Who's Declared War on Whom in RiverCity?

UPDATE:

**JOIN Team Sahagun**

Don't let the city thrown him under the bus



First a Custodian, now a Police Officer 



I wish I’d done this a long time ago. I didn’t think it would really
happen, until it happened.”

---Sahagun, who grew up in the Eastside about becoming an RPD officer at the age of 39



call city council and mayor at 826-5991
or send emails to protest the city hall's actions:

mgardner@riversideca.gov
asmelendrez@riversideca.gov
rbailey@riversideca.gov
pdavis@riversideca.gov
cmacarthur@riversideca.gov
nhart@riversideca.gov
sadams@riversideca.gov
rloveridge@riversideca.gov      






RPOA Weights In; Blasts City Hall

Says Officer "thrown under proverbial bus"
(I do agree by the way) 

RPOA LETTER 
 (Brian Smith wrote a pretty epic letter in my opinion, it's definitely a must read)

 

Meet Chief Gregory Priamos



City Attorney told him to do it 


RPD Incident Report  (N.Sahagun/Romano and supervisor Sgt. Lisa Williams_)   (PDF file for downloading)





Police report involving the arrest of  Karen Wright points finger at City Attorney Gregory Priamos. Priamos refuses to give his side of the conversation with the officer citing "attorney/client" privilege as the story of the latest embarrassment in Riverside spreads across the land...


“Priamos requested that during future meetings, I should stop S1 [Wright] from going too long past the three minute allotted time.”

---Officer Nick Sahagun from his police report 

Glad this finally came out. I never believed for a second this arrest came from anywhere but the city council dais. Now can the CC and mayor explain again in public why they threw the officer under the bus?  And why they denied having any control of the handling of gadflies by the police?   Their change of protocol behind closed doors, if they thought the actions were appropriate?  These and other questions challenged the veracity once again of our city council and mayor. 

I mean if you can derail a promotion or block it with a phone call from somewhere on the dais, it makes you wonder who's really in charge. 




Hyatt Hotel Vs Riverside





The city might wind up owning this hotel...and its debt.




Dan Bernstein writes on the mess with the Hyatt Hotel.


Who wants to bet the developers for the Hyatt don't file a lawsuit and include an injunction against further "loan" payments until the lawsuit is litigated?  I wouldn't bet against this scenario.


The Most Disturbing Officer Arrested Ever

 NYPD Officer Arrested for Alleged Cannibalism Plot

 More coverage on the City Council Arrest:

Los Angeles Times Blog

The Mayor in the blog posting says the city council chair will make the decision on who to expel not the police officers from now on. If the police were always making the decision and the arrest was justified under that discretion, why change the practice now?  Or did Mayor Loveridge just throw the police officers under the bus?

KTLA news report on incident

CBS News in Los Angeles

Press Enterprise on changes to expulsion protocol

Dan Bernstein on the incident 

Fox Chimes in on how she must have gotten under someone's skin 
  

 

Karen Wright handcuffed  after she'd turned away from the podium after exceeding the three minute rule  (picture: TMC)

The police department's newest captain comes to supervise handcuffing of Karen Wright

(Photo: TMC)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin

Eyewitness narrative of incident 

Press Enterprise Alicia Robinson Twitter at meeting

Should City Council critic have been handcuffed at meeting?

Councilman Andrew Melendrez has found himself in between a few political cross hairs for asking the wrong questions

Alas, things are not currently very peaceful in Riverside, or River City as it's affectionately or not referred to by people  who follow the political tides that have shaped the city going back over a century. But while the denizens of the dais had for the most part held their cohesiveness together for the past several years as one regime or another marched in and then were voted out of office, that era might be coming to an abrupt end as there have been some dust ups on the dais and all out war is threatening to break out between various elected officials.  It's getting harder and harder to create a scorecard for all the conflicts that have erupted in public not to mention those brewing behind the scenes.

Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Steve Adams have been at odds with each other to say the least going back even before the last election impacting Adams' ward back in 2011.  In that election, Davis supported Adams' challenger, John Brandriff who hoped to oust Adams but it wasn't to be and Adams quite easily won his reelection. Since then, Adams appears to have been itching to get Davis back for that transgression, that break from the unity that had defined Riverside's dais since well, before Davis got on it in 2009.

Davis has his flaws like any politician. To be one is to be flawed but he's got his strengths too and one of them is breaking from the traditional "go along to get along" and "I didn't see/hear/say that."  Which in some ways sets him apart from the others in the dais.  He asks questions on various issues from the whole AMR monopoly to the issue with the Red Light cameras and it's these two particular issues that quickly enough got him into trouble.

Picture at least six people on the dais doing just this all the time!

But as it turns out, Adams is busy getting ready to go to war with another councilman and that's Andrew Melendrez.  This war is really one that is linked to two major issues, the aforementioned Red Light Camera issue and also the complaint filed against Davis by an employee from the city's fire department. Adams right now is loading himself on information to use as ammo against Melendrez in upcoming days as rumors have been brewing for several weeks that a huge blowup is looming on the dais. 

Meanwhile, several of the city council members and one former one now running for mayor have shown up on an email that was written to Melendrez from political consultant for hire, Michael Williams which looks like some sort of cease and desist notice to Melendrez that he shouldn't be expecting any help from Williams and Company the next time he runs for election which will be for city council next year. All those carbon copied on an email sent by Williams to Melendrez two months ago are clients of Williams either for the mayoral election or for city council.  Missing is Councilman Rusty Bailey who was a client of Williams during his city council reelection bid last year but he's not shown up on the client list for his mayoral bid. 

Williams already had allegedly not accepted Davis as a client when Davis first ran for city council in 2009 because as some have said, he was pressured by others on his client list that they'd rethink their own status with Williams if he accepted Davis. At the time, there allegedly wasn't any bad blood between them, it seemed amicable and civil involving both parties that just wouldn't be working together. But it's clear that judging from Williams August 2012 email, things have changed.

First city council member to appear on the Williams' blacklist during his 2011 campaign

Councilman Steve Adams doing some digging on Melendez and appears on the carbon copy list along with the mayoral candidate that he endorsed of Williams' email.

But even some time after Williams had drafted his email to Melendrez, Adams was off doing his own research on Melendrez on the Red Light camera issue submitting a request for the paper trail between Melendrez and the city on that extremely polarized issue.

Adams sent this email to the city clerk's office to get into that paper trail. 

From: Adams, Steve
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Nicol, Colleen; Morton, Sherry
Subject: Public Records request

Please provide me with any and all e-mails sent or received by Council
Member Melendrez over the last 60 days in regards to the Red Light
Camera Program and or Council Member Steve Adams.

Thank you,
Steve Adams

So what is Adams looking for in relation to that issue? Well the answer's really quite simple. The two erupted in what was one of the most contentious issues to come across the formerly peaceful dais in years. The city council had voted 3-3 (with Nancy Hart being absent) on a motion to keep the controversial, money losing program. Mayor Ron Loveridge cast the deciding vote in favor of the program but it was supposed to come back for reevaluation after a period of time. Imagine the shock of some of those in the dais when their own employee, City Manager Scott Barber tried to keep the program running as  is with some changes without bringing it to the city council for a vote which was the stated purpose of the approved motion. He just said the problems in it had been fixed and that was that.  But the issue being treated like that created a brouhaha and like what happens in situations that cause furor among city residents, it went back to city council and  then the issue arose of putting it on the ballot next June for people to vote on its fate.  But in the meantime...two motions were in conflict, one to dismantle it until the election and one to keep it going until the election.  Guess which one Adams led the charge on?

The Red Light Camera issue is probably the best intended project ever to get totally screwed up so that it became an ineffective, overreaching, nonenforceable, possibly illegal (or at least being seriously challenged as such), costly mess of a program in the city's recent history.  It's not uncommon as a pedestrian to see cars slow down for intersections with cameras and then completely blow the red light of the next one in their path and vice versa. Some people just like to blow red lights period. What hasn't been studied by the city is that there's a relationship between the Red Light Camera program and the decrease in police officers assigned to the traffic division. At one time in the early 1990s, there were about 18-19 traffic officers assigned to the streets but even as Riverside's streets became more congested, there were too few highway off and on ramps and the population grew, the number of traffic officers steadily dropped as low as 13. Were the cameras one way of dealing with this trend in the diminishing of these positions including two that were phased out even before being implemented in 2008?  Did they supplement the traffic officers or supplant them?

Anyway, whatever the merits or pitfalls of the Red Light Camera program, the blowup between Adams and Melendrez if it can be called that happened not because of the issue itself, but by the fact that Adams had actually participated in the vote to decide its fate.  Most people know by now despite the Press Enterprise's initial under reporting of it that Adams' brother, former police officer Ron Adams is one of the retired officers hired to part-time to run the program. At least as of a few years ago, he was paid a salary out of the former city manager's discretionary fund.   But Adams participated in the vote to keep the program going which meant that his brother would keep his job there.  Melendrez questioned that and Adams took offense.  He asked City Attorney Greg Priamos about it and Priamos said that under the law, since the Adams were only brothers and not father and son or married that it didn't constitute a conflict of interest for him to vote.

But Priamos didn't touch the city's ethics code of conduct in his narrative. Under the code, the perception or appearance of a conflict of interest is also governed under the code and its complaint process which differs from the law. Priamos clearly chose to dodge that issue by not including it in his rather expansive narrative on the issue.

The two argued back and forth about it at the most recent and prolonged meeting on the Red Light camera issue and Adams complained that Melendrez had sat in the negotiations involving the contracts with the Riverside Police Officers' Association even though his son, Aurelio was a police officer and a member of that union.  Melendrez said that they could discuss the appropriateness of that but stood his ground on the ethics of allowing Adams to vote on the Red Light Camera program's fate.

At evening's end, the vote was very tight with Hart there to cast her vote and Adams as well. As it turned out, Adams vote to "save" the program was needed which is why he didn't recuse himself.  But no matter how he phrased it, the consensus was that he voted to keep his brother employed by the city and he can't really blame anyone for that. The voters will ultimately be the ones who will decide the fate of this problematic program where any money made seems to go everywhere but back into perhaps funding traffic education programs (which are funded by diminishing sources of  grant money). That would make some sense to put it rather than paying the lion share of money to a private company in Australia that has a satellite office in Arizona.

 But it was clear that Adams and Melendrez only postponed an even bigger confrontation ahead.

Melendrez and Adams also tangled over the complaint filed against Davis by a fire department inspector at a event earlier this year involving a food truck festival which involved a disagreement or argument where Davis allegedly acted disrespectful to and interfered with her performance of her duties.  The employee filed a complaint against Davis which was her perogative under a system that's available. But the investigation including its process was fraught with problems.

The investigation was mentioned as being "independent" meaning by an investigator working for an outside form. That was technically true but mostly due to a chain of events tied with the state's enforcement of employment rules pertaining to PERS retirements. Jeffrey Collopy the investigator who did the investigation was a former employee first of the police department where he retired as a lieutenant and then he went to work for Priamos directly as an investigator in his office. It was only because of the enforcement of new rules involving PERS that he's still not an official city employee today. The investigation of a complaint against an elected official should have been done by a business outside the city's own employment roster but that didn't happen.

Plus the investigation process wasn't explained at all to the public either before it happened or even after.
Apparently some of the members occupying the dais didn't understand it either because Melendrez asked questions about how it had been handled. He'd been ill with a heart  condition when it had been handled so he was asking followup questions on the process and some of them were critical in nature. But this was an appropriate action for him to take to ask questions as part of a fact finding process.

Was investigating a complaint against Davis wrong?  No. But the process followed seems very problematic at best and when an elected official asks questions about it he shouldn't be penalized for it.But apparently Melendrez would be paying a price for his inquisitiveness.


Then Michael Williams  of  Michael Williams Company sent out the following declarative statement on how he felt about the city council and mayor these days. For those who don't know, Michael Williams is one of the top political consultants in Riverside specializing in the area of campaign finance.  He helps candidates throw those parties to attract partygoers who will donate funds to the candidates' campaign chests. He's pretty popular and boasts an impressive roster of clients.  

It was in response to the apparent resolution of the complaint against Davis.


Loveridge. Ron 

From:   : admin@michaelwilliamscompany.org 

To:  Melendrez,Andy

Cc:  EdyAdkison; Loveridge,Ron;steveadamsward7 @yahoo.com;ChrisArthur

Wednesday,August 29,20126:54 PM 

Subject: Yesterday'sCouncilMeeting.

 August 29, 2012 

Dear Andy, This letter pains me to write, you are a very nice man. We probably disagree on alot of issues, but you're a good honest man. I have been extremely disappointed with the current council and mayor of this city. Yesterday is probably the best example of what I'm talking about. Through my extensive rumor mill, there was to be some discussion about misconduct by one of your fellow members. I know you were absent during the meeting, but the result has me very disturbed by the LACK OF WILL TO STAND UP, by this council and current mayor. 

The Dom Betro's/Frank Schiavone's/Ed Adkison's/Steve Adams's/Art Gage's/and yourself were vital in the creation of the Renaissance program and implementation in this city. These people took risks and in some cases it cost them their jobs. This current council has borne the fruits of these risk takers and taken the accolates of this. That's politics. Frankly, I don't know where you come down on the mayor's race, but there needs to have someone in that position and on the council seats who want to STAND UP and not roll over on everything for the lowest common denominator to NOT get anyone upset. If a council can't make a basic decision on conduct and show some leadership, why are they there. At this point Andy, I think that it best that I NOT do your fundraising and frankly, during the next cycle I will just do stuff for Steve and Chris. Davis has won re-election already because NO one will join a chorus. This is very disturbing.

 If this council can't do the right thing against Mr. Davis .... why is the Council there? The bully has won and those that have enabled him totally, in my opinion, lack any character on this issue and others. Some of my past emails also have referred to things that I got involved with this city ...particularily the Fox Theatre. No one listen to me then .... everyone rolled over to a mayoral appointment committee that did exactly what shouldn't have been done ... and you have a $34million White Elephant on your hands---with NO solutions to deal with it. And, I could go on about other issues as well. The Emperor and some colleagues have no clothes ... all of your council members are friends of mine, but the disappOintment with the lack of will to do the right thing is pathetic. Andy, like I said, this pains me to say no to you at this time. But, until I see some spunk (LEADERSHIP) out of this council, I think I'm going to pass on all the races in 2013. 

My best always, 

 Mike Williams 

This Council (with a few exceptions) and Mayor can't stand up 




Williams is right on about the Fox Theater in that it's turned into a white elephant at least financially speaking because it's losing money. But his view that the Renaissance was this great program that involved elected officials taking risks and losing their jobs wasn't exactly factually true. The electeds didn't take the risks themselves, they made sure the public took the risks, after all it's not their money they gambled on and then when it wasn't spent (including utility revenue funds used to pay for expenses outside utilities), the city borrowed, and borrowed and borrowed some more, putting itself in debt over $2.1 billion just on the Renaissance.

The city's going to face major cuts because it won't have the cash to spend. Only last week, reports came in that police chief, Sergio Diaz was telling people including his own advisory board that the police department won't be able to address certain crimes, and that there will be more streetwalkers and such due to the budget cuts to the police department. Other reports include programs like UNET not being adequately funded on the city's side and such including the Vice unit. And if the police department is facing these kinds of budget cuts and more then what does that say about the state of the city?

But will Williams go through with his boycott of Davis and now Melendrez or will he change his mind or just fund other candidates? Stay tuned, after all the email was written in August and there's been some developments since then including one that will surely impact Davis' reelection bid. 

RPOA Declares Neutrality in Mayoral Election

(So now there's at least two of us)

The Riverside Police Officers' Association is neutral in mayor's race according to this letter submitted by its current president, Sgt. Brian C. Smith.

Text of RPOA letter:

To Whom It May Concern: 

After careful consideration and a thorough review process that included one on one interviews and questionnaires, the Riverside Police Officers’ Association has determined that both Mr. Bailey and Mr. Adkinson are exceptionally qualified to serve as Mayor for the City of Riverside.

 The Riverside Police Officers’ Association has decided to stay neutral in this race and not endorse a specific candidate. Each Candidate has wide range of experience and differing views on how to best serve the residents of Riverside and are prepared for the challenges that await them once in office. 

 The Riverside Police Officers’ Association looks forward to working with the Mayor’s office to help promote Riverside as a city rich in history and tradition and a safe place to raise a family. I encourage every registered voter to cast his or her ballot in November! 

Respectfully, Brian C. Smith

I have to say that I thought I would be the only one to not choose to endorse either candidate though I've been pressured about having to endorse one or the other for a myriad of reasons. Not by the candidates so much but by supporters.  If I don't endorse one, I'm getting the other elected as if one vote truly equals a thousand. I'm flattered that they think my vote counts more than I do but I dug my heels in this one and said, no endorsement.   Sorry but my memory of history just isn't that short on either of them. They both have so much to prove and in some cases a very steep curve.  The people looking for a "reformist" mayor, better keep looking because it'll take someone who's never served on the dais to reform what's wrong with city government.

It seems that I'm not the only one. The Riverside Police Officers' Association's own PAC has opted out of endorsing either candidate either and as Smith stated, is taking the neutral position. All I can say is you go, union. I think that the union opted for the right choice in the mayoral race and I applaud it. Whereas the Riverside Firefighters' Association opted to endorse the closest thing to an incumbent (and historically its PAC nearly always endorses incumbents), the RPOA just said no...or if not to the candidates themselves, just that they won't pick one over the other.

Some people might view this as being indecisive but I'm not one of them. It's in fact very decisive. The reasons for my neutrality are the opposite of those stated in the letter. I'm not sure either of them is fit to be mayor not that the mayoral position is that powerful in Riverside and with good reason if you've studied local history going back into the 1920s when you had a Ku Klux Klan guy running for mayor, a financially corrupt government and a police chief arrested for public intoxication. They both would need to prove it to me and that's impossible without serving in the position.

Sometimes history repeats itself. But the union did have a struggle with this one or so I've heard and that's not surprising. It's a thorny issue to decide to endorse...nobody but sometimes it's just what you got to do. Allegedly endorsing either candidate would have created issues with membership that couldn't be reconciled. No matter what the qualifications of the candidates, what the union leadership might have been showing is that it listened as it should do to what its members had to say. That's a very good and important step on its part.

Any endorsement of Bailey would have been highly problematic for its leadership as Bailey had been accused by former Police Chief Russ Leach through his most latest deposition of interfering with the promotional process surrounding now Lt. Val Graham. The city's already paid out settlements to former police employees in part on allegations that Adams had interfered with the promotional process involving two police captains. Leach's second deposition which addressed Adams' alleged involvement stamped him even harder in that camp than his earlier one.

The RPOA wasn't the only police union that apparently opted out of endorsing Bailey as apparently the Riverside Sheriffs' Association did the same thing. Bailey had gone around looking for support among law enforcement and the issues pertaining to his alleged involvement in Graham's promotional process was one he apparently couldn't run away from.

Some also said that some union members were also leery of Adkison in part because of problems associated with the use of police officers by elected officials as "bouncers" to eject public speakers at the dais speaking on issues including two incidents. This happened when people like Dom Betro, Frank Schiavone and Adksion were on that dais, the ones mentioned in Williams' email. One incident involving four individuals including 90 year old Marjorie Von Poule and the other, an 82 year old woman complaining about a city pipe bursting and flooding her house who exceeded the three minute speaking rule.  Police officers were allegedly so unhappy with how a former quartet of council members ran the dais that it was getting harder to find enough of them willing to work security at the city council meetings back then.  Who really wants to be the police officer ordered to eject the 82 year old woman anyway just for speaking past three minutes like she's a criminal?  If someone does something like that, it should be an elected official instead.But none of them could apparently take responsibility for it so they had some officer or officers take the heat for it instead. Then during the first incident, several councilmen allegedly ordered former City Manager Brad Hudson to call up the DA and the detectives at the department to do cases against those four individuals but thankfully everyone they called refused to do it and frankly had other work to do instead as well.

This is just history in case memories have faded  or some people in City Hall don't want it remembered. 

At any way however way the RPOA reached its decision, it made the right one and I think future events no matter who wins (because one of them will) will bear that out. It was the best decision to make and it was the right one.

In the meantime, Rusty Bailey's campaign mailers ignite criticism from the Adkison camp causing many to question the integrity of his Team Bailey campaign.

Photo Gallery

The City Council Chambers while under construction to have prior re-construction undone to bring it up to governmental code.  But are other laws being broken inside it?

 We are family...I got all my brothers and...well that's the way it used to be for the now battling and fractured city council in River City.

Summer's over and city council is once again back holding its regular sessions.  In recent months, the city council have recently  broken away from their "go along to get along" Group Think (tm) way of doing city business and have started jousting with one another. It's hard to keep track of the playlist of who's ticked off at whom because it changes almost every week. Some of that was outlined in the above paragraphs but it's all subject to change at any moment.

One meeting got so contentious that Mayor Pro Tem Rusty Bailey had to take action. Outgoing Loveridge who's been mentoring Bailey has been skipping evening meetings so that it gives Bailey a showcase to show off  his leadership skills to the public both in the audience and watching at home or online. But lately that's meant breaking up some fighting on the dais between some of the other members. As already stated, Bailey and Melendrez have been going at it a bit on various issues.

At one point at a recent meeting, Bailey broke in at some point and asked Adams to vacate after Adams waggled his finger at Melendrez.  It's getting to the point where people in the audience want to hand out boxing gloves or nerf sticks to the battling city council members. As much as Loveridge has been grooming Bailey, he just looks lost up there.

The aforementioned red light camera issue came back to be rehashed all over again and the Press Enterprise blogged about city staff getting dressed down by elected officials as if that's actually news. Okay, the part about the city council members dressing down their city staff most definitely is news especially this part: 

( excerpt, Press Enterprise)

My issue is with staff asking us to rubber stamp something we knew nothing about,” Hart said.

“This is not the way we as a council want to do business,” she added.

Councilwoman Nancy Hart, you don't want to be a rubber stamp, don't act like one!

Maybe Hart's not aware of it, but she's been a rubber stamp used by "staff" for years.  After all, she's the one who as chair of the Finance Committee chose not to conduct meetings unless former Asst. City Manager/Chief Finance Officer/Treasurer Paul Sundeen said there was a reason to meet or anything to discuss. Public pressure put Hart in the hot seat of having to explain her inaction with the Finance Committee and when she tried to do her usual direct examination of city employees adding them leading questions, it didn't acquit her well. Soon after the Finance Committee dusted itself off and started holding monthly meetings apparently finding plenty to talk about from developer's fees to audits to amnesty periods on parking tickets.

But it was when the Finance Committee didn't meet was when most of the questionable expenditures and uses of the city's finances took place.

But the fact that city staff including City Manager Scott Barber (who's obviously picked up a few things from his predecessor) spent money to the tune of $2.5 million this time on that debacle called the Fox Entertainment Plaza isn't really news at all. It's called pattern and practice and city managers have been doing such in Riverside since way before two weeks ago.  And the other times, the city council and mayor sat up there like bobble heads smiling their way through it.




Every scandal that erupted in Hudson's watch was responded to as if the city council were bobble heads who thought if they smiled widely enough and pointed quickly away from the latest embarrassment at a pretty trinket, no one would notice illegal and/or unethical behavior. Point out anything untidy like illegal badges, illegally purchased guns and the city council and mayor would just smile and point out the lovely tree over there...you have to wonder why after that and more happened under the watch of past and current city council members why Hart's only complaining now about being a rubber stamp.

 The Citrus Towers stood at the top of a four way land swap which means that the city will pay $2 million plus annually just to make sure this project has its anchor tenant, Best, Best and Krieger.  Like the top end of any Ponzi Scheme like designed structure or just the first seat filled in musical chairs, this building looks splendid.

Okay, the Citrus Towers looks magnificent and it's filled with Best, Best and Krieger lawyers who vacated their old digs at the Wells Fargo building closer to City Hall to occupy space there. Loveridge even chose to have his very last (and  this time it's true) Mayoral Ball there on the sixth floor. If he did that to dissuade the people from seeing the situation involving the infamous quadruple land swap as a gift of public funds to the two private companies which benefited the most from it, all it did was raise more questions.

Questions like who's picked up the BB&K lease which is quite pricy at its old home and who's paying the $1 million or so of the bond indebtedness at the building on Orange Street near City Hall that's still housing a portion of the Riverside Public Utilities office.  Barber refuses to answer this question asked repeatedly at City Council meetings and in fact the last time it was asked, he was playing with his i Pad.  The answer as it turns out is that the Riverside Public Utilities is paying the "lease" on both buildings instead of just one of them.  It moved its administration and engineering division to space on the 3rd and 4th floor of the Wells Fargo Building (though the marquee of suite space on the ground floor hasn't been updated yet) and the finance division is still housed at its old haunt on Orange Street with the fate of Customer Service currently at its headquarters at a building that was transferred to the RDA before that collapsed unknown as to where it'll be going.

So basically what Barber doesn't want to say and no city council member either wants or allows or cares enough to get him to admit is that essentially the Public Utilities department is paying roughly twice the "rent" it was paying before this land scheme was engineered. If that hadn't happened, then this division would have simply stuck to paying the bond indebtedness on one building.  But the city needed Public Utilities to occupy both buildings so that the unused lease period of one and the bond indebtedness of the other could be paid for by utilities funds and then the cost passed on of course to the consumer most likely through rate increases and new fees and taxes.

Just like anything towards the end of a Ponzi Scheme, this building is a shell of itself with Riverside Public Utilities forced to pick up the tab for a building it barely occupies any longer, save for its Finance Division while it also allegedly picks up the tab for its pricier digs downtown. 

But the part of the land swap that narrowly avoided a bad situation was the police department. Originally the administrative offices at the Orange Street Station were going to fill the vacancy at the RPU building. That of course didn't happen because logistically it couldn't be done in a way that would work for the police  department services being relocated. The police department thus avoided paying $700,000 in renovation and relocation expenses not to mention having the department's budget or the general fund try to come up with the $1 million plus annually to pay the bond indebtedness. The police budget simply wouldn't be able to come up with this cash annually as it stands and it's also unlikely that it wouldn't have to pay at least a sizable portion because the general fund itself (which finances most of the police budget) is not able to really cover the costs either. Why do you think the city put RPU there instead to cover that bond debt each year? Because it has its own financial resources that it generates that the general fund doesn't. 

Imagine what would have happened if the city had tried to force this insane transfer through, given that the police budget is facing cuts at least that's what Diaz and his cabinet have been telling people in the communities of Riverside about police services. He's said to his band of "good" business and community leaders that some crimes won't be policed due to budget cuts. Other members of his leadership inside the department have been at meetings warning of cuts or reduced investment including financially in programs like UNET and Vice.

Chief Sergio Diaz and company have been warning their trusted band of business and community leaders about the impact of budget cuts on future policing

It's not exactly clear why Diaz is doing this or most anything for that matter because he only chooses to explain things to his set. But if it's in hopes that the leaders on his advisory board for example will take their concerns to the city officials to stop the budget cuts or if it's just facing the reality that the city's financially strapped, it's not clear yet.  But it makes what the city nearly did to the police department in the quadruple land swap a crime in my opinion. When the city was preparing to foist an extra start up cost of $700,000 on the department and that's before increasing its annual rent on its administrative headquarters from $1 annually to over $1 million, it should have been anticipating that the worst recession since the Great Depression might impact the city's budget including that of its police department. 

So why when they should have known that the budget could face serious cuts did they choose to help both Mark Rubin (who owns the Citrus Towers) and to a lesser extent, BB&K at what could have been high costs to both the police department and RPU?   Rubin needed to pay the $37.5 million in state bonds with lease revenue generating stream which was to have been the Raincross Promenade luxurious condos turned rental apartments which he hoped would be leased out.  The city claims that all of the units are leased out but that place is still quite dark at night and at any rate if it was fully occupied, it would have used the rent to pay the bonds on the Citrus Tower and the city would have never had to get involved in the business of helping promote private enterprise at the expense of its own city departments. So who was going to benefit from all this. 

Rubin, Citrus Towers: He gets an anchor tenant in BB&K so he can remain eligible for the bonds used to build the Towers by the use of lease revenue generation. Also an anchor tenant can attract more business for high-end office space which is not exactly experiencing a shortage in Riverside right now. 

BB&K:  The city's #1 law firm doesn't benefit as much giving up premium if expensive office space in exchange for what some in the firm have called smaller, more cramped digs at the Towers. And then there was the issue of not completing their lease on the Fargo building space. Presto, the city steps in and offers to finish out the lease for BB&K facilitating the move. 

Cost to BB&K: Maybe slightly higher but thanks to the city, it avoids a lawsuit by building owner for breach of contract.But city risked a lawsuit filed against it for "tortious interference".

RPU:  Winds up having an incremental lease hike as the costs of living at the Fargo digs costs more than what they were paying at the building that housed administration, finance and engineering. Now they're paying two lease tabs instead of one since after the deal with the RPD fell through, they couldn't backfill the space. 

Cost to taxpayers:  higher than what was paid in its current digs. Now it's paying roughly twice as much as earlier which will no doubt be passed on to customers.  

RPD: Would have seen its lease on administrative headquarters go from $1 (until end of 2017) go up to over $1 million annually. Not to mention the $700,000 to relocate most of Orange Street and additional monies of over $1.4 million to do the much needed relocation of dispatch, some of which was grant funded, the rest bond money tied up in the RDA mess. Dispatch was never going to be relocated to the RPU building and could have been relocated independently and in fact was relocated independently from the situation at Orange Street Station.

Cost to tax payers:  Anyone who thinks that it's not going to increase the cost to city residents by multiplying one's "rent" by over a million times, raise your hand. Or that it wouldn't have substantially worsened cuts currently being faced by the RPD to its services as told by Diaz and his cabinet at meetings.

The Fire Station That Just Wants to Be Finished

Construction halted on downtown fire station.  If you're a licensed contractor that can finish a fire station for a good price, the city needs you!

 An older photo of the new downtown fire station which has been in limbo since Edge Construction walked away from it. It does look a bit more finished than this photo but is unable to open.

Or that really pretty looking fire station downtown that hasn't seen a crew construction for months. You see Edge Construction bailed from the project and walked away, something that contractors usually only do when their bills aren't getting paid meaning they're out of liquid cash. But the company has indeed shutting down. Initially Randy Carter, its onsite supervisor at the fire station said the project would be completed but we're guessing that's not happening.What's confusing is that work shut down some time ago allegedly because payments weren't being made to contractors back when the building parcel was tied up in the RDA shutdown.

Councilman Mike Gardner did helpfully respond to an email on the matter.


Mary,

The surety company has taken over construction responsibility since Edge Construction failed.  Work has stopped until a new general contractor is brought on board.  I expect that to be fairly soon.  This may delay opening which was scheduled for right about first of the year.  The length of the delay depends on how long it takes to get in a new general and how long it takes them to ramp back up.

Hope this helps.  I know it is not 100% definitive, but it is the best information we have right now.

Best regards,

Mike



The project is currently on hold for an undetermined amount of time.But this project is included on the Building Watch. We'll all see what happens with this much needed fire station. The only thing that can be said is that hey, at least it's one of two city fire stations (with #4 being the other) that's not collateral on some bond deal including those involving private projects by developers like the Hyatt Hotel downtown.

It's so nice that the city did its best to loan money to a developer to get the Hyatt done on schedule but one of our fire stations which is badly needed is left fallow until at least early next year.

Former City Manager Brad Hudson has left the building but does his legacy live on?

City Manager Scott Barber got royally dressed down by his bosses, was he waiting for his BFF City Attorney Greg Priamos to bail him out?  

But Priamos has been too busy lately with his own problems and wearing his tongue out defending the right for Councilman Steve Adams to vote for a position that employs for his brother.

TO BE CONTINUED....

If Councilman Steve Adams isn't in his seat, it must be public comment time but the beleaguered councilman with the golden tongue is running out of buds on the dais.

In Search of the Naughty Nine?

Riverside's Police Administrative headquarters still resides here but what of the "Naughty Nine"? And how this elite list could wind up costing tax payers.

Did this leopard ever really change his spots?  And why slapping someone on the wrist for an offense that can get them fired isn't always "best practices".

Ever since Chief Sergio Diaz first arrived in Riverside with great fanfare in mid-2010, there's been issues arising within Orange Street Station with what's been going on there.  Whether it's a turf war between two members of Team Diaz leading to a call for a locksmith or a physical altercation between lieutenants that led to Diaz allegedly putting his hands over his ears and walking away from someone saying he didn't want to hear about it. The sudden vacations which arise after allegations of  on duty incidents arise  not to mention the internal investigation involving sexual harassment being done against one captain (who's expected to have the complaint reach that middle finding of not sustained). Then there's  another captain who'd brought baggage into the position from sustained misconduct some years ago facing a new crisis of sorts. That's all sometime after yet another captain allegedly tried (and failed) to get the watch commander of another police department to release his son (who was also hired by the RPD as an officer) without a booking trail.

I look at this and I wonder what the hell is going on here?  And how is this any different than the department under Leach at least when it comes to behavior or misbehavior at the highest levels?

It's hard to know what to make of all this given that the individuals at the very top are supposed to set the example for others in a hierarchical type organization of leadership and management. The public's left in the dark about the mechanisms of accountability used to ensure  that management adheres to professional standards of conduct and when someone who critiqued the Strategic Plan asked about such mechanisms and what they were, the answer simply is that the department doesn't share that information with its partners in the community. Then those in charge of it including Diaz wonder why or flail their arms and get upset when people challenge them or just ask them on that when one of the individuals they chose for a management position gets in trouble. 

What has Diaz actually done with management that's any different? Management personnel got in trouble under Leach, as witnessed by some major retirements on the heels of Leach's own medical retirement. Some apparently still get in trouble now and even when they allegedly commit assault and battery there's no investigation of "private" or "off-duty" matters. Two police officers get different types of discipline for committing sexual misconduct on duty by their chiefs. One, an officer re-offends and winds up being criminally prosecuted and convicted of a felony charge, another, a supervisor gets promoted at least twice. .It's hard to know how to look at these differences in treatment for similar offenses when the initial offenses committed by both most often lead to job termination. If an officer commits a sexual offense on duty and sees that someone above him in rank gets wrist slapped in comparison, does that make it seem like the department takes a hard stance against it or an easy stance or is which you get decided by rank?

Two officers investigated for making the same racial slur. One, a detective is going to get the book thrown at him. The other, the lieutenant in charge of the division investigating him gets nothing...except for a job with the city after his retirement. Once he gets nothing, the detective is retroactively un-disciplined which when you think about it seems fair on one hand but makes the whole incident somewhat bizarre on the other.This was under Leach but is it different under Diaz?

Never a dull moment but it's an issue of concern given how the promise of accountability of upper management and supervision was woven into Diaz' new Strategic Plan as one of its most critical objectives. That was an important stance to take given the crises of confidence impacting the RPD in 2010 where the trickle down effect of management that got into serious trouble including the chief may have contributed to the arrests of more than six officers within 14 months with some of them facing prosecution and conviction for crimes. That didn't just happen in a vacuum. It has partly to do with the very mixed messages that are sent officers when people higher up above them commit misconduct and not only are not investigated but sometimes have been rewarded for it. 

This issue is one that arose and was discussed in a matter of speaking already at the city's highest levels.

With Diaz and two of his cabinet members facing the ends of their three-year contracts in the summer of 2013, what lays ahead for the future of the police department including at its very top? Some say Diaz might be vulnerable and that Barber and he don't have the best relationship in part because Barber didn't hire him. Inhouse criticism of Diaz by several fronts has led to trying times for the police chief though it seems likely at least right now he'll survive that.  Some say that Asst. Chief Chris Vicino has his eye on the spot while others say that it's possible that Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer who's practically invisible to everyone except when they need him to be in a hot seat on a controversial sell like the Red Light Camera program might be leaving. 

If that were to happen, who does the department have to replace him or anyone else for that matter? In the three years that Diaz has been here, who's ready to step up into those management positions? Who won't be bringing a trouble history with him? Will Diaz reign be a decade long like he predicted?

All this remains to be seen.

The Price of Doing Business as Usual in River City

UPDATE: City Manager Scott Barber to create his very own blog! And a camera man accosted by another blogger at City Hall....after he talks about some early morning visit to the finance director....stay tuned....




Joseph "Pepe" William Morris

Jan.7, 1959-March 27, 2012

Son, Father, cousin and brother

Rest in Peace...



If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

---George Washington



To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

---Frederick Douglass





"The horror of that moment," the King went on, "I shall never, never forget." "You will though," the Queen said, "if you don't make a memorandum of it."


--Lewis Carroll

Update: As more employees find themselves moved to the Public Utilities department in recent weeks, along comes another form of city layoffs? And why does the hole that the city's digging for itself keep getting larger?

UPDATE: All of Riverside's wards will undergo redistricting in the next several months. All three proposed maps of redistricting are available in this report.

[This remarkable building has housed employees including an auditing team from the State Controller's office and has also borne witness to some interesting confrontations]

Leave town for a week and come back to find that it was quite an eventful week in River City, a bustling metropolis in the midst of the Inland Empire where there's never a dull moment. But apparently there was a bit of ruckus and controversy over decorum at the most recent city council meeting. Police chiefs going up to speakers afterward and calling them "anti-police" and telling them that they don't like them or hate them and people exceeding time limits and criticizing the city government. Legislative aides allegedly calling city residents "idiots" at meetings were federally elected politicians are guests of honor. While city residents are being scolded in various circles close to the power structure of City Hall for their behavior at the dais, there's a deafening silence on the conduct of those that they're addressing and some of the people who work for them.

Oh my!

Perhaps both issues need further examination by anyone that's truly concerned about what's going on inside the halls of government including the city council chambers. If there's decorum at the dais that needs to be addressed, then both sides of it need to be addressed.


First of all, there are a few things that almost everyone at the podium isn't doing at least not yet. They are not calling women that they disagree with or who criticize the city's actions "tramps" or "bitches" in any public forum. And they probably won't be doing so in the future either. They are not posting derogatory, sexist cartoons about them either. So breathe a sigh of relief about that before moving onward.

Well except for the legislative aide who allegedly once turned to two military personnel at a city council meeting and said about one female city resident, "there's the biggest bitch around" in front of witnesses. One of them wrote a letter to the city council member who employed this individual and no action was taken. It's unfortunate that this was allowed to happen because anyone engaging in this type of behavior puts the city in a bad light by doing so because he or she represents the city. But then the latest round of alleged behavior by this same legislative aide led to his boss, one of the city council members making the rounds with quick apologies. That's a start but if you have an employee behaving in this fashion in public or when interfacing with individuals doing business with the city then it's because you have given him permission to do so, tacit or otherwise. If your aide is calling or referring to people as "bitches" or "idiots" that's a reflection on the elected official she or she represents.

So far people aren't calling people on the dais derogatory names like tramps, bitches and the like or making derogatory comments about how they're dressed. No one currently serving on the dais in an elected position is calling anyone tramps, bitches or the like at least not in public. On that level, most people are actually quite civil or at least consistent in their behavior on both sides of the dais. Some people are not on either side of the dais.

But what people who have criticized the city on its actions have learned, is that they'll be subjected to being called derogatory and often sexist names (because for whatever reason most of them are female) and some of the inquiries that I get from readers is whether or not the same thing will happen to them if they speak out by expressing concerns and even criticisms. Will they be called a "bitch" or "tramp" online by someone stumping for the city or will they be harassed as a result? These are hard questions to answer some times. You don't want to discourage individuals from redressing their government but you have to be realistic too and take precautions to prepare for what's not an easy road.

In fact, just bringing up this part of it puts anyone who does so at risk of more harassment and I can start counting down the minutes until I hear from someone that so-and-so has called me or some other woman a bitch, tramp or said I or someone else needs to be gotten rid of. You criticize the city government, that's just what happens to you unfortunately. If you're a woman who does so, then that's another point against you because there's many more derogatory names to call a woman than a man. What can you say, some individuals seem to know most or all of them and then they try to give you lessons in civility.

It just makes no sense that a city that's great would need or want that kind of defense of it in its name. Any defense of something truly positive would be done filled with accounts of all the good things, calling someone a tramp or an idiot would be the last thing on that person's mind.

But apparently Riverside does need that because of what's been brought to light through the use of public documents provided by the city about some of its more questionable operations. Riverside's got many wonderful people in it but it's got many people who are very concerned about what's going on inside it. They worry about the recessions, about budget costs, about crime and the future financing of public safety, and of libraries and parks. Repairs of streets, sidewalks, sewers and utility systems that they can afford to pay to use including many people on limited incomes.

But many of them aren't willing to speak out because they see what happens when you do. I received over 50 calls and emails in response to when a derogatory cartoon appeared of me online and I was called a "tramp". The number one question I'm asked, is how can you speak out when they're are people "defending" the city who do things like that? I get some comments and emails about the behavior of city residents at meetings but many more about whether or not the city council cares about the issues being addressed because for the most part, only silence greets those addressing the dais.

Some of that is due to limitations placed on elected officials under the Brown Act (not to mention the city attorney's rather unique interpretation of it) as to what or how much they can say on an issue raised not on the agenda, but not all of it. There's no state law written yet that prohibits an elected official from saying that they care about an issue or will direct research to be done on it.

But what some of these defenders of the city don't realize that when they defend the city by engaging in this uncivil and even sometimes threatening conduct, they're making the city look bad while they're claiming that it's doing great. By doing this, all these individuals are doing is essentially providing the best argument that maybe the situation with the city's not so great after all. Else why would its supporters need to call people "idiots", "bitches" or "tramps" in the first place? No, if it comes to that then the city's not doing as great as it claims. If it's harassing and retaliating against its employees who exercise their consciences, it's not doing as great as it claims. If it's harassing and retaliating against its labor unions or being unfair to them in collective bargaining, then it's not doing as great as it claims. And all of these things have taken place in the All American City.

The concerns that people engaging in speaking in front of city governments and facing harassment is a strong one and not just in Riverside.

One posting I wrote about all the harassment and threats I've received got 15,000 hits in one day and wound up with 40,000 within a week on just that article mostly from visitors outside the city and the state because these types of issues with public speaking resonate with so many people because of all the issues including with the recession and cuts in spending that are taking place in every government from coast to coast.

It's too bad some of those who speak on behalf of the city against those who criticize its practices can't say the same of their own conduct so before any of them judge others on their civility at the podium, perhaps they should examine their own actions first. And that leads to the issue on a larger scale. That there are those who address elected officials and there are those elected officials who are being addressed engaging in the communication process. And the video taken of city council members only captures part of the story.

It captures how those at the dais behave for better or worse. It doesn't cover the conduct that takes place on the dais at least not most of the time except when a particular person sitting on it is speaking. Consequently there's a lot going on up there that most viewers don't see. That might change in the future as more efforts will be made to try to film the city council members from the perspective of what those sitting in the audience actually see. And perhaps this footage could be uploaded to YouTube so that people who want to get a better sense of the overall picture can view both video provided by the city of the meetings and video of the city council and mayor's conduct on the dais.

All of the focus on the dais and from City Hall's public relations team has been on the conduct of the city residents who speak. It's true that people should be respectful at the dais, not call people names and should speak within their time frame. If they are coming to the dais with an issue that affects them that can't be crammed in a three minute time frame, then who ever is leading the meeting should direct the appropriate member of the city council staff to address their concern or assign one of their city employees they oversee to do so. That would great help communications during public comment if that simple thing was done more often instead of just a select few determined solely by the mayor or mayor pro tem.

Many people do just that but the problem is there are those who equate criticizing the city even on a consistent basis with rudeness and that's not the same thing at all. After all, you can be critical of the city and the way it operates and be very civil, speaking within three minutes. If people are being rude, being harassing and calling people names, then that needs to be addressed but a simple way of doing that is when you speak, is to talk about actions by people.

The problem with this ongoing situation is that people watching the meetings online or at home only are able to view the conduct of those addressing the city council at the dais during public comment and not the behavior of those on the dais while city residents are trying to address them. It's likely that if more people were aware of how some council members on the dais were behaving, then criticism would be aimed at those who appear at the podium of course, but also those sitting on the dais as well. That's why it might be useful to create a video project that captures city council meetings from the view of the audience with the camera aimed at the dais. This has been useful in other cities at curbing some poor conduct by elected officials towards city residents in a relatively short time of the footage being aired online.

While it's important that speakers are respectful to the city government, it's a two way street and frankly some of the behaviors of those sitting on the dais need some adjustment. Council members and mayors holding side bar conversations while members of the public are speaking, Councilwoman Nancy Hart interrupting speakers with her own commentary which reduces the time they have available to complete their comments and Councilman Steve Adams marching out of his seat when public comment takes place. But any video taping of what happens on the dais will also capture the positive and attentive listening behavior of those council members who aren't engaging in poor conduct. It will also allow those viewing it to see that there are elected officials who do know how to behave themselves on the dais.

City council members and the mayor should also be mindful that most speakers especially those not close to the mayor only have three minutes to speak and every time they speak in sidebar with each other or make faces, they're showing just how much respect they have not just for individual speakers and the brief time allotted them but for their own elected positions and respective wards. Every time Adams leaves his seat only during public comment periods and Hart grumbles while someone's speaking, they are basically giving the finger to being a city council member and to every resident in the wards that they represent on the dais.

And while other people on the dais have criticized public speakers saying they must be dealt with, they've done little or nothing to even talk to their dais mates about their own conduct on the dais. After all, when two council members are in side bar and another is walking out while someone's speaking, the rest of the city council members sitting there look kind of silly themselves because they are condoning what is also discourteous comments from their peers.

And that is also one reason why so few city residents trust the ability of the city council to decide ethics complaint filed against their colleagues. It's not being "anti-establishment" (a cliche if there ever was one)it's having watched them over a period of time to see how they monitor their own conduct and those of their dais mates when they step over the line. After all, how much effort would it really take to tell Adams (rather than leave it to his campaign manager) it's better to stay in his seat and not bolt out of the chambers when public comment starts like he did recently when it came time to receive public comment on the down scaled plans to renovate the downtown library.




[Councilman Steve Adams shows off his own courtesy and professionalism on the dais by leaving it during public comment including on the discussion item on the future of the downtown library]

[Councilman Rusty Bailey hasn't fallen asleep on the dais at a city council meeting yet and actually appears attentive for the most part]

But sometimes it shows up on camera as well as it did with Adams at least once. Quite a few people watched the meeting where Councilman Steve Adams was caught on video walking out during public comment or that rare shot where Adams and Hart are chatting while public comment has just taken place. They ask why these council members are behaving in this fashion and do they do it when the cameras aren't looking.

A Study in Contrasts

[Councilwoman Nancy Hart loves to engage in side bar conversations with Adams, make faces at speakers and even tell them to "move" out of Riverside when they address the council whereas Councilman Paul Davis is quite attentive when people are speaking.]

Also there will be future reports and report cards on elected officials sitting on the dais and their behavior during public meetings.

Police Department Releases Its Strategic Plan
And the City Renames a Park

The Riverside Police Department finally presented its 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. At least to the public and to the city council. But much of the police department hadn't yet seen it in its final form. Anyway, it's definitely worth reading though if you're having trouble with the Flash Shock Wave format there is a hard version now that's just made the rounds of the police department. One narrative of the history of the creation of this Strategic Plan since about 2009 can be found in the archives of this blog. It was presented by the police department's management to the city council and mayor last week and it appeared to have gone very well. That was also the meeting where the decision was made to rename Tesquesquite Park, Ryan Bonaminio Park at the Tequesquite Arroyo.

[The city council voted 6-0 to rename a local park after him]

The decision generated some controversy as it proceeded from a subcommittee to the full city council. Two things needed to be considered and that was that it followed the established criteria and procedure for naming or renaming a city park and that it be done with consideration and respect to how supporters of the park felt on its renaming. The city did appear to follow the appropriate process for the renaming and the name is a compromise between those who supported naming it after the officer and those who wanted to respect its original history. At the end of the day, people are going to call the park different names of their choice. When he was alive from what I knew of him, Bonaminio was one of the most unassuming of people, always seeming to be cheerful but more committed to what was being done to help others rather than himself. That same attitude of his should be adopted by the city towards the park that now bears his name.

There will be people who call it the "Ryan Bonaminio" Park and those who call it Tequesquite Park as abbreviations of its longer name just like they do with most other things in Riverside.

Other parks had been named after deceased Officers Phil Trust, Dennis Doty and Doug Jacobs. And other monuments had been built for officers including a fountain for the late officers, Leonard Christiansen and Paul Teel although during its renovation, one widow had said she wished the money spent could go to youth programs. The family of Claire Connelly were very interested in scholarships for youth and established a scholarship for education which is fitting for a young woman who overcame many obstacles to go into law enforcement.

Bonaminio's last actions as a police officer and his final moments lived were inside one of the city's parks, Fairmount and people have asked why that park wasn't renamed after him. One person said wouldn't that send a bolder statement of reclaiming the park where he lost his life?

What is really important more than the naming of a park is its future. So now that the city has renamed the city park to recognize the service of a police officer who lost his life and the natural history of the area, what is it going to do to develop it as a park that can be accessed by the city's residents? So many promises have been made about this particular park and more than one campaign was built on it yet it appears to have become enmeshed in a quagmire for the past couple of the years as the city's financial resources become more and more strapped. If the park is going to be part of Bonaminio's legacy what kind will it be and who will work to build it?

So what happens next? Are the same politicians going to be as committed to building the park and realizing its full potential as they were regarding what to call it? After all, the city's admitting that its financial situation might stall some projects including with this park. So naming or renaming a city park is only part of the story with most the rest of it including its future not being told. But hopefully the decision to name it both after a police officer and recognizing its local history will serve as a greater impetus than has been shown in the past to actually help create a better park that recognizes and utilizes all of its considerable resources.

Chief Sergio Diaz to A City Resident:

"I don't like you" "I hate you...I hate them..."

(and I wasn't even in the room)

Chief Sergio Diaz appeared for several items at the city council meeting that took place on March 6 and some controversy resulted based on comments he made to Karen Wright and about other women in attendance at the city council meeting. Witnesses said that he approached Wright during a break in the meeting and started screaming at her or addressing her in a loud voice. Among the things reported by witnesses was that he said she shouldn't be allowed to talk, that he didn't like her, he hated her and he gestured to a group of other women saying he hated them too.

Wow.

Witnesses reported feeling intimidated by his conduct and I first heard about it via emails and phone calls while out of town. It was dismaying to hear the accounts but I wasn't too surprised because I've known for over a year that Diaz doesn't like me at all and it's not like it was the first alleged incident reported by an individual who he disliked. Not to say whether or not it was exactly as portrayed but the reported behavior seems to have been reported by different individuals. But I've found some of his behavior puzzling mostly because I've never seen it in a police chief or a member of police management before. Is it common for them to behave in such a fashion? Maybe it's a trend across the industry that will become more clear with further research involving police chiefs. But maybe it's not.

Other reports came in from people who said they had incidents involving him that show a more volatile side of his personality. Together with the relations of stories about more positive encounters with the police chief, it paints a very complex picture of the highest ranking officer in the Riverside Police Department.

I've heard his nickname for me is the "Fucking blogger" among others but then that's how he appears to feel about most of those who are critical in any form whatsoever of actions in the department. I had heard accounts of the rather volatile interactions and relations of members of the highest levels of police management and what of people yelling at each other and using profane language up at the top? What is with that? Is that what people in upper management in law enforcement agencies normally do? Intrigued, I've started surveying former and current police chiefs on this issue because some of the incidents described have been puzzling. But it's difficult to understand how cursing and screaming at the top if that's what is going on can possibly be healthy for the operations of a law enforcement agency.

Other city residents troubled by encounters they had with him or after hearing about negative things he'd said about them including to elected officials. I heard a couple of conversations he had talking extremely negative about a community organization and its members to two elected officials at City Hall before a meeting and found that disturbing. Obviously an issue had arisen between him and a community organization that upset him and it could have been rightfully so. But usually in cases like that, a police management team and the organization meet together to iron through it or they agree to disagree, they usually don't talk so negatively about each other to public officials. Because burning bridges with community organizations can create difficulty for the police department when it needs that community organization further down the line to deal with a civic crisis. Most chiefs are astute enough not to learn about that the hard way.

Diaz has expressed his displeasure about bloggers in general and mine in particular in different venues. He's of course entitled to his opinion. If he doesn't like me, that's fine but if there's a pattern of behavior that goes beyond just one person, that's more disturbing.

But to have a tirade in public if that's what took place (and both the Community Police Review Commission and City Manager Scott Barber have received complaints), that is very disturbing conduct from any management employee let alone a police chief. It reflects poorly on the police department and the city even if it's done in "defense" of either or both. Because when you're a police chief wearing the uniform, the badge, shield and stars of the Riverside Police Department, you're representing it for better or worse and that's based on your professional conduct. It's also not a good example to set for a department of civilian and sworn employees who are expected including by their chief to adhere to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct while wearing the uniform. If you're defending a position in an argument or disagreement with another person, there's many more effective and professional ways to do so than ranting in public.

There's many examples of great behavior inside the department and some that's less than that and the department says that it deals promptly and professionally with less than stellar conduct. But what does it say if the same chief that rightfully requires his officers to adhere to a strict code of conduct (as stated in the "core values" in the Strategic Plan on page 10), doesn't adhere to the same code himself? Because if what people said happened really happened in public, then that begs the concern and question about what's happening in less than public venues inside the department. If an incident like what was reported at the city council meeting last week happened, then it generates greater concern about what's going on inside the very insulated police department away from the public. Is it a wrong assumption to wonder if it's the same inside its walls there or even worse?

A police chief has less latitude to make personalized comments about hating people because of his position of authority, legal powers and public trust. How does it respect any of these things if you engage in conduct that's the opposite? And does it even make sense to attempt to address someone else's behavior by engaging in hostile behavior yourself? Diaz' reasons for feeling the way that he did might make sense and might be understandable but if he engages in behavior akin to a meltdown, it makes it difficult to get to that point of understanding. Not to mention that any type of behavior like that reported by multiple eyewitnesses at the meeting (not to mention by others reporting other incidents) puts the city at risk of civil liability.

The city and department had just gone through a crisis of confidence with the prior police chief, Russ Leach and his decision to drink to the point of severe intoxication and then get behind the wheel of his car while carrying his gun. The car factored more in his situation than the firearm though the two police officers who initially stopped him expressed concerns about both according to the dash cam video taken of the incident. What was sorely needed was a chief who could lead the department out of a crisis situation and work with others in the city, department and community to build a better agency.

In surveys, both community members and police employees listed accountability, ethics and integrity as some of those most important values that they held in the department and believed should be emphasized in the Strategic Plan. That shouldn't come to anyone's surprise because of the damaging impact that the behavior of those in upper management including that which became public had on other employees and how they were viewed by members of a furious public. After all, the majority of the upper management could be retired out to pasture while those who still remained had to deal with the aftermath of the behavior of those who were gone.

But what a lot of people wanted was a chief who played fair and didn't play favorite. The "team" politics that had impacted the department for over five years had created so much turmoil within the department and had proven to be very destructive to those caught in the middle of them. Is that the type of police chief that they received? That's a question that's still being asked and answered. Diaz came into the Riverside Police Department with some strong recommendations from his last haunt, Los Angeles ranging from the ACLU to his own ranks. But so far, that deputy chief from the LAPD hasn't materialized into the police chief here or maybe that's what has happened.

He's got some good ideas and visions involving community policing and hopefully how to integrate it within the department. He's revitalized programs that had nearly died on the vine due to a failed effort to decentralize community policing in the department back in 2007. It's too bad that there's not more of that type of management style from him but some of the more fundamental aspects of it seem to be tripping him up including holding those closest to him accountable. Maybe because in actuality, Diaz came into the department without any experience being a police chief. He had management responsibilities inside one of the largest police agencies in the country but still, there were aspects that go along with being a police chief, mine fields to navigate through that he's clearly never encountered before during his career.

If he had, he would have already learned the important lesson of not ranting in public while wearing a uniform from the agency you represent. Being a police chief requires having the thickest of skins and police work is one area that teaches you how to develop one. But if that's the case, then why is Diaz in actuality so thin skinned? How can one woman or a group of them set him off in such a fashion? In public, there's been several reported incidents of him challenging city residents most often women in front of other people that left those individuals feeling intimidated and upset.

When it comes to issues of accountability, some troubling incidents that took place involving individuals in upper supervision and management came to light. Behavior which would get lower ranking officers investigated for in the past seemed to be dismissed in the ranks above them, which is somewhat backwards in that the higher ranks should face a higher standard of accountability than those below them. Simply because that's what goes part and parcel with a ranking system based on hierarchy or what's called a chain of command. After all, what would the officer who got fired for lying during an investigation of a bar fight have to say about a higher ranking officer not even investigated for assaulting another officer off-duty? What of one lieutenant who gets investigated for driving his police chief home from a DUI incident but a captain does not for allegedly trying to get a watch commander in another police department to release his son from a holding tank without a booking trail?

Diaz' boss, City Manager Scott Barber (who's more hands off the department than his predecessor Brad Hudson who hired Diaz through an interview panel that was double blinded)
has complaints coming into his office against Diaz and to at least one person, Community Police Review Commission Manager Frank Hauptmann has allegedly offered to mediate a meeting with Diaz. But why would anyone need to mediate any kind of meeting with the police chief, a job that by its definition requires a thick skin?

But wait a minute on ex-police chief from Maywood no less offering to mediate at a meeting involving another one? Well Dorothy we're not in Kansas anymore.

[City Manager Scott Barber is the person who's looking into at least one complaint against Diaz with three others deciding whether they'll make appointments too]

Of course this is coming from someone who's probably the first or one of the first to go on his "naughty" list. But it'd be nice to see more of the police chief who has instituted some good ideas into action in the department and less of the volatile one who seems to go up in flames in "defense" of a department that needs much better from him than that.




Does this behavior involving RDA funding look familiar? This article created an incredible sense of deja vu. This city was Montebello and it wound up getting investigated because it didn't submit its financial reports to the State Controller's office on time.

Riverside's Oversight Board Meets

Mayor Ron Loveridge and County Supervisor John Tavaglione "appoint" each other Chair and Vice Chair of the Board

[The Oversight Board convened for its first meeting to divvy up the assets, debts and other obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency]

[Mayor Ron Loveridge's legacy apparently will include an audit by the State Controller's office but at least he's the chair of the Oversight Board.]

Safe in Whose Arms?

Will Public Safety Get Stiffed in This Redevelopment Mess?

[The Fate of Riverside Police Department's administrative headquarters lies in the decision made by the Oversight Board regarding its proposed future home that is currently bond indebted.]





COLLATERAL for HYATT

COLLATERAL FOR HYATT

The Oversight Board for Riverside will be meeting on Thursday, March 15 at 1pm inside the Mayor's Ceremonial Room at City Hall. Its role is to tackle the process of dissolving the Redevelopment Agency and determining who will pay for what in terms of obligations, enforceable and otherwise. It's hard to imagine a more stacked Oversight Board than the one appointed but at any rate, there's an appellate process through both the Department of Finance and the State Controller's office.


The board membership consists of the following people:



Mayor Ron Loveridge of Riverside

Mayor Robyn DeHoog

John Tavaglione Board of Supervisors, Riverside County

Larry Paulson, Riverside County

Charles Krieger Riverside County Flood Control

Mike Fine Riverside Office of Education Chancellor of Community Colleges


Fine was the first member appointed on Jan. 30 while the two mayors were appointed on Feb. 9 and everyone else on Feb. 28. This Board was set up to address all the obligations resulting from the dissolution of the city's Redevelopment Agency. This meeting is open to the public and includes public comment.


This first agenda is pretty stacked with information on what will be discussed including the logistics of the meetings. And the selection of the chair and vice chair turned out to be stacked itself. Mayor Ron Loveridge who used up one of his two board appointments to appoint himself was (surprise, surprise) nominated by Riverside County Supervisor (and Congressional candidate) John Tavaglione to be chair of the committee. Loveridge returned the favor and then nominated the supervisor as vice-chair. Murmurs from other members served as votes supporting both appointments. They discussed some items on the agenda, first item up for a vote was to insure that the California Tower which the ground level is controlled by Riverside can fill its vacancies. Never mind that over 16 businesses including many in city-owned and managed buildings downtown have left or been forced out or that some of those that remain are tens of thousands of dollars behind in their rents, this is still the city's main concern above all others.


But what of the police dispatch center? What will happen to its funding that is needed to move it well before the eviction of the police department from Orange Street Station at the end of 2012?

Asst. Finance Director Scot Catlett provided a very detailed and informative response to public record inquiries about the financing strategy for the dispatch center and so it'll be posted here to provide an explanation as to what's going on with the city's dispatch center.


The project was originally to have been funded by Redevelopment Agency bond proceeds currently on hand. As you know, under AB1X 26 the Redevelopment Agency was dissolved. Criteria were established in the bill defining what is and is not an "enforceable obligation". In the simplest terms, if a contract wasn't executed for construction prior to a certain date then the project is not an enforceable obligation. In this case, the project was in the planning stages and therefore no construction contract that could be deemed an enforceable obligation was present.

That being said, there is still a possibility that the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency can fund the project. The 2007 RDA bond proceeds that we have on hand are not 100% allocated to enforceable obligations. The remainder of the unspent bond proceeds cannot be used to call (pay off) bonds and reduce the Agency's debt because the bonds have a standard call provision with an earliest call date 10 years following issuance. We are therefore hopeful that the Successor Agency Oversight Board and the State Department of Finance will allow us to utilize unspent bond proceeds for the dispatch center relocation project rather than seeing the proceeds sit idle until the bonds can be called in 2017. This is a complex legal issue as the impacts of AB1X 26 and how it interfaces with the regulations impacting the bond issuance are not clear, so the situation will continue to evolve over the next few months.

Once we place this question before the Successor Agency Oversight Board and obtain a ruling that is confirmed by the State Department of Finance, we would proceed with the project using the bond proceeds if the answer is good news or evaluate alternative funding scenarios if the answer is bad news. Until we have this question addressed by the Successor Agency Oversight Board, finalizing the funding plan for the project is on hold.

I hope that this clears up your questions about the project and makes clear where we are at the moment and how we got here. If I can answer any additional questions, please let me know.



Mr. Catlett is correct in that it could be very complicated legally. Some have said that this whole process could result in threatening or actual litigation being filed in connection with various items that go before the Oversight Boards now springing up all over the state. And if lawsuits threaten to snarl or even tie up the process of deciding the future of assets, debts and obligations, then will that increase the time these items spend in limbo? And what of cases like the dispatch center where the clock is ticking?

There's the obvious question as to how the dispatch center wound up under the RDA umbrella to begin with because it doesn't really qualify as an RDA project under the original intentions that were behind the establishment of RDAs by the state. It's still hard to believe that the city has opted to leave this project in limbo given that the so-called lease with Riverside County for the Orange Street Station originally set to expire in 2017 now will be done by the end of this calendar year. The expiration of the lease was facilitated by a controversial and extremely questionable four way land swap that began with a developer looking for an anchor tenant to provide lease revenue streams for $37.5 million in state bonds he took out on the Citrus Tower. Originally his other downtown project, the Raincross Promenade was to provide this source through leasing the condos out that couldn't be sold. However, very few of the luxury condos even could be leased out so he needed another source.

[More concerns were raised about the construction project of the Citrus Tower as the site was not closed off from pedestrians and there was no signage or access for pedestrians coming into downtown through University and Lime.]

Providing an anchor tenant at the Citrus Tower would help so the city's main outside law firm picked up stakes from where it had camped out at the Wells Fargo Building and moved almost all of its operations there. It's not clear but it doesn't seem likely that the firm, Best, Best and Krieger would have rushed to relocate even further away from the city's legal complex of court facilities as well as City Hall or whether by breaking its lease with the owner of the Wells Fargo Building, the city needed to find an alternative tenant fast to avoid being accused of enticing BB&K out of its lease early (and having to defend itself legally from such allegations would be very expensive).

At any rate, the city's largest department, Public Utilities wound up moving its headquarters from where it sat at Ninth and Orange to the leased property at the Wells Fargo Building. Since there was extensive outside financing of the parking garage where Public Utilities was based to the tune of nearly $2 million annually, it's not clear how that is being paid off now that it can't legally be paid for by Public Utilities operational budget. Since the police department would be moving there, it would seem that those annual payments would have to come out of its budget or the general fund. Of course moving Dispatch there wasn't an option, it was to go to Magnolia Police Center.

But now the public sector's side of the four way property swap might be in limbo and not just involving the police dispatch center. It depends as well on the fate of the parking garage which was paid for by bonds taken out on its construction. If it's constituted as part of the now dissolved Redevelopment Agency then does that mean that its fate must also be decided by the Oversight Board? There's so many issues arising from this situation that have to be answered. One possibility that can't be ignored is that a slew of litigation could result from the Oversight Board's work tying the fate of so many of these projects even further. It's a mess but it's not solely a mess of the state government's making as has been claimed by the city and its PR team.

No, that's akin to what's called propaganda and so far from the truth, which is that both the state budgetary crisis and the city's handling of its RDA have contributed to this crisis. The fact remains that if the RDA had been operated according to its original mission when created not by the city but the state, financially there would still be a hit but there wouldn't be all this chaos and confusion. It's largely because of the choice of projects that were umbrellaed under the RDA including many that were quite questionable including the police dispatch center and quite a few others that have contributed greatly to this quagmire.

The state's actions didn't put some of our public buildings in the process of possibly facing a decision by the Oversight Board. Our city did when it performed highly questionable actions as using them as collateral on bonds that should have been paid off by the private developer on projects like the Hyatt Hotel.

In other words, we as a city built our bed, and now we're lying in it. And so is the very critically important emergency dispatch center. Because they said it could take six months for the process to "evolve" through uncharted waters or the Riverside County Auditor to catch up, and that's six months the dispatch center probably can't waste while those on the board figure out how to pay for it before the Dec. 31, 2012 eviction date.

But anyway, there will now be a public dispatch watch taking place and perhaps it's time to think about setting up a nonprofit foundation to generate the monies to pay for its relocation and renovation since apparently the city's too broke to do so.

This FAQ released by the state's Department of Finance addresses some of the many issues arising from the dissolution of the RDA, the powers of the Oversight Board and Successor Agencies. It's a pretty straight forward, easy to understand explanation to some of the major questions that have arisen during this complicated and drawn out process of divvying up the assets in what's similar to a divorce.