Just another scorching Sunday in the empire

Riverside has like the rest of the Inland Empire been caught in the grip of a heat wave which has deftly combined intense heat with the touch of humidity that usually visits this time of year. It's advised for everyone by the National Weather Service to drink plenty of fluids, wear light-colored, loose clothing and stay indoors.

So far, the city's utility system is holding up and there's been no power outages reported yet in any neighborhood in Riverside. Contrast that with last June when the power was constantly going out in several neighborhoods, due to the city's aging and in fact ancient, infrastructure involving its electrical systems.

Still, heat waves and electrical systems in terms of the high use of air conditioners do not mix well, so keep your flashlights handy just in case.

Riverside Renaissance does include some utility projects but there has to be quite a bit spent to keep up with development and given that the city will probably be broke within the next couple of years, it's best to do your asking for money now rather than later.




Riverside is bringing the internet to its borders, according to the Press Enterprise along with some cautions on using it. It's going to be provided by AT&T Communications and is pretty much serving as advertising for its faster connection services which will cause subscribers money.



Another slow day in Los Angeles with more attention focused on the mayor's girlfriend than anything else going on there. The latest is, that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's girlfriend, Mirthala Salinas, a news anchor with Telemundo has been placed on administrative leave according to the Los Angeles Times.


(excerpt)



Given the seriousness of the allegations that have been made, we have decided to conduct an internal review of the decisions and events that led us to where we are today," said Manuel Abud, vice president and general manager of KVEA-TV. "In the meantime, Mirthala Salinas has been placed on a leave of absence from her duties pending this review. We will conduct this investigation with the utmost respect to personal privacy and journalistic standards."

Salinas, 35, defended her actions through a spokeswoman, voicing confidence that the internal probe would clear her of any ethical lapses.

"I welcome Telemundo's decision to conduct a comprehensive review of the matter and respect their desire that I allow the review to be completed before returning to work," she said in a statement. "I will cooperate with the station and appreciate their commitment to undertaking a thorough review of this situation. I am confident that when all the facts are analyzed it will be clear that I conducted myself in an appropriate way."



Well, it's true that here lies a conflict of interest situation even though Salinas said that she had notified her employers of her relationship with the mayor and had asked to be taken off of stories dealing with him. It's also true that relationship or no relationship, there definitely is already a marriage between local city governments and the media who cover them. There was definitely times during Election 2007, round one when I was reading coverage by the local newspaper that made me wonder.




According to the New York Daily News, Police commissioner Ray Kelly of the New York City Police Department has enacted new rules in terms of how much alcohol police officers can consume while working undercover.

In addition, sobriety tests will be given to police officers involved in onduty shootings.


A list of changes were implemented in the wake of the controversial 2006 fatal shooting of Sean Bell. Three NYPD officers were indicted on criminal charges earlier this year by a grand jury in relation to that shooting.


(excerpt)


"There's no more dangerous assignment in policing than undercover work," Kelly said, praising the committee for its recommendations "to make undercover operations the safest possible for the police and public alike."

Bell's family called for mandatory alcohol testing after it was revealed that one of the undercover officers, who did not fire, had drunk two bottles of Heineken during the undercover operation.

Bell's family was equally outraged when toxicology reports leaked to the press revealed that Bell, 23, was legally intoxicated the night he was killed, yet no tests were taken of the officers involved. Two officers were charged with manslaughter in the Bell shooting, and a third was charged with a misdemeanor.

The Rev. Al Sharpton called the proposed change "a small step toward justice as a result of the Sean Bell tragedy."





A committee convened to create and implement recommendations involving how the police department conducts business with its undercover divisions had some suggestions which it presented at its completion.


(excerpt)



NYPD review done after the Sean Bell shooting has recommended 20 changes to the way undercover cops operate. Among them are:


Sobriety tests for cops who fire their weapons and kill or maim.

Psychological screening to become an undercover, and counseling for current undercover officers.

Training in staying in character from professional actors.

Opening undercover positions to cops with less than two years of experience.

Lights and sirens in unmarked cars.

A standard jacket for officers to use in plainclothes operations.

Making sure all undercovers know that there is a two-drink maximum per tour and provide training to avoid drinking altogether.




Both Nichole Paultre-Bell and one of the NYPD's labor unions gave their reactions to the rule changes in this New York Daily News article.






Creative Loafing is a blog about Atlanta, Georgia and has a section on that city's police department. A lot going on there in the wake of a corruption scandal involving the department's narcotics division in the wake of the fatal shooting of Kathryn Johnston, 92, and the near shooting of Frances Thompson, 80, in their own homes.

Last May, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Coyers and other members had written a letter to the U.S. Attorney General's office regarding the Johnston killing and its aftermath. The letter included the following questions.



(excerpt)


Will the investigation include an examination of the policies and procedures of the Atlanta Police Department regarding confidential informants?

Are there adequate guidelines in place to prevent the misuse of confidential informants?

Will there be a review of prior cases to determine whether there have been other incidences involving the misuse of confidential informants and the information supplied by such informants?

Will there be an assessment of pattern and practice abuses resulting in civil rights violations by the department?

Will the investigation include an evaluation of whether the issues identified with the use of confidential informants in the Johnston case reflect a national trend among other law enforcement agencies?

What role do the federal guidelines on confidential informants play in shaping local policy?


It's not clear when these questions will be answered and in what form.




Columnist Van Jones wrote an interesting article on the failure of S.B. 1019 to get out of committee at the California State Assembly last week.

Interestingly enough, while nearly all of the opponents of the bill were law enforcement or public employee unions, one police union did break ranks with this group.

And what union was that?

The National Black Police Association endorsed S.B. 1019


(excerpt)


In fact, the Copley Press decision had nothing to do with officer safety or operational security. The Court's 42-page opinion does not once mention either of these issues. Nor do the extensive briefs and pleadings of the plaintiff police unions to the Court.

Finally, SB 1019 contains specific provisions that allow for records to be kept confidential if a police chief or sheriff certifies that their release is likely to compromise officer safety or operational security. The fact that the police unions have rejected this provision clearly shows that their safety and security concerns are completely bogus.

Despite repeated invitations by Senator Romero, they have not proposed a single amendment of their own to address these supposedly crucial issues. The truth is that the police unions are not interested in public accountability plus protection. They are not interested in public accountability at all. Period. End of discussion.

It is important to note, however, that the national black officers' union, the Black Police Association, has endorsed SB 1019. It is reasonable to assume that these officers have no interest in putting officer safety or operational security at risk. They do, however, know all about racism and its insidious effects.

It is no accident that in California, the jurisdictions that have opted to establish open and public mechanisms of citizen oversight are all major urban centers with large minority populations. There is overwhelming evidence that these are the communities most affected by officer misconduct and, for that reason, the most distrustful of police.




It shouldn't be surprising that once again, it's a Black police union that supports an accountability measure. Whether it's Black Cops Against Police Brutality, 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care and NOBLE, these organizations are usually the only ones who support or even promote police accountability in terms of civilian oversight, reform processes and transparency of police investigations. Sgt. DeLacy Davis of the East Orange Police Department wrote a book on an action plan to deal with police abuse and corruption.

Maybe it's because when it comes to the police culture that favors White male officers, everyone else is considered an outsider. Or maybe it's because Black law enforcement officers who are off-duty or working in undercover assignments have been victims of racial profiling stops, excessive force and lethal shootings including those in Los Angeles, Providence, Rhode Island and Oakland, California.

Maybe all these experiences and the laundry list of civil litigation they have filed regarding racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation make them skeptics in some sense regarding others in their own profession.

At any rate, the support by the national association that represents many Black police officers is an interesting development as it always is in situations like this one.


Jones chastised the head of the assembly public safety committee, Fabian Nunez by stating that Nunez had criticized the Los Angeles Police Department's actions during the May Day incident in MacArthur Park when over 60 officers in riot gear had charged into the park, hitting dozens of peacefully assembled people with their batons and shooting over 160 less lethal bullets at them.

However, once the cameras disappeared, Nunez chose to oppose S.B. 1019 which would have provided more accountability during incidents like that involving the LAPD.

The bill is due back sooner probably than later though the police union leaderships have told their members that they expect to see it back next year at the earliest.


Last March, the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley approved a resolution supporting S.B. 1019 and its assembly counterpart. The Libertarian Party of California had also voiced its support of the bill.


(excerpt)


Kevin Takenaga, chair of the Libertarian Party of California, issued the following statement:

"While employee records should be protected by some measure of confidentiality, it is clearly more important in the case of government employees in general, and police in particular, to allow limited public examination of records, including charges of misconduct.

"The Libertarian Party of California supports the hard work and dedication of law enforcement officers in the state. Nevertheless, taxpayers are forced by government to pay the salary of law enforcement personnel. Therefore, it is only appropriate that they have a means to scrutinize the relatively few, but important, police misconduct and disciplinary issues that unfortunately arise from time to time.




Another on the very diverse list of supporters for S. B. 1019.

Election 2007: If you build it, will they come?

Next week, the Riverside City Council will discuss the arbitration finding involving former Riverside Police Department officer, Chris Gaspard.

Gaspard was arrested on Sept. 1, 2004 for reckless driving, a misdemeanor by the Riverside Police Department. He was ultimately charged later that month with reckless driving and evading a peace officer.

Gaspard plead guilty in the autumn of 2005 to the former charge and received one year summary probation and a $100 restitution fine. After his probation expired, Gaspard applied to have his record expunged in December 2006 and Judge Christian F. Thierbach granted it.

A Press Enterprise article written in 2006 stated that Gaspard had left the department under some circumstance, but if he left and he took his case to arbitration, then that suggests that he was terminated from employment. If the case is back before the city council, then it's likely that he's been reinstated by arbitrators that some say use private sector standards to judge public service employees.

If this is true, then Gaspard would be the third Riverside Police Department officer to be reinstated this year. He's also at least the fourth police officer in the department's recent history to have been convicted of a crime and still remained on the force.

Still given that he apparently was evading officers in his own department when he got arrested, it remains to be seen whether he has developed any respect for the men and women he will be working alongside with, during his time off. It also provides a dilemma for the members of the public that he pulls over in terms of whether they are respecting a police officer who himself apparently had little respect for police officers in his own agency.






Inland Empire Weekly, an online publication takes on eminent domain in Riverside in an article rich in information which is also hilarious, in terms of its take on the relationship between the use of eminent domain by the BASS quartet and the campaign contributions received by its two members up for reelection which are Councilmen Dom Betro and Steve Adams.



Adams doesn't comment on the issue in this article. He probably had his hands full dealing with four political rivals out for his seat in Ward Seven after he returned to the ward after his flirtation with higher office was thwarted by the reality that state politics takes place in a much different arena than that which is local. However, Betro who was forced into a runoff with Mike Gardner by strong anti-incumbent sentiment does not disappoint, providing some prize examples of the kind of quotes that are often said when arrogance overrules political tact.


(excerpt)


Sometime over the past three years, or perhaps earlier (it's hard to say, because Riverside City Hall doesn't talk much to the nonaligned press), the council got it in its head that nearly everything wrong with the city—its moribund downtown, its crime rate, its stunted tax revenue, its inability to attract and keep new businesses—was the fault, not of the council and its misguided policies, but of an unproductive constituency that simply refused to go away. This notion, lovingly nurtured by the sweet milk of out-of-town developers' money, germinated into a working philosophy, which City Councilman Dom Betro expertly articulated when asked why the city condemned an entire downtown block for use by private developers.

“What you have here are long-term property owners who have done nothing to improve their properties, while their properties have appreciated 300 percent,” Betro tells the Weekly . Betro represents downtown Riverside, where most of these unhelpful owners once thrived. “These property owners are, in fact, a detriment to the downtown area, and these property owners have no interest in improving them.”

In other words, the council has seen the problem, and the problem is this crazy concept called private property. If those pesky property owners won't take a hint and go of their own accord, the city will force them to go—the owners, that is. The properties themselves—well, the city would just take that and hand them over to interests more to its liking.

A handful of the city's eminent domain lawsuits were true to the original spirit of eminent domain, such as the condemnation of rundown, seedy motels that have long been the bane of the Riverside Police Department. But most were simply the Redevelopment Agency wading into the real estate speculation game by kicking out the original businesses and replacing them with fancy new developments.

Such was the case with the city's acquisition of businesses on the downtown block bordered by Market and Mission and 1st and 3rd streets. In lawsuit after lawsuit filed November 2, the city moved to condemn a dozen parcels of land to make room for Raincross Promenade, a tony housing project by LA developer Mark Rubin. This action, one of the largest and, at an estimated $5.4 million, one of the most expensive condemnation efforts in the city's history, resulted in dozens of merchants and their employees being forced to find work elsewhere.

Rubin, incidentally, is listed by Betro as a key endorser of his council re-election bid.


It gets better as the article continues. It's hard to believe that this is the same Betro that promised to bring accountability, due process and transparency to the city council, not to mention encouraging public participation. But after the latest city manager was hired, he changed his tune soon enough. Hearts broke all over Riverside when Betro turned and not only failed to counter the GASS quartet which was in power at the time he was elected, but jumped on board to make it his own.

Kicked to the curb was former GASS quartet member, Art Gage, who is mostly responsible for where he got, but in some regards it's like he got cast aside by the new cool kid on the playground. Now Gage's fighting against the neophyte candidate that the club he used to belong to chose to replace him before William "Rusty" Bailey filed his papers with the city clerk's office. Bailey's fairly nice and he's smart but you don't handpick an inexperienced candidate to be either of these things. His roots to development interests and his past stint with the economic development agency of Riverside County are issues seriously underplayed by those who back him.



And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds.


---Elvis Presley




In Ward Three, people think they are caught between a rock and the hard place, not really trusting either side. It will be interesting to see who pulls in the votes and whether Peter Olmos' endorsement of Gage plays a role in the final tally.

Betro's method of enhancing public participation was to propose a motion on July 12, 2005 to further restrict public participation including banning members of the public from pulling items from the consent calendar for discussion. Soon after, the consent calendar began getting a lot longer and the discussion calendar much shorter. Today, the latter consists mainly of public reports that actually foster little discussion except that by city council members praising themselves on cable television.

Ed Adkison might be stepping down as councilman in Ward Five but his announcement that he planned to support challenger Chris MacArthur had many shaking their heads. MacArthur has relied on xenophobia instead of stances on city issues to sell himself in that ward. That and the fact that few people really believe that Adkison didn't back him from the beginning is what's causing those heads to shake in skepticism.




It's hardly surprising that those who are most in favor of using not eminent domain but the threat of it downtown are the same elected officials getting campaign contributions from the development firms that are knocking down their doors every day at the office. The demand by development firms on Betro obviously made quite an impression on him during his evolution from concerned grass-roots candidate to as some people call him, a bully or a dictator who wants things done his way when he wants them done. And if he has to knock down a few people and properties to get there, so be it.

That's the quality that most of those who used to support him find most disappointing in him. If power in some cases doesn't indeed corrupt, then it certainly can change a person's attitude that they put on display as his case has clearly shown unfortunately. You keep waiting for those closest to him to put some sense into him but then it's likely that what he represents is what they want. After all, more than a couple of political careers appear to be riding on his success as is the case with several of the other political campaigns as well.

What's interesting is that a lot of what was behind the sentiment of the "anybody but Betro" campaign which swept Ward One was the fact that more than a few of those who were involved had been volunteers in his camp during his first campaign. Many of them felt that he had burned them or that he hadn't kept his promises or stayed true to his roots. The end result of their efforts in Election 2007, part one was that he only captured 44% of the ward's vote.

What's even more interesting is how those who are still loyal to their man have labeled those who worked on Betro's initial campaign either outside agitators or activists they have never seen or heard of. Were those who belonged in Betro's inner circle really that blind to the individuals who were out doing the legwork?

The next in line to be burned by Betro will no doubt be the city's labor unions, including the SEIU, the Riverside Police Officers' Association and others who lined up enthusiastically to endorse part of the status quo that worked against them. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me and all that. But then again, the most important number in city government is, four. Some union members say that they're holding their noses to support incumbents for survival purposes.

However, "survival" this past year has translated to strike votes, law suits and rallies at City Hall, not to mention intimidation and even retaliation against people pushing for better working conditions in the city's workforce. Not to mention employees fearing for their expulsion from the workforce, including Black and Latino employees on a "list" and those who refuse to be "yes" men or women while trying to do their jobs. The "list" has pretty much been depleted at this point, having once included some of the city's finest male and female employees. The list of employees who want to act independently and perform their job responsibilities without being micromanaged still goes on and on.

And on that front, it looks like things will be worse before they get better.

Especially puzzling was the decision by the RPOA to do this as besides the SEIU it's been hit the hardest, but I guess its leaders started appearing and participating in community meetings like the Group which is nearly unprecedented by that union in its history after Betro took potshots at its leadership and castigated people for not coming down on the police union for the law suit filed by Officer Ryan Wilson last year. An organization able and willing to take bold steps in community outreach where few of its predecessors have gone before, should be able to have enough fortitude to ask its endorsed candidates questions about their actions or lack thereof regarding recent labor skirmishes.

And the city council kind of sat while Hudson apparently pretty much handed the police department over to Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis to run until a massive campaign against this woke several of them up.

Politics does indeed make strange bed fellows. That's one reason why fewer people even bother voting anymore but it does make for good blogging.

However, Betro is one of City Manager Brad Hudson's strongest supporters on the city council because of all the neat stuff being brought downtown. Erect one sign on a city street about one new project, while putting the ward's councilman in lights and they turn to jello. Not that this isn't human nature and all that, but it does keep the city council happy and apparently either clueless to what is going on around it or just disinterested.

And all those signs advertising projects also serve as free advertising for the incumbents running for office. Well, free for them, not for the people in this city who pay for this advertising.

But what has Hudson done for the city's workers? And that goes for both before and after his huge pay raise given to him by the city council earlier this year. How many employees in this city feel secure in their employment at this time? How many employees feel they will be able to even afford to live in this city in two years? Five years? Ten years?

After all, many of the city's employees live outside the city limits.

But live and learn. And in the wake of a city where there are investigations inside city departments, between city departments, retaliation against union representatives, one state investigation, an unknown number of county grand jury investigations and growing rumors of some sort of federal probe of city government, it makes perfect sense to march lock step behind some of these incumbents at this time. Yes indeed it does.




What was funny in the Inland Empire Weekly article was the quote by the city manager office's own public information officer who was quoted telling the writer of the article that upon having read an earlier article about how the city handles its code compliance division aptly titled "Code Red" that he didn't want to meet or even issue a comment to the Weekly.





Sniff, sniff.





It seems that the powers that be at City Hall can only respond to media outlets who flatter them with the proper number of inches. David Silva, who wrote the latest expose on City Hall in the Inland Weekly shouldn't feel so bad. Several weeks ago, Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis told me he was planning to give me the silent treatment to me from that point on. Hopefully that will give him extra time to hunt down some office space for the incoming pupp...I mean executive manager of the Community Police Review Commission besides the cubicle on the seventh floor. But not too much time for him to decide he wants to find another hobby like running the fire department or something.



One can say, boo hoo to all that.



One can also say, pressure on, cover off.



But still it's likely that Carter pulls in a six-figure salary paid for by tax dollars solely to represent the city when it's questioned by the media and try to spin it in the best possible light. It's almost unheard of for a public information officer to respond in such a huff to a request for an interview or a meeting although they might vent at you from time to time which is fine.

You know, if Carter's not up to talking to newspapers outside the Press Enterprise, the city could always go back to paying Sitrick and Company, Inc. about $500/hr to do that job for it and the beleaguered Carter or at least give instructions on how to do this.

The much nicer publication also ran an article about the plans to renovate the downtown pedestrian mall. What's missing is the reaction of local small business owners to what someone called the "ripping out of the mall in front of them". But what they'll get in return, is a little stream down the little of the mall. Not enough affordable parking with a sensible meter system in place, but a cute little creek in the middle of the desert that will probably see very little rain in the next 20-30 years.

Riverside will finally have a river at last actually going through it, well at least one part of it.

Maybe next week, the Press Enterprise will give Development Director Belinda Graham her own column.


In other news, the state of California has announced that there will be no more power outages this summer despite the raging heat, according to the Press Enterprise. That's good news. Knock on wood but keep those flashlights handy just in case.




Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez takes on the dual story lines running through the latest soap opera at Los Angeles' City Hall. One involves the mayor's current girlfriend and the other, the evolving scandal involving the city attorney's wife. Both are playing out on a backdrop of the usual Angeleno politics and it appears that everyone has something to say about it.


(excerpt)


On Wednesday, I heard from a psychologist who took issue with my column suggesting that no one could love Villaraigosa as much as he loves himself.

"True clinical narcissism has nothing to do with self-love," said Victor Silva-Palacios, who explained narcissistic personality disorder. "Rather, it has to do with a severe lack of emotional development."

Very interesting.

"Underneath an apparent 'self-love,' one frequently discovers a fragile ego ... and chronic emotional emptiness. It seems to me that Mr. Villaraigosa is trying to hide his insecurities with choices that are very destructive to himself and others."

Makes sense, but I prefer the diagnosis by an 84-year-old Latina who called and asked me to pass it along to the mayor:

"Tell him that his brains are between his legs, and there's not too much there."



Ouch.

The Times actually ran articles on the saga of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's divorce and its impact on the polls. Must have been a slow news day.







Mariela Carrion, wife of Elio, spoke out against the jury's decision to acquit former San Bernardino County Sheriff deputy Ivory J. Webb of criminal charges stemming from the shooting of her husband, according to the Los Angeles Times.


(excerpt)


"We wanted him to serve his time for what he did," said Mariela Carrion, the wife of Air Force police officer Elio Carrion, who survived three bullet wounds in the videotaped shooting. "There wasn't a fair trial…. The jury already had their minds set on freeing Mr. Webb."

"San Bernardino County makes police officers above the law, which nobody is," she said in a telephone interview from Barksdale Air Force Base.

Elio Carrion was saddened by the verdict, his wife said, but reticent to share his feelings about it, even with her.




Mark Petix who used to write features for the Press Enterprise wrote an article for the Daily Bulletin about Webb's future with his former employer. He was not fired by Sheriff Gary Penrod, but Penrod said he won't be back at work with that agency.

Though Penrod disagreed with some of the tactics Webb had used before the shooting, he doesn't plan to implement any changes in how his deputies act in similar situations.


(excerpt)


At his new conference Friday, Penrod said his department has not made any policy or training changes as a result of the shooting that wounded Carrion, an Air Force senior airman who was on leave from Iraq.

Jurors apparently believed Webb's claim he fired in self-defense while attempting to arrest Carrion and the driver, who he said were drunk and belligerent.

Webb could have faced up to 18 years in prison if convicted.

Penrod defended Webb's decision to make the arrests without backup, saying deputies in rural locations make that decision regularly.

But Penrod said he would not have parked the patrol car so close to the suspects' vehicle, and he probably would have kept the men in the car until backup arrived.

"It probably could have been handled in a better way," he said.





From Where Eminent Domain is King to Go West, Young Men(and Women)


Eminent domain is coming into the Eastside, according to this agenda item at the afternoon session of the city's Redevelopment Agency. It will impact properties on Martin Luther King Blvd between Ottawa and around Park Street. The purpose of using eminent domain is to widen the street and add sidewalks. One property at 1835 MLK Blvd has been mentioned in the report accompanying the resolution for eminent domain to be discussed in the form of property easements. It's believed to be a white clapboard house pictured on page 8-16 of the report.

Rumor has it that an antique store on the street may be a present or future target as well for this or another project.


1835 MLK, Blvd


Map of city block with "subject property"



Meanwhile in the alternate universe...


Sammy Franelli drove through the empty streets of River Bottoms in his latest sports car purchased straight off the assemby line just for nights like this one. The rain that had plagued the town earlier had melted away, into moonlight and a starless night. Franelli liked to call himself the frontman of the city's council, or its whip. But from day to day, he was never sure if he was the player, or simply getting played.

He passed the Mercury, a hot bar and grill where he and his brothers on the council held their weekly meetings before the televised meetings. This is where things got done, decisions were made, partnerships were sealed over steak, medium rare in his case, and bottles of imported brewsky.

By the time they hit the council chambers, everyone was in a good mood. Oh, if their faces were a bit flushed, that could be attributed to excitement over the passage of yet another housing project. Especially on the face of Franelli's colleague Bert Diablo, who was known as the land baron of where Eminent-Domain-Is-King. His face lit up whenever another row of small businesses owned primarily by "those people" were swept up at one blow, to be converted into condos and lofts, which sat empty after it was discovered that people with money did not want to blow it just to live on top of restaurants. Diablo's kingdom was currently very quiet at the moment, as the merry men scratched their heads trying to figure out what to do next. Diablo wasn't worried as he had a secret weapon, his own personal "shadow" council.


Here's some trivia courtesy of the site log. Visitors to the site today included the following:



The city of Riverside
The county of Riverside
The state of California
The United States Department of Justice
Stanford University
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The University of California, Riverside

The Los Angeles Times strikes back

The Los Angeles Times did an interesting exploration of the reasons given by the state's law enforcement unions for shutting down S.B. 1019 at the state assembly last week. What it discovered was even more interesting.


(excerpt)


"Keep our families safe," speaker after speaker said.

The argument resonated with lawmakers and essentially killed a bill that would have provided access to disciplinary records, such as when officers use excessive force, lie in court or make racial slurs.

Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana), the Public Safety Committee chairman, said he was convinced that identifying officers involved in misconduct was "a real threat" to their safety. In an interview with The Times, he said he had been told of "numerous examples" where the release of an officer's identity in a discipline case directly led to officers and their families being harmed.

When asked to cite one such case, however, Solorio could not.

"It's one of the things where you hear so many you can't remember any," he said as he hurried to get off the phone.

Solorio wasn't alone.

The same police unions that raised the safety issue also were unable to identify a case in which the release of such information was used by a criminal or disgruntled citizen to hunt down, confront or hurt an officer or his loved ones.




Civil rights organizations and their leaders said they were shocked that this tactic has been used but they shouldn't have been if they've been paying attention to past debates on this issue. They weren't as surprised when law enforcement unions turned the tables and tried to intimidate the same elected officials they tried to sway with arguments about their safety involving legislation addressing term limits.


(excerpt)


"It's really an effective tactic," said Thomas W. Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. "When you don't have good arguments on the policy, you have to resort to fear, intimidation and in this case threats."




Maybe it's a good idea to perform a research study on this issue. But there's another side to it as well.


As someone who once had a police officer apparently "pray" for harm for me and my family and whose family had to spend its Christmas holidays in 2005 reading or hearing about it in newspapers all over the western part of the United States, I can understand the importance of both privacy and safety for one's family, albeit from a different perspective. And it's doubtful that if a civilian said this to an officer, he'd be receiving an award a year later from the local city government as occurred to one officer late last year. And what did his supervising captain call him? Part of the "great", "new" and "exciting blood" of the police department.

Someone high up clearly has a dim view of the police force if that's his measuring stick for a standard of excellence. That's a shame because there are many better examples in the department to put front and center instead. But the police culture which is as pervasive at the top of the hierarchy as it is at its bottom apparently won out again.

For people who value privacy for their families, even in casual conversation it seems to be one of the first questions on more than a few of their lips. Where do you live? Or, do you live [insert one of Riverside's 26 or so neighborhoods]? It's an odd question for people to ask who are sensitive about their own privacy if it's in a nonprofessional capacity.

Questions like that take on a different tone when being asked by police officers and if you want to understand why, read the department's policy #4.30 which governs its use of force. Level one in the use of force continuum is what is known as a uniformed presence. Meaning that in a sense, the uniform is intended to encourage or even intimidate an individual into compliance without the use of further force. That's important for law enforcement officers to do their job, but in a sense, it's sometimes a detriment to communication. And some of them may not even be aware that the uniform sometimes sends that message even in nonprofessional contacts, because it's a strong part of the professional identity that they may sometimes take for granted.

Also, as a person who had two officers I didn't know gesture me over to just talk to them and then asked me where I lived in the past week, I find it ironic that members of a profession who value their own privacy are so curious about probing into that of other people. One officer even called me over at the Orange Street Station parking lot and asked me if I was homeless even though he clearly knew who I was and said he was a regular reader of the newspaper. That was an odd experience.

However, it didn't surprise me. It's not the first time I've had officers ask me strange questions like that usually based on stories they hear from the ones that don't like me. Most of the time the ones who ask don't seem to mean any harm but obviously have been tapped into some sort of database of the grapevine kind.

Stories that I was abused as a child, stories that I burned flags, and I was evil personified, responsible for all the crime in the city and so forth. At one local business where officers used to congregate before their management discouraged that activity, several employees there asked me for copies of the newspaper at the same time. Why, because apparently some patrol officers in both swing shift and graveyard shift held informal gatherings of some type of reading circle involving the publication at that business several years ago. That wasn't long after the same employees asked me if I was that Mary and seemed surprise when they didn't see horns sprouting or at the least that I didn't share a similarity to a name originally given to a female creature with floppy ears and a wagging tail.

Obviously, someone hadn't sent these ahem, reading groups copies of Oprah Winfrey's book club reading list.

For being so skeptical about the rest of the human race, some police officers certainly appear to take anything anyone in their own crowd says at face value without second guessing it or the motives of those saying it. Part and parcel of the police culture that just exists inside every law enforcement agency to some degree. Trust your own without questioning what they say or do and distrust all outsiders.

I overheard that patrol officer make those comments about blaming my existence for the entire crime wave in the city's history probably going back into the early 1900s to a woman who told me the rest of what he said after he left.


Several years ago, I even had one plain-clothed bald officer walk alongside me from a short distance away at the Orange Street Station parking lot, glaring at me after a much shorter officer dressed in a long-sleeved navy blue tee-shirt, jeans, sneakers and a dark blue baseball cap saw me and spoke to him. The angry, pacing officer wasn't one I knew or even recognized and the tinier officer kept his face down, perhaps due to bashfulness. It was a bit intimidating at the time, but it may have been my first experience of actually seeing the rumor mill at work. The littler officer of course was gone by then, dashing off to the courthouse.

Hopefully, the taller officer counted to 10 or maybe 100, advice given by former president Thomas Jefferson back in his day, before interacting with the public in a professional capacity because he went from calm to quite irate in a nanosecond. If he was a car with that kind of acceleration, he'd be a Corvette.

I was reminded of that incident because recently, a woman I know told me another woman she knew had seen it and she had wondered if the taller bald officer had said anything to me. He hadn't, at least not through using words.

About a month or so after that in July 2005, I was walking by the station again and heard a door slam hard from a green vehicle. Then a plain clothed bald officer with a struggling goatee and a stocky build glared at me before walking towards the back entrance of the Orange Street Station, turning his head to glare back at me again several times for good measure. Bad day? Maybe next time rethink the color scheme of the shorts?

He kind of resembled the patrol officer who was telling people I was responsible for all the crime several years earlier, only older, heavier and balder. Hopefully, he counted to 10, as advised by Jefferson, before he entered the building. Most people come out of a Fourth of July weekend in a good mood, not scowling and slamming doors. I kind of felt sorry for him.


Also as a person who spoke before the Community Police Review Commission and played exhibit A before the body which initiated a policy recommendation to try and keep the addresses and phone numbers that are included on police complaints from being accessible of officers whom are the subjects of these complaints.

It makes no sense for an officer who has a complaint filed against him or her to have access to personal information on the complainant. The only purpose it would have would be to use against the complainant to retaliate or to exercise much better judgment and simply not use it at all. The sole purpose of providing it should be to provide a means for the person in charge of the investigation of a citizen complaint to contact the involved parties for interviewing purposes. So why is it so widely distributed to other people in the department who receive copies of the complaint form?

In most cases, it's probably ignored by the officer who is the subject of the complaint. But again, as incidents across the nation have shown, not all police officers are good officers and because of the efforts to keep information secret, the public has no way of telling the good officers from the bad ones so in situations like this, it's just more sensible to be cautious, prudent and keep that information from being seen by the subjects of the complaints. Unfortunately, there will be no legislation to address this issue either.

The police department still does it anyway, even when taking complaints over the phone. Some people don't file complaints because they are wary of providing that information. When you've been harassed by a police officer, the last thing you want to do is hand your personal information over to him or her on a platter. Police departments don't get that and still insist on putting it on copies of complaint forms given to the officers who are the subject of the complaints. There's no reason that they should see anything wrong with doing this because they are coming from the perspective of police officers not the complainants and that's how they conduct their investigations as well. Entirely from their own perspective which works well for the agencies and it works very well for the future of civilian review boards and commissions as well, because people want to see different perspectives examining the same things.

There was likely, scant discussion of that problem in Sacramento and it's unlikely if there had been, that emotion or even money in the form of campaign contributions to those who served on it would have been enough to sway the entire committee on this side of the issue.



When it comes to complaints, the only personal information that is readily available to outside parties, is that of the complainant and the witnesses to the alleged misconduct. After all, if a Pitchess motion is granted in a criminal or civil case, the personal information of everyone who filed a complaint against the involved officer will be given by a presiding judge to an attorney or attorneys for contact purposes. Most of the individuals who file complaints are never informed about this when they file them.



The policy recommendation sent by the CPRC was approved by the commission and sent to the city attorney's office where it was rejected because City Attorney Gregory Priamos saw no compelling reason to implement it. The department also said that most of that information was included in police reports written by those police officers. However, here's some information, not every complaint against a police officer results from a negative contact or even a professional contact with a police officer.

What these experiences and others teach is the importance of civilian oversight over police agencies. And ironically or not, it's often the most staunch opponents to this oversight who end up doing the teaching again and again, here and everywhere else. Are they aware that they are providing this opportunity for civilian oversight to grow?


Many police officers are hard-working and decent people doing a difficult job. Most of the police officers who come up to me who seem to know me even though I don't recognize or have never met them are friendly and pleasant. They appear to enjoy what they do and take pride in it and themselves. That is a healthy sign in an organization that has struggled in previous years.

But just like the rest of the human population, there are representatives of this group who are not nice and because the not so nice ones share the same badge, uniform and title of being a Riverside Police Department officer or a representative of another law enforcement agency. The people who are in the best position to keep the not so nice officers in line are the ones who are there to do their job, not engage in these activities because they seem most able to listen to others in their same social group.

Do they do this?

It's hard to say, given how insulated law enforcement agencies are from the public and how much it's clear that top to bottom, they would love to keep things that way. They tell the public to trust in their ability to hold their own accountable whether it's the rank and file officer telling another officer to knock it off with something he's done or the supervisor who reports misconduct in one of his subordinates, up to the chief who dictates policy in that agency. However, at the same time, they are lobbying their elected officials up in Sacramento or filing law suits to keep the process secret, even increasing it as if that were possible in states like California.

Actions like these actually protect the bad behaving officers more than the good ones. Is that really the point here?

That's one of the major reasons the public doubts their ability and even their interest in keeping their own accountable when misconduct takes place in their ranks.


Still, privacy for police officers and their families is very important just as it is for members of the public if they are not breaking laws for harming others. But what about the use of databases by law enforcement officers for reasons that are not professional? Will governmental agencies be addressing this issue anytime soon? Who are the ones most likely to be impacted by these abuses?


From coast to coast, there have been not anecdotes but documented cases of law enforcement officers abusing and misusing computer databases that are supposed to be used by them for professional reasons, for personal reasons. Most often, these database abuses are associated with inhouse domestic violence towards spouses of police officers which is very high in law enforcement agencies, even though barely more than half of all departments have policies set up specifically to deal with this problem. In some departments, the abuse was so rampant they had to do a wide-scale investigation.

So is it true that in some cases, it's the privacy of families of law enforcement officers that has to be protected from those law enforcement officers in domestic violence situations where improperly accessing databases is a part of the picture? Is it more likely for family members of law enforcement officers to have to fear that a violation of their privacy will be committed by an officer in their family unit?



Top 10 List of Database Abuses

Michigan officers use database to harass, stalk


Unfortunately database abuse isn't a problem limited to the United States.

How about Australia? Victoria, Australia's problem was so serious there was a recommendation to scrap the database.


Diana Wetendorf, a national expert on domestic violence committed by police officers discusses how abusive officers use professional databases to access information here and here on spouses or significant others.

But what do police officers do if one of their own is committing the violations? Do they do anything or do they do nothing calling it a "family matter"? Because since they are so closed off from everyone else by their culture, often they are in the best positions to address situations like that in each other before they become major problems.

Does their culture even allow them to admit such problems exist? Does their problem allow other officers to bring them to their attention that something needs to be done? Do the privacy rights of spouse and families trying to escape domestic violence by law enforcement officers matter as much as it appears to when those families are intact?

The other side of the issue is seldom discussed because those who are affected by it lack the lobbying power and the political influence of those trying to slam the door on civilian oversight in different venues. As more people become aware of the efforts to close the door, that balance might change.



The representative of PORAC was just as stymied at trying to address the topic, as was a union attorney.


(excerpt)


Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, said afterward that he was aware of anecdotal evidence of officers being threatened or harmed by people who learned their names through disciplinary procedures. But he was unable to cite a case in which it had happened.

The person who would have such detail, he said, was police union attorney Everett L. Bobbitt. But, when contacted by The Times, Bobbitt didn't have the information either.

"If you want me to tell you that an officer got killed because of that information, I can't," said Bobbitt, who argued the Copley case before the state's high court.

Nor could Bobbitt point to a case in which an officer had been harmed or threatened.

"Does that mean the threat isn't there?" Bobbitt said. "Of course not."




The debate is expected to continue as the bill is expected to return to the assembly floor again in some form. Senator Gloria Romero said she's not giving up or giving in on the issue.

All this is coming as the case of another Riverside Police Department officer who may have been fired in connection with a criminal case and then won in arbitration comes before the city council for further discussions on his future.

In the olden days, it used to be police chiefs who hired and fired officers. Police chiefs used to be entrusted with promoting them as well, except apparently on two occasions seven years apart. What if any of these three powers does the police chief still employ in River City? Which one is left to the city manager's office? Which to the city council?





The city of Los Angeles is being told by juries to empty its pockets to pay out several law suits involving racial discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, harassment and retaliation, according to the Associated Press.

A jury in that county has issued a preliminary verdict of $6.2 million in the case of Brenda Lee, who is a Black lesbian and there's still the next phase which involves punitive damages which usually are much higher in cost.

The taxpayers of the city of Los Angeles will be required to pay out for behavior against Lee which included placing pet urine in her mouthwash, making derogatory comments and putting her through harsh drills based solely on her race and sexual orientation.

This verdict follows a $1.9 million decision by a jury in the case involving Lewis Bressler who was retaliated against for backing Lee's efforts to get justice. Expect more to come until the fire department deals with its clearly obvious racist, sexist and homophobic culture.

One city leader said the obvious.


(excerpt)


Councilman Jack Weiss, who heads the City Council's public safety committee, said the verdict was "very alarming to anyone who has a fiduciary responsibility over the city budget."

"The most important thing is to reform the Fire Department," he said. "There's new leadership. ... Hopefully that will prevent these sorts of lawsuits."



White straight men in some of these professions need to really get over themselves before they drain a city's litigation coffer dry. Hopefully the latest fire chief entrusted by the city to fix this department can do the job.

More on the situation involving the litigation against the city regarding its fire department here.




San Bernardino County's Board of Supervisors has officially been declared "dysfunctional" by the county grand jury according to the Press Enterprise. And it was all former chairman, Bill Postmus's fault, it decided.


(excerpt)



The grand jury reviewed the sudden retirement of the former county counsel, a settlement with a politically connected developer, media leaks, partisan politics and the "dysfunctional relationships between supervisors."

"When the available information is viewed in totality the blame for allowing the dysfunctional operation of the Board of Supervisors lies squarely on the shoulder of the former chairman of the board who was, at the time, the elected leader," the grand jury report said. "The failure to resolve these long-standing differences further added to the dysfunctional perception of the board."




As of yet, there has been no similar investigation by Riverside's own grand jury to determine whether the current city council in that city is also dysfunctional and apparently no plans to conduct one. However, it's easy to lose count of how many investigations involving some aspect of Riverside's city government or infrastructure have been initiated(and subsequently quieted according to rumors) since the current city management team has been in place.

Some said, could there be something equivalent to the consent decree that former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer put on the Riverside Police Department?

Actually, some housecleaning during the election season works just as well. As more rumors of federal probes into City Hall continue to circulate.




Community activists in Memphis, Tennessee are meeting to discuss recommendations to send to the city government in wake of the latest officer involved shooting in that city according to WMCTV. That was the fatal shooting of DeAunta Farrow, 12 who pointed a toy gun at a police officer.

To no one's surprise, civilian oversight was at the top of the wish list. As was the case in dozens of other cities and counties. As will likely be the case in dozens and hundreds more from coast to coast.


(excerpt)


The first request on the list asks for a complete a thorough investigation into the shooting.

The second, and the biggest item, was a request to create something called a "citizen review board" for the police department; something community leaders insist would help ease tensions and begin the healing process.

The West Memphis Community is still searching for answers to improve relations between police and concerned citizens. They're upset by last month's deadly shooting that killed 12-year-old DeAunta Farrow.

"Right now, there is no oversight. There is no one to hold police accountable," said Hubert Bass a former city councilman.

Bass pushed for a citizen committee group years ago to answer civil rights complaints and now he's pushing for it again.

Bass added, "the commission has to have power to investigate and if they don't have that power then it means nothing."



The sentiment of that last sentence is held by many people and thousands of miles away from Memphis in Riverside, the investigation of officer-involved deaths by the Community Police Review Commission has been the target of the city's latest challenge against the seven-year-old body.


Also in political news, will Councilman Steve Adams be gaining a supporter and Councilman Dom Betro, losing a major one?

Elections 2007: Bring on the endorsements!

It's not even mid-summer with round two of the 2007 elections four months away but endorsements are already ringing in for the finalists, according to the Press Enterprise. It's appropriate that it comes as the new fiscal year in Riverside begins. The annual budget appears balanced for now but the economy judging by the sales tax revenue is taking a downturn.

As stated here, Ward Three candidate Peter Olmos who hasn't given up on the political arena has endorsed incumbent Art Gage.


(excerpt)



He said he was naïve when he threw his hat in the ring. A trip around the ward with Gage after the election taught him that Gage has delivered for his constituents, he said.

He cited the Magnolia Avenue railroad-crossing underpass that the city is planning and assistance Gage provided the Pachappa Little League.

"Results are what matter and Art's shown results," Olmos said.




He walked around with Gage at the neighborhood conference as well and said he was impressed with Gage, not so impressed with rival candidate, William "Rusty" Bailey. Olmos was concerned about Bailey's ties to development interests which some people have claimed his campaign followers have kept under wraps as they stumped for him. It's no secret that he'd be welcomed with open arms by BASS, who after all except for Steve Adams, endorsed him before he even filed his papers with the city clerk's office.

Bailey had worked several years ago for the Riverside County Economic Development Agency which was run by City Manager Brad Hudson before he jumped ship and came to Riverside.


What's funny in the article is that it states that outgoing Ward Five councilman, Ed Adkison supports Chris MacArthur calling him the hardest working candidate he has ever seen. Why is that interesting? Because it's been said widely that Adkison himself urged MacArthur to enter into the city council race. Most people it seems have known for months that Adkison backed MacArthur before the official announcement.


Not surprisingly, candidate Derek Thesier, a really nice guy who ran in the Ward One election is backing challenger Mike Gardner.


Daniel Gressman, who ran in Ward Seven but didn't run an aggressive campaign because he was weary of the mudslinging threw in his hat for Terry Frizzel who faces off against Councilman Steve Adams.


(excerpt)


"I believe we both want to preserve our current lifestyle in Ward 7 and the city as a whole," Gressmann said. "This means not trying to become the next mega-city in Southern California."





A lot of people in the police department are moving around while Lincoln Field Operations Station undergoes what is expected to be a 90 day renovation period. Different employees will be farmed out to either the Magnolia Police Center or the Orange Street Station, but it seems with the latter, there's not that many more people that you can fit in that building which is expected to see at least four more years of operation while it is under lease with its new owners, the county of Riverside.

The department's dispatchers are still in their sensory deprivation chamber in the basement of the Orange Street Station which is a very big concern especially in the case of a major earthquake as one would guess that this building from the 1960s is not very seismically protected and since Riverside is fairly close to both the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults which are both capable of easily generating quakes in the 7.0-8.0 range, this is quite a concern.




The latest serial rapist is running around in Riverside and Corona, according to the Press Enterprise and the police are looking for the public's help to find him.

Brings back memories of several close calls at apartment complexes in Riverside some years back when tenants would report a man wearing black including down to his hat and gloves who was clearly casing out women in their apartments. He used to hide behind a stairwell if anyone was looking at him so he would be out of sight but still able to see between the space between the steps. He was even given a nickname by the tenants but I can't remember what it was. He had just appeared there out of no where one day and then kept coming back, always at night.

In the laundry room, we used to share stories of who got cased the prior evening. Calls to the police at the time resulted in long delays or no response and calls to the security company resulted in 45 minute trips because one security guard did the rounds of different complexes in two different cities. So my neighbor who went to put the cat out at 2 a.m. and saw a strange man in her yard who would then ask her if she knew where so-and-so lived couldn't get police help after she slammed the door. She thought it was because she was on welfare but the staffing shortage was more acute then than it is now so that may have been a factor as well. Even the landlord reported the man in black with the black gloves and got no where.

Neighborhood Watch started and stalled in the complex as it likely does in rental complexes with high turnover rates, but we always had the laundry room.

It's probably not the only case where neighbors have met and while folding laundry or loaning each other quarters for the machines, talked about how so-and-so's car got shot at while driving down the street or about the new tenant who had moved in on what was called the "drug dealer's special" which is what happens when landlords who are desperate to lower vacancy rates offer huge discounts for rent or even free months to new tenants, i.e. move in and get the second month free. People often didn't call the police to report these things either out of fear or because of lack of followup. I did report once to my elected official about drug dealers in the complex, and came home to find a business card from the Riverside Police Department on my door for everyone including the drug dealers to see and one thing drug dealers don't like is when their neighbors tell on them. It's bad for their businesses I imagine, and getting harassed by drug dealers who are upset at you for reporting then like getting harassed by police officers who are upset with you for criticizing them is not fun.


Police officers often complain that people in a neighborhood won't report anything and often that's true, but they won't until they trust the police officers in their neighborhood, they see these officers and talk to them and the officers make the effort to talk with them. And just as important, the people feel that it's safe to report things without physical harm to themselves or their families.

John Campbell, the keynote speaker at the neighborhood conference last weekend talked about this type of thing where the first steps taken by people witnessing criminal behavior in their neighborhood is to discuss it with each other, one by one until everyone's talking about it. It can be over someone's fence, inside someone's living room or in a laundry room with a broken lock on the door and a vending machine with a cage around it. A lot of my neighbors would have been nodding their head at a lot of what he said about his own efforts at neighborhood organization in Portland, Oregon.

The laundry room did provide a good place for discussion on what was going on in the complex. It was one way for people to build relationships in a transitory setting like an apartment complex where tenants came and went. Enough so that people felt that people were looking out for one another, especially the women. Also, it's always good to have someone to remind you not to mix colors and whites unless you wanted pink socks.

One of the topics for a while was the guy who kept hanging around in people's yards, asking for so-and-so who never seemed to be someone who actually lived there. It was the biggest topic since the guy who habitually showed up at the complex and always seemed to leave his pants at home.

Every female neighbor had a story and they all sounded similar. The guy intimidated everyone during his stint at the complex.

When it was my turn to be cased, I was up all night because my cat was delivering kittens and at one time, I went outside between kittens and he was standing behind the stairwell, and the light reflected his face between the steps. The next night, fortunately I got up and saw that he was trying to open my window. Fortunately, when he saw me, he first hid to the side of the window then set a record probably, the 200 meter sprint to the gate, which of course was broken that night as it had been for several months. My first encounter with him was when he approached me three evenings in a row and asked me if a cat sitting nearby was my cat. Maybe if the cat hadn't been there, I would have been asked if I knew so-and-so unless he saved that as an excuse to be loitering in people's yards in the middle of the night.

Then he disappeared for a while and people wondered about that too. But it turned out, he had just changed apartment complexes.

One morning, good news in the laundry room! Some UCR Police Department officers had picked him up at one of the complexes owned by the university where I suppose he made his rounds as well. He had done the same routine, asking people if they knew so-and-so, who was never anyone who actually lived in the complex he was scouting apparently. And he had a sex offender background that went back quite a few years.

Everyone slept much more soundly that night. Thank goodness no one wanted to mess around with university students many of whom have concerned parents or families who might pressure the university administrators if their children told them the university area was unsafe. University administrators are notorious for not wanting parents of their students to even know that crimes take place on the campus, often releasing statistics that are misleading or less than accurate.

One year, UCR stated that it had zero rapes reported when the Women's Resource Center had at least 60 women come in for counseling who were rape victims. Some had occurred in other cities and were reported there but many were in Riverside and many apparently weren't reported. If they had been reported to UCR, would they have been tabulated and reported accurately in statistical form for the public?

The Riverside Police Department has improved a lot in handling these things in the past few years. A lot of awareness and training in this area in law enforcement in general in the last 20 years benefiting some women more than others. Were university students seen as a greater priority than women at another complex who were mostly Black and Latino and with some living on public assistance?

There was some discussion about that in the laundry room after the man who always seemed to be looking for so-and-so was finally caught. And women were actually giving thanks that he had chosen to target White university students, not because they wished harm on any women but because they felt that had to happen for it and him to be taken seriously.

But the Riverside Police Department's sexual assault and child abuse division has faced staffing issues of its own, according to a memo submitted by former Lt. Jay Theuer that somehow ended up being included in the arbitration case involving former Det. Al Kennedy who was fired for sexual misconduct but later reinstated by an arbitrator. It's not clear how much damage was done by Kennedy's appalling behavior to the sexual assault unit and how it impacted public trust in it, given how few women report sexual assault to police departments even under the best of circumstances.

The memo said that more detectives were needed to ease the caseload on those assigned to that division and just as importantly, they were needed for assignment when the current detectives in that unit felt that they had to leave it and work in another assignment. According to the memo, detectives had to wait at least six months to a year to be reassigned which is too long for a detective who may be burned out.

Have these problems been fixed? After all, staffing problems continue to plague the field operations division, which led to the creation of 35 positions in the past several years.

A lot of it is education of law enforcement officers and the public, a UCR detective once told me. He, for example, said that he hoped and always told women to report even men who exposed themselves in public because they could be helping in the prevention of more major crimes by that person in the future. Reporting these incidents and never feeling you needed to apologize for wasting someone else's time were two factors to keep in mind. That attitude does help women a lot in these situations and it helps the profession that officers especially male officers are telling women these things.

Hopefully, gone are the days when you try to report a man exposing himself and the police say, " men are deviant creatures and it's a free country" and "was he your boyfriend and is this about you having a fight with him?" before adding at the end that this is the 10th report that they had received about the man in the white car exposing himself to female students near a local high school that week.

It's difficult enough for many women to report this type of behavior particularly to male police officers and face it, over 90% of them in patrol are still male officers. And it's not always clear what they've been taught on these types of reports because it's probably not easy for them either. And if they don't receive enough training, then that makes it that much harder.

So the police department is asking the press to ask the public to help them find the latest serial rapist which is good. But what will make the difference is how well the Riverside Police Department(and its counterpart in Corona)relates to the neighborhoods where this rapist has struck and how people in those neighborhoods relate to them, as well as the relationships based on reality and not on image that they've build in other neighborhoods in this city.

Because more often than not, that is what does make the difference.







As the Riverside Police Department prepares to conduct its second 40-hour training session on mental health training for its police officers, the county's grand jury has come back with a report highly critical of the county's main mental health facility, according to the Press Enterprise.

A lot of administrative problems at the facility which is housed in the Riverside County Regional Medical Center as well as patient care. But will the grand jury's recommendations included in its reports help change things or will the report be cast on the shelf to gather dust like other reports have?

One individual interviewed in the article said it best.


(excerpt)



"I will be disappointed if nothing gets done," said Dr. Hanaa Fam, a psychiatrist at the facility. "If it means nothing will happen, it will be even worse than if the investigation never happened."


This is the truth about just about any investigation involving a public agency or facility. The county grand jury can be a very valuable tool, but if its recommendations are ignored, that's almost worse than if it never existed at all.





Moving the main branch of Riverside's public library isn't happening any time soon according to columnist Dan Bernstein.


(excerpt)


"I suggested it," Riverside Councilman Andy Melendrez told me a few days ago. "It fell like a lead balloon."

Seems Melendrez and Tackaberry were on the same page. The councilman's ward includes the notorious and historically snubbed University Avenue. A library on this drag, wrote Tackaberry, "would revitalize this neglected area and serve as a community center for the Eastside. Make it a showplace entrance to our downtown and a bridge to the University Village developments."

Melendrez floated his balloon as a newish councilman. "Unfortunately, people had already committed to see it (Old Main) developed in its current spot."

The commitment solidified in April when the City Council inked a $2.2 million contract with reputable LA architects to design and manage construction of a $25 million expansion that would create more library space, swallow the muni museum (now across the street) and maybe include a 200-seat lecture hall. The addition could reach 40K square feet. The existing library (60K square feet) would be remodeled. No word about parking.

If the city goes through with this plan, it won't be the best Riverside can do. The old library is a tear-down, and it's time to tear it down.


Maybe a better idea is just to rebuild the dais at city council. How a vibrant library facility was excluded from the Riverside Renaissance frenzy is just unimaginable.

When David meets Goliath: Why the police unions are the best thing to happen to civilian oversight, part two

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

---Wizard of Oz, written by L. Frank Baum




Orange County Register Columnist Steven Greenhut chimed in on the outcry against the actions against the state's law enforcement unions who not only shut down a vote in an assembly committee but apparently pressured that committee to shut down the access that the public would normally have to the one-sided debate on S.B. 1019.

Hundreds of police officers appeared in Sacramento to oppose the bill.


(excerpt)


There were perhaps hundreds of them in attendance – mostly big, burly white men, dressed typically in sport coats that were emblazoned with pins from the cop agencies and government unions they represent. Quite frankly, they strutted around like they owned the place, which is pretty accurate given that they basically do own most of the legislators.



Actually, if they had "owned the place", they probably would have called in their objection to the bill from home base rather than appeared in person in such large numbers hundreds of miles away from where many of them are located. Doing this might have been intended to show strength but oddly enough, it showed just the opposite. It was an act born of desperation by individuals who feared that lobbying their position away from the capitol wasn't nearly enough to protect their interests.

Fear is what has made them issue statements included in emails making the rounds that were sent to state legislators that say if you don't do this[vote against S.B. 1019], we'll do this[push for term limits] when one has nothing to do with the other on its face. It can only be looked at as a scare tactic by people who are apparently more frightened by accountability outside their sphere than was previously thought.



Greenhut in his column described the process that most of the public was not even allowed to see because among other things, the public access camera was turned off by the committee during the hearing. The public was not allowed to see that only those who opposed the bill had reserved seating while those who supported it were left scrambling for seats and were even pushed away from seats that were reserved by members of the committee for law enforcement officers only.


(excerpt)


SB1019 would let municipalities decide whether or not to have open disciplinary hearings, and it created a special protection by allowing a police chief to allow certain information to be secret because of its sensitive nature. The chairman claimed that he didn't like the bill because it allowed cities to set their own standards and that he preferred a statewide standard. Yet Solorio opposed the previous bill also, which included those exact standards he now said he wants. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland, where words don't mean anything in particular, but rather are spin to excuse a preordained conclusion.

As far as wanting more amendments, a frustrated Romero told the committee: "I introduced this bill months and months and months ago. … Not one amendment has ever been offered to me. Not one paragraph, not one sentence, not one word, not one syllable." What was offered from two leading police organizations: a direct threat to legislators that the groups would oppose term-limits reform (that's hitting below the belt, given that legislators desperately want to stay in office longer) if this legislation ever becomes law.

Backers of the bill assembled a wide range of supporters. The list of opponents consisted entirely of police organizations, unions and government groups.

What is it they fear?

The Orange County Sheriff's Department was represented at the hearing, and opposed the legislation, as was the Orange County District Attorney's Office. Ironically, opponents argued that SB1019 isn't needed because cities already have civilian oversight of law enforcement. Yet O.C.'s sheriff and D.A. also testified at the county Board of Supervisors meeting in opposition to civilian review.

They don't call it the Secrecy Lobby for nothing.

What a disgusting outcome. In a free society, the law should tilt in favor of oversight, in favor of the public's right to know. In all the discussions at the hearing, the voice missing from the debate, Romero pointed out, was the public's. "The people were absent."

Our voice is still missing, but it's never too late to raise it.




Romero, "the people" weren't invited to this dialogue only those who aren't interested in compromise, but only want what they want, when they want it. And if you don't hand it over to them on a plate, they'll tell you what the "or else" means, in this case threatening to use their muscle to push for term limits which can be seen as nothing else but a naked attempt at intimidation far beneath the characters of those who wear uniforms and police the streets. But again, fear does strange things to people and law enforcement's reaction to something that scares them from outside themselves is to circle the wagons around them even tighter and as always, lash out in some form.

Most often, their actions are at their own expense. Police officers during the quiet times work hard to build bridges with the community and no where has that been seen more than in Riverside. However, it's a lot harder to build a bridge than it is to damage or destroy one and that's also true, metaphorically speaking. When fear threatens to rear its head again as it was last week, that becomes especially apparent to everyone.

The people, whose taxes pay the salaries of those who conduct it were not included or given consideration. The taxes which pay for the construction and upkeep of the building which serves as its venue. The people who even pay the salaries of those who were invited as "special guests" of the chair of the committee.

You can call the process that took place a lot of things and its critics have, but don't call it democratic.

And like Greenhut said, the behavior shown at the state's highest office was motivated by fear. It's a very sad thing to see hardworking law enforcement officers who act bravely in many other circumstances show what's akin to raw fear at a state's highest venue but it is what it is. And one of the things that it is, is great advertising for the importance of civilian oversight and increased transparency over the processes which govern the investigations of law enforcement officers. It's like running an infomercial on why civilian review boards and commissions are crucial that's free and that will ultimately prove to be effective.

It's likely that each time this bill or another comes up, we'll see more of the same, given that at least one state representative Gloria Romero hasn't backed down on her efforts to bring this issue to the table. She plans to reintroduce an amended version of the bill in upcoming weeks. It's fairly predictable what will happen then.

Every time, police unions lash out in this matter towards civilian review, another board or commission is usually born first in the minds of the residents of a city, county or town that witnesses their behavior, then not long after, it becomes reality. That's why police unions are the best thing that happened to civilian review although that's probably not their intention.

Interestingly enough, the two lead investigators of allegations of police misconduct including criminal violations are the police agencies and the county prosecutors and neither entity wanted this bill to pass. Outside of these two interest groups, few to no organizations were in opposition to S. B. 1019.



Opponents of S.B. 1019 are included here.


(excerpt, partial list)


OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/7/07)

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California School Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Orange County Employees Association
Organization of SMUD Employees
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Diego County Court Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Rosa City Employees Association
Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement




Neither the police officers or the county prosecutors apparently want the public to know what they are doing to hold each other accountable. What is laid bare through this episode for all to see is that the interdependency between law enforcement agencies and prosecutory agencies that in a sense must exist for them to do their jobs makes the processes they use to investigate officers or maintain a check and balance against officer misconduct fraught with potential bias and other problems.


And if you ever needed evidence that county prosecutors were as ill-suited to hold law enforcement agencies and officers accountable as many of those agencies appear to be, witness the marriage of convenience between the two entities in opposition to a bill which would bring transparency to the process that only exist because members of the public don't trust either one of them to do this job. One of those "marriages" exists between the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the Orange County District Attorney's office, according to the Orange County Register.






Michael Schlosberg, from the ACLU Northern California's Police Practices subdivision, wrote a preview of what was to come when S.B. 1019 reached the floor of the assembly subcommittee.




(excerpt)


And, just four years ago, following a series of hearings throughout the state, then-Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson authored three relatively modest pieces of legislation to promote accountability. The bills would have mandated that police departments develop early warning systems to track problem officers, have a location where citizens could file complaints outside of the police department, and create some minimal whistleblower protections for police officers. All three were opposed by the police lobby and all three failed.

This time, however, this situation is different. There is a wide coalition from newspapers, to civil rights organizations, from libertarians to progressive law enforcement and oversight professionals supporting SB 1019. Also, this time the police associations' aggressive opposition has not been kept behind closed doors, but has become public for all to see.

Two organizations, prior the Senate vote on the bill last month, threatened to torpedo term limit reform if SB 1019 passed out of the legislature. Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), exposed the threat on the floor of the senate and the bill passed by a narrow 22-11 margin.

Now SB 1019 heads to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where its members - including San Francisco's own Fiona Ma - are sure to face similarly strong pressure from the police lobby. Assembly member Ma has yet to indicate which way she will vote.




The Modesto Bee also provided a preview here.



(excerpt)



The good guys won a few early rounds for the public's right to know. But secrecy is a tough, determined foe, and right now the fight is too close to call.

As we shared earlier, the state Senate last month approved Senate Bill 1019, which would overturn a bad court decision and restore the public's access to information about serious police misconduct, such as excessive force and corruption.

The bill made it through the Senate by a 22-10vote, despite opposition by powerful police unions as well as our two senators, Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, and Jeff Denham, R-Merced.

The Senate did the right thing. After all, the only people who stand to gain by covering up serious misdeeds are the minority of bad cops on our police forces; good, honest cops should have nothing to fear.

We hope the Assembly will follow the Senate's lead. Tuesday, the bill is scheduled for consideration by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where the secrecy lobby will try once again to block it. We hope the committee, which includes one of our assemblymen, Greg Aghazarian, R-Stockton, will advance SB 1019 to the next round and eventual approval by the full Assembly.




This publication's correct. Good police officers aren't the ones who have anything to fear from this bill. The majority of police officers in most law enforcement agencies do not habitually receive complaints nor do they accumulate large numbers of sustained complaints.

No, the ones who have the most to fear from S.B. 1019 are the ones who are habitual offenders and the good police officers who listen to them and believe that behavior is deserving of a merit badge.

But despite the lobbying done by the police unions who mostly represent the rank and file officers, the ones who fear this bill the most are those who manage and supervise them and the agencies that employ them. You see, if there was more available information on sustained complaints, it might become more apparent even at the statistical level that many law enforcement agencies weren't properly tracking or addressing the officers who cause the majority of the problems in their agencies. It might be clear from a statistical level, whether or not the majority of these officers were ever even disciplined.

For example, if a police chief says that the majority of the time, he institutes training as discipline to officers who have committed misconduct. Yet, statistics show that he or she hasn't given out training to any officer but either takes no reportable action or issues written reprimands.

The city and county governments fear bills like S.B. 1019 as well for reasons related to risk management and civil liability issues in relation to litigation filed against them for police misconduct including excessive force. That is why the League of California Cities is on the list of organizations in opposition to this bill.

As you can see in at least one city, the employees who were hired to supervise the head of the police department are apparently, actually trying to oversee and perhaps even run the agency itself for reasons known only by them and guessed by everyone else.

But who does it appear that it's more important to protect, the good officers or the bad ones?


That's the crux, in that if it's true that 20% of a department's officers commit 80% of the misconduct, that is one thing. But if it's abundantly clear that the police agencies seem more intent on protecting those officers in the minority who commit a lion share of the misconduct than those in the majority, something much larger is at work here than just the commonly tossed about "bad apple" theory that is used as a reason for explaining 100% of all misconduct that occurs. Instead, it would be evidence of a more systemic problem within that particular agency or law enforcement in general.



The Sacramento Bee wrote an article about threats the Professional Peace Officers Association made if the bill were to pass the assembly.



(excerpt)


The threat came from John Stites, president of the Professional Peace Officers Association, in a group e-mail that a law enforcement lobbyist forwarded to some legislative staffers. The e-mail eventually made it to legislators and the media, including the Los Angeles Times.

Stites said in the e-mail, "Ensure that it be understood that this will only be the beginning."

Democratic leaders in the Legislature are backing an effort to amend the term limits of lawmakers. A Californian can serve six years in the Assembly and another eight in the state Senate. An initiative crafted by the Legislature for voters to consider next year would allow a lawmaker to serve either in the Assembly or the Senate for 12 years.

That issue had nothing to do with Senate Bill 109 by Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles. SB 109 has everything to do with the records of discipline investigations by agencies such as the Los Angeles Police Department. The department, taking advantage of a controversial court ruling that allowed law enforcement agencies to seal their discipline records, now prohibits access to records that reveal the decision-making process in any given case. Romero's bill is of particular importance to the state's largest city, where the police handling of high-profile incidents seems to be a never-ending subject of controversy.

Romero publicized the e-mail from the police group linking its threatened opposition to term limits if her disciplinary bill continues to live. The Senate recently passed it with a slight majority, and it awaits an uncertain future in the Assembly.

So next year, if you see advertisements with police officers in uniforms decrying changes to term limits, look for the subtext of another message at work: Police unions telling the Legislature, "Don't mess with us or we'll mess with you."




The need to do do this comes from two things. It comes from anger and it comes from fear. Which emotion is the stronger one in this case remains to be seen, not if but when this bill comes back, because indeed it will until the eventual day when it is passed.


The San Francisco Sentinel published an article about how similar tactics had been used but failed when S.B. 1019 went before the state senate where it passed after receiving votes from both sides of the aisle.


(excerpt)


On June 5, SB 1019 passed the California State Senate despite, or maybe because of an emailed threat to link the bills passage to law enforcement opposition to term limit changes. We reported earlier about how the President of the Professional Police Officers Association (PPOA) and the Southern California Association of Law Enforcement (SCALE), wrote an e-mail to a chief lobbyist of multiple high-profile law enforcement organizations with the following passage:

“As I have said all along, PPOA and SCALE adamantly oppose this legislation to the point that if it is passed we will move quickly to oppose any term limit reform legislation publicly. There is no compromise on this. Ensure that it be understood that this will only be the beginning. I do not know how I can be more clear on this issue.”

When that happened in the Senate, it was the subject of discussion at a Democratic caucus, and the bill passed on a 22 to 11 vote, with 4 Republican Senators joining 18 Senate Democrats. Only one Democratic Senator, Lou Correa, voted against it. At the time, Romero said:

“This is one where it did come up in caucus. The members were a bit amazed in looking at this [holding email in her hands] but what I think this email threat shows the extent to which the bill’s positions were distorted and intimidation was used to the extent that when they thought it was perhaps going to garner passage on the floor today, they resorted to this type of bold obloquy blackmail. This is just reprehensible, it shouldn’t occur in a democracy.

“So, I guess you can expect term limits to be opposed heavily by this group. That’s the threat they clearly have here in their email message, but I intend, I asked for them to come in and speak with me about this. The President of the Senate has asked them to come in and speak to him about this. I intend to ask each and every member of this legislature to denounce this type of unethical, illegal bullying behavior. This should have no place in the Capitol.”

The threat didn’t work in the California State Senate. It shouldn’t in the Assembly. I wouldn’t expect many Republicans to support the bill, although four principled Republican Senators did so in that house. I would expect Democrats to support this measure in the Assembly. They ought to at least tell us where they stand, and why.



It's not clear what "worked" in the assembly, but this tactic did fail in the senate vote. In fact, it actually enhanced the chances of the bill passing because it provided the state senators as well as members of the public a lesson in exactly why civilian oversight of law enforcement agencies is so important. The actions of several law enforcement organizations hit that point home so well, in fact much better than any of S.B. 1019's allies ever could. Sometimes as unfortunate as it is to see the police unions resort to this behavior, there is a silver lining attached to it as shown through the passage of the senate bill.

Maybe next time, the assembly can find the same courage and resolve to stand up to it. And maybe the more moderate members of the involved law enforcement organizations can stand up to those who use those tactics and say, let's not repeat that behavior because that is not who and what we are and what being a police officer represents to us.

After all, do we want people to think we use these same tactics on the job because it's likely that this is the impression that we are giving?

After all, the impression that is already given the public is that the police officers protect their own especially those engaged in misconduct because of the "blue wall" and that have great difficulty in investigating and even policing themselves. Perhaps it is those internal struggles which the police agencies and their unions do not want the public to see and they believe that inhibiting transparency will keep the public from finding out. Unfortunately, when scandals break like those involving the LAPD, the New Orlean Police Department, the Atlanta Police Department, the Maywood Police Department and countless others, they are on display in technicolor for everyone to see.

Take Atlanta for example. Narcotics officers involved in criminal conduct including most likely murder in relation to the shooting death of an elderly Black woman whose house they lied to a judge to break into. Further probes by outside agencies showing how widespread this behavior may be in conjunction with years of complaints by city residents that were ignored. Put all that together with a sustain rate on citizen complaints that never rose above 3%.

All of a sudden, it appears that because of outside involvement, the internal affairs division of the Atlanta Police Department is under scrutiny as well, years after Human Rights Watch first noted these same problems on its Shielded from Justice report on Atlanta.

S.B. 1019 will be back in some form. That much can be said for sure and in large part, it's not despite the tactics that the law enforcement unions chose to exercise, it's because of them.



Another day, another Los Angeles Police Department officer arrested under investigation for alleged misconduct, according to the Associated Press. This time it was Officer Brian Lawrence Gossh who was busted for driving under the influence of a substance.

A corruption probe that was too long in coming continues in Maywood Police Department according to the Los Angeles Times. It was only through an investigative reporting series done by this newspaper that the department and the city that runs it were shamed enough to realize that yes, there was serious corruption in its ranks. Corruption born of hiring a force, one-third of which including its police chief are either rejects of other police departments or convicted criminals.

It's strange how when the public suddenly becomes aware of embarrassing information about a law enforcement agency that all these other agencies including the State Attorney General's office, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office and the Department of Justice decide that it's time to look into the situation.

These and other reasons are why S.B. 1019 and the dialogue it initiated until it got onto the floor of the assembly's subcomittee matters. The tactics used by the police unions to block its passage is proof positive that it does matter. It also taught the public an important lesson that if someone tells you to not look behind the curtain, it's time to take a look. Hopefully, next year all sides of this issue will be able to appear in the same venue for a discussion void of attempts to shut it down, fear or intimidation and allow the bill to succeed or fail on its own merit.