Governmental Affairs: Personal to political and back again

In the wake of the latest resignation from the Community Police Review Commission, some eyes are on who will replace Steve Simpson. In this city, it's nearly impossible to keep up with which elected official owes which other elected official a favor and whose turn it is to get one of their peeps on a board or commission. It wouldn't be all that surprising if a selection has already at least been informally made. After all, in my discussion with the council member who had expressed concerns about Simpson's mental competency in June, another candidate's name was mentioned even at that time.

Only in Riverside, would independent thinking be called being mentally incompetent but there you have it. If you ask too many questions or challenge seventh floor politics too loudly, you too might be treated to some coffee or a meal and an admonition to play by the politics or face expulsion. I'm sure the rest of the CPRC commissioners heard that one loud and clear. The story related by Simpson at the last CPRC meeting was very disturbing but appears reflective of what's been going on with that commission during the past 18 months.

When you apply for a board and commission, the city reveals some information about what that body does and its estimate of the time that will be required by those who sit on boards and commissions. However, for the CPRC, the estimate is between 18-20 hours of service time but in reality, most commissioners have served at least 30-40 hours each month, going to meetings, studying police complaints and doing some outreach. The city needs to provide its applicants with a more realistic estimate of the time commitment to serve on all of its boards and commissions most certainly including the CPRC.


The passage of Measure GG which mandates ward representation and changes to the selection process for three of this city's boards and commissions have increasingly politicized the appointment process to the point where most of the people who are picked know next to nothing about the panel they have been chosen to sit on. Many of them can't even answer the questions that they are asked during the interviews, because they have done so little research on the body in question. Of course, there's no need to do so unless you're interested in it.

But one often wonders whether an applicant is cognizant of what a board or commission is about if the people who are ultimately found favorable by the city council and Mayor Ron Loveridge are using it as a stepping stone to get elsewhere, including elected office. The perils involved with these individuals that they usually know full well that their decision making options are limited by whether or not their decisions as commissioners are going to impact their ability to find favor a nd remain in favor with the political structure at City Hall.

Unwritten rules appear to have been added such as requiring prior board and commission experience in applicants appointed to serve on this "special" commission or to "hit the ground running" given its "current situation". Councilmen Ed Adkison and Dom Betro made these statements during the selection process in March even though no such requirements had been outlined at the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee two months earlier. This was why three out of four of the commission candidates who made it to the final interviews had prior board and commission experience even though one of them knew little about the commission and said he had applied because after serving 10 years on the Board of Public Utilities, he felt a "hole" in his life. Still, he received the most votes from elected officials during the two-meeting process last March.

Yet, the commissioners with prior board and commission experience which until recently included five of them struggled the most because they applied their prior experiences served on very different commissions from the Human Relations Commission to the Planning Commission to a very differently run commission such as the CPRC. Several of them even struggled with certain portions of the Brown Act.

When people apply to serve on boards and commissioners to freely give their time and energy, they are not informed of these unwritten requirements that are used for selection purposes. They assume that all the requirements for the position that are necessary are included in the instructions. But the brochures are quite small and lack the space to fit all the back room politics that appear to go into selections involving certain boards and commissions.

Which is why you have certain council members who abstain in votes involving who will represent a particular ward on a commission because even though it's a secret ballot until the votes are tallied by Mayor Ron Loveridge and recorded by city clerk Colleen Nichol and there is often no prior discussion, these individuals already know what the final vote will be.

One example of that occurred several months ago when Councilman Art Gage abstained from voting during the process that appointed current commissioner, Linda Soubirous on the CPRC despite the fact that she had received financial contributions from several law enforcement unions including the Riverside Police Officers' Association when she ran for county supervisor in 2004.

Gage explained afterward that he wasn't going to vote for her because of that reason. One other councilman said that it didn't matter if she had gotten funding from law enforcement unions because he had while running for city council, apparently confusing the difference between being an elected official and being an appointed commissioner on a board designed to review police complaints involving officers who were members of one union she had accepted financial contributions from while seeing higher office.

Speaking of appointing people to serve on boards and commissions, the Governmental Affairs is discussing the appointment process next week. As you can see from the report, several dozen people including individuals from all seven wards have applied to serve on the CPRC. It's unlikely that Simpson's replacement will be drawn from this list of city residents who applied in good faith for a commission they believed they would actually have a chance to be screened and interviewed for.

The new commissioner will most likely be a candidate who is not on that list to be screened but who simply receives votes. That may be one way to do things and it has been done, but it's definitely not included in the recruitment brochure.

In the Governmental Affairs report, the city includes pages and pages of material on how it recruits candidates to apply for its boards and commissions, yet at least in the case of CPRC, last minute substitutions on those lists usually after the screening process has been completed by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee have received higher favor and consideration from the city council than those who apply through the channels that were set up for applicants.

Another problem, is when last minutes substitutions were added as occurred during the last two rounds of selections including that where a person was selected to serve on the commission, there's no application or resume provided for these applicants as there were for other candidates. That means less transparency.

The selections should be submitted through the application process. Members of the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee can add names at that meeting with information available about them so they are treated on an equal basis as other applicants. Council members not on the committee should submit the same information on applicants that they might add to the pool to the city clerk's office well before the screening process begins by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee.

Candidates should be welcome from a variety of backgrounds for the CPRC rather than just selecting people with only law enforcement and/or legal backgrounds. Underutilized backgrounds include educational for example as several excellent candidates who were professors in behavioral sciences, humanities and other fields have applied and were denied interviews, except for one woman who gave a really good interview during the original selection process in 2000. There were also people from medical backgrounds including former commissioner, Gloria Huerta who can also bring many skills to the process utilized in those professions.

For the interview process, applicants should be given some questions to think about ahead of time and then asked further questions during the actual interviews. There's not much information provided to prospective applicants selected for interview on what that process entails. Generally, the quality of interviews has gone down in recent years, particularly after the passage of Measure GG which politicized the selection process and prioritized politics over the commission though the quality of the questions asked by elected officials has improved.

There should be a larger pool of selected candidates for interviews by the city council than there has been. One council member did express that opinion during the last selection process.

Still, it's likely that politics will rule the day during the upcoming selection process as surely as they ruled the day that led to Simpson's resignation. It's likely that the person who's ultimately chosen has already in fact been chosen precisely because of the discussions that clearly took place at City Hall regarding Simpson's presence on the commission beginning several months ago.

That has nothing to do with the limitations of the city's charter or ordinance when it comes to the CPRC and the challenges of implementing its powers, but has to do with what's going on among the halls of power at City Hall.






Press Enterprise columnist, Dan Bernstein reported on the scintillating golf match that took place among district attorneys in this state. Who won? Sources said representatives from the Riverside County office.

What's interesting is that if you went on the Riverside County District Attorney's Web site, you would find on its recruitment page, the boast that this county had more golf courses than any other one nearby.


(excerpt)


Soon, I was speaking to DA Mike Ramos.

Had he heard anything sub-par about Napa Pacheco? Heard? He saw! "I called him on it!" chuckled Ramos, who praised RivCo's team as "very good" but "sneaky." Ramos can't recall what Team Sneaky did -- maybe slipped a great golfer onto the squad at the last minute. "My partner noticed." They made sure Pacheco knew they noticed. "It was all in fun."

I headed back to my umbrella drink, ears still ringing from Pacheco's silence, which was louder than a Sunday gallery welcoming Tiger to the 18th.

But golf's a funny game. As we talked, Mike Ramos confided, "My golf score is more like my conviction rate. It's way up there." Imagine. A DA who takes pokes at himself! He makes golf writing a snap.





Remember the University Lodge, you know the motel where the city council paid its slumlord, the notorious Menlo Park, over $400,000 to vacate the premises several years back? It's back in the news again as the Press Enterprise published this article detailing the plans that the city has for its future including one that was passed by the city's planning commission.


(excerpt)


The plan calls for building a 41,000-square-foot center with a mix of stores and restaurants that would attract UC Riverside students, said Michael Stock, who has overseen the project for the owner, the Menlo Trust. It would also include office spaces.

The buildings would come right to the sidewalk, although some of the restaurant spaces would have setbacks to allow for outdoor tables.

Parking would be in the rear. A metal fence and landscaping would provide a buffer for neighboring houses on Ninth Street.

If the council approves the plans, construction would begin at the end of the year. The $5 million project should take about a year to build, Stock said.

"I have tried to create the nicest building I could," he told commissioners.




Facing future eviction near that parcel will be a Latino-owned car wash which has been on the strip for years.



In local election news, Riverside Ward Four Councilman Frank Schiavone announced that he plans to endorse Donna Doty-Michalka in the Ward Five race. This must irk his former BFF, Ed Adkison, who had thrown his support behind her opponent, Chris MacArthur since pretty much the beginning although he only publicly endorsed him several months ago.


Love SmartPark or hate it? Go here to fill out the poll.


More letters on the city council's decision to revoke the electric rate hikes it had approved in December 2006.






A humorous look at the city of Riverside's battle to keep the issue of eminent domain from coming to the city's voters even as it pushes its own initiatives on choo choo trains and crowing roosters in the interest of democracy and "allowing the people to decide". Humor is often the best way to get a message across of what's broken and what there is to be said about this travesty of a law suit which has been foisted on the people because the city doesn't want them to have a voice at the polls on the issue of the use of eminent domain in this city just continues.

I certainly do not wish the legal expenses that were spent by the city fighting this law suit to be paid for by those who launched the petition drive to put eminent domain on the ballot in 2005. The money spent fighting this law suit is already wasted money that could have been spent on something that would truly benefit this city and the people living in it.



Why not celebrate the democratic process and take all three ballot initiatives to the voters to decide what they want to do with trains, roosters and eminent domain? Just something to consider in the name of democracy for those elected officials who wrap themselves around it to block criticism of their own proposed ballot initiatives.



At least, Councilman Art Gage apparently voted against continuing the appeal, but then again, when exactly did the majority of him kick him out of the club? Was this one reason why? Gage has his faults, but on this issue at least he's realized how silly and expensive it is to in this case, fight democracy.



The funny thing is that it's likely that the elected officials who most strongly support the use of eminent domain and their supporters who go along with it would fight like tigers using whatever they could to prevent the city from taking their own properties whether it was their homes or their businesses. That's a given that this is what would come to pass if it impacted them.



The political would become personal. As it became for the owners of many small businesses in Riverside including the Fox Theater and Kawa Market and certainly many more to come.









Riverside County Sheriff's Department undersheriff, Neil Lingle who was poised to retire soon may be appointed interim sheriff in the wake of the abrupt announcement of current Sheriff Bob Doyle that he's jumping ship for a gig in Sacramento, according to this article in the Los Angeles Times.


(excerpt)


Supervisor Bob Buster said the five-member board would strive to maintain continuity in the Sheriff's Department and try to "fulfill the voters' will" when they reelected Doyle. He said Lingle appeared to be an obvious choice.

"We don't want the department upended with a whole new cops staff," said Buster, who called Lingle "a good ambassador" for the Sheriff's Department. "You really have to know the turf here, and Neil Lingle does. . . He's very familiar with most if not all the major issues."

Supervisor Roy Wilson described Lingle as "very qualified" for the post.

"He's a straight shooter, he's very knowledgeable," Wilson said. "He's very in tune with running the department."




Steve Lopez, also from the Los Angeles Times wrote about the criminalization of the homeless by the Los Angeles Police Department.



(excerpt)


But I'm not surprised Mr. Ayers got a ticket. Since September of last year, when Los Angeles began its Safer City Initiative, roughly 11,000 citations have been written in the skid row area. Many of the recipients can't afford the fines or don't have the wherewithal to make court appearances, so arrests on warrants for outstanding tickets are common.

Why should anyone care?

Because this isn't just bad public policy; it's expensive public policy. Time and resources are being wasted attacking symptoms rather than problems. There's no shortage of things that should be addressed before jaywalking on skid row, such as supportive housing and more mental health and drug rehab services, which are far more cost effective than churning clients through courts, jails and hospitals.

Philip Mangano, President Bush's homeless czar, called the city's efforts "shameful" and quickly named a host of cities that have done far better, including Denver, Portland, Ore., Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis and New York.

"The punitive approach has never worked anywhere in our country," said Mangano, who talks policy on occasion with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other local officials. Mangano plans to travel to Denver this month with L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to show him how that city's smart planning, political will and the involvement of business leaders have produced dramatic results.

Gary Blasi, a UCLA professor who studies skid row and has been crunching numbers on the recent police crackdown, said residents who get cited often are handcuffed while police run background checks on them.

"By far the most common ticket is for jaywalking," Blasi says. "The tickets are also for dropping an ash on the street, inappropriate use of a milk crate -- things that, if they were written in any other part of the city, would be considered ridiculous."





Where have all the Eastside citizen complaints gone? Hint, it's certainly not appearing to be through the department's established complaint process as zero complaints were filed.

Do commissioners serve at the will of City Hall?

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


--Lewis Carroll who was passing through River City last night



Last night, the Community Police Review Commission conducted a meeting which will probably live in infamy at least for a while. It's not in the Press Enterprise as of yet but you can read about it here.

Warning, for those who look at city politics through rose-colored glasses and believe everything outside of that vision is not true, you should probably stop reading at this point.

Last week, Commissioner Steve Simpson had resigned from the panel he had served on for only four months. His resignation was the fifth among commissioners that took place in the last nine months. That's only counting commissioners, mind you, not executive directors.

However, Simpson became the first of that group to come to the meeting and explain exactly why he had resigned and the tale that unfolded put a harsh light on the relationship between the body and what Simpson called the seventh floor of City Hall.

While making his final comments, Simpson said that he had been contacted earlier this summer and had met with CPRC Chair Brian Pearcy who pretty much laid down the two choices that Simpson faced. Either play ball with the city and tone down his demeanor down or face expulsion from the commission. Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly who Pearcy represents at the monthly meetings. Is he speaking for the commission or the seventh floor?

It doesn't seem nearly as hard to figure out what role he played in meetings with Simpson if what Simpson said had happened is what took place. But did Pearcy support Simpson's position at all to be an independent thinker or just lay down the rules sent out by as Simpson said, the seventh floor?

These "counseling" sessions as Simpson called them, took place not long after Simpson clashed with City Attorney Gregory Priamos on Priamos' legal interpretation on several issues including the definition and procedure with issuing minority reports in relation to officer-involved deaths. At the time, Simpson alone was defending Commissioner Jim Ward's right to issue a minority report on the Lee Deante Brown shooting even though Simpson said he disagreed with Ward's view on the shooting.

Simpson told commissioners and audience members at last night's meeting that he had tried to get an item placed on a meeting agenda to discuss the hiring of an independent legal counsel for the commission. However, according to him, Priamos had vetoed that agenda item, his reason being that the issue did not fall under the purview of the commission. Was that the real reason, and should Priamos had been placed in the position of making a decision like that which could potentially alter his own role in the commission's operations?

The logical conclusion that would come out of such an exchange is that it puts an exclamation point to the argument of why it's so important for the commission to retain its own legal counsel. The commission needs an attorney that assists it in performing its duties, not serves to simply obstruct its abilities to do its duties to protect the interests of the city. The city attorney's first allegiance is not to the commission but to the city including its risk management division. If the two entities come into conflict, which side does the city attorney's office take? The CPRC's or the city?

He's just got a job that he's paid to do and he knows who pays him.

It was not the first time either the city manager's office or Priamos' office had vetoed an agenda item submitted by a commissioner for inclusion on a meeting agenda. Earlier this year, when commissioner Jim Ward tried to submit agenda items related to the events surrounding the CPRC that had taken place behind closed doors at City Hall last year, his items were also rejected for one reason or another for several months.

In the case involving the discussion of retaining independent counsel, it is clear that there was an obvious conflict of interest involved here if the attorney currently being used by the city for the commission nixes an item that would potentially impact the further use of his office.

Actually, there had been precedent for not only discussing the hiring of a separate attorney for the commission but actually doing so in connection with the commission's decision in 2004 to subpoena police officer, Tina Banfill Gould to appear before the body to answer questions in relation to the 2003 fatal shooting of Volne Lamont Stokes. That was back in the days when Priamos and other attorneys in his office were too busy doing other things to even attend any CPRC meeting including one specifically set up to ask questions of his office in 2004. So it's interesting that now even discussing the issue of independent counsel is out of bounds for a commission that once retained one. But times and leadership have changed since then.

So Simpson got a lesson on who was really in control of the panel that he had joined to do his part to help a process along. Just as those who had departed sooner had done, though unlike him, they left in frustrated silence. Former Commissioner Bill Howe affirmed that contention in his own speech telling the commission that he had spoken with those who had resigned and they had told him that frustration with the city manager's office's micromanagement of the panel led to their departures.

So, last week, Simpson made the difficult choice that he felt he could live with best, which was to leave the commission on his own terms. After all, he had said at his first meeting that he was nobody's lap dog and he meant it.

And that apparently is what the city wants on its commission. It wants lap dogs. Because if this wasn't true, then Pearcy would have been standing up for the right of his fellow commissioner to freely express his concerns and views on issues impacting the commission at City Hall. Instead, Pearcy apparently did the bidding and all the work of the city by trying to say he had to toe the line or else. And yes, there was an "else" because there were those at City Hall who wanted to expel Simpson from the commission as early as June and possibly sooner than that.

Simpson definitely wasn't going out without something to say about it. And although traditionally departing commissioners are given an opportunity to make speeches which usually are lax in terms of time limits, Pearcy cut Simpson after the five-minute mark and told him he had reached his time limit. That action was symbolic of what the body has become particularly under his chairmanship, a position he only received after the city manager's office and city attorney's office had muddled up the election process to the point where few people understood exactly how Pearcy was elected.

Originally, Ward had led the votes over former commissioner, Les Davidson when seven out of nine commissioners had voted on the election. Two had originally not voted because they had just joined the commission. When allowed to vote, Peter Hubbard chose Davidson without having even attended a commission meeting and knowing which was which. Simpson chose to abstain from voting at the time because he didn't know either Davidson or Ward and wanted to see them both in action before voting.

But one difference between Hubbard and Simpson is that Hubbard manages a company called American Medical Response that is an independent contractor to provide ambulance services as a component of the public safety division of the city. The public safety division which also includes the police and fire departments is currently under the helm of Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis. Which is why it wasn't so surprising to see Hubbard jump to DeSantis' defence during a discussion involving the annual report at the most recent special meeting held by the commission on the Brown shooting.

Simpson is retired and had been a former reserve officer for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. He is not working for the city in any capacity, either as an employee or representing an independent contractor.


Davidson ultimately won the muddled election but soon stepped down from the commission giving and Pearcy, who was vice-chair moved up to the presidency position.


While addressing those on the dais, Simpson included the following recommendations in his speech. He urged the commission to think about them. But by cutting Simpson off, Pearcy spoke for all of them by saying that they weren't interested in even listening to them. Only Ward really had anything of substance to say about Simpson's departure and the two in many cases, were polar opposites on issues.

But the community which has been thoroughly disregarded by the city probably could benefit from reading them. At the very least, they are good topics for discussion.



Simpson's recommendations:

1) That members of the CPRC be selected by the mayor and confirmed by a majority of the city council. Removal of a CPRC member shall be, however, reserved for the CPRC and only effected by a 2/3 vote of the full commission

The only problem is then there would be friends of only one politician instead of friends of seven. Why not go back to giving everyone an equal chance of consideration? See what they bring to the table, not who has the best seat at the annual mayoral ball or who throws the best block party. Do not tell other elected officials that you will hold your nose and vote for their guy or gal if you will do like for them. It often seems like the decisions are made by council members before the interviews are even held. Provide the public with copies of applications and resumes for all candidates, not just several of them. If you want to backdoor someone at the last possible minute, backdoor their applications and resume with them. That's just common courtesy.

2) That the CPRC "executive director" be selected solely by the CPRC and serve at the will of the CPRC by a 2/3 majority vote of the full commission.

3) That the CPRC "executive director's [sic] manager's salary be based upon 75% of the city manager's annual compensation package.

In actuality, the current executive manager, Kevin Rogan is said to be making $80,000 a year which if true, makes him the lowest paid executive director/manager in the CPRC's history. Starting pay for this position in 2001 was about $85,000 a year. Rogan's predecessor earned at least $105,000 annually.

4) That the CPRC have full access to an attorney whose sole mission is to support the CPRC and is---in no way---in the city chain of command.

Ah, but even mentioning this for possible discussion not only was vetoed by the city's attorney, but Simpson's future on the commission began to get a bit more shaky.

5) That the CPRC shall have a roster of qualified investigative firms who will be updated regularly and can be called upon, as needed, to insure accurate and credible results and;

Earlier this year, three city department heads tried to not only reduce the independence of those assigned to the commission's officer-involved death cases by trying to choose the investigative firms themselves, but they also tried to restrict the commission's ability to do its own independent and timely investigations. Only an outcry from the community including by community leaders put that plan on hold for the time being. Of course, until there's another officer-involved death for the CPRC to investigate, there's no way of knowing whether or not it even still has the power to investigate.

6) That the CPRC reflect and respect the notion that it is "advisory" to the city manager and the city council--nothing more, nothing less. But, it is, however, morally accountable to the citizenship for issuing true and honest deliberations, reports and communications to the citizens--not clouded by political pressures!!

They are pretty solid and reflect his observations of the panel's work during his brief stint serving on it.

His inclusion of the item addressing the practice of city council members removing commissioners unfortunately stemmed from attempts that were contemplated at the end of June to try to remove Simpson for being mentally incompetent. I had once been approached by one councilman on the street who asked me questions about Simpson's mental competency after this councilman had read this blog relating an incident involving a clash between Simpson and Priamos. This councilman wasn't the only individual raising "concerns" about the mental competency of Simpson as he mentioned the name of another elected official who apparently had discussed the issue with him and in fact, the councilman who approached me already seemed to be considering possible replacements for Simpson. Except for the initial two interviews conducted during the selection process last March, it's not clear whether or not these two elected officials ever spoke with Simpson to give them a better understanding of his mental competency.

This development occurred soon after Simpson clashed with Priamos during a meeting where Simpson had protested one of Priamos' legal interpretations of whether or not the commissioners could release minority reports and if so, how it would be done. But in reality, based on the conversation with the city council member, the vacancy appeared to be almost as important than either Simpson's removal or his mental competency and after hearing what Simpson had to say, especially involving his meetings with Pearcy, that appears to be the case. It also speaks to how politicized the selection process for the CPRC has become, where it appears that it's more important for elected officials to trade political appointments, to get or try to get their own people on than in selecting individuals who truly represent a cross-section of the community.

It also wasn't the first time I've had an elected official deliberately mislead me to try to get me to do or support something he was doing even without an accurate explanation of what that "something" was. It was pretty sobering to realize last night after listening to Simpson's account that this councilman may have not been as sincere in his concern on the issue as I thought he was. After all, one issue that apparently didn't arise in Simpson's "counseling" sessions with Pearcy was the issue of mental competency so that's a straw man argument in this equation.

The second recommendation offered up by Simpson, is wishful thinking. Although like Simpson said, the executive manager is to serve two masters, in reality he only can serve one and that "master" is the one who can fire him. Like most management employees, the executive manager of the CPRC is an "at will" position, and he serves not at the will of volunteers serving on a board or commission but at the will of the city manager. Who can fire the executive manager if he causes displeasure? The city manager or the commissioners?

No "at will" management employee can truly have a mind of his or her own and act independently under the current regime at City Hall. After all, if that were true, several employees who "resigned" in the past several years would still be working for the city including the last executive director of the CPRC and possibly former Human Resources Director Art Alcaraz who allegedly stepped down in the face of being asked to change hiring practices in his division. The city even attempted to convert "at will" positions in the police department several months ago, until it was stopped by problems involving legality surrounding the issue and a lot of protest.

The commission itself has faced changes imposed on it by City Hall and will face even more in upcoming months, none of which will have considered the input of those in the community. Community members are not considered real "stake holders" of the commission that many fought and worked for in the community to bring to fruition in a city where its city government for a long time wanted no part of civilian review. The community has not been asked even once what it thought about the changes made to the seven-year-old panel by those at City Hall.

It's become the latest toy of the city manager's office until that office gets tired and puts it back on the shelf to gather dust and move on to some other shiny plaything.

What's ironic about this sorry episode and everything that preceded it, was it reminded me of an admonition former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer gave to the city after the dissolution of the stipulated agreement between the two last year.

Lockyer said that the city, the department and the community had to work as equal partners in the continued reform of the police department. Yet, when it comes to a mechanism demanded by the community, implemented by the city which was set up in part to oversee the department's complaint process, the city and the department work together to get what they want and leave the community once again out in the cold. Those actions done largely by those who weren't witnesses to what preceded the consent decree in terms of the state of the city and police department, have shown that important lessons remain unlearned by all three partners.

But bravo to Simpson for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said. It's too bad his topics didn't elicit much discussion from the five commissioners who were able to show up. And it's indeed a pity that in order to show moral courage, to say what needed to be said and to ask the same questions the community has been asking for the past year to no avail, one had to resign from the commission first and return to being a community member.




A Temecula Police Department officer who was charged for accepting a bribe had his hearing postponed until October. He's no longer working for that agency and joins the growing list of deputies who work for Riverside County being prosecuted for an assortment of crimes.




Also, shock waves were set off by the abrupt resignation of Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle who was in his second term in the position. Doyle will be working for the state's parole board upon approval of his appointment by the state senate.

More information was provided in this updated article.


It appears that not only were there tensions between the Riverside Sheriffs' Association and Doyle but with other people as well.



(excerpt, Press Enterprise)


Doyle's resignation comes amid public clashes with Supervisor Jeff Stone and an increasingly public rift with District Attorney Rod Pacheco as he resisted some of their initiatives. There are widespread rumors that Doyle and Pacheco -- the county's top two law-enforcement managers -- barely speak to each other.

Clashing County Officials

While most of Doyle's first four-year term went by without discord, the past two years have been marked by public disputes between Doyle and Supervisor Jeff Stone, a close Pacheco ally.

Doyle declined comment on his relationships with them.

Pacheco also declined to discuss the rift, saying he personally liked Doyle and had spoken to the sheriff at the recent opening of a new sheriff's substation in Perris.

But, Pacheco said, "We need a solid, reliable partner. We need a collaborator. We need somebody who is willing to make sacrifices, somebody passionate about protecting the citizens."

"We cannot afford discord," Pacheco said.

It isn't known how this latest development in county politics will impact next year's supervisor race between Bob Buster and Frank Schiavone. The latter received the endorsement of the union which has backed both Schiavone and earlier challenger and current CPRC commissioner, Linda Soubirous because of its opposition to Doyle who was supported by Buster last time. It remains to be seen how much money the RSA will toss in this county race given Doyle's pending departure.





The Riverside Unified School District has three seats on its board that are up for grabs this November and prospective challengers are already dropping their hats in the ring.



Is the Back to the Grind coffee spot a victim of the city's SmartPark program? The city claims it's working well and it's been of great assistance in getting its own employee's vehicles off the street and into the new garages. In other words, it's helped the city to address its own parking shortage involving its employees. Yet business owners in the downtown area say they are losing sales revenue since the program was implemented. What is its ultimate fate? Remember, this is an election year. Anything can happen.


I hope to see "Back to the Grind" stick around. It's worth more in my opinion than the half-dozen or so Starbucks that will be surrounding it some day.


Here's a motto. Support Riverside Renaissance, because we are worth it. Not that I disagree but I don't think it's "worth it" or I'm "worth it" if it comes at the expense of other people, meaning small business owners, many of which are Asian-American or Latino, who spent years paying business taxes into the coffers of the Downtown Neighborhood Partnership for exterior improvements they would never see, the lack of which would later be used to define their businesses as "blight" and thus subject to eviction for businesses which cater to a wealthier, Whiter crowd, aka as the people who are really "worth it".

Those used car lots might have been an eyesore to some but their owners contributed through business taxes to the beautification efforts of the pedestrian mall. Without these folks, it would have been that much harder to achieve that goal.

Do I believe that Riverside as a people are worth having improvements? Hell, yeah. The difference is, I don't subscribe to the principle of that all people are equally worthy but some are more worthy than others. Everyone, rich, poor, middle-class, in this city is worthy of improvements but who's paying the price for those improvements that are to be exclusively enjoyed by others?

River City: Sweetness and light?

Walking through downtown Riverside is always an interesting experience. This morning while walking across the parking lot of a credit union one block away from the police department's administrative headquarters, this white car pulled up and this young man asked me if I needed a ride. I said no, and continued walking. As I was crossing the street, I heard him yell from behind me.


"I've got money," he said from his car.




I turned to look at him and I said, "I do too. $5.50." then walked away. If he does have money, I think he needs to spend it on his car rather than on prostitutes which is what he was obviously interested in. But either this young man is lost or the red light district is coming to the downtown area, on the heels of Riverside Renaissance.

If you are a woman who walks at least several blocks in Riverside, the reality is that at least one motorist or if you are really fortunate, some man on foot is going to pull his car over or come up to you and ask you if you need a ride, are interested in a date or he'll just gesture you over. Most of the time it's annoying, as is this attitude that this behavior just waved off as simply "boys being boys". Men can't help what they are, is the admonition often said including by police officers.

Some years back, an officer had told me that men were deviant creatures and this was a free country where people could express themselves as they chose. And what was the man who was being reported doing to express himself? Tailing women in a car, stopping, asking for directions while masturbating.

I felt sorry for the officer at the time because he obviously hadn't received the same training that a detective from the University of California, Riverside has received when he told me that the campus' police department always took these reports seriously because very often, what people call exhibitionists or "weenie wagglers" go on to commit more serious crimes against women. It was too bad at the time, that a police officer hired by the city was denied that same information and forced to rely on the "boys will be boys" argument because he didn't know what else to say. The men who commit these crimes always appear to have their privacy respected in a way the women who sell themselves don't.

Maybe getting more women in law enforcement will help change the "boys will be boys" belief system, but in many police department including Riverside's, that is a difficult, uphill task. Police departments themselves have struggled with sexual harassment and sexism within their ranks as the millions of dollars paid out in settlements to female officers has clearly shown.



Being women, we share our stories and our methods of addressing these situations or not with each other. It's an unfortunate rite of passage that began for me, when I was propositioned while walking down the street to school by a grown man at the ripe old age of nine. A reminder that any woman and even young girls are commodities to at least some men who see us walking down the street.

Some women see men tailing women who are walking down the street like one woman said she had seen while driving near Cal Baptist University the other day. She pulled up her car and told the guy that she was watching what he was doing and he left the young woman alone and took off probably to find an easier target.

A woman I know had a much scarier experience with two men following her on University Avenue and when she told an officer about it on her cell phone when she called him while trying to figure out what to do, she later found out that her experience was the butt of humor among officers and other people based largely on the amount of money the men had offered her(which was $500) if she would go with them. She found out that they were joking that she should be complimented that a man or men wanted to pay $500 for her.

To male officers, it's a joke to share among themselves and other men because it's not something they will ever experience. To women, it's not, it's a reminder that they are less than human and that their definition as humans is left for men to decide.

Even though in encounters between prostitutes and their customers, there are legally speaking, two individuals breaking the law, it's the women who often are the ones arrested and go to court. But the men? When all the prostitutes are arrested or run out of town, their customers simply harass any woman walking down the street because they've learned that what they are doing might be a crime but boys will be boys.


Chief Russ Leach made the rounds of several community meetings in the Eastside saying that the curbs would be painted red and that men who were arrested would have their names and photographs posted in the newspaper. That made some women feel better because living in the neighborhood, they were tired of being harassed by men and having their daughters be harassed by men engaging in solicitation.

But that never happened. Every once in a while, also during an election year, there is a highly publicized "sting" involving the men. There was even a photograph of a man getting arrested but interestingly enough, the only part of the man visible in this photograph was the part of him that got him into trouble albeit with clothes on.

Women still walk in that and other neighborhoods and are approached by strange men on foot and in vehicles and they are harassed from one end of the city to another. Women are even followed by men who haggle at them from business drives and street intersections. It's part of life, of living in a society which devalues them and encounters with these men are reminders to them of this fact.




People are celebrating in the streets at the news that the freeway overpass near Blaine and Iowa has finally been completed after two years. A Press Enterprise article broke the news about the reopening of Third Street to traffic.


(excerpt)


Dale Kinnear, principal at John W. North High School in Riverside, remembers well the desperation he felt two years ago when he found out Caltrans was about to close the bridge over Third/Blaine streets near his campus for renovation.

"I thought it was going to be a nightmare," Kinnear said Tuesday.

Instead, the bridge closure, which ends today, has proven a nice break from the jaywalking, traffic and speeding concerns that have been chronic problems during Kinnear's 15 years at North High.

"It's been wonderful," he said. "There's hardly any traffic, so it's been really exceptionally safe."







Phil Pitchford, an old face at the newspaper also has a traffic blog here.




A woman filed a law suit alleging that she was raped by an off-duty Inglewood Police Department officer according to the Los Angeles Times. Her allegations are currently being investigated and there's no word on whether her case is related to the ongoing scandal involving Inglewood Police Department officers who fraternized with employees of massage parlors.


(excerpt, Los Angeles Times)


The 26-page lawsuit graphically describes what the woman calls a terrifying assault on Dec. 15. It says that she was followed by an Inglewood officer to her Econo Lodge motel room, raped and then forced to give the officer oral sex. Although the woman's identity is revealed in the lawsuit, The Times generally does not identify alleged victims of sex crimes without their permission. The lawsuit also gives the last names of two police officers -- the alleged perpetrator and his partner -- but The Times could not confirm their full names.

Recounting allegations that the newspaper first reported late last year, the lawsuit alleges that the woman was stopped by the two officers as she walked to a fast-food restaurant about 10:30 p.m. on a Sunday to get a late dinner. She was in town with her boyfriend, according to the lawsuit, to visit relatives for the holidays.

As she walked along Century Boulevard, a thoroughfare known for the presence of streetwalkers, the officers stopped her and accused her of being a prostitute, according to the lawsuit.

She denied the accusation and was followed back to her motel, where a night manager confirmed that she was a registered guest.

Nevertheless, the suit contends, one officer insisted that the woman take him to her motel room, where he again accused her of being a prostitute and then, with one hand on his handgun, forced her to have sex.

After the alleged attack, the lawsuit says, the officer left with his partner, who had been waiting downstairs in their patrol car.



Another example of a different sort of how a woman walking down a street is seen as a commodity and treated accordingly, only this time among those who had sworn to serve and protect her.





One man's solution to addressing parking problems in downtown areas of cities is here. The author stated that cities need to come up with what works for them rather than simply copying what other places are doing to address this challenging issue.

An interesting letter in the Press Enterprise about the city council's decision to rescind the electric rate increases is here.





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


---The Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum



I have been following the latest discussion at Craigslist and how the postings about this blog there have been removed by individuals who are unhappy with them. Individuals who support some of the incumbents who are currently in office seem puzzled and very dismayed that people are failing to be "constructive"(which means to support their agenda) and are instead "divisive"(which means you don't) and are criticizing what is happening in this city.

Their justification for bringing down postings about this site is because opinion is reflected in this blog and they are right. They then state that posting "opinion" on Craigslist is counter to that site's mission. However, simply by expressing their own opinions on the topic which is what they are doing, they are essentially placing their own postings in the same category of "opinion" and consequently, by their own argument their own posts should be subjected to the same criteria for removal that they are applying on their opponents.

This is all silly. Politics by nature is about opinion and politics is the name of the topic that all of the posts fall under. At least 99% of what is posted by anyone on the "politics" category regardless of who or what they support in this year's election includes opinion. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, given that the topic is politics.

But there's another reality at work here too and that involves their strategy to handle dissent, which again, is labeled as being "divisive. Their strategy is to remove it so that others who might come along to Craigslist can't read it.

If that's how the supporters of several candidates or agendas want to deal with differing opinions, then that's one way to deal with it by erasing it from existence. But their actions which they proudly defend do reflect on those candidates and agendas that they do support especially if they allege that they are doing these actions in the names of others who aren't even there to say they support that action or not.

After seeing what's going on with Craigslist in this respect, it's not difficult to remember and reflect on the day several elected officials on the dais ordered the removal of elderly women from the chambers, while other elected officials watched and said nothing to oppose this action. Ironically as some might call it, the police officers seemed more inclined to ask the questions about what they were being ordered to do including Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez.


There's some interesting discussion including the issue of whether or not there will be a skate park and if so, where it will be with good contributions on all sides of that issue. More of that is needed, along with continued notifications of issues and public meetings so people can be informed on what's going on that impacts them.

Still, there seems to be this message that if you don't jump on the bandwagon, you don't know the truth and if you don't know this truth, you will be removed. Again, not surprising in a city where those on the dais have passed more restrictions on public comment than any city council in recent years had ever done. Criticism in their offices, flattery for them in public appears to be the motto of several councilmen including those up for office this year.

Apparently, you aren't telling the truth about Riverside unless you jump on the sweetness and light bandwagon and wave the pom poms over Riverside Renaissance and other civic adventures. And if you don't jump on that bandwagon, then your posts are subject to removal. But I wonder if the only source of information for some of these people are the political officials or candidates that they are aligning themselves with during this election cycle.

Not that parts of Riverside Renaissance aren't great, but many of these projects have actually been in the works for years and others who became the current city council contributed to bringing them to fruition as well. The current city council takes credit for making decisions on the dais that other council members had done as well, earlier in the stages of many of these projects. The difference is that the city was under no illusion that it was flush with money at the time. Whether it is indeed so wealthy now to afford all the bills that it is piling up remains to be seen as budgets are balanced in the years ahead. With feast comes famine, and Riverside's coffers have to be prepared to deal with the inevitability of both.


However, it's a bit jarring when you talk to people involved with some of these projects and you ask where the money is coming from and they can't tell you. Why is that? What do you mean you don't know where the money on your own project is coming from? With that reality, it's not at all surprising to read in the newspaper that a high-ranking city employee was trying to fleece money out of the construction fund for the Magnolia Police Station out of its budget for his own personal use. What were the steps taken by the city to ensure that this would not happen again?

It's difficult to miss all the conflicts between the city's employment unions and the city manager's office including the standoff last March between the Riverside Police Officers' Association and the Riverside Police Administrators' Association over the attempt by that office to change three management positions in the police department to being "at will" not just at those ranks, but period. An action that wasn't even legal to do was only pulled off the meeting agenda for a second look after some lobbying was done out of concern for this planned action.

What will be coming next from the ranks of city employees? The only guarantee is that more serious issues will arise from some place. And that's not counting all the investigations both from the inside outwards and from the outside inwards that are ongoing involving several city departments.

It's a bit difficult to put that under the sweetness and light banner but some have tried. It's commendable to be loyal to your guy, but reality is, this city also has its share of serious problems and for many of the good things that are said to be happening, timing is everything.

Are the positive things happening at the moment happening because the elected officials are responsive to the voices of the city's residents or because the city is currently in the middle of an election cycle? For an answer to that, look at what went down in 2006 and compare it to what's gone down or is going on in 2007.

If, however, you realize that certain things that are positive are becoming realities this year while an election is taking place and weren't happening last year when of course, no local elections were taking place then you are a liar. Even while decisions made by the city council last year have suddenly been reversed this year including the latest involving the revocation of the multi-tiered electric rate increase structure.

Coming in November, are four runoff elections where the stakes are fairly high. What is being played out now reflects those stakes. Still, voters in the odd-numbered wards should research the issues of this city which impact them and the positions held by the candidates on these issues before making a decision on whom they wish to vote for at the polls. For better or for worse, the winners of these contests will represent those living in these wards for the next four years.

Barring any decisions to jump ship mid-term and run for higher office, of course. After all, there's a mayoral race next year and although the mayor has few powers in a council-management political system, the stakes are still high for this position as well.

Hopefully, the discussons will continue.

Election 2007: I want what's there and there.

The plans are to expand the perks being added to Tesquesquite Park, according to the latest Press Enterprise article. Over 50 individuals including lots of younger folks like teenagers gathered at the latest meeting held by the task force to provide further input. Many of the teen set wanted a new skateboard park and they might be getting one. After all, it's an election year and that's the time to get things you want. It's the time to correct missteps taken during nonelection years.

After the first Tuesday in November is done, you'll have to wait until the 2008 mayoral race officially kicks off to try again. Quite a few shopping days until that one.


Councilman Dom Betro, who chairs the task force for both Tesquesquite Park and Fairmout Park said he's cool with teenagers having things to do as long as they stay away from downtown with their skateboards. But alas, that's the only thing available for them to do downtown.


(excerpt)


If the city builds a skate park at Tequesquite Park, "You'll never see me downtown again," Wood Streets resident Jonathan Davis, 15, told the task force.




There's not much for young people to do downtown and it seems that they especially teenagers and their families are treated like personas non gratis, since the departure of the kids' museum, the Wednesday Night Street Fair and the Orange Blossom Festival. Most of the plans for the downtown included in Riverside Renaissance seemed geared towards making it a locale for the older, more urbane, more moneyed population given that the anchoring business is going to be live theater which costs a hefty price per ticket.

Live theater and other performing arts are good for everyone to enjoy watching or participating in but many families can't afford to buy tickets to see live performances. It would be helpful in the case of the Fox Theater that if it ever gets renovated, that there will be programs encouraging and facilitating more younger people and people with lower annual incomes to be able to enjoy performances at the theater.






The ACLU finished and released a study on surveillance cameras that states that they are ineffective at decreasing the crime rate and can be abused by those posting them, according to the Press Enterprise.

With other cities like Palm Springs using them and Riverside planning to place them throughout the city in the next several years, it appears this might put some crimp in their plans but the cities will continue onward undeterred. After all, the ACLU is a four-lettered word in this city and region in more ways than just one.

Still, the study questioned the effectiveness of cameras in cities ranging from Redlands to those in the United Kingdom and urged the public to become more involved in providing input on the issue of their implementation in their own cities.


(excerpt)


"We hope this is going to be a turning point where people will start examining the choice to multiply the presence of cameras," Peter Bibring, an ACLU staff attorney, said by phone.






Over 25 people in San Bernardino protested actions committed by police officers in that city against them while they were mourning the death of someone who had been killed, according to the Press Enterprise. They said officers struck them, pepper sprayed them and used profanities. The mourners were gathered at the Westside for a vigil for Charles Lawrence Marshall who on early Saturday morning became the city's 40th homicide victim this year when he was shot and killed. Soon after, about 20 police officers appeared and initially began grabbing people out of the crowd and arresting them.

At least one woman said she had spoken with an officer who punched her in the face like you would a man, one onlooker told a reporter.


(excerpt)


"We're not animals!" neighborhood resident Tommy Nelson Jr. told council members. "How would you guys feel if the police came when you were mourning a death? How would you feel?"



San Bernardino's mayor, Patrick Morris appeared distressed at what he heard from the city residents who came to the city council meeting to complain about it and said there would be a full investigation. Witnesses to Marshall's shooting who still remain quiet about it probably will remain quiet especially if they feel that those they should be relating their accounts to will show up at a memorial vigil and punch them in the face and pepper spray them.





Columnist Dan Bernstein, of the Press Enterprise wrote a potpourri of information about Riverside in this column.

He included commentary on the city's brilliant decision to close Sippy Woodhead Pool to local residents in the Eastside during the hot summer so it could ready the pool for the academic institutions who need it during their competitive swimming seasons.


(excerpt)



Hard, but not impossible. Riverside's crack City Hall has emptied the Sippy Woodhead Pool, situated in the less-than-affluent Eastside, for historically hot August and September. As they say in that beer commercial: "Brilliant!"

But not surprising. Last December, the whoozwhooz raised electricity rates without the slightest thought of Riverside's lovely summers. This time, they approved a pool-repair job in April and demanded that the contractor get it done in 120 days. You get the impression City Hall folks live day and night, night and day, in air-conditioned cocoons?

The timing of these not-so-urgent pool repairs was tailored to the convenience of swimming organizations, not neighborhood kids. This didn't sit well with Jenny Perez, who told the P-E her kids need that pool. "We can't afford air conditioning."

Not so fast. Last week, City Hall actually did feel some heat and canceled that electric-rate hike. The city's closing pools and rolling back rates in the dead of summer. The message: Got a/c? Let her rip.





It's about 100 degrees in Riverside and hopefully, people can stay cool as much as possible. Hopefully, the aging infrastructure of the electrical system in this city can keep up with the demand. But compared to putting up new housing and commercial development projects, improving or even maintaining the city's infrastructure of public services seems to be much further lower on the list of priorities.

There's been a lot of discussion about developing Riverside via the Renaissance plan to prepare and even preserve the city in the wake of unprecedented growth in this region in the next decade or so. However, not much of that fervent discussion seems to trickle down from lucrative housing and commercial projects to more basic needs like better streets, public transportation, public safety and public utilities.

Politicians don't get rich and their friends don't get rich from promoting the importance of a vibrant and updated infrastructure but doing this is much more important when facing increases in both surface area and population in this city through immigration and annexations.





The city of Riverside is not the only place where city officials prepare to jump ship to run for higher political offices. It also is happening in Los Angeles, according to this article in the Los Angeles Times.

Former Police Chief turned Councilman Bernard Parks wants to run for county supervisor against troubled incumbent Yvonne Burke.


(excerpt)


Parks is one of several politicians who have eyed a run for the 2nd Supervisorial District, which stretches from Culver City and Mar Vista on the northwest to Carson and Compton on the southeast.

So far, his likeliest opponent is seen as being state Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles), who served the same council district as Parks.

Burke, who has announced plans to step down at the end of her term next year, said she won't endorse a replacement until much closer to the election.

But Parks has already picked up the backing of Supervisor Michael Antonovich, the board's most conservative member, who said the former chief would "bring peace and civility to the Board of Supervisors."

"He's a fiscal conservative, but he also recognizes that public safety is the first line of protection for our community," Antonovich said.




Here's some trivia. Ridley-Thomas used to be a theology instructor before turning to politics.



Here, you had Steve Adams, councilman of Ward Seven and state assembly hopeful, who didn't quiet make it past the Republican primary and is back in town trying to win another term as councilman. At yesterday's public safety committee meeting, Adams opted not to sit with fellow elected officials, Andrew Melendrez and Nancy Hart but sat next to several police management employees instead. Given that neither police labor union in the department opted to endorse him during the preliminary round of Election 2007, his behavior was very interesting.

It's not clear who in Ward Seven is being endorsed by either the Riverside Police Officers' Association or the Riverside Police Administrators Association but the leadership of the RPOA appeared to be very upset several months ago at a letter circulated by Adams to ward residents which was filled with lies and untruthful information. Still, given that the election is down to two candidates, Adams and former mayor, Terry Frizzel, will either union ultimately bite the bullet(not the best pun) and pick one or will they do what's probably the wisest thing and sit it out?

Adams' choice in seating at the meeting did raise several eyebrows. The intrigue of the election year continues onward.


Also tossing his hat into the ring for a higher elected office is current Ward Five Councilman Frank Schiavone. He plans to run for a county supervisor seat next year and has already received the endorsement of the Riverside Sheriffs' Assocation which holds the key to a campaign chest of at least $500,000.





Here's an announcement from Belo Blog about a local competition.


(excerpt)



Contest will fund community projects
Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone has created a contest for community projects that will give winners to receive financial help.

The Third District Civic Betterment Project asks residents within the district to submit proposals for onprojects that would change the lives of those less fortunate. The third district includes the cities of Murrieta, Temecula, Hemet and unincorporated areas of Menifee Valley, Anza and Winchester.

Entries are due Sept. 15. Ten projects will be chosen to receive $1,000 each.
Information and entry forms can be found online at www.civicbettermentproject.org


--Claudia Bustamante
cbustamante@PE.com

Posted by Mark Acosta at 10:27 AM







With the hiring of the new executive manager, the Community Police Review Commission will be reviewing a lot of old business in upcoming weeks in relation to the use of independent investigators in officer-involved deaths and the role of the executive manager in conducting outreach.

These should be interesting discussions given the actions taken by the city manager's office to first block the CPRC's efforts to conduct timely investigations of officer-involved deaths, until community leaders expressed their concern and outrage at this development. It's also interesting to hear that the discussion of the executive manager's role in outreach is back up for discussion after the city manager's office had barred former executive director, Pedro Payne from attending public meetings in 2005 not long before his resignation.

Will there be a discussion, or will the city manager's office lay down the law? Stay tuned for further developments as they take place.




Coming down the road:



"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."


----Lewis Carroll




A shell within a shell: Citizen complaints in the Eastside and the RPD.


Improvements for the CPRC: A former commissioner's recommendations


And of course, Election 2007: The competition continues.

From Acorns to Oaks: Let the CPRC do its job

The Press Enterprise has spoken on the state of affairs involving Riverside's Community Police Review Commission. They urged the city government and city management to allow the commission to do the job the public has through vote assigned it to do.


(excerpt)


The new executive director also needs to boost public outreach. The city manager's office barred the last director from attending community meetings in 2006 -- a bizarre restriction for a position aimed at improving police-community relations. The city's original 2000 job description listed public outreach as one of the executive director's primary duties, and City Hall should free Rogan to do that essential task.

Effective communication with the public is crucial to building civic support for the commission. But city officials also have to provide proper resources and political support for the panel to be effective. Riverside voters backed the panel enough to write its existence into the city charter in 2004. City Hall should respect the voters' decision.

Besides, a credible review commission can help build confidence in the city's police, by providing an independent forum for discussions of police practice. And the panel provides police with a community perspective on events -- one distinctly different from internal police reviews or district attorney investigations. Such insights can be a valuable tool for setting department policy.




Of course, the city government including the micromanaging branch of it on the seventh floor at City Hall has never been good at taking advice and it has never respected the wishes of the voters in terms of their support of the CPRC through a ballot initiative that was approved in 2004. But it was commendable for the editorial board to make an effort to provide some anyway. Noteworthy, but indeed a wasted effort on its part.

The city government has not been neglecting the CPRC. Far from it, it has been doing what some have called, killing it with kindness, meaning that they purport to be making a lot of changes in terms of its operations for the better without community input when in reality, these changes have led to an exodus of commissioners from the commission as well as the "resignation" of an executive director, Pedro Payne. They have led to a commission that no longer knows whether it's coming or it's going and the fact that the voters in this city support the commission has made no difference.

After all, the measure to protect the CPRC passed in every single precinct in every ward in this city including in the wards that are currently represented by city council members who oppose the CPRC. City council members have said publicly that they support the right of the CPRC to do its job because they respect the will of the voters. They have said this with straight faces while behind the scenes, their direct employees have done what Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein has called, "hollowing it out" from the inside. They have said this in the wake of six resignations including five commissioners and one executive director in less than 12 months. Fewer people in the community believe them than they did a year ago.



Actually, what appears to have propelled the latest campaign against Riverside's civilian oversight mechanism is the fact that the voters had the audacity to place it in the city's charter where the current city government, the majority of which don't support the CPRC, couldn't easily touch it. Judging by the actions involving the CPRC and the reluctance of even those on the dais who purportedly support it to question them, the decision of the voters appeared to simply anger and frustrate the city council, most of whom were financed during their initial election campaigns by the Riverside Police Officers' Association because they opposed civilian review.

Now mixed in the fray is incoming executive manager, Kevin Rogan who has a pretty tough row to hoe in terms of either being content to serve as a puppet of the city manager's office like that office tried and failed to do with his predecessor or to struggle for however long his endurance lasts to maintain an independent path. The most prudent step is to do the latter while making it appear to your bosses that you are doing the former but no employee who heads any city department has managed to achieve this delicate balance yet. Which way it will go down remains to be seen in the days, weeks and months if this individual lasts that long, ahead.


Speaking of departures, another CPRC commissioner has resigned. Steve Simpson who was appointed in March submitted his resignation on Friday. His resignation is the fifth during a nine month period and his name the latest on a list of those who departed this ship that is currently headed by City Manager Brad Hudson and his adjutant, Tom DeSantis. His departure puts the commission at a loss, as much as the four previous resignations have. Unlike other commissioners who officially resigned for a variety of reasons, Simpson admitted his frustration but then honesty is one of his strong suits. Abrasive as hell at times, but always telling it as it was, that was Simpson during his short tenure on the panel.

Given that he's as sharp as a tack, it was difficult to believe that there were city officials who actually asked questions of myself about his mental competence only several months ago. One of those elected officials approached me with questions based on part on what he had read on this site.

Was he a pain in the butt a lot of the time? Yes, indeed. But was he mentally competent? Most definitely so along with honest in his choice of words and independent in terms of that as well. It's mind boggling why any council member who hadn't even talked to Simpson would believe it was appropriate to treat him in that fashion. Apparently, there were at least two of them who did.

Unfortunately, honesty and independence of thought are two concepts this city's current regime have always struggled to understand let alone tolerate from the city residents who provide not only public comment at the microphone at weekly meetings but who also serve on its boards and commissions. They probably will never understand what either of these two words mean if they haven't figured either out already.

Whoever is selected to replace him will be decided upon by the vote of the entire city council after a recruitment, selection and interview process is undergone, in theory. In reality, it's the choice of the city council member who is owed a political favor, given that about 99% of the qualified individuals who apply to be considered for the positions have no realistic chance of even being interviewed. Whoever on the dais is owed a political favor by the others will be the one who ultimately selects Simpson's replacement. While Simpson was an independent thinker, it's likely his replacement will be the opposite, whomever that person might be. That's the nature of political appointments after all.

The scenario that may play itself out was simply delayed in its inevitability. But as some have said, including at least one commissioner, things will sort themselves out soon enough.

And so it goes in River City.





The Oregonian published an article about how Mayor Tom Potter of Portland, who is a retired police chief fired a current police officer for a series of mistakes he had made in relation to an onduty shooting.


(excerpt)


Potter demanded Lt. Jeffrey Kaer's badge despite the advice of Chief Rosie Sizer and the 17-year veteran's own emotional plea for his job during a July 30 meeting with the mayor.

At that sit-down, the officer known to colleagues as "Kaer Bear" reminded the mayor that he has spent his career winning commendations and doing exactly the kind of neighborhood-based police work Potter loves. A union lawyer also reminded the mayor that there's a good chance a state arbitrator will give Kaer his job back.

But in a sternly worded termination letter, Potter listed 10 separate points at which he believes Kaer either violated Police Bureau policy or policing common sense. They all came before Kaer fired his 9mm Glock pistol.

"Make no mistake, every police officer has the right and the duty to protect themselves and the community," Potter said. "But no officer should put themselves in that position by repeatedly ignoring bureau policy and exercising poor judgment."




It's a bit different situation where an elected official even a former law enforcement officer can fire a police officer but then again, Portland's a lot different than Riverside in many ways. Potter's kind of an interesting politician, actually or so I've heard.





In Denver, the police department has its hands tied when it come to addressing problems with officers who are repeat offenders, according to this article in the Denver Post. What it sounds like is that if this agency even has an early warning system mechanism in place, it's not one that works properly.


(excerpt)


At least 25 officers remained on the force from January 1997 through September 2006 after they were punished for what the department calls "departure from the truth." In some other police departments, such a complaint, if sustained, can lead to immediate dismissal because it can be used by defense lawyers in criminal cases to challenge an officer's court testimony.

And the force also has persistent repeat offenders. Of 16 officers with 10 or more sustained complaints against them in the time period, only one has been fired. Three of those repeat offenders resigned, and one retired during that time.

It's all part of a discipline system top city officials say is broken and in need of a complete overhaul. Long-standing rules at the city require safety officials to consider past discipline when they impose new sanctions. That means the current administration feels bound by the decisions made by past, more lenient administrations.

In a recent federal court case, Al LaCabe, the city's safety manager, who is in charge of overseeing the Police Department, said not enough written guidelines exist for disciplining officers. He said the "comparative discipline" rule has backfired and caused numerous inconsistencies and problems.

"In my experience as a manager, I have come to learn that there are certain systems in the Police Department and certain ways discipline is handed out which are somewhat inconsistent and leads to what I call sometimes inconsistent results," LaCabe said."




One officer had 26 disciplinary actions taken against him before he was finally fired. One excuse offered up was that the management of the department only reviewed cases where officers were terminated or suspended so they missed many other red flags appearing all over the department.

Several officers still employed have been convicted of crimes including drunk driving. That's not much different than the Riverside Police Department which employs two officers with misdemeanor convictions. In fact, one of them was even promoted while serving out a term of summary probation given as part of a sentence connected with a drunk driving related conviction.



The NAACP in San Jose, California is demanding a federal probe of that city's police department according to the San Jose Mercury News. The organization's leaders said that the department practices racially profiling of Black and Latino motorists and further investigation by an outside agency is warranted.

Rev. Nelson B. Rivers from the NAACP's national office met with the police chief but had some critical words to say about him.


(excerpt)


The chief is very affable, very smooth and eloquent; he has command of the subject matter," Rivers said in an interview with the Mercury News. "But he also did not want to deal with the reality of what we were talking about."

Rivers said: "The chief may be living in the 51st state - the state of denial."



No word as of yet from the U.S. Department of Justice on whether or not it will open a federal probe into the police department.



Also, the public safety committee in Riverside hosted an update of the police department's crisis mental health training that was widely attended by city employees and county mental health professionals serving on the training committee.

Councilman Steve Adams nixed sitting with Committee Chair Andrew Melendrez and fellow member, Councilwoman Nancy Hart to sit with the police contingent. Never a dull moment in his quest for their political endorsement and support during the final round of Election 2007.

More on that meeting in a future posting.

River City Hall: Shocked and Awed

The controversy involving rate hikes for electricity usage in this city continued as public utilities employees took some responsibility, according to this article in the Press Enterprise.

Public Utilities Director Dave Wright gave a presentation at Friday's Board of Public Utilities meeting and said that his division had erred in not educating the public about the impact that the rate increases including the creation of a multi-tier program would have on the summer's utility bills.


(excerpt)


"It was wrong," Wright said at a morning meeting of the Board of Public Utilities, and he accepted the blame.




Board member Dave Barnhart said that the panel he sat on could have done a better job at addressing the issue before sending its recommendations to the city council.

Several city council members including Art Gage, Dom Betro and Frank Schiavone said they should have asked more questions about the process, but said that the information provided didn't cause them to do so. All three of them have election dates in their futures so they have to choose their words carefully, though Gage said that he had to be careful not to vote on something just because it was in front of him. That's pretty good advice, actually.


Also spanking the city council was the editorial board of the Press Enterprise which scolded it on revoking the rate increases that it so thoughtfully imposed last year. You know, the year that no one currently sitting on the dais was up for election.

The rates were examined thoroughly before being passed, the editorial board argued. They were also necessary to save the city from a worse fate. It's one thing to have an elected body that's in the dark, but a city?



(excerpt)



Just why residents would be shocked that electricity rate hikes make power more expensive was not clear. But the council certainly has no basis for surprise; council members unanimously approved the higher electricity rates on Dec. 19, after a highly public process of hearings and debate.

And Tuesday's council action ignores the crucial reason behind the rate hike. Riverside's demand for power is quickly growing beyond the city's capacity to supply electricity. The rate increase will pay for a new $125 million substation and a $100 million city power plant. Without those improvements, Riverside faces rolling blackouts within two or three years.



The interesting thing is that some areas of Riverside are already on the rolling blackout plan due to the city's aging electric infrastructure, suffering numerous outrages as soon as the weather gets hot. It's actually a separate season for these folks on an annual basis.

The board suggested that the motives for suspending the multi-tier plan weren't entirely altruistic.


(excerpt)


There was no confusion about December's rate hike: The city carefully studied and thoroughly debated the decision, and the rationale was compelling. The council's sudden concern over high electric bills smacks of political pandering in an election season -- which no one should confuse with real leadership.



Few people do. But with the first of three straight election cycles just about to be completed this autumn, expect a lot more of the former and less of the latter. But hey, that's entertainment!

Not that those on the dais aren't capable of being leaders, but lately, oh beginning around the filing date for Election 2007, it's like a burning issue comes up, people complain and the city council panders often by switching its position on an issue 180 or so degrees. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No, because often elected officials make mistakes or change their minds because they see that their original views or decisions on issues were incorrect. Here, however, a pattern has emerged of late.


Sometimes, a member of the body or more than one will say, let's take it to the people. Issues that can be taken to the people include choo choo trains and crowing roosters. Issues that can't be taken to the people and must be stopped at all costs of course include eminent domain. The push to put an initiative on eminent domain to the people was resisted strongly by those on the dais including those members who have adopted the flavor of the moment, which is taking issues to the people and allowing the people to decide.






Even as temperatures soar in the Inland Empire, Eastside residents in Riverside remain without a swimming pool, a Press Enterprise article stated. The Sippy Woodhead pool has been closed for renovation, which is a head scratcher considering that it makes more sense to most people to close a pool for renovation outside of the summer months when it is most often used. But, the city seems to be scheduling it around the competitive swimming schedules of schools and colleges outside of the neighborhood rather than the wishes of those who live within it. So often that's the case with the Eastside, the next neighborhood on deck to be gentrified within the next 10 years under not just one, but two ambitious development plans.

Janny Perez, who was interviewed in the article, brings her children every day to cool off in the pool during the hot summer months.


(excerpt)


Perez said it made no sense to have the facility unavailable when temperatures are soaring into the triple digits.

She said she was particularly disturbed when she was informed by community center staff that improvements were being made for the benefit of the competitive swimmers who train there.

"That is not serving the community," she said.




No it's not. If it were, this contract which was badly needed would have been done so that the Eastside residents could use their own pool during the months it's most needed. Especially given how so many people's wallets got socked by decisions made by the city council regarding the utility rates last December and how many people can't afford air conditioning and use the pool to cool off in the summer heat.

That would require putting them first and as said, that hardly ever happens in this city even with issues involving their own neighborhood.


In the meantime, according to the early draft of the annual report to be issued eventually by the Community Police Review Commission, no complaints were filed by residents in Eastside during 2006. Why this is so, might just be a more complicated question to answer than it has initially appeared.






This past week, at least 965 jurors were called in to be paneled for jury trials being heard by 12 strike team judges sent to Riverside by Sacramento in an attempt to reduce the case backlog generated by an ongoing shortage of judicial officers in the county as well as changes made by the Riverside County District Attorney's office several years ago in terms of how it handles certain felony cases.

Until all the parties involved in this mess of the judicial system seriously address its problems and stop pointing fingers at each other, then look for the strike team visit to be an annual event.




The editorial board at the Press Enterprise challenges an administrative policy drafted by Redlands' city manager which barred its city council candidates from asking city employees questions about the city's operations.

In one of those situations where reality truly is stranger than fiction, Redlands City Manager Nabar Enrique Martinez, in what he called the name of expediency and transparency, actually did this.


(excerpt)


The city manager says this policy will save staff time, while increasing transparency. Perhaps this plan will ease some time demands on city workers, though staffers will still have to answer questions whether the queries come through the city manager or directly from candidates.

But filtering details about public business through the city manager's hands hardly seems like a recipe for greater transparency. The policy puts a tight rein on information that inevitably creates suspicion that the goal is spin, not enlightenment.

And giving the city manager control over what candidates learn about city operations hands a political election role to an office that should be strictly neutral. Entangling city administration in council politics invites public distrust, which is dangerous policy for city government.




What's it like in Riverside? That could be an interesting comparison.





There's an interesting letter in the Press Enterprise Readers' Forum page about this editorial it had run on the ongoing problem with railroad trains using Riverside's streets as parking lots and the resultant air pollution.





A Murrieta Police Department officer shot a purse snatcher who was under investigation for committing numerous robberies and carjackings. The details of the shooting were not provided, except to say that it's under investigation.


(excerpt)


Grady Paul Pina, 26, of Anaheim Hills, was shot in the right shoulder or arm while fleeing detectives, Ontario police Detective David McBride said.

Ontario detectives had received information that Pina was at a shopping complex on Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Via Princessa, McBride said. The undercover detectives hadn't been at the shopping center long when Pina got out of a Chevrolet Silverado and snatched a 52-year-old woman's purse about 1 p.m., McBride said.

Murrieta police Lt. Rob Firmes said the detectives pursued Pina from the front of Ms. Ellaneous Boutique to the courtyard of an apartment complex around the corner on Via Princessa, where the shooting occurred.

Pina was taken to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Wildomar for treatment of injuries that police said were not life-threatening.

Police shut down Via Princessa, which was filled with officers for hours Friday afternoon. A group of neighbors set up lawn chairs along the police line and snacked on popcorn as they watched the investigation unfold.







The New York Daily News writes about a captain in the New York City Police Department who allegedly tried to cover up his own assault of his girlfriend who was also a police officer by saying it was committed by gang members.

The prosecutors who are currently trying him at trial didn't buy that story.


More information on this case is included in another New York Daily News article here. Officer Sharon Gandarilla said that Capt. Alberto Sanchez beat her. Sanchez denied it during his stint on the witness stand in the misdemeanor case and said that Gandarilla accused him of the beating because she was upset at him for refusing to leave his wife. However, two individuals testified that they had witnessed Sanchez committing the assault.



(excerpt)


Sanchez, 42, is charged with smacking Gandarilla, dragging her from a Mexican restaurant on lower Broadway to a car by her hair last Sept. 1, shoving her in and driving away.

When she tried to get out of the car, Sanchez allegedly stopped the car and beat Gandarilla again.

Earlier this month, Gandarilla, 32, filed a federal sexual-harassment suit accusing Sanchez of physically and sexually assaulting her 30 times from March 2005 to last December.




Domestic violence is much more prevalent among law enforcement officers than it is in the general population according to at least one study.