Election 2009: Let the fundraising begin

The Riverside City Council's Governmental Affairs Committee is taking advantage of the slow summer months to hold a meeting on Wednesday July 9 at 3 p.m. at City Hall to consider pushing for another change in the format of city elections. This comes after voters passed another initiative in November 2006 adopting the current format that was used in 2007. City officials began grumbling about that format almost right away and that angst culminated in a Governmental Affairs Committee meeting late last year when changing the format of the elections was discussed by that committee including by one of the losing candidates of last year's elections. Only in that case, there were suggestions to have all city council ward runoff elections be done citywide, a move which would come close to stamping out grass-roots campaigns and turn the elections back into the fundraising competitions that they ought to be. Don't be surprised if that suggestion pops up again.




One of the possible changes would be whether or not to hold runoff elections at all. As you recall, the runoff elections were pivotal in the Ward One election last year and nearly impacted the race in the seventh ward as well.

If the city council had instituted election through plurality which is one of the options on the plate for consideration, then the person representing Ward One on the dais would be someone else. This is not an isolated example as there have been other cases where city election runoff elections yielded different winners than the preliminary rounds. In fact, for a while it was the rule that the results flip-flopped from the preliminary elections to the runoffs and that the eventual winner was usually the second-placed candidate during the first round.

Yet, the report seems to state that runoff elections are inconsequential due to low voter turnout. Instead of working on increasing voter turnout, the city seems more determined to punish the voters who do come out for the runoff elections by saying that their actions are inconsequential when the real problem is, their actions often mean everything. And with some key elected officials planning to toss in their hats to run again for their seats next year, it's difficult to look at this agenda item and not wish to examine it further. Think hard on why it's important to change the status of the runoff elections at this point in time. Actually, you shouldn't have to think too hard. It's hard not to see this latest ruffling of the papers as being unrelated to Election 2007.

Most of the changes on the report require a voter approved initiative to change the city's charter and if the city council does pass an initiative at its own meeting, it will be the second one to appear on the ballot in about five years. If we continue in the route that we're going, these ballot initiatives on how to format the elections could turn out to be an annual event.


Read here for more information on this potent discussion item. You are allowed to attend this meeting although when the members of the Governmental Affairs Committee don't agree or don't like what you're saying, several members may try to interrupt you and try to use up all of your speaking time by doing so. If this happens, just ignore them and keep speaking on your point. You have to exercise the patience that these individuals may not have and try to make your comments because state law affords you this right. If they make personal comments about you, if they compare blogs or bloggers to stuff that's flushed down that's brown, they are simply sharing an opinion. It's your three minutes and as long as you're being polite, let them throw a temper tantrum about what you're saying on their own time. After all, they are allotted plenty of time to do so already within the meeting and if they run out of time, they can always designate part of the written agenda for "temper tantrums" at future meetings.

Still since Governmental Affairs hardly meets anymore, it's always interesting to see the dynamics play out on this once vibrant body.

Speaking of city reports, as you know the city's Web site was putting out error messages which stated there wasn't enough storage space this past weekend if you tried to access the reports online. It was restored by Monday morning, but this problem which has happened before hinders the ability of city residents to access city council agenda reports sooner than one day before the meetings.



This agenda for this week's city council meeting has a lot of consent calendar items on it including one that's to put a spending cap on specific plans to undergo the second stage of the Metropolitan Museum expansion. Yes, it's important to save money especially in these trying fiscal times but it's hard to approve an item on designing the renovation plan for cultural institution when the blue-ribbon panel that was to provide recommendations for that renovation has yet to present its report to the city government. This situation is just one which is going to have to be closely watched by city residents greatly interested in the futures of the downtown library and museum. But people have been doing a great job at remaining involved with this issue, providing City Manager Brad Hudson with the crowded city council chambers he had asked for and then some. But it's not clear still which direction the city council will go. Will it go with the will of the people (who including the blue ribbon panel support two different expansion projects) or does it include the will of Hudson (who wanted a joint venture)? That's a tough one to call on any issue and no one's up for election this year.

It's hard to believe what's said at times because then you'd have to accept as true the line that the city manager's office gave out several weeks ago about the police department being "fully staffed" when it apparently doesn't even have an "on call" sexual assault and child abuse detective this fiscal year. Yet not one person is challenging that information that was provided on the dais or off of it or even asking for further explanation or enlightenment on how the staffing of sergeants and lieutenants in field operations is better than ever. The same attitude as elected officials adopted in the 1990s is playing out now. Some things never change.



Speaking of elections, the Michael Williams Company is putting on some fundraisers for some candidates pretty soon. It's never too early to start filling the campaign war chests for next year.



Ward Six Councilwoman Nancy Hart: Thursday, July 24 at 5:30-8 p.m.at a private residence.


Mayor Ron Loveridge: Wednesday, Aug. 21 between 5:30 p.m.-8p.m. at Caio Bella restaurant.

If you can't make this Loveridge gig, he's hosting another one on Oct. 30 at 5:30-8 p.m. at the Citrus City Grill in the Riverside Plaza.



All of the parties are $125 per "regular" person, $250 per "VIP" and about $1,000 per table. So if you have the bucks to spend, the food at these restaurants is pretty good and it will just cost a bit more than you'd usually pay.



This organization also is putting on fundraisers for Ward Two Councilman Andrew Melendrez but as of yet, none are scheduled.




A lawsuit filed against Cornado by a professional football player who was shot by an off-duty police officer settled for $5 million.




Five Metro officers arrested in Indianapolis. Not surprisingly, people are concerned.


(excerpt, The Indy Channel)



The sex, drug and gun-related arrests are not endemic of a larger problem within the department, said Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, but they have given a black eye to the department, 6News' Derrik Thomas reported.

"The officers I've talked to really want the bad people caught," Ballard said. "This is about trust. The public has to trust IMPD, no question about it. I believe they should take comfort in the fact that IMPD is policing themselves. They are finding out and rooting out the bad apples."

Jeremy Lee, 30, was the most recent IMPD officer charged with a crime. He was charged Wednesday with felony aiding prostitution and was being held Thursday on $18,000 bond.

Jason Barber, 32, was charged earlier this week with selling a firearm to a felon. He was released after posting $5,000 bond.

Three officers who were charged with drug trafficking in a federal case -- Robert B. Long, 34, Jason P. Edwards, 36, and James Davis, 33 -- remain held without bond.









A Washington Post columnist stated that police officers need to do the right thing. An officer in Prince George County was killed as was the man arrested for killing him and was later found dead in his cell.



(excerpt)



This is, of course, hardly shocking news. The Blue Wall, the vow of silence that binds law enforcement officers, is so strong that the few who feel compelled to inform on wayward colleagues become the stuff of Hollywood chronicles. Decades after Frank Serpico told authorities about widespread police bribery in New York, his name remains a curse word to many officers.

In a nationwide poll of police by the National Institute of Justice, 61 percent said officers "do not always report even serious violations by fellow officers," and 67 percent said whistle-blowers were likely to be "given a cold shoulder."

So why should bad guys and ordinary citizens pay heed when police and prosecutors lecture them about how it's their civic duty to come forward with information about crimes? If law enforcement officers won't think of themselves as righteous whistle-blowers rather than as rats or snitches, how can a system that depends on witness testimony possibly function?

Great questions. It'd be interesting to see what the answers would be.



Who is behind "Badge Wars"? A police department's internal division is trying to find out. This comes amidst the mayor and other politicians supporting the drug testing of police officers.







The New York City Police Department management has declined to take action against officers who had complaints against them sustained by the Civilian Complaint Review Board.




The NYPD's response is as follows.



NYPD Response to CCRB Report for 2007

Considering the fact that NYPD officers had approximately 23 million
contacts with the public in 2007, the number of complaints registered
with the CCRB last year, 7,559, was tiny. It also came at a time when
the CCRB has done an excellent job of making it easy to file
complaints against officers, through 311, the Internet and through
CCRB's own outreach.

CCRB's report for 2007 released today, July 5, 2008, is misleading in
a number of respects. The following NYPD comment highlights the
salient points:

Complaint Activity

The CCRB received 103 or 1.3% fewer complaints in 2007 as compared to
2006 (7,559 vs. 7,662).

• The CCRB asserts that the overall decrease in substantiated
allegations in 2007 "speaks to the care with which the agency and the
board take before finding that an officer engaged in misconduct". This
self-serving statement ignores the more obvious fact that uniformed
members of the Department are committing fewer acts of misconduct.

• In 2007, the Board substantiated the lowest percentage of all closed
cases (2.7%) and the lowest percentage of all closed allegations
(2.0%) than it has in the past ten (10) years.

• Over the past five (5) years, complaints were nearly seven times
more likely (10,297 vs. 1,434) to be closed as exonerated, unfounded
or unsubstantiated, than substantiated.

• Of the 7,924 closed cases in 2007, just 2.7% (217) had one or more
allegations that were substantiated, while 30.3% (2,403) had
allegations classified as employee exonerated, unfounded or
unsubstantiated.

• In 2007, 62.1% (4,920 out of 7,924) of all cases closed by the Board
were truncated, the highest percentage over the previous ten (10)
years. Furthermore, the Board's truncation rate for 2007 increased
3.2% (62.1% vs. 60.2%) as compared to 2006 and increased 24.4% as
compared to 2000.

• The Board truncated over double the number of cases in 2007 than it
did in 2002 (4,920 vs. 2,446).

• Although the Civilian Complaint Review Board claims that Findings on
the Merits were made for 62.4% of all allegations that received a full
investigation in 2007, only 2.0% (505 out of 24,811) of the total
allegations closed by the Board during the period were actually
substantiated.

• In comparison to 2006, the rate at which the Board has substantiated
allegations has declined 25.9% (2.0% vs. 2.7%).

• Of the 2,796 cases closed where the Board conducted a full
investigation between January and December 2007, 85.9% (2,403) were
classified as employee exonerated, unfounded or unsubstantiated.

• Of the 7,179 allegations closed with Findings on the Merits by the
CCRB during the January through December 2007 time period, 93% (6,674)
of the allegations were either unfounded or employee exonerated.

• The proportion of substantiated Stop, Question and Frisk-related
allegations as compared to the overall number of SQF reports prepared
by the Department in 2007 is an infinitesimal .0004% (186 out of 468,932).

• The CCRB substantiated only 63 allegations, or 1.7%, of the 3,770
Force allegations closed after a full investigation in 2007.

• The CCRB substantiated only 44 allegations, or 1.7%, of the 2,585
allegations of unnecessary use of physical force closed after a full
investigation during 2007.

• The Board was 43 times more likely to dispose of these allegations
as either exonerated (1,548) or unfounded (365).

• During the five-year period of 2003 through 2007, the Board
substantiated a total of 447 Force allegations. During this same time
period, a total of 10,608 allegations of this type were classified as
unfounded or employee exonerated, nearly twenty-four (24) times more
frequent than the number of substantiated allegations.

• The Department's use of Instructions as a disciplinary penalty has
increased as the types of allegations substantiated by the Board has
changed. In 2007, just 12.5% of substantiated allegations involved
Force, a 26.5% decrease from 2003 when 17% of allegations
substantiated by the Board were Force-related.

Police Department Dispositions

• The CCRB asserts that 90 out of the 645 officers who received
instructions as a disciplinary penalty received another complaint with
the same allegation.

• Intentionally omitted from this assertion is the fact that these
"repeat" allegations were not substantiated by the Board for 83 of the
90 officers.

• Of the seven officers who did receive instructions on a second
occasion, four officers had received their first set of instructions
prior to the establishment of the Department's practice to only issue
instructions on one occasion for the same act of misconduct, one
officer had two substantiated allegations for incidents that had
occurred within a two-day time period that was treated as a single
disciplinary case and one officer was counted twice.

• In referencing the quality of cases sent to the Department by the
CCRB, the report mentions the fact that four (4) attorneys were hired
to review each disciplinary case. The report clearly omits the fact
that these new attorneys were not hired until the last few months of
2007 and most likely did not review any of the 2007 cases closed by
the Department.

• The NYPD does not tolerate provable misconduct by police officers,
even in situations where they have a good faith belief that their
actions were proper. The Department Advocate's Office analyzes cases
that it receives with one issue in mind - did the police officer
commit provable misconduct? If so, the officer will be the subject of
some form of disciplinary action.

• The Department Advocate's Office agrees with CCRB that the "good
faith" defense does not preclude disciplinary action against a police
officer. However, when it is clear that the officer acted in good
faith, fairness dictates that it be considered as mitigation by the
CCRB investigator and the panel, and should favorably impact
evaluation of the officer's credibility.

• The Department Advocate's Office disagrees with the CCRB conclusion
that the law of search and seizure is clearly established,
well-articulated, and understandable under the DeBour decision. The
fact that there is a plethora of Appellate Division cases that modify
and/or further explain the case supports this belief.

• The Department Advocate's Office believes it is most appropriate to
evaluate the totality of the circumstances for each individual case
when considering whether a police officer violated the DeBour
standards, which clearly allows police officers to use their judgment
and experience in determining whether there is criminality.

• The report presents profiles of three (3) cases in which the
Department declined to institute disciplinary action against the
subject officers. The Department stands by its decision to not
prosecute the officers in these cases, each of which is based upon the
Board's faulty legal analysis and clear anti-police bias.

Profile #1 - Whitestone Stop and Frisk

• In the first case, titled "Whitestone Stop and Frisk", the profile
conveniently omits several significant facts:

• The officers did not conduct a forcible stop. Rather, in an action
that was completely justified, the officers conducted a stop under the
common law right of inquiry.

• While the CCRB intimates otherwise, race was never indicated by the
CCRB investigator as a basis for determining that the stop was unlawful.

• The initial interaction occurred due to the fact that the civilian
subjects were walking down the middle of a street, late at night, in a
desolate area that had been experiencing a high rate of burglaries.

• The frisk of the individuals was conducted on the basis of their
consent, which is fully permissible under New York State law. The
Board failed to take this into account in their analysis and
conclusion that the officers committed misconduct.

Profile #2 - Car Stop

• In the second case, titled "Car Stop", the Board criticized the
actions of three (3) anti-crime officers who performed a car stop
where the occupants had reportedly displayed a firearm.

• In this case, the officers received a radio transmission indicating
that 2-3 male blacks in a silver Infiniti had displayed a firearm and
driven away. The transmission further stated that the vehicle was
heading in the direction of the officers and that the vehicle had
Massachusetts license plates. The location of the incident was in the
same precinct in which the officers were located and was in relatively
close proximity to the officers' location.

• When the officers initiated the car stop (of a gray Infiniti with
Florida plates), they observed the male sitting in the front passenger
seat turn around, look at the officers and then reach under the front
seat as if trying to conceal something.

• The CCRB determined that the car stop itself was legally justified
but that the subsequent frisk and vehicle search were not. The CCRB
chose to ignore the fact that the officers, who had reasonable
suspicion that the individuals were armed, were well within their
rights to frisk them for their own safety. (See, Barry Kamins, New
York Search and Seizure for Law Enforcement Officers, Fourth Edition,
p.97).

• The vehicle search was also justified, given the totality of
circumstances in this case. Although probable cause is required to
conduct an automobile search, New York courts have created an
exception where the facts present an "actual and specific danger" to
the officer's safety, which clearly existed in this case.

Profile #3 - Bronx Stop and Frisk

• In the third case, titled "Bronx Stop and Frisk", involved police
officers responding to radio transmission of a suspicious male. The
CCRB found that the stop of this individual was justified but that the
subsequent frisk was not justified.

• The position of the CCRB in this case does not make sense. According
to their theory, the officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion to
conduct a forcible stop of the complainant, but had insufficient
reasonable suspicion that the complainant was armed.

• This viewpoint ignores the fact that the individual stopped was
reportedly seen in front of a Laundromat, late at night, acting as if
he was casing the location for a burglary or robbery, was wearing a
bulky winter coat with his hands in the pockets, gesturing as if he
had something secreted therein, was identified by two separate
witnesses and was combative and uncooperative with the officers once
stopped.

• The reference to the officers' actions being conducted within a
two-minute time frame, which in and of itself is not proof of
misconduct, does not specify how the CCRB was able to conclusively
make this determination.

• The CCRB particularly questioned the credibility of the sergeant in
this case, citing a previously substantiated force complaint. Aside
from being completely unrelated to this incident, the report omits the
fact that the complaint being referred to occurred ten years ago and
that the sergeant had no other substantiated allegations.

• By contrast the complainant' s credibility is highly questionable. In
CCRB case #200510488, this same complainant was found to have engaged
in criminality (loitering and trespassing) , a determination with which
the CCRB investigator of that case agreed.

• It is readily apparent, as shown in this case and others, that the
CCRB has a double standard when it comes to analyzing credibility,
repeatedly showing a clear bias against uniformed members of the
Department.


Meanwhile, the department's academy graduated 1,000 new officers.



(excerpt, New York Daily News)



This police graduating class is among the academy's most diverse ever. About 30 percent of the graduates are Hispanic, 14 percent are black, 5 percent are Asian and 49 percent are white. About 17 percent are female.




One of Orlando's police officers was taken off active duty because he might face criminal charges for getting caught on camera pushing a woman down a flight of stairs.

Statistics and stipulations

*******JUST IN*******************



Riverside's Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday July 9, 2008 at 3 p.m. at City Hall to discuss major changes to the format of next year's election. One proposal is to not hold runoff elections. As you know, the outcome of at least one city council election last time out was changed in the runoff election in November 2007.


Read here.



Riverside County has called a heat warning so get yourself to some place cool during this upcoming week. Actually, you might as well find a cool spot until about November when summer ends.





The Community Police Review Commission in Riverside has resumed doing its monthly reports after a bit of a sabbatical and these have provided information on the commission including its outreach endeavors and all sorts of statistics about the complaints themselves.



Similar statistics are compiled by the police department's internal affairs division in terms of its own investigations and state law PC 832.7 under one of its clauses allows for the release of this information as long as it's statistical in nature. The police department is required by state law to forward these statistics annually to the state department of justice. So they do exist.



And if you live in San Francisco, Santa Rosa, San Jose, Oakland and Los Angeles among other enlightened cities, you can access this information by requesting it. In fact in annual reports released by the boards and commissions in this city addressing civilian oversight you can get quite detailed information that's statistical in nature.



But not in Riverside.


Why? Because City Attorney Gregory Priamos won't let you. If you ask for it, he doesn't send a letter stating that state law allows us to do so but doesn't mandate us to do so and given the choice, we choose not to provide this information. No, any letters from his office on this issue simply state that state law prohibits them from providing even statistical information. This is done of course because the city assumes that most people who request it won't know that the city could release this information if it chose to and it apparently doesn't want the public to know it's denying a public record by choice. And as most people know, the words can't and won't release a document aren't the same thing. But the city might be treating them as if they are because it doesn't want to come out and state that it's choosing to deny the city residents this information.



The city used to freely release this information on a quarterly basis to the Human Relations Commission in 1999-2001 before stopping not because it was prohibited from doing so but because it was rethinking the format of the reports. Not that even getting this information back then came easily. When the Mayor's Use of Force Panel tried to get this information, it only received it after threatening to hire its own legal counsel. Then the city backed down and handed the statistics over for that year and the previous years. Incidentally, in 1999 Riverside's city government won the not-so-coveted "Black Hole" award from the California First Amendment Coalition for among other things, hiring a high-priced public relations firm to handle the media after the Tyisha Miller shooting.


Has anything changed? Not in this area at least.



Here, are some available statistics from the CPRC's most recent monthly reports. These, you can get from the Web site. Just click the links which will lead you to the commission's monthly reports or click the links below.





March 2008:


Allegations heard: 11

Exonerated:

Not sustained: 3

Sustained:

Unfounded: 7

Misconduct Noted: 1




April 2008:


Allegations heard: 21

Exonerated: 3

Not sustained: 5

Sustained: 1

Unfounded: 12




May 2008:


Allegations heard: 28

Exonerated:

Not sustained: 3

Sustained:

Unfounded: 23

Misconduct Noted: 1


Inquiry:1




Total Allegations: 60



Exonerated: 3 (5% )

Not sustained: 9 (15% )

Sustained: 1 (1.7% )

Unfounded: 42 (70%)

Misconduct Noted: 2 (3.3%)

Inquiry: 1 (1.7%)




The sustained rate of 1.7% (or 5% if you include "misconduct noted") is probably lower than that of many police departments in the country. The average sustain rate is about 14% for overall complaints and 7% for use of force. The CPRC has only sustained two use of force complaints since 2001. The first one was reversed in arbitration. The second one was a split finding on a case in April 2004 where the CPRC sustained the use of force.




Another source of important statistics that is included in the monthly reports is that which provides information on how long an investigation took to be completed by the police department and how long it took to be reviewed by the CPRC. Both for category one complaints which are the more serious ones including excessive force and criminal conduct, and for category two which are less serious allegations including discourtesy and poor service.

Average time spent:


March:


CPRC: 92 days (category 1)/50 days (category 2)

RPD: 470/336



April:


CPRC: 106/93

RPD: 235/148



May:


CPRC: 43/96

RPD: 210/162




The average wait time for a complaint to be completely processed from the date it's filed averages about one year. The police department's policy #4.12 states that the turn around for category #1 complaints be about 60 days and for category #2, 30 days unless the head of the Internal Affairs Division or his or her supervisor provides an extension. These current figures aren't even close to the department's own policy requirements and they've been bad or worse than this since about 2006. Part of that is due to the high number of allegations and complaints with multiple allegations witnessed in 2005 and 2006 (although the number of total allegations was lower). In the past year, the average time both categories of complaints have spent in the CPRC office has increased quite a bit as well.


Two great resources for information on sunshine laws in California are CAL AWARE and California First Amendment Coalition. These are the sites that city governments probably don't want you to see but they're excellent sites and very much worth checking out.








It was inevitable that the Press Enterprise editorial, "March Myopia" was going to get a response and it did here.



(excerpt, Local Views)



In my view, the real issue is Riverside's approval of continuing massive residential growth in this area long after the base was abruptly realigned for joint-use purposes in 1994.

What were city officials thinking? Did Ward 4 electeds really believe that there would be no push-back from densely populated Orangcrest and Mission Grove when the base fully converted?

Maybe they dreamed the base acreage would one day be transformed into a big cow pasture or chicken farm. Well, whatever the dream, there are now thousands of post-1994 residents who were allowed by the city to be placed right under a prospective commercial flight path.

Proper growth planning is supposed to be a core responsibility of government. Sadly, developers did this particular piece of planning, and the city simply scooped up the fees and other tax revenue. So, you get what you've got right here.

That is especially true when a city's only real "plan" is to build on every patch of bare earth.







The discussion is still going on regarding whether or not downtown library should be demolished.




The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has okayed the purchase of homes to expand its jail system.




If you're in San Bernardino, what's the status of your police station?






Speaking of San Bernardino County, the grand jury there kept very busy.


But it hasn't always been that way.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



Robert E. Burkhardt, 81, of Barstow, has served on three county grand juries and was the jury foreman in 2004-2005. He said he hopes future grand juries remain as aggressive as this year's.

Some in the past have been, he said. But others have been hampered by the difficulty of getting dedicated members and the lack cooperation from officials, he said.

"We tried to be aggressive one year and the judge told us to back off," Burkhardt said.

"They were trying to keep things under control," he said. "I am glad they kind of let them loose this year."







The numbers of registered Democrats in Riverside and the 44th Congressional District are growing.




How are Inland Empire cities coping with the budget crisis? By doing these things.




If you're trying to keep track of what's going on with the major fire up in Big Sur, here's the blog to do so.

The summer schedule begins

Mt. Rubidoux was lit on fire by fireworks again on the Fourth of July. Fortunately, the fire was put out and the fireworks show was delayed only about 30 minutes.



The Riverside City Council begins its summer schedule with a meeting taking place this Tuesday on July 8. This week's agenda looks sparse, so the meeting should clock in at under two hours leaving city residents and elected officials with enough time to hit the watering holes and feeding spots.

Unfortunately, the city's site is down in terms of allowing visitors to access the reports on each agenda item. Instead, people are getting error messages stating that the storage capability has been exceeded. That's been a problem during the weekend on other occasions as well. The consequence being that the city residents can't access any information provided by the city about the items its elected officials will be voting on either individually or collectively. Hopefully, someone at City Hall will notice and this problem will be fixed as quickly as possible.

Earlier in the meeting day, the city council will discuss the law suit filed by the family of Terry Rabb, a man who died in police custody in 2005. The police officers had responded to a 911 phone call that Rabb was experiencing a hypoglycemic reaction. The city has settled at least two wrongful death lawsuits and is about to close off on a third. It's likely that the Rabb lawsuits will be settled as well, another in a line of settlements in the midst of exonerated findings for the officers involved in these incidents.

The officers involved in the deaths of Summer Lane, Lee Deante Brown and Douglas Steven Cloud have been or will be exonerated while the city pays out settlements totaling around $1.5 million not counting litigation expenses. As far as settling cases to avoid the expenses and hassles of litigation? It's not likely that any municipality would pay $800,000 (as happened in Cloud) to avoid anything but a higher pay day in court. The Cloud case brought written promise of changes along with the settlement including allegedly using the incident as a way not to do business. If that's so and that's to be done, where are all the exonerated findings (which the CPRC will provide at the end of its process on Cloud) coming from? Are there any issues that are going unaddressed?


The city manager is also undergoing a performance evaluation. And don't be surprised if even in these fiscally difficult times, someone gets a raise. After the brilliant handling of the police department's staffing woes, maybe the city government will think he deserves one.

There's also that job opening in Riverside County to worry about, even though Hudson didn't file a job application by the deadline. Did he file a job application for the city manager job either? His strategy is to wait until the people looking to fill the position come to him and it's not a bad one at that.

More discussion of what's up with the Community Police Review Commission which under the management of City Manager Brad Hudson and his subordinates has not been doing very well. That shouldn't be surprising considering the wealth of experience the staff of the city manager's office have brought to Riverside's form of civilian oversight in terms of directing the panel to run well. This office along with input from the management of the Riverside Police Department, the City Attorney's office and some say, some members of the city council has instituted various changes to the board which have diluted it and rendered it in a state where it can't really do all that much.

The city manager's office never asked the community for input on the process or in terms of any of its changes. In fact that office appears pained whenever that word, "community" is brought up but then again, quite a few of the current commissioners have the same expressions on their faces when that pesky word comes up in comments or discussion. The eight-year-old commission has put such a large barrier between itself and the community it purportedly serves and the communities its members purportedly represent in a rather short span of time.

Rule changes in how meetings are conducted are done without even being placed on the agenda ahead of time for a proper discussion. Instead of putting an agenda item which states something like "discuss meeting proceeding", the commission instead takes a completely unrelated agenda item such as an officer-involved death and uses that item to pass motions which inhibit community members including relatives of the deceased people whose deaths the commission is investigating from being able to participate in a meaningful way.

People attend one meeting and don't come back because the environment is cold, unfriendly and adversarial to them which is interesting because these same comments were often said about the police complaint process in the days and years preceding civilian review. The commissioners ignore them especially those who are new while chatting and joking around with police representatives. Which presents the perception that commissioners are biased in favor of the police department. It's interesting that the commissioners aren't nearly as worried about the perception of such bias that the community might be picking up as they are about any inkling that the police department or city might perceive them as being biased against the department.

Sometimes they don't even stay for the entire meeting. But when you stack a board with people with political connections to elected officials, what do you think you're going to get? A group of people afraid to do or say anything that might jeopardize future aspirations and current positions. The only one who doesn't seem to be afraid, is Jim Ward.



As part of a continuing series, there will be some discussion of the CPRC's powers granted to it first through ordinance in 2000 and the city charter beginning in 2005.

Exercise the power of subpoena to require the attendance of witnesses, including persons employed by the City of Riverside and the production of books and papers pertinent to the investigation and to administer oaths to such witnesses a and to take testimony to the extent permissible by law. Subpoenas shall only be issued by the commission upon the affirmative vote of six commission members.




This is commonly cited as one of the most important “powers” of the CPRC when included in the ordinance and again when the charter was amended to include the CPRC.

According to the City Charter, the city council can assign subpoena powers to any of the boards and commissions as it sees fit. This charter provision was challenged in threatened litigation by the city against the department when one of its officers refused to comply with the full terms of a subpoena issued by the CPRC in the autumn of 2004. The RPOA had alleged that the subpoena was invalid because the CPRC did not have the legal power to issue it but it ultimately backed down.



The issue of whether or not a commission should be granted subpoena power is an old one in Riverside. In the 1980s, the Human Relations Commission created LEPAC which was to serve as an advisory body to the police department mainly on policy issues. However, the commission while chaired by Mary Figueroa wanted to have subpoena power so it went to the City Council which refused to grant it to LEPAC or the HRC. That caused a great deal of frustration on the side of the HRC and the communities, which never really went away. Because it didn’t, that is one reason why the power to issue subpoenas was included in the language drafted to create the original ordinance establishing the CPRC in 2000.



The only language regarding the issue of subpoena power in the charter and the commission’s By-Laws and Policies and Procedures addresses who and what can be subpoenaed by the commission, who ultimately serves it and that a two-thirds majority or greater is required by vote for such issuance. In practical terms, the reality of issuing a subpoena turned out to be more complicated because there was no consideration or discussion about how to proceed with obtaining a statement, voluntary or compelled (to the extent of a subpoena) from a law enforcement officer either as the officer involved in a complaint or officer-involved death.



The one example which exemplified both the strengths and weaknesses of the subpoena power as it had been envisioned occurred during the CPRC’s review of the 2003 fatal officer-involved shooting of Volne Lamont Stokes. That situation was created when it became clear in part through litigation filed by the RPOA against the city in late 2003 (RPOA v the City of Riverside), that Officer Tina Gould did not provide a voluntary statement to the Officer-Involved Shooting Team but had been ordered to report to the Internal Affairs Office to provide a compelled one.



The lack of voluntary statement by Gould left the CPRC in a dilemma while it was attempting to draft a public report on the Stokes shooting. The commissioners said it was difficult to do so without hearing the perspective of one of the officers who shot Stokes. There was a lot of uncertainty about how to go about initiating contact with Gould to get that perspective through a voluntary statement. Should they initiate it in writing? Through a phone call? Who should they contact? And if she did agree to appear, under what circumstances should she provide her perspective?



Gould either didn’t respond or declined the initial requests for her to provide information. The commission ultimately voted 8-0 with one abstention to subpoena Gould to appear before the commission. One issue that arose with the subpoena is that it brought up the issue of voluntary vs. compelled statements and the legal circumstances defining both which are very different.



Gould appeared with the RPOA attorney, Michael Lackie but refused to be sworn in, which meant that she had not complied with the terms of the subpoena, not just in terms of the commission’s interpretation of that but also that of the department and ultimately the City Council.



The city stumbled in a sense further with the police chief ordering Gould to appear or face severe discipline and then saying that these situations involving officers subpoenaed to appear before the commission would be handled on a “case by case” basis. The RPOA then threatened to sue on the validity of the subpoena (which probably wouldn’t have succeeded) and the City Council vowed to go to court to get Gould contempt of court sanctions for not completely complying with the subpoena.



Gould ultimately appeared in December 2004 and was sworn in but with her attorney alongside her, took the Fifth Amendment which she had the right to do for a voluntary statement in a public forum. The subpoena can compel an appearance by a law enforcement officer to appear before an oversight body such as the CPRC but it can’t compel an officer to answer questions because the situations in which that can be done are very limited. In addition, in a public setting giving a voluntary statement, an officer is not protected from self-incrimination in the same matter they would be in an administrative interview so there’s that consideration. When officers are hired, they are informed of what is expected of them if they are compelled to provide a statement as part of an administrative investigation but it’s not clear that they are informed of what is required of them when they are requested or subpoenaed to appear before the CPRC or whether there’s any agreement among the involved parties on how to handle this situation when it does arise.



So it was a stalemate for the CPRC.



This wasn’t the appropriate way to handle this situation which brought many issues to the surface during this process. It wasn’t fair to the commission, the community which was concerned about the Stokes’ case and not to Gould to have to serve as the first “test case” in a process that nobody really appeared to put any real thought into in terms of how it would work out when it stepped off the ordinance and into a real situation.



It would have been much better, more efficient and more useful to have developed a process including a policy for the process of receiving testimony or other information from an officer that is separate of any statements received as part of the department’s own investigations. For one thing, that would reduce the difficulty experienced by all parties involved and another, if you have a particularly aggressive police union leadership in place, it might help limit the threat of civil litigation and other threats. It might also reduce the level of distrust and fear that officers have against the process.



Another complication that occurred was that it’s not clear whether or not there are any agreements or MOUs between the city and the RPOA or the RPAA regarding the issue of how officers are supposed to respond to requests for voluntary appearances and statements and compelled appearances or statements from the CPRC. This might address the questions of whether or not officers could respond to answer questions in substantive ways and if so, in what form and setting. This argument of course is academic at best because the commission in 2008 wouldn't have had the courage to even vote to issue the subpoena that a different commission did in 2004.



These issues and problems have complicated the situation involving subpoena power in other jurisdictions.



The subpoena process for books, documents and forms of electronic media has never been done. Hopefully, there’s a process set in place to follow if that ever takes place.



The subpoena issue came up during another officer-involved death case but after one commissioner said, it was basically no use to do it, it was quickly dropped. I don’t believe that this is a good reason to not pursue this avenue. I do not believe that subpoenas should be sought unless it’s necessary and other avenues have been exhausted but there needs to be a process in place that commissioners have faith in so that their decision whether or not to seek a subpoena is based on whether or not its factually necessary rather than the process itself.



This is one of several examples of a process that appeared to be thought out after or while it was being applied for the first time to a real-life case as well as being communicated to the public in terms of what the process actually was, after or while it was being used for the first time.



It was also the first and only time the City Attorney’s office appointed outside counsel (from Best, Best and Krieger which doesn't seem all that "outside") to represent the commission while the process of subpoenaing Gould was playing out.









From Belo Blog, is information about the funeral arrangements for Rubidoux activist, Eddie Dee Smith. She died last week at the age of 99.



A viewing will be held on July 8 from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church which is located at 5476 34th St. in Rubidoux.

The funeral will be held July 9 at 11 a.m. at Park Avenue Baptist Church, 1910 Martin Luther King Boulevard in Riverside. Following the ceremony, Mrs. Smith will be interred at Green Acres Memorial Park in Bloomington, where her husband is buried.

A reception will be held at 2 p.m. at the Eddie Dee Smith Senior Center, 5888 Mission Blvd.

Riverside County is once again showing its extraordinary commitment to public transportation by cutting bus lines.



(excerpt)


Many of the failing routes don't attract enough riders because they don't go to the right places or don't offer a timely return trip, said Nick Ventrone, 29, of Temecula. He said many restaurant and retail employees cannot take weekend bus routes because by the time they leave work, there are no buses in service.

"It is impossible for someone working noon to 8 o'clock to use it," Ventrone said. Ventrone, a member of The Transit Coalition, a regional public transportation advocacy group, said Riverside can also improve how it attracts customers.


Weekend service on the 206 commuter bus from Temecula to Riverside is lagging because few people know about the route and don't realize where it goes, Ventrone said. He added the route could be improved by changing its stops, namely moving its southernmost stop to the Pechanga Casino. Some of the bus system's more popular weekend routes go to specific destinations, such as the weekend 202 route to Oceanside, commonly called the beach bus.


"We need to think about the service and maybe placement could improve things," Ventrone said. "I think if it went to the casino, it could do as well as the beach bus."

Fire works here and there

"They could start coming in and not knowing who the players are, the members of the gangs, they could start pulling over kids who dress like gang members but (who) have no relation at all to gangs."


---Former Riverside Police Department Area Commander and Eastside Think Tank member, Alex Tortes to the Press Enterprise.






Ward Six Councilwoman Nancy Hart in Riverside is preparing to throw her hat in the ring for city council, hosting a fundraiser in upcoming months. She's got listed as her past endorsements most of the city council including Steve Adams, Andrew Melendrez and former Councilman Ed Adkison along with developers, Mark Rubin and Doug Jacobs and American Medical Response. No definitive word on any competition yet as there's still a ways to go but a couple individuals are thinking about running for this ward's seat next winter.




It took them long enough but downtown business owners are finally asking questions about how the Riverside Downtown Partnership is spending their money.

The Partnership was essentially established some time ago to look out for the economic interests of the downtown Mission Inn Hotel. But it takes dues from businesses in downtown while spending much of what's collected on the pedestrian mall. Yes, the same one that's been ripped up to be put back together again to the tune of about $12 million.



Some businesses on Market Street who paid into the coffers of the RDP were told at the time they would see some of the benefits in their areas but what they saw instead was the RDP leadership speak in favor of the seizure of their businesses through eminent domain. but even some of the surviving businesses are having their doubts. Taxation without representation?



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)





Other merchants, including Joel Udayke, of the Flowerloft near the Mission Inn, take issue with the group's representation within the Downtown Partnership. Penner pointed to Burton from Citrus Punch, Jon Tucker from Farmer Boys (which has its corporate headquarters in Riverside) and Tom Donohue from the Marriott, all members of the board.

"Wilma (Burton) is truly the only person who represents people on Main Street," he said.

Businesses pay anywhere from a few hundred dollars to several thousand as part of the organization's fees, based on the annual business tax they pay the city. Penner estimates that half of the funding comes from downtown's larger law firms and the Mission Inn.

"They have a dollar investment in the bid," she said. "They need to make sure they're getting something for it."

Retail contributions are likely small by comparison, she said.

"The partnership doesn't do much of anything for us," said Nadia Lee, owner of the Downtowne Bookstore. "I never see these so-called ambassadors ... the idea is good, but it's not effective."








The brouhaha that's been going on between Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco and Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach over his department's enforcement of the permanent gang injunction against Eastside Riva continues amidst news that crime is actually decreasing in the Eastside.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



The Press-Enterprise requested the crime statistics, however, which the Police Department released Thursday through the Freedom of Information Act.

They show crime in the injunction zone had been going down for years before the measure was filed and continued to go down after it was finalized. The injunction forbids gang members from staying out past 10 p.m., loitering in the neighborhood or wearing gang clothes, among other rules.

Crime decreased between January and May 2008 compared to the same five months in 2007 within the injunction area. There were 530 "part-one" crimes reported -- such as homicides, rapes and aggravated assaults -- during the first five months of 2008, compared to 570 during the same period in 2007. Part-one crimes dropped 7 percent.

There is an even greater drop -- 19 percent -- in "part-two" crimes such as vandalism, fraud, simple assaults and drug abuse violations during the same five-month period. In 2007, there were 1,123 part-two crimes reported, while 909 such offenses were reported during the same period this year.





These statistics are similar to those that were presented citywide during the oral report given about the police department at a city council meeting nearly two weeks ago.


Maybe Pacheco would know that if he actually visited the Eastside rather than refusing on all but several occasions to step inside its boundaries. That was the day that he, Leach and other police department representatives gave a press conference announcing the filing of the temporary injunction last summer. Since then, he's met only once with African-American leaders last spring to talk about the injunction and unlike with the Eastside Think Tank, he didn't ask for a list of attendees to do background checks on beforehand. He has yet to meet with Latino leadership in that community without making that requirement which makes it sound like he's indicting the entire Latino population of a neighborhood because of a relatively small number of gang members. He talks about how he plans to unilaterally enforce the injunction to prevent the "terrorizing" of neighborhood residents yet he won't go into the neighborhood to talk to them, certainly not if they're Latino.



This all started when the newspaper published an article on June 24 about how there had been no arrests made under the injunction and no charges filed. Arrests began soon after beginning on that same date and on June 27, according to a later article.

So who's being political here?

Pacheco's making decisions about neighborhoods he spends no time in. He's making all his comments via press releases and then refusing to elaborate on what he's said. He talks about not "fueling the fire" yet his comments about the police department were made apparently without having first gone to its chief to express his concerns about the department's enforcement. Wouldn't that have been the prudent and professional action to take if you have a problem with something that the department is doing? As one leader of a law enforcement agency to another? And you think that before unilaterally sending his own enforcement into a community that he never visits, that he would visit with community leaders and residents first. Because that wasn't done, this just smacks of grandstanding for political reasons at the neighborhood's expense and the expense of those who've been working hard with them on crime issues within their boundaries.

It's clear that Pacheco is posssibly eying a return to Sacramento politics because during the last election cycle, he created a campaign committee for state attorney general, a position now held by Jerry Brown. And to appease the Republican Party leadership as a Latino politician he has to prove that he's as tough or toughest on his own racial group. Two gang injunctions so far, both involving Latino gangs. Then after a newspaper article about there being no charges filed in connection with injunction violations, the enforcement from his office begins. Was this planned anyway or is this a political action in response to what his office might perceive as criticism?

If he was really concerned about whether or not the Eastside is being "terrorized", he would spend more time with community residents and meet with them to address their questions and concerns about the actions of his office. He and his office would open lines of communication rather than shutting them down in favor of grandstanding.



The crime rate was dropping before the injunction was filed and it's been dropping since, because people have been working hard in the neighborhood as the former area commander of the Eastside Alex Tortes has said in one article. That hard work over a period of several years went unacknowledged by Pacheco's office but then again, it's not like he's been in the neighborhood except to get into the newspaper himself.



The next meeting of the Eastside Neighborhood Plan will be held on July 17 from 6-8 p.m. at the Longfellow Elementary School. Maybe Pacheco could attend it and learn more about the neighborhood.




A former Riverside County Human Resources Department employee has been sentenced to four years in prison for embezzlement.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)




Marlene Lisa Garcia, of Rubidoux, pleaded guilty in Riverside County Superior Court to 65 counts including embezzlement and related charges for producing false checks from the county from April 2006 to August 2006, and passing four bad checks at businesses in Moreno Valley and Riverside in October 2007.

The county reimbursed all employees for their losses. The county and two check-cashing businesses were not reimbursed about $1,700 for their losses and the businesses where Garcia passed bad checks were not reimbursed about $2,300, Deputy District Attorney Michael Cabral said.

Garcia also had a 1997 theft conviction in Arkansas, Cabral said.







What to do next? Menifee, the newest city in Riverside County has a list of things it has to do as part of its entry into city hood and it's been getting started.






The Press Enterprise Editorial Board had some harsh words about the San Bernardino County Assessor.






The auditor division in Eugene needs two things that it doesn't have in order to work and they are transparency and trust according to members of the NAACP.



(excerpt, Eugene Register-Guard)



Chief Lehner wrote a public statement (guest viewpoint, June 10) that seems to give general support to the auditor and the review board. We appreciate his detailed review of the work that went into the creation of the auditor position and review board.

We understand that the police auditor and review board are in their fledgling stages. It is our hope that in Eugene, unlike some other communities, the auditor and review board will be a program that will be transparent and not co-opted by any special interests.

We all have much to gain in the arenas of mutual trust and community well-being if the police auditor and the external civilian review board are allowed to do their careful, professional work investigating allegations of police misconduct.

Sometimes the complaints will prove groundless, and sometimes the officers involved will have erred.

Either way, the community will have been served. Trust among all, including the community and the police, is essential for the rule of law to work.






The two U.S. Marines who refused to testify in a federal grand jury proceeding involving former Marine sergeant and Riverside Police Department Officer Jose Nazario were released from being jailed for contempt.




More beats, fewer offices during the reorganization of the San Bernardino Police Department.




A call for more transparency in civilian review was the order of the day for the Seattle City Council.





In New York City, Nichole Pautre Bell, whose fiance Sean was killed by police officers in 2006 wants her lawsuit to be stayed by a federal judge until the Department of Justice completes its own investigation of the shooting.




A Los Angeles Police Department officer is under investigation for a hit and run accident that occurred when he was drunk while off-duty and had hit two pedestrians.



(excerpt, Los Angeles Times)



They traced the vehicle to Skett, who had left his LAPD badge in it, authorities said.

Los Angeles Sheriff's Det. Jeff Maag said that when Skett was confronted by deputies at his house shortly after the incident, "he refused to acknowledge he was the driver at the scene."

"Deputies observed he had objective symptoms that he was under the influence of alcohol and he was arrested for drunk driving and felony hit-and-run," Maag said. He added that deputies believe another person picked Skett up at the parking lot after he left the scene.

Sims' son, an Antelope Valley prosecutor, said he was outraged at the officer's alleged conduct. "If what has been told to me is true, this police officer is a coward and he is also a disgrace to the Police Department," Deputy Dist. Atty. Jon Hatemi said.






California Newspapers Publishers Association published the following in its Legislative Bulletin.


Solorio might support sunshine on police misconduct


While the Assembly Public Safety Committee again defeated Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero's (D-Los Angeles) police transparency bill earlier this week, Chairman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) made statements at the hearing indicating he would help find common ground between Romero, newspaper publishers and the ACLU, and the peace officer unions arrayed against public access to instances of serious police misconduct. As a result of the committee's 1-3 vote, however, absent rule waivers, SB 1019 cannot be considered further by the legislature this year.

Solorio said at the hearing he would work with Romero to achieve a balance between the public's right to know and peace officer privacy and safety. He said he directed his committee consultants to draft language that could be used as a "starting point" for discussions among the stakeholders and that he might even become a coauthor with Romero on a bill to try to enact a law this legislative session.

Unlike last year's effort where the committee refused to even move SB 1019 for a vote, Chairman Solorio gave Romero a "courtesy motion" and Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), appointed to fill a longstanding vacancy on the committee the day of the hearing, cast the sole aye vote. Leno's own similar bill was defeated by the committee last year. Assembly members Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton), Joel Anderson (R-La Mesa) and Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) voted no. Solorio and Assemblymen Hector De la Torre (D-South Gate) and Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena) abstained, although Portantino told CNPA staff after the hearing that "the chairman's heart is in the right place on this issue" and that he "supported the chairman."

Romero presented to the committee a version of her bill that would have allowed only the City of Los Angeles to use its local political process to decide whether to re-establish public access to records and hearings associated with police misconduct. Here is the Los Angeles Times' account of the hearing.

After the hearing, CNPA, through his staff, asked Solorio how he saw this issue going forward during the remaining few months of the legislative session. Here is his encouraging message: "A police officer's reputation has to be protected. If SB 1019 had been restricted to cases in which the allegations against the officers had been sustained, then I agree the public has a right to know. But we do not want to ruin the reputation of law enforcement officers if the accusations against them are not upheld. Going forward, I do believe Sen. Romero and I can find a solution. I look forward to working with her on this matter."




To the person in the car who threw a lit firework, what's called a piccolo pete, at me while I was walking down the street, not very nice! Fortunately, it appeared to be a dud.

How 1990 norms came back in style

"You're right, I've had a life that's been absolutely blessed. I've met millionaires, billionaires, I've traveled on personal airplanes, and I never shook anybody down for any [expletive], so. . . . Not that I haven't, you know, drank some great wine, and had great booze and . . . got some, you know, phenomenal [sex] along the way."



---Former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona describes the perks of the job.




"Clean the place (downtown depot) up, put in lighting, have some terms and conditions (the Hound must obey) ... Downtown crime is committed by downtown people. The notion of someone jumping off a Greyhound on the way to see grandma and selling a dime bag is not happening."



---Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach to Dan Bernstein







The agenda for the city council meeting on July 8 in Riverside will be posted today and the agenda and item reports will be posted online by 5 p.m. This is to accommodate the holiday scheduled for Friday, the 4th of July.

The city is currently on the summer schedule when city council meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month. This may cause each meeting to run a bit longer than the blink-and-it’s-over meetings that take place the rest of the year. But be mindful, some of the most critical items and issues in the city's purview somehow appear on the city council meeting agendas during the summer months especially August when many residents and their families are on vacation. This is indeed the case with the blue ribbon panel that has been meeting during the past several months to come up with recommendations for the expansion and renovations of the downtown library and metropolitan museum.

The city council is tentatively scheduled to receive its report and recommendations on Aug.12 at 6:30 p.m. Everyone who is following the process of what's going to happen with these two cultural institutions should be at this meeting if they can attend. If not, send your thoughts to the mayor and city council's offices at City Hall.

But if you want to know what's on the agenda ahead of time this link will usually get you there. The agendas are also posted in the glass cased bulletin board in front of City Hall on Thursday afternoons.


Here's more information on the library and museum projects.


Powerpoint presentation on joint library and museum projects.



Riverside Branch blogs about the panel's recommendations on the projects and the process here and you can read more at Renew the Library.




The Riverside Police Department has promoted Sgt. Leon Phillips as its new lieutenant and he will be assigned to the field operations division as a watch commander. His assignment before his promotion was in the department’s Audit and Compliance Bureau. That division which is under the chief’s office is responsible for directing the implementation of the department’s strategic plan and in monitoring that implementation. It was formerly known as the Attorney General’s Task Force when it was formed in 2001. It hasn't been stated yet by the department whether or not any other promotions will take place including to fill the sergeant position vacated by Phillips.

The position is believed to be the one vacated by a retiring Ken Carpenter, who had headed the traffic division. The transfer of that position to the field operations division comes in the wake of concerns about the staffing level of lieutenant watch commanders on work shifts going into the summer months. Not to mention the staffing ratios for officers to supervisors in field operations which was recommended to remain at a 7 to 1 ratio to accommodate the youthful patrol division. But except for a question or two, the city council didn't really seem to think all that much about what was going on in front of them. And when the meeting ended, it might have been out of sight, out of mind for most of them.

In the face of these and other issues centered on the police department, the city council has decided to take the wait and see attitude. It's likely that this strategy will probably be as successful now as it was in the mid-1990s when the city council did pretty much the same thing. It's amazing to watch people repeat the mistakes that they themselves didn't make, that several of them had avowed that they would never make, but that's exactly what happened last Tuesday night when the city council showed that unfortunately there's truly a dearth of leadership in its midst when it was really needed. Instead, that day will be known now as one where collectively as a legislative body, the Riverside City Council took a huge step backward into the last century. Short-term problem solving that's unmindful of long-term consequences as one person called it. Unfortunately, at crunch moments, it's not exactly like there's been a shortage of that on the dais. Why that is, then and now is the $22 million question.








Speaking of the police department, Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein offers up a potpourri about Riverside. Including the injunction that brought the police department and Riverside County District Attorney's office closer together and now threatens to divide them.


(excerpt)



Till now, RivCo DA and RPD have been coy 'n' stonewallish about how the Eastside gang injunction is being enforced. Now, rays o' light.

Police Chief Russ Leach: "I hate the word sweep or raid. It looks like we're aggressively going after something we don't know exists." The injunction is "a tool" to "go after a specific crime." Leach says this is what the community wants. "We have to live in that community and work in that community."

Might not pass muster with the DA, whose office charged two alleged Eastside Riva gang members with injunction violations: vandalism, possession of a controlled substance with gang "enhansements," etc. Press release said RPD sought the injunction (Leach said the DA wanted it) and "it is up to the local law enforcement agency to enforce it."

"Though we have deferred in the past to the local agency," said Pacheco, "we will defer no longer. I will not sit idly by while Eastside Riva gang members terrorize the community."

New gang rivalry! DA vs. RPD.




More on that clash of wills between the two men here. The bone of contention is arrests that were made on the same day that the Press Enterprise released a story about how no arrests in connection with the injunction against Eastside Riva had been made by that point. Then the saber rattling began.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



"When a law enforcement agency requests a gang injunction from the district attorney's office, that request is made with the commitment from the local law enforcement agency that they will enforce the injunction when it is made permanent," Pacheco wrote in the statement. "When this second part of the gang injunction goes unfulfilled, the full potential of the injunction can not be realized. Though we have deferred in the past to the local agency we will defer no longer."


Pacheco did not specify in the release how he plans to enforce the injunction. Attempts to reach Pacheco late Wednesday were not successful.

Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach said he did not want to respond to Pacheco's comments because he had not discussed the issue with Pacheco. But he did say he is happy the injunction was finalized.

"Obviously we are in favor of (the injunction) or we wouldn't have committed all these hours with detectives ten months before the injunction was finalized and we are going to enforce it. But people's definition of enforcement may differ ... When individuals break the law and it comes to our attention we are going to enforce the injunction and make the arrest," he said.

Pacheco wrote in the release, "I will not sit idly by while Eastside Riva gang members terrorize the community. We will use every resource available to us to make sure that Riverside County is a safe place for families, children and businesses, not a safe haven for gang members."



Pacheco is brushing aside the police department to do his thing, which is to enforce an injunction against a Latino gang in Riverside. There's also an injunction against a Latino gang in Coachilla Valley. Those are two ways to show Republican backers of any future state attorney general bid (and Pacheco's had campaign committees formed to contemplate this) that Pacheco is not soft on Latinos. But it makes one wonder if the parties involved in going forward with the injunction in Eastside ever thought about how it would be carried out ahead of time and discussed it with each other either directly or through intermediaries. Is it about fighting crime? Is it about fulfilling political ambitions?

Leach was always clear at community forums that it would be a tool and not a club and community leaders were clear that they didn't want it to be sweeping either. As for Pacheco? Well, he nixed community appearances in the Eastside and subjected the Eastside Think Tank to having to go through background checks by his investigators before they would be allowed to meet with him, an ultimatum they flatly declined. On top of that, Pacheco purports to advocate for a community he won't step foot inside of even to talk to residents and community leaders about their concerns about what's going on in their own neighborhoods.


This drama is sure to continue, no doubt.









San Jacinto vs Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, round one.

At stake is hundreds of acres of real estate the band wants to annex to expand its casino. But there's some opposition due to recent events involving its relationship with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Open space is getting more scarce in the Inland Empire, however.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


Tribal Chairman Robert "Bobby" Salgado said Tuesday he had seen the June 23 letter and wondered why San Jacinto officials are worried about violence on the reservation when they have their own crime to deal with.

"He (Ayres) wants to be telling us that it is not safe to be out here," Salgado said by phone. "They have their own issues they need to take care of."

Salgado said the city has gangs and criminal elements. "Why don't they deal with them," he said.

He declined to comment further.

It's not about the crime. It's about the land as it's always been.

After the latest round of scandals, San Bernardino County elected officials explore the idea of ethics. The people there who no doubt are fed up at the status quo are thinking of putting an initiative on the ballot to create an ethics commission. Sound familiar? Riverside tried that in regards to placing an ethics code in the city's charter and that didn't exactly work out very well in terms of actually putting a meaningful accountability mechanism in place.


More information on the latest probe.


Here's a primer to bring you up to speed about the past political scandals that have plagued this county.





The dustup between the heads of Los Angeles County's two biggest law enforcement agencies on who gangs are targeting continues to be played out in the pages of the Los Angeles Times.




Oh my goodness! The lawyers for former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona are trying to suppress audio tapes which depict him making racist and sexist comments. On tape, Carona said "n----r" numerous times and talked about his sexual escapades. What a shock. Yes indeed.



(excerpt, Los Angeles Times)



The use of vulgar and offensive language by Don Haidl and Mike in conversations instigated by the government is both unfortunate and regrettable," according to the motion. "Relying on their close friendship and knowing that he was taping their conversations, Mr. Haidl sought to engage Mike in private banter where the terms used by both men would be clearly offensive and embarrassing to them both if revealed to others."

Carona, 53, resigned in January and is set to go to trial Aug. 26 on charges he misused his office to enrich himself and others, including his wife and former mistress.





New York City might be preparing to settle the wrongful death lawsuit filed against it in the Sean Bell shooting case. Bell was shot and killed by NYPD officers including three who were acquitted of criminal charges at trial. The department underwent remodification of its special units after the shooting.



(excerpt, New York Daily News)



It would be more efficient and would save the parties significant resources if, at this juncture, the parties pursue avenues other than discovery to resolve this case," Assistant Corporation Counsel David Hazan stated in a June 27 letter to the judge.

Hazan noted in the letter that he was not speaking on behalf of Detectives Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora, Marc Cooper and Paul Headley.




But the NYPD has other problems to worry about like keeping track of its gun seizures.






Boston's police department is having a very difficult time finding qualified people to hire as officers.



(excerpt, Boston Herald)



This year’s police academy class is only 60 percent full, despite a slick, $100,000 ad campaign that failed to attract enough candidates who could withstand tough BPD vetting.


While most of the current students are well-suited to wear the badge, Deputy Superintendent Marie Donahue, the academy’s director, said many were completely unprepared. Some couldn’t even finish a half-mile run.
\
“Maybe they’re influenced through a false sense of what this is about,” said Donahue, who couldn’t wait to be a proud member of the BPD when she was hired about 30 years ago.

“The heart and soul of the job is the patrol, but they want something prettier. They want something exciting. I don’t know that they realize a lot of it is not that glittery.”

The numbers tell the story. The academy budgeted for 80 students. Only 60 survived the vetting process. Of them, 12 have already dropped out - most citing the physical demands.







A rather alarming article about what heat waves will look like by 2100. Global warming will heat the earth as it dries it, driving temperatures in many cities way up.



Some sample temperatures that might arise during sustained heat waves from the Yahoo article.



Los Angeles: 117

New York City: 106

Atlanta: 110

Chicago: 115

Kansas City: 116

Paris: 109

Southern France: 118

Lyon: 114

Delhi: 120

Bagdad: 122

A drop in the bucket

"Everything's got a moral, if only you can find it."


---Lewis Carroll



"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"


---Sir Walter Scott



"We don't want to go back."


---Riverside Police Department officer





An unexplained ball of fire was seen falling out of the sky in some parts of Riverside and San Bernardino County. No explanation so far on exactly what it was. An investigation is ongoing and it's the talk of the scientific blogging world.


Science Dude stated that it most likely was a meteor or falling debris which is the most common source. A list of the most prominent fire balls of 2008 is here. If the one you saw wasn't listed, there's a process for doing so.


Just as interesting and noteworthy was the Riverside Police Department's filling of a lieutenant position yesterday amid a hiring and promotion freeze that's hit the city's employment ranks. As this latest episode under the heading, "What was past is prologue" series continues, oh how it twists and turns and twists again. While it might make for interesting drama in the political arena, it's not good for the department.

Thank you, Ward Four Councilman Frank Schiavone for passing along that information about the promotion and responding to an email I sent you and other city council members on the chain of events that took place in recent weeks. I appreciate the note and the filling of the position is a good start but that's all it really is, a drop in the bucket really. It's important but it's not a response to the issues brought up at last week's city council meeting and even earlier than that.

What will be done to build on that start? What can be done to fill that bucket? And who on the dais will step to the plate?

When Lt. Ken Carpenter who headed the department's traffic division retires, his position will be filled with the new lieutenant although it's not clear whether this lieutenant will remain in the traffic division or will be assigned elsewhere. It's also not clear whether the thawing of the alleged promotional freeze will lead to similar announcements in the near future about the filling of two sergeant positions including the one just vacated by the new lieutenant. The other position was vacated by another sergeant who just retired. That's not including anticipated autumn retirements at the supervisory level that may take place.

Last week, there was much concern expressed about the vacancy rate in the police department including at the supervisory level and the impact that these unfilled vacancies including those which are temporary would have on the department's continued implementation of the strategic plan as well as its staffing ratios in the field operations division. There was different information provided during the audit than what was provided by Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis in his response to inquiries that were raised. It would have been helpful if DeSantis or his boss, City Manager Brad Hudson could have provided more information about the figures that DeSantis cited including several values for the officer to supervisor ratio in the patrol division. But that hasn't been done and it doesn't seem like at least so far that the city council or mayor are inclined to seek out this information themselves. That's a development that is disappointing.

There was concern with the staffing of lieutenant watch commanders even before there were vacancies at this level so while filling a position might help, it's not a panacea. Earlier this year, it was revealed in an audit before the city council that about 17% of all shifts were partially or completely supervised by a sergeant watch commander. This wasn't alarming news but was interpreted as a trend to watch to see how it would develop in future months. By the most recent audit, the percentage had declined slightly heading into the difficult summer months where vacation schedules of supervisors might negatively impact the staffing of the daily shifts. It's not clear what if any strategy the city has for dealing with increasing the percentage of shifts with lieutenant watch commanders. If it has one, it's left the city residents out of the loop.

There was also concern about the high vacancy rate in the civilian side of the department especially in support positions. There were no reassuring statistics that were pulled out by DeSantis in response to that issue at least not yet. Hopefully, they are forthcoming.

As good news as it is to fill this lieutenant's position, it's not clear why the announcement of it being fill by itself constitutes an adequate response by the city government to the issues that were raised last week in an audit and even earlier by representatives from the police department. One promotion can't adequately address this situation because for one thing, like all promotions, it fills a vacancy by creating one some place else. The city council needs to show better leadership and not engage in actions that aren't much different than the mistakes made by their predecessors on the dais. Why, is this well-worn path being traveled once again? Is it just because it's the easiest and most familiar?

The crux of the issue and I think others will agree is that those of us who fought and worked hard to improve the police department, both inside of it and outside of it understand how difficult a process that turned out to be. The officers who say they don't want to go back to those days certainly do. But those who make the decisions now on the seventh floor of City Hall were not engaged in that same process themselves so they don't carry that appreciation of what was learned with them when they make the decisions which will guide the department's future for better or worse. The few on the dais who do don't seem to have learned very much from their the history that they inherited along with the department, any more so than those who were criticized (and rightly so) for making the original mistakes. Perhaps the past city councils learned from the errors they made through the efforts that followed but by then, most of them were on their way out and couldn't really apply it.

These are all words I've heard from several different places this past week or so, they've appeared in this blog before and most unfortunate, they define where we are currently at. There seems to be this sentiment woven strongly that the only ones who learned anything at all from the past were those who went through it. But we aren't the ones who make the decisions except at the voting polls.

The turnover on the city council in some ways is a blessing and in some ways, a curse when it comes to these issues with the police department past and present. Because the people making the decisions have the potential to bring a fresh perspective and start fresh when they deliberate what will be, while moving away from what once was. These individuals played no role in the mistakes that were made during past decades, tremendous errors in judgment and made from neglect which sent the department down the path towards being sued by a state agency as one century drew to a close and a new one began. They had to learn enough from mistakes that others made to not repeat them. At first, it seemed that they would fulfill that goal. Now? That seems less the case. There was too much about last week's city council meeting that was all too familiar and few people left it with any confidence that things had changed despite the city's difficult nearly decade-long journey.


That's because the flip side of this paradigm is that these same individuals (except for Mayor Ron Loveridge) do not have a singular or collective memory of that struggle, to do basic improvements like ensure an officer to sergeant ratio that promoted both better performances from its officers and a measure of accountability as well and why that's so important. Because they started from scratch and the newer ones see the department as it is today, not the arduous and expensive path it took to get there, they take a lot for granted. That might yet prove to be an error that the future generations of civic leaders look back at while shaking their heads.

Not at the city council of the 1990s who made decisions which led to the day when Riverside attracted international attention not for its vision but for failing to exercise it. But at the city council in this decade. The ball is in its court.






Do you think the downtown library building should be bulldozed to put in a new one? You can answer that question here.




Not surprisingly, the planned construction of the grade separation crossing Magnolia near the Riverside Plaza has upset some nearby business owners. It's become a nightmare for quite a few of them.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


A majority of the affected 26 businesses have relocated and others are preparing to move. At least one business hasn't found a new location.

Some of the business owners said it has not been easy dealing with the city and many expressed concerns they would not be fairly compensated for the forced relocations.

Assistant City Manager Michael Beck said the city's goal is to minimize the inconvenience of the relocation and its effect on each firm's or store's business. But the city also has a responsibility to taxpayers to be prudent, he said.

The city hired Epic Land Solutions to work with the targeted businesses. However, all the business owners who have moved or will move shortly found their new locations on their own, said Epic project manager Walt Evans.

"We've tried like heck" to help them but there's limited commercial property available in Riverside, Evans said.


Some business owners impacted by relocations have hired attorneys. Others have been forced to pay most of the costs for relocation. One, Elliots for Pets has yet to find a new place, a major concern given that pet stores are a dying breed in the Riverside Renaissance.



(excerpt)



Elliotts' For Pets hasn't found a new location, said Donna Elliott, who owns the store with her husband, Patrick. They've been in business since 1973 and have leased their location, which she called "excellent," for 12 years.

They want to stay in Magnolia Center so they don't lose their customers, Donna Elliott said.

The potential new sites Epic has suggested haven't worked out, Elliott said.

"The properties are either too large, too small, bad area or too far away," she said.

The lack of progress is discouraging, Elliott said.

"I am anxious," she said. "We don't want to go out of business."







New penalties are being imposed in Riverside for false burglar alarms.



Because of rising gas prices, Metrolink's business is booming while citations are being given to drivers using cell phones.




The Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted to purchase houses so it could expand a jail facility but the body finally passed its budget.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)



The county estimates it will cost about $1.5 million to purchase the single-family residences.

The owners are willing to sell.

The Allan family has lived on Wesley since 1946 and hopes the county in turn will sell them the three houses on that street. They want to keep them in the family, said Vikki Timms.

She and four relatives occupy other Wesley houses. She said her grandfather built most of the houses on the street, including the three the county is buying.

County officials have expressed interest in selling the houses to the family in exchange for land between Wesley and the jail that they own, Timms said. The county could use that land for the buffer zone, she said.


A Orange County Sheriff's Department reserve deputy was convicted of making threats while out on the golf course but acquitted of other charges.


(excerpt, KNBC)



Raymond K. Yi, who operates two tae kwon do studios in Orange County and was the martial arts instructor for ex-Sheriff Michael Carona for six years, remains free on $50,000 bond pending sentencing on July 16.

The 48-year-old Anaheim resident faces up to three years in prison, but defense attorney John Barnett said he would seek probation for his client, who was tried in San Bernardino County.

A Superior Court jury in Chino deliberated a little more than five hours before acquitting Yi of three counts of assault with a firearm and two other counts of making a criminal threat, but it convicted him of one threat against 61-year-old Gustavo Resendiz, said San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Nimisha Gohil.

The threat, Gohil said, was "Get the [expletive] out of my way, old man. I could kill you."

Barnett argued that Yi had been threatened with a golf club, and that the gun, which was his own and not the weapon issued to reserve deputies, was unloaded.






Atlanta's Citizen Review Board has been besieged by both budget woes and politics, according to Atlanta Magazine. Sounds familiar? This happens all across the country with many civilian oversight mechanisms.


(excerpt)


You wouldn't have imagined this scene a year ago, given the fanfare
surrounding the board's revival. At the time, the city was still
absorbing the revelations that renegade cops had mistaken a
ninety-two-year- old woman's Vine City home for a drug house, stormed
the place, and then fired thirty-nine bullets at her. News of Kathryn
Johnston's death set off a chain reaction—massive protests, nationwide
media coverage, mea culpas from the mayor and police chief, a
housecleaning of the unit responsible, and a proposal by City
Councilman H. Lamar Willis that a group of citizens be empowered to
probe allegations of police brutality. Only investigations conducted
from outside the department, the thinking went, would have sufficient
credibility to restore trust in our police. At a public hearing not
long before City Council voted unanimously to form the board, Willis
made his feelings plainly known to a police union representative
opposed to the idea: "You are a paramilitary group," Willis said, "and
as a paramilitary group you need to have oversight."

But at City Hall, unanimity of vote does not mean unanimity of
purpose. A year after its formation, Atlanta's Citizen Review Board is
politically hobbled—staffed by well-meaning volunteers who, as of this
night in April, have yet to investigate their first complaint and have
yet to make their first hire. At their disposal is a laughably small
budget that some advocates worry leaves the board set up to fail. So
tonight's meeting is typical of most of the ones that have preceded
it. On the table for discussion are not complaints of rogue cops or
beaten inmates, but talk of copiers, computers, and what software is
best to use for virtual meetings.

"For the Citizen Review Board to be in place a year [and] at this
stage ought to be an embarrassment, " State Senator Vincent Fort says
later. Fort, an Atlanta Democrat and early advocate of the idea that
the Atlanta Police Department needs an outside monitor, is worried the
board won't live up to its promise.





A police officer in Indiana pleads guilty to selling a gun to a felon.





Say goodbye to about 600 Starbucks. They are closing down putting at least 12,000 employees out of work.