange Street to be disciplined at all but to undergo training for a "special assignment".

Well just one week later, Phillips apparently received his "special assignment" in the form of a notice of intent to terminate, which had allegedly been done in the old school way of when faced with an unwilling subject to impose more severe discipline on him or her hoping that they will "plead out" to the discipline that was originally to be imposed. But Phillips instead apparently turned the tables on his management by working his discipline all the way down to a written reprimand (which was also being contested by him) and allegedly securing an agreement from the city management to never be assigned to work under Blakely ever again. If Phillips hadn't advocated for himself, it's likely that he would have been demoted and suspended (for several weeks), thus being the only member of the cast of characters implicated in the mishandling of the Leach incident to go into retirement with less of a salary to work with than those who outranked him.


Which would have just gone to show that Hudson's mantra is that the buck stops...with midline supervision, not with management and certainly not City Hall which despite all the questions raised about cell phones turned off and how key players inside City Hall were notified about the incident without phone records showing how, wasn't about to include itself or its residents as being included in any "independent" and "sweeping" investigation conducted by Hudson.

Even as chaos reigned for a good while and city residents clamored about what had happened in their midst, the elected officials at City Hall for the most part remained quiet enough themselves so that pins could be heard dropping all over City Hall. A couple asked questions earlier on and then zipped their lips. Others never said or asked anything at all, leading to speculation that they had done so on advice or even orders by their city attorney who himself claimed "attorney/client" privilege and dodged any chance of being investigated for what he might have known or done himself.

It's unsettling to say the least how far the police department had fallen in the four years it had been free of the five-year stipulated judgment with Lockyer's office. With its staffing levels including at supervision not to mention its training budget getting slashed despite full knowledge of the serious problems that could and indeed did erupt in the past when similar actions were taken. The department had stumbled mostly due to Hudson's failure to act on implementation of the Strategic Plan and reduced oversight of the department's progression that had been enacted by the vote of the city council after the judgment had dissolved. The city council had given Hudson rather simple instructions and whether due to his own actions or just as likely, a behind the scenes change of heart by some key councilmen, he went off and changed his marching orders while the department's management team went off in different directions regarding how it carried out its own oversight of the department. It took some effort to resteer the S.S. Hudson back on the right path. The same had to be done again when Strategic Plan 2 was nearly torpedoed before it had even gotten started in 2009 and it took the pressure exerted by two council members to get that plan back on track again where it went through two separate public input processes in 2010, one per chief and is currently awaiting the huge summit that will take place involving the command staff which will meet soon to start ironing it out again.

No women were promoted into supervisory positions after the dissolution of the stipulated judgment and only one African-American (in August 2006) even though on the sergeant and lieutenant promotional lists that were still active in early 2010, women and African-American male candidates held very high positions on both. Community policing had been "decentralized" and not successfully as it turned out, due partly to depletion of employees on both the civilian and sworn sides. Five officers were arrested and prosecuted for various crimes ranging from oral copulation under the color of authority to armed robbery during a 14 month period. The majority of employees did their jobs professionally as they always had but it's difficult to have as much upheaval taking place and not be impacted particularly by what had been going on at the top. Ironically or not, all those who would later blast the media outlets for writing about what unfolded in 2010 as if the media had created something out of nothing were silent during the months and years that issues like staffing depletion and controversial promotional practices at the top were playing out in front of them. These issues that were coming to light in the past would have consequences in the future as is very often the case.

The city management and inhouse management with a council member or two tossed in that mix tussled over the reins of the police department. Different employees aligned themselves on different competitive teams formulated around Leach and another high-ranking management employees giving the department a kind of fiefdom feel.

Promotions to fill supervisory vacancies were made early in January and actually had been in the works before Leach's retirement as the freeze had thawed a little bit and Hudson met with union leadership last January for discussions. The first round of promotions turned out to be very interesting in that the sixth candidate on the lieutenant's list was promoted and there had been some upset over the passing over of a top female candidate off the sergeant's list who had over 20 years of experience, eight years in investigations and no previous terminations from employment.

Several weeks later, the announcement was released from the department that Det. Linda Byerly would be promoted to fill a sergeant's vacancy and after that, there were further promotions including a slate done before Diaz' hiring. Some moves were made to rearrange employees in and outside of Orange Street Station, before his arrival including the transfers out of two female sergeants and one male sergeant filling one of the female sergeant's assignments. Diaz arrived in July and quickly created his cabinet, first announcing the appointment of Blakely to deputy chief. The only inhouse candidate who was able to fill that position at the time, and it quickly became clear that the other two positions including that of assistant chief would have to come from the outside and so they ultimately did. But once again, promises were made as they were 10 years ago that the next generation of leaders in the department including the next police chief would come from the inside. That would require completely changing the management culture of the department to one less dysfunctional and destructive than it had been in the past.

One of the problems cited when Leach had come in was that he hadn't been able to appoint from outside the agency which some see as an important power for a chief from the outside to be able to exercise. But at any rate, Diaz had that ability and brought in Vicino, a finalist for the chief job from Pasadena and Greer, from the LAPD. The cabinet settled down quickly enough though some interesting dynamics erupted right away including the shuffling of the open door policy at Orange Street Station where some doors were shut after being open and some individuals in management managed to circumvent those closed doors anyway. And doors themselves between offices at Orange Street Station themselves became interesting components in the redefinition of the power dynamics at the administrative level and provide some of the most telling clues of how management team members relate to one another.

Greer's arrival had been somewhat different than the dynamics that allegedly emerged between Blakely and Vicino who share offices close to one another while Greer had been stationed across town at Magnolia Police Center which is appropriate for his assignment of overseeing the operations and personnel in field operations (housed largely at Lincoln) and investigations (housed largely at Magnolia). Greer's transition apparently was challenging in other ways than that faced by Vicino but both men brought very different personality styles into the department which provide an interesting study in contrasts.

Vicino had been assigned Diaz' number one priority at Orange Street Station which is the newly reinvented Community Services Division which had been largely disbanded as a unit that had resided offsite several years ago for that decentralization of community policing which hadn't worked well. Programs that had dropped off the radar including the citizen academy were dusted off, revamped and will be returning into operation. For some reason, being assigned to be the lieutenant overseeing this new (old) division was a hot prospect as at least 75% of the lieutenants allegedly put in for it with Guy Toussaint who resided in the Traffic Division getting the assignment. In contrast the competition for the sergeant position was somewhat weaker, with no sergeant requesting it, so Toussaint went out and allegedly recruited one, Dan Warren to work with him. Warren who has an advanced college degree and has been involved in a lot of the training since his arrival from the very hot lateral agency, the Oceanside Police Department will be working with Toussaint and other employees, both civilian and sworn.

Vicino also will be replacing Blakely as the liaison with the Community Police Review Commission which finally hired its latest manager in former Maywood Police Chief Frank Hauptmann who still has not been afforded a public welcoming reception or even an introduction to the city council and mayor by Hudson like his predecessors. If Hudson wants to make it not look so much like he's back dooring Hauptmann then perhaps he had better consider introducing him to the community, because what's one of the words included in the name of the CPRC again?

But it doesn't seem like the city council and Mayor Ron Loveridge are exactly in a hurry to meet and greet with this new management employee either, which is interesting considering all the involvement of the city government in what's been going on with the CPCR during the past several years. With the 2011 election cycle not yet in full swing, there's speculation about how much the election will be impacted by the events of 2010 and their fallout. The filing period which begins appropriately enough on Valentine's Day will be the starting point of determination how each ward race will be shaped. But some incumbents who've already announced the intent to run again are starting to raise money.

Some have signed up again with Michael Williams Company which has announced some fund raising activities already including the following.


Councilman Chris MacArthur who will hold his fundraiser at the home of former Interim City Manager Tom Evans on Wednesday, Jan. 26 at 6-8:30pm with a VIP reception beforehand.

Councilman Steve Adams will hold his at Ciao Bella a tasty restaurant near Spruce and Chicago on Wednesday, Feb. 2 at 5:30-7:00 pm with his VIP reception before that.


Other council members running who've signed up with MWC include Rusty Bailey who hasn't announced any fund raisers yet. And other candidates and incumbent Mike Gardner don't use that company in their own fund raising efforts. The economy's been harsh and that might impact the contributions made by individuals to the various political campaigns most certainly including those who are developers including from out of town. But it's too early to see how that will impact the money raised by different candidates in this upcoming election cycle.

Contrary to some beliefs, this blog doesn't endorse political candidates for any election. For some that's great and it's even necessary, but there are others including me who view it as sheer madness at best. It's amazing that larger sized groups and organizations can engage in that practice with limited bloodshed.

Besides, an endorsement from this blog might make some candidates recoil and perhaps be unhappy given that it's not too popular with some in high places. And it's really up to the wards themselves to elect their own leaders, to take it upon themselves to field debates and public forums for the candidates who run and to show up at the polls and vote for their representatives in much larger numbers than they've been doing. The one thing that this blog does endorse in the municipal election process is for people to go out and vote, as one of the greatest rights for people in this city and this country.

Is Redevelopment Dead in California?

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors are doing something that's apparently quite rare. They are convening an emergency session on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. The topic? Newly reelected (and for once, not an oxymoron) Governor Jerry Brown has decided as part of the massive budget cuts he's proposing that redevelopment agencies be phased out of the cities and counties. The meeting's actually being held to discuss the issuance of $155 million in bonds to address redevelopment projects so they won't be included in any future phaseout.

Some of the supervisors made comments on the meeting and what's up with Brown's proposal.


(Excerpt, Press Enterprise)

Board of Supervisors Chairman Bob Buster said Friday that county officials do not know the ultimate extent of any potential changes to redevelopment.

"We have been heavily dependent on redevelopment, and now we are seeing its vulnerability," Buster said. "We need to talk about not just the current situation, or crisis, but also redevelopment over the longer term."

Buster said the bonds would not go to fund any speculative or unworthy projects.

Supervisor John Tavaglione said Friday the county has "been waiting for the appropriate timing to go out to the bond market."

"It wasn't in place to deal with the governor's budget, but the timing was right that we should do it now, because of what might happen," Tavaglione said.

Except Tavaglione, if it were just a matter of "timing", would the Board be making a decision on bond issuance on a holiday?

And Buster raises an important point that long-term redevelopment in the county is what needs to be discussed in light of the uncertain future of the agencies themselves. Because what needs to be understood is that redevelopment itself and redevelopment agencies aren't exactly the same thing. The latter were created as a tool to do the former but had shifted away from their original mission some time ago as the definition of what is "blight" and who gets to decide that has changed, not to mention the city serving as the "middle-man" in property interactions that they shouldn't even be involved in for the first place. And many people in Riverside have renounced the use of or threat of eminent domain for private development projects (which is much, much different than that for public use) that usually go to firms who line the campaign chests of politicians. So much so in cities like Anaheim that when an organization in Riverside tried to circulate a petition to put it on the ballot, it was hit with a SLAPP suit and then told it was for their own good.



Riverside's already talking about laying off 72 city employees in the development, planning, public works and city attorney's office. About a $8.6 million shortfall and incurring $75 million more debt. Because after all if you don't carry debt, you can't have a redevelopment agency. It's a bit disconcerting how incurring huge amounts of debts whether locally and even on a national and international scale had replaced manufacturing and even service industries (costing tons of jobs through outsourcing) as an economic currency. Because all debts come from borrowing money from the future generations of city and county residents, as well as citizens. Concern about redevelopment agencies and the debt they incur have arisen in that the economic picture is so uncertain in the future particularly in the Inland Empire that some wonder where the money to repay these debts will come from. But one major issue with redevelopment agencies is how project areas are combined and where the money was funneled. The University Avenue corridor is one such zone but not long ago was combined with Sycamore Canyon to create one agency zone, just as the downtown was combined with the area by the Riverside Municipal Airport which makes one wonder if that's just a way of funneling money designated to one area of the project zone to the other.

It's a complicated issue but it doesn't seem like redevelopment agencies were created to last forever and that they aren't self-sustaining. There's talk about how much money redevelopment puts into city coffers but now how much it takes away, say money reserved for Riverside's sewer fund that was "borrowed" against to purchase properties through threat of Eminent Domain to hand off to developers including those who donated to past council members' political reelection campaigns. Or money "borrowed" against employee vacancies to cover redevelopment costs. Riverside, the city, has vowed to spend funding suing the state to stop it, a measure that likely wouldn't succeed and would put Riverside more into the hole. What needs to be done instead is to have open dialogues about what redevelopment means, how it should be done, the roles of all elements of communities and neighborhoods all over the city.

And the Development Department itself has been the subject of much controversy about the high degree of departures from that department, so many including older women who opted to resign in a difficult economy rather than remain working with the city. The sudden departure of longtime employee Howard Fields also drew concern, not to mention issues that this department had its fingerprints on. The Human Resources Board at one time had been so concerned about the exodus from that department or as one person put it, "where they're dropping out like flies"
that it wanted to do a face to face dialogue with Director Deanna Lorson but Hudson in his very congenial style appeared at a meeting to essentially nix that in the bud really quickly and then rather deftly convinced the Board to go redefine its mission which is city speak for, get out of our hair and leave us alone.

Interestingly enough, the Press Enterprise Editorial Board crossed party lines to propose to nix redevelopment and discusses the abuses of redevelopment that have taken place. The issues of accountability, transparency including local input particularly with financing are ones that definitely need more attention from local city and county officials.


But not long after pronouncing that there would be massive layoffs and probably cuts, City Hall began discussing again the expansion of the Convention Center in downtown Riverside which would require at least $25 million. It remains to be seen if the economic climate in Riverside will be receptive to that or not given that City Hall has just essentially announced that the plans to redo the library downtown (which was chosen over renovation of the existing facility) are off again.

It will be interesting to see how all this drama plays out in the weeks and months ahead but it's inevitable that redevelopment itself will have to be, redeveloped into something much different than past practice. That's just reality but it remains to be seen who out there including the electeds will be willing to even involve themselves in those very necessary discussions including with the city and county residents.



Redlands is getting ready to pick a new police chief after losing its long-time chief, Jim Bueermann to retirement.


And in the Riverside County District Attorney's office, the changing of the guard continues with the departure of the head of investigations. Not an unexpected development at all.

Public Meetings

Tuesday, Jan. 18 at 3p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The city council will hold a meeting to discuss this agenda and vote on it. Items include the closed session evaluating the city manager

However, the scheduled public hearing at 3pm for the city council and mayor to discuss salaries and compensation has been continued to Feb. 1 at the same time. No reason for that delay's been given but given that the laser fische database is down again, that delay might allow some time to research the backup material.

Election 2011: The Mystery of the Vanishing Councilman and Audit Review

Where Goes Councilman Steve Adams?

[Councilman Steve Adams has once again left the chambers when a person speaks at the podium he doesn't like]

Out with the scandal ridden 2010 and in with the brand new year of 2011 and that means in Riverside, there will be municipal elections for all the odd-numbered elections which will take place in the wards as they are currently delineated given that they are all up for redistricting in several years.

One of the councilmen up for reelection is Steve Adams who won last time around by only 13 votes over former councilwoman and mayor, Terry Frizzel who he outspent by at least 20 to 1. There's rumors going around that she is thinking of running again, joining Community Police Review Commissioner John Brandriff in the upcoming election. If she does jump in the race, then it's more likely that this particular contest will continue past the mail in preliminary round in June and into the finals in November. So her decision could have a pivotal role in deciding the direction towards determining who will be sworn into office as the Ward Seven council member after the election.

But Adams has become somewhat vulnerable in the past year given the allegations raised against him by two retired lieutenants that he interfered in the promotions of two other lieutenants to captain in 2005 and 2008. Depositions from that lawsuit painted a disturbing picture of what had happened with Meredyth Meredith and John Carpenter during what usually is a hallmark moment in an officer's career. He had also responded after the scandals involving cold plates, guns and badges came to light that it was "old news". Well of course it was, because City Hall had covered up those scandals for several years successfully and many of those who reside within its walls knew about this unethical and illegal activity way before it came to light.

Adams also voted against changes in the city's ethics code at a recent city council meeting, the only one on the dais to do that. He had been adamantly opposed to the removal of the controversial "24/7" that the city council had approved in late 2007 after two former councilmen on the Governmental Affairs Committee added it not long after one of them had a complaint against him for behavior that City Attorney Greg Priamos had alleged was not covered by the code. Now Priamos wasn't supposed to adjudicate that complaint in the first place but his ruling was on shaking ground until the language was added, that was ultimately removed late last year by the city council members once they saw the writing on the wall.

But Adams makes a city council meeting more interesting by some of his colorful comments and at times by his absence from the dais which usually takes place during public comment particularly those when members of the public speak that he doesn't like. In fact, there are a couple members of the public that when they speak, he is out of that room so fast, if you blink your eyes you might miss it. One source said that Adams goes into the conference room and sits and does hear the comments because it's wired for sound. So he's kind of there listening and he's kind of not. He's the only councilman who splits during public comment. Some of those who watch, especially Councilwoman Nancy Hart who make faces and visually reacts, don't look happy to listen but somehow they manage to stay glued to their seats while Adams heads out the door. Which is an important part of being an elected official whether they enjoy it or not, because the job has some parts that make those who do it happy and some parts that don't but they are public servants.

It's kind of interesting to watch him do it and even predict when he'll do it but if that's how Adams reacts to one situation that displeases him or makes him uncomfortable, then one wonders how he reacts in similar situations including those not so visible to the public including his constituents. Other councilmen who haven't liked listening to the public criticize them manage to paste on smiles once the calendar designates an election year and some have even done 180 degree changes in terms of their reception to public input but it's their record over a much longer period than the few months of an election cycle that ultimately define what the voters in their wards do at the polls.

And decorum on the dais is really one of the top qualities, believe it or not, that voters look for in their elected officials when making the decision on how to vote. It comes up over and over again in responses to what this city's residents look for in their candidates and the ones who have struggled to act like concerned and interested elected officials on the dais have had a hard time staying in office. One councilman even acted up during his election cycle including at public forums and although heavily favored, he didn't win a second term in office. An elected official who is smart will understand that reality. That the electorate in many of the wards in Riverside even those with lower voter turnout definitely know what they want and even more so, what they don't want in their elected representatives.

[Also up for reelection is Councilman Rusty Bailey who confused some of his supporters when he flipped on some of the stances on several issues he held when running for election in 2007.]

And that's why I wasn't too concerned about all this back and forth that's been going on recently on what to do with the Ethics Code and complaint process that has been like a few other civilian accountability mechanisms whittled and watered down since its inception. If you remember, the majority of the city's voters pushed at the polls in November 2004 for the city to create an ethics code and complaint process. A research committee (the first of two) was created to examine what was being done in other places and issue recommendations for what would be Riverside's own code and some of those recommendations were actually taken while others were tossed.

The city council is completely incapable or unwilling to hold those who misbehave it in check so ergo not much is going to come out of even the best intended ethics code and complaint process. But the voters sure know how to hand out pink slips to those who bypass the ethics code and its complaint process during election time, it's hard to overlook how effective the voters have been at holding their electeds accountable in the one means available for them to do so. They more than make up for a city government that shrugs even when it's come to light that its members have engaged in unethical behavior, not to mention when their own direct employees have faced investigations by the State Attorney General's office's criminal division.

The original code appeared pretty weak particularly by allowing elected officials to review and decide upon ethics complaints filed against other elected officials. Most of the populace didn't take the process of having the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee assigned to this task very seriously because after all, when council members have acted out on the dais against the public, everyone else next to them is silent. However, if a council member feels that a member of the public is too rowdy, often other elected officials will join him in his or her indignation.

Not to mention that in most municipal elections, blanket endorsements of incumbents are often issued officially or not by the majority of the city council (although one or two might opt out of this practice) which turns the city council into a garden club that makes it appear as if they are hostile or at least unwelcoming of "outsiders". But since most often these days it's been "outsiders" who are beating out incumbents by those whose votes really matter, one would think this custom would change but so far, no. But it's these realities that have made many folks not put much credence in the city's exercise at creating an ethics code and complaint process and this distrust was rewarded by the fact that very few of those actually filed against elected officials didn't even make it past Priamos' office.

At some point, Priamos or perhaps one or more of his handlers had assigned him the task of not just "advising" on complaints but rejecting them on technicalities. In two cases, arbitrarily assigning new rules prohibiting complaints even when they weren't included in the resolution and in one of those cases, allowing the councilman who was the subject of a complaint that Priamos rejected and another to insert language into the code to cement that rejection. The so-called "24/7" language went to the full city council and naturally was passed. The Code and its meaningless complaint process went nowhere until 2010 when scandals erupted and people started venting their anger and frustration at City Hall and the police department (in the wake of the DUI incident involving the former police chief) and after being mostly silent about these issues, apparently some city council members decided to placate the public by tinkering with the Ethics Code. It went back to research committee #2 and one of the strongest recommendations to be issued was the most vexing yet persistent of them all which was to have an outside independent body handle ethics complaints filed against elected officials.

2010 apparently penetrated into the psyches of some people on the dais and they reversed their positions both on the "24/7" language and on allowing an independent panel of some sort to handle complaints involving elected officials at least at the first level. The reliable Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee will serve as the appellate process which means that any finding against an elected official will probably be appealed by that individual back to his own colleagues and if history is correct, most likely will be overturned there. But at least there's a layer of oversight by city residents who serve on the new panel which will be the chairs of the city's boards and commissions which are elected every March.

At any rate, even with all the changes, it's really hard to get too excited by what is still a process that doesn't really address the myriad of issues which arose in 2011, that are still on the minds of many prospective voters this year. Some might rail against the Press Enterprise and the media in general of making news where there was none but most people seemed to have saved their consternation towards City Hall. How much of that which will remain to influence the results of Election 2011 remains to be seen. But the past has shown that the ethics code and complaint process pales in great comparison to the ultimate ethics process that takes place at the polls. Most if not nearly all of the elected officials who voters questioned on their actions wound up getting pink slips even in races where they outspent their opposition or were heavily favored. Will that trend continue this time? That's one question which it's too soon to answer yet but in the past some unlucky individuals on the dais have seriously underestimated many things in their constituents including their intelligence and tolerance for dais hi jinks to their own detriment.

But apparently Adams isn't worried about it given that he's picking and choosing what parts of a public governmental meeting he chooses to attend and opting out of the parts that he doesn't like. If it works for him that's one thing but what matters is if this is what the majority of those who vote in his ward want that in their council representation or if it's time for another changing of the guard.

City Council Holds Workshop on Independent Audits

[The issue of internal and external auditing came up at a recent Finance Committee meeting]


On Tuesday, Jan. 11, the City Council held a workshop to address this agenda item which will address which independent auditing firm the city will be hiring to conduct well, annual audits of its finances. It will be looking into hiring a new auditor after the expiration of the five year contract with some personnel at the controversial firm of Mayer Hoffman McCann. At first, Asst. City Manager Paul Sundeen seemed to imply at an earlier Finance Committee meeting that the city could hire another player in the now troubled firm to do the audits and still be in compliance with the City Charter which states that no auditor can provide services to the city for more than five consecutive years. That provision was yet another that was added to the city's constitution during the election in 2004. But one elected official said essentially no way, no how that Mayer Hoffman McCann would even be on the list of three proposed candidates that would be brought to the city council for a final selection.

The workshop didn't last that long and Sundeen gave his presentation along with members of the Finance Department which is now housed under City Manager Brad Hudson. He reassured the city government as he usually does that everything's a-0kay and that Riverside's done well in its internal and external auditing processes.

Riverside has its own independent auditors, two now having lost a third one that wasn't replaced. They audit areas and report to the city manager's office, though it's not clear that they are authorized to audit that particular office. One question I have about this process is what happens in conflict of interest situations when there are personal relationships between department heads and internal auditors and didn't receive much of a response on that and it's an issue that could potentially arise in any such situation with any city. Whether it's hypothetical or not in Riverside is certainly not going to be clear to anyone outside that process at City Hall but there should be provisions to address it. Audits are financed by the funds of the department that is the subject of the audit and some of the funds where audit payments arose raised some questions among those who attended the last Finance Committee meeting. Not to mention why Priamos couldn't provide any written contracts for a public request made that involved the hiring of outside legal help from the Best, Best and Krieger law firm.

But anyway, the city council and mayor had statements to make after the presentation and several had questions as well. Loveridge had expressed concern about the firm being associated with Bell which is now bankrupt and most of its elected officials have been arrested and charged with crimes of corruption.

Finance Committee Chair Nancy Hart said that an audit is the check of the numbers that the city gives them and there was a sense on one side that the city's honesty with the auditor is what's paramount in conducting an audit with any accuracy or integrity tied to it. There's definitely truth to that but most experienced auditors can smell a rat so to speak meaning that most cases of fraud and other corruption leave trails including information that is missing and most auditors if they follow the right procedures (which didn't happen in Bell's audits by the firm), they can know enough to go back to a city and say they need more information or question the information they did receive. That has happened in other cities being audited.

Sundeen said that three firms in the past 15 or so years including Mayer Hoffman McCann had found no problems in any of their audits. But a recommendation to have another independent firm review the audits performed by Mayer Hoffman McCann went ignored by the city council and mayor and that's unfortunate. Because it's true that Riverside's audits by this firm bordered on perfect. But then again, so did those conducted on Bell which received "rewards" for the perfection of its audits. Of course that turned out not to be the case at all. Criminal charges aren't usually levied against elected officials and their management employees in cities that truly have perfect audits. And that's what happened in Bell, when those audits turned out to be lies which became clear when the State Controller's office did its own investigation and quickly found that Mayer Hoffman McCann hadn't followed proper procedures. Davis expressed concerns about the problems with the firm being investigated by State Comptroller John Chiang and he's right to be concerned.

But that's even more reason to have at least the last two audits reviewed by an outside auditor to make sure that no "irregularities" show up with how they were conducted in Riverside. This city already had enough bad news last year on what was going on at City Hall that the city's residents weren't privy to and the fallout of all these known scandals has harmed Riverside's image in the Inland Empire (although it's all relative in this region) and elsewhere as well. Riverside's been jokingly referred to as the City of Arts, Innovation...and Scandal. The best way to change that is not by spending money hiring consultants every six months it seems to create fancy new logos and slogans but to really put a high priority on the practices carried out by this city including how audits are conducted. But Riverside's not hit bottom yet which it very well could and until that happens, even doing something like reviewing past audits just isn't going to happen.

Fortunately I have a copy of the 2009 audit by Mayer Hoffman McCann so maybe there's some people who know audits who would like to review it. Riverside, I believe scored perfectly on this one as well.

But Riverside should take a serious look at how audits are conducted, by who and more thoroughly vet any outside firms that it hires so it doesn't end up with another situation with a firm that's embroiled in controversy for at least some of the "perfect" audits it issues. And it needs to take a closer look at the ones that have already been done.

What's a Crime Victim?

Press Enterprise Dan Bernstein's column is about whether or not the Riverside County District Attorney's office should use a crime victim's name. This case involving a wall where the names of those who have been killed by crimes are listed.

One man, Patrick McCarthy saw last summer that the name of his mother who had been murdered in 1976 had been added to the wall. When he saw it, he asked numerous employees in the office to remove it but it never happened. When he asked former D.A. Rod Pacheco about it, he said that Pacheco made an insensitive comment back misstating the circumstances of his mother's death. He also refused to remove it. That doesn't sound like the response from someone who really cares about crime victims. Because if he did, Pacheco would realize quickly enough that McCarthy's right in that grieving for a family lost to a crime can be a very individualized thing and the would have asked McCarthy's family and every other victim's family permission to include their names on the wall.

What he would find if he did that is that some would be very willing for him to do that and others would not be. There's a diversity in the responses that he would receive just as there is much diversity in the population of crime victims and their families. Their wishes would be treated as being more important than his own wishes, if he were truly interested in serving the people including those whose feelings on this issue were different than his own. Asking a family about inclusion of their loved one on a memorial wall wouldn't be such an afterthought. It's the right thing to do. By refusing to consider that and then making inaccurate comments about the circumstances of a murder prosecuted by your office, just smacks of using a "victims wall" for political purposes.

Pacheco who now works in a defense firm that specializes in white collar crime including those involving elected officials was defeated for reelection by current DA Paul Zellerbach.

Food Trucks to Be Banned In Riverside?

(Okay maybe not all but a select few)

The Riverside City Council wants to ban mobile food vending trucks but only certain ones. And as usual, their outlined excuses make little sense precisely because they point out the "dangers" of these menaces in general but are rather specific about the ones they wish to actually protect the residents of the city from. It appears to be more about the limiting of competition to area restaurants including those downtown but the closest thing to a death knell to downtown restaurants (besides the fact that downtown is only "open" at limited hours) is the inclusion of a restaurant inside City Hall when they spent millions renovating that building not to mention doing the pedestrian mall once and then deciding it had to be done a second time to take care of aging infrastructure beneath the street.

Not vending trucks. As far as "dangerous" foods that is why there's a permitting process and packaged foods carry as much danger as prepared foods as a massive recall of packaged sandwiches not long ago (due to salmonella) served as a reminder of that.

It's ironic that Riverside which so wants to be Orange County decided not to be in that one respect. There's not really a good discussion on this issue at the Press Enterprise either as it quickly descended into the usual, let's kick Mexicans and Asians or anyone who looks like them out of the U.S. diatribe.

Flooding at Sedwick Avenue to be Examined

[Sedwick, after a rainstorm, this well-traveled street floods "ever time it sprinkles", one area resident said]

[Riverside Councilman Andrew Melendrez]

Councilman Andrew Melendrez whose ward is bordered by the stream that goes beneath Sedwick Avenue in between the Victoria Country Club has responded to inquiries about what's going on in terms of coming up with long-term solutions to stop the river from overflowing onto the street whenever it rains more than about a tenth of an inch. The street has been badly damaged and undermined by the most recent rain storms and the drain itself that runs beneath Sedwick has also been severely compromised. Jan. 11 was the first date since the last round of rains towards the end of December when the road itself was dry though the river's still close to overflowing onto the street.

Melendrez said that he had a conversation with the Public Works Department department and said they were researching the situation to see what could be done about dealing with the stream that comes from Canyon Crest Country Club, runs adjacent to Andulka Park (in that severely damaged culvart system) through the Victoria Country Club up to Riverside Community College. It flooded in at least one area up in Canyon Crest besides Sedgwick Avenue, he said. The street will be badly damaged through erosion on top and underneath it if water is allowed to keep flowing across it, he said as well.

When asked whether or not the country clubs had any ownership of the stream which runs through their properties, he said that he wasn't sure and didn't know whether Victoria Country Club owned that portion of Sedgwick meaning that the city had an encroachment agreement associated with easement.

No Public Presentation of New Community Police Review Commmission Manager by City Hall

[For some reason, City Manager Brad Hudson (front) has not held a public reception for the newest CPRC manager nor has he introduced him to the city council at one of its meetings]

In what has become a mystifying development, City Manager Brad Hudson still has not held a public reception or even introduced the latest Community Police Review Commission Manager Frank Hauptmann to the city council at one of its evening sessions. In the past including with Hauptmann's predecessor, Kevin Rogan, this was done even before Rogan had started working with the city.

Hauptmann who was formerly the last chief of the beleagured Maywood Police Department was hired last month and started working for the city on January 3, yet so far no announcements of any receptions that will be held to meet and greet with the new manager. Is this just an oversight by Hudson, a scheduling problem with Hauptmann or is he trying to backdoor Hauptmann into the position without a public reception? It's not clear at this time but if it's a lack of funding perhaps there could be a fundraising drive among city residents to at least be able to hold a reception for Hauptmann at City Hall or at a community center or library and maybe just have some cookies and coffee for those in attendance. It doesn't have to be fancy and it doesn't have to be catered from the restaurant downstairs but it would be the right thing to do to hold this reception or at least offer up a public explanation as to why the city's opting out.

It's really unbelievable that Hudson hasn't even introduced Hauptmann at a city council meeting at this point or explained why he's not able to do so.

Friendly Fire?

"This is always a black cop's fear, that he'd be mistaken for a [suspect],"


---Unknown source after the May 2009 fatal shooting of NYPD Officer Omar Edwards




One police officer killed by another in the Baltimore Police Department and while that shooting's under investigation, it's brought up the issue of "friendly fire" inside law enforcement agencies particularly cases where either plain clothed officers have been shot on duty by other officers or offduty officers have had that happen. One plain clothed detective of Puerto Rican descent once wrote an essay for an anthology book where he described sitting in a morning briefing office with other special unit detectives and talking with other officers of color in the room about how when they went out to their assignments that they hoped they wouldn't get shot and killed including by officers in their own department. That being one of their deepest fears, the author admitted.

It's happened not too frequently but enough to have attracted quite a bit of debate and discussion including inside law enforcement agencies including in New York and Los Angeles.


In May 2009, a New York Police Department officer was shot and killed by officers his own agency similar to what happened to another officer, Desmond Robinson while working undercover in 1994 although he survived being shot four times in the back. And then there was the shooting death of Cornel Young, jr. shot and killed by officers in Providence, a "friendly fire" shooting which led to a federal investigation of that police department. Other incidents happened in cities like Oakland, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. and other cities located between the two coasts. Most of them have involved larger sized law enforcement agencies and officers who are either onduty plainclothed or offduty and a disproportionate of the ones in this category (as opposed to cross-fire situations) have been African-American male officers and those shooting have been officers of all races.

The NYPD after a "friendly fire" or what is called there, "fraternal fire", incident involving Officer William Capers in 1972 (although there was another one as far back as 1940)procedures were changed including the identification of plain clothed officers.



Some articles written on the subject in recent years include the following.


Police, Race and Friendly Fire


NYPD: The Fear of Friendly Fire


Article on NYPD study of fraternal fire