March 27, 2007: The Turning Point for the RPD and River City

“These guys don’t care…”


---Former Chief Russ Leach about his bosses, City Manager Brad Hudson and Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis




“This is our city. Let’s make Riverside a better place for everyone. Together we can’t lose.”


---email sent out to community leadership about March 27, 2007




“We believe that having “at will” contracted positions at this level of the police department management is dangerous and bad for the community. Dangerous, because it has the potential to make a police department completely dysfunctional and may hamper the department’s ability to conduct objective investigations. Out of all the department heads in the City, the Chief of Police should have the highest level of autonomy, when it involves running his/her police department."



----RPAA President Darryl Hurt, March 27, 2007








Riverside City Hall
City Council Chambers
March 27, 2007 6:30 pm.




"I don't recall anything. It was a nightmare."


---Former Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach in his testimony about March 27, 2007 who must have felt worse when he discovered that life was but a dream.






When elected officials walked into Riverside’s City Hall to convene at their weekly city council meeting, they might have been surprised to see hundreds of men and women sitting in the chairs and standing in the aisles and in the back of the chambers. In fact, more people spilled outside of the building into the open area between the building which houses the chamber and the main City Hall. Many individuals who congregated at the city council meeting that evening were members of both the Riverside Police Officers’ Association and the Riverside Police Administrators’ Association but there were community leaders there as well.


Like many people who attended that meeting, I remember that day very well. I had received news about the situation earlier that week and I had expressed my concern to the city council and mayor via an email sent out to them and to Brad Hudson and he had kindly responded. And then he had come up to me quickly when I entered the chambers and told me to ignore his email and that the process of making upper management police personnel "at will" couldn't be done and his clarification on the matter was very helpful.

Before anyone could speak during public comment on this item and many people had appeared to do just that, elected officials, city management employees and even then Police Chief Russ Leach stood up to address the packed room and give speeches essentially trying to head people off at the pass. To try to tell people there that this was much ado about nothing. That the city manager's office wasn't really trying to undermine the chief's authority over his direct management staff.

So one by one, the speeches began.

Leach opened up his speech by saying that he was surprised that he was the center of all this fuss because he was just minding his own business two weeks ago and then here he was, which when you think about it, is a rather odd statement by a police chief who's active in running a department. And if he had been, then he would have most definitely seen this controversy from far away but he made it appear in his comments that it had been news to him. He continued speaking but he never really addressed the topic at hand except to say that there was a "miscommunication a while ago" but that he was committed to speak loudly and clearly for the police department. Unfortunately, that's not the topic that most people there wanted him to address as the department's head.

He talked a lot about the department, the crime rate, even shaving off his mustache but very little on the actual issues that had brought the men and women in blue as he called them down to the city council meetings in such large numbers. And though he tried to say loudly and clearly that he was in charge of the police department, that was really the day it became loud and clear to most people that in fact, he really had little authority over the police department at all. And it was his own words that he communicated this reality through to his employees sitting and standing in front of him. At the time, his employers were standing or sitting behind him and several individuals on the dais were actively involved in even the police department's day to day operations, let alone its management. Both his employers and employees could send him packing but for his employers to do so would take many fewer votes.

It was also abundantly clear that while the city management had allowed Leach to take the stage to address the audience including many of his employees, they had him on a tight leash there as well.

Because while this drama had been taking place in public, behind the scenes, the city management was busy acquiring all its police toys and had put Leach in the role of having to explain a highly questionable firearms sale involving the city management employees and his department. You had city management employees decking themselves out like law enforcement officers, "several" city officials getting cold plated cars. And rumors of City Attorney Gregory Priamos rolling into a major incident with emergency lights on his city owned vehicle. Everyone denied knowledge of everything later on. Including when Hudson testified that he had no idea whether his city-issued Toyota Highlander had been cold plated although interestingly enough, a document detailing the list of city owned vehicles to be cold plated had a Toyota Highlander at the top of the list. Coincidence, definitely.

But it would seem to most people that the police department had many different people playing chief running around with their guns, their cold plated vehicles, their sirens and even badges. Some people think this is all a big joke or no big deal and maybe to those who associate with the people in power who have acquired this equipment to use to exert authority it isn't, but if the average person engaged in this behavior, they might be arrested for impersonating a police officer. None of these individuals were, though several were investigated for creating badges and trying to acquire cold plates not to mention the highly questionable weapons exchange but they were allowed to first, correct their legal violations and then turn around and tell people that they didn't break the law but that when it was pointed out that they did, they remedied the situation immediately. Then they hid their actions, even going as far as to try to use tax payer money to pay two lieutenants not to come to work, but as they discovered, the truth has a way of coming to light after all.

And that a police department with many chiefs at its helm can actually wind up with none.






[This is the list of city owned cars which were sent to be cold plated. It's difficult to read but if you click the photo, you'll find at the top of the list is a Toyota Highlander which happened to be the same make of car assigned to Hudson from the city yard fleet.]



What was interesting about the cold plate scandal is how it came down to a "he said, he said and who committed perjury" situation because they were all under sworn oath to tell the truth during their depositions. But there's one method to decide who told who to cold plate their vehicles and that's to do a simple survey. During Leach's nearly decade long tenure as chief, he served under at least five different city managers and several assistant city managers as well. You would think that if it were Leach telling everyone to get cold plates that he would have told the others including Larry Paulson, George Carvalho, Penny Culbreath Graft, Tom Evans and Jim Smith for example, to rush out and sign up for cold plates as well. Did any of these prior city management employees use cold plates on their vehicles?

Or was it just the latest group of city management employees and an elected official or two? If the answer to this question is yes, then you have your answer to who's telling the truth under oath or in news articles and who is not.




So for those who didn't know, March 27, 2007 was the day it should have been known that . Leach did hint that the city management had been trying to get the department to conduct administrative investigations against Lts. Tim Bacon and Darryl Hurt after they had been involved in researching what later became the badges, guns and cold plates scandals when they came to light. If what Leach testified to is valid, then apparently the city management employees believed that it was okay to violate the laws, not okay when it came to light and just perfect to investigate those who discovered that misconduct. That whether from accepting responsibility for its own actions and addressing them, the city management could instead try to use its authority and its energy to seek out those who exposed their deeds and punish them. As they allegedly tried to do with both Bacon and Hurt. Pay attention to the adage of punishing the messenger for the message because it's from an old playbook used by the police department and City Hall involving city employees. And city residents should be aware of this as well because of the enormous expenditures from revenues that are used to either litigate lawsuits filed by the city's labor force or pay them off whether by settlement which happens most of the time, or occasionally through the embarrassment of trial.

Leach opted out of making the unveiling of this questionable and illegal conduct by individuals at City Hall, "a full blown internal thing" and instead just focused on responding to the State Attorney General's criminal division through a series of correspondences with that office on the badges and guns incidents.

When River City's Promoting, Why's Leach in...DC?

Leach's deposition testimony is very interesting not to mention troubling as in it, he said that he had actually been in the Bull Feathers in Washington, D.C. when he first heard about the move to make two of his top management personnel "at will". Meaning that this decision had essentially been made by Hudson and DeSantis when he had been thousands of miles away. He testified that he chose to promote both the assistant and deputy chiefs but appeared to have little recall of either the details or time lines of both promotions.

But he testified that when he realized that the upper police management personnel would be serving not at his will but would be "at will" to the city management, he didn't like that much.



(excerpt, Leach)



"I sort of thought we were going that way. We're already that way, actually, now becauswe Esquivel's permanent rank is captain and DeLaRosa's permanent rank is captain. I dcan always reduce them to captain if I want. So I thought we were sort of solidifying that process, when it turns out they were taking a different direction. And this at-will status would be the city manager's office. So therefore, I couldn't support that because I'm their boss, essentially, but I'm not their boss because they would end up working directly for the city manager's office. So that's sort of where we parted company on that particular issue."




But it was even more serious than that, because the two employees would not only be "at will" at their appointed positions in upper management, they would be "at will" period, meaning that they would be surrendering their labor rights associated with their union affiliation which meant that they could be fired by the city management without cause or reason. So essentially, you might have a police chief who is "at will" to Hudson but you'd have his management personnel be "at will" employees to him as well. So essentially all three employees would be answerable to him which enables Hudson and DeSantis to maintain a vigorous hold on the reins of the police department even during times that Leach may have been in disagreement with his bosses.

If he was stubborn, they could just bypass him and go straight to his management personnel and they could have his own management personnel report back to them on someone who in more ordinary circumstances, you know those used in other cities, be their own boss.

But this major shift in the power structure of the police department and its dynamic with City Hall had begun in several stages as rather innocuous wording in meeting agendas, harmless looking until you really started looking past those words and reading the subtext which the heads of labor unions are more likely to do because these issues are under their purview and play a significant role in their operations.

There had been attempts by the city council which had been blocked to change the language of classification or even the classification itself involving captain ranks and upper management appointed positions like assistant and deputy chiefs.

The agenda item that caused the controversy only appeared on an earlier draft of the meeting's agenda, under item #20 that had been submitted through the city manager's office through then administrative analyst Jeremy Hammond.




[A copy of the "tentative" agenda created at a meeting of mayor, mayor pro tem and staff which took place several days before the posting of the "final" agenda on Friday, March 23, 2007.]







[At the bottom of the page, is text that was included for "tentative" agenda item #20 which was submitted by Human Resources employee, Justin Hammond that was to have created "at will" upper management positions. It was subsequently removed and not included on the final agenda for the meeting on March 27.]




So a bunch of people from different places went up and spoke on the issue, from different perspectives after City Hall and its servants had tried to cut off everyone at the pass with how the whole incident had been a "miscommunication." Many members of both police unions had hoped that there would be some kind of confrontation with Leach who was said to be very pissed off with Hudson over the promotions and his boss, Hudson but it never happened. What many thought would be a bang proved but a whimper. There would be a number of anticipated standoffs between Leach and his bosses over the leadership of the police department which would never take place. But what happened after the March 2007 confrontation at City Hall became a turning point for the department and not in a good way.

Not long after the "at will" brouhaha died down, Hudson issued Leach a huge salary increase for being the chief. Well the chief under the department's real chief anyway and on that date, the leadership of the police department had been effectively sold to Hudson and DeSantis.

From that point on, Hudson and DeSantis were able to run the department without any noise from their employee and looking back after the incidents which have unfolded during the past several months, it's clear what kind of grade they should receive for their diligent efforts.

And it's not a passing grade. During the elections to be held next June for four council members, the voters will have the opportunity at the polls to issue them grades as well.

The Mystery of the Disappearing "At Will" Contracts

Being a fan while growing up of Nancy Drew mystery novels, it has a way of shaping how what's going on in Riverside can be examined due largely to the fact that so many questions remain unanswered about the shenanigans involving City Hall and the upper levels of the police department. It couldn't hurt to have Nancy Drew, her pals George or Bess or even that guy Ned looking into these unanswered questions and unresolved issues and assigning them an appropriate title, including the mystery of the disappearing "at will" contracts. Okay, so it's not the secret of the old clock or the hidden staircase or even the whole Lilac Inn caper but someone's just got to get to the bottom of how city employees were able to sign contracts which must have existed in hard copy form at the time but apparently *poof* disappeared not long afterward.

How do things like that just happen? Is there a vortex inside City Hall where physical documents just wander into them and then voila, vanish in thin air? If so, there needs to be a scientific investigation right now to look into City Hall's own version of the Bermuda Triangle and fix it immediately through a seance or whatever to stop even more documents from vanishing in thin air.

Like those missing contracts for example. The ones that have not been seen for over three years and counting.

Here's some initial data on this rather bizarre occurrence. The first to naturally seek out is Hudson who is the chief...administrator of the city. He'd probably provide a better answer except he's apparently suffering from some form of memory loss on this issue.

[City Manager Brad Hudson found himself in the midst of a firestorm in March 2007 after two upper management police employees had allegedly signed "at will" contracts, contracts which later disappeared. In his deposition, Hudson said he had no memory of signing any of the "at will" contracts involving the two high-ranking police management personnel but would have authorized it if he did remember it.]




Hudson as stated said in his deposition that he had no memory of signing either the contacts of either the new assistant chief, John DeLaRosa or the new Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel. But the excerpt of an email below that he wrote seemed to suggest that contracts were signed by his office just as they would normally be in that situation. The language used here seems clear, concise and his response well thought out and deliberative. Nothing flaky or vague about it at all that might result from acute memory loss.

“…At will positions typically pay slightly more than their regular position counterparts; consequently, employees often choose the at-will option. I believe that is the case in this instance. We currently have over 100 contract employees and my office has signed these contracts as required by City policy. Nothing special or unusual was done with respect to the recent contracts you reference….”


---Brad Hudson in a March 22, 2007 email



So if nothing special or unusual was done, then they must have followed the regular procedure for contracts getting drafted, reviewed and then signed by the various parties. His sentiment about people signing "at will" contracts was very enlightening given that for many people it seems that these two words are more scary than welcoming. Because although people might get a slight pay raise, they can also be fired much more easily than if they hadn't gone "at will". Incidentally, the email he responded to had been sent by myself and he had responded to me separately from a later response to the city council and mayor. He later told me at the meeting to ignore the emailed response and that the contracts weren't allowable according to the city attorney. Which in itself might appear "special" or "unusual" unless this is how the city's been doing business with more of its "at will" contracts. Still, it was helpful that he made that clarification and as it turned out, the contracts were apparently voided according to testimony.

But if so, what happened to the originals? If they were created and signed, they should still be in the public record and made available to anyone upon request in accordance with the state laws pertaining to the California Public Records Act.

Well before that, let's move on to the second in the chain of the command of the city and police department, DeSantis who will be identified by the badge that he never was able to possess.



[Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis testified that he and Hudson met with DeLaRosa to discuss his "at will" contract with him. He said that the "at will" status gave the police chief the authority to actually fire the employee but then again, who has to approve all the police chief's firings?]


DeSantis testified that he and Hudson had met with at least one of the prospective "at will" employees and there's some mention of an earlier meeting with Leach. This wasn't long after DeSantis had allegedly blown up with another management employee, former Community Police Review Commission manager, Pedro Payne at a meeting and had ejected him just three weeks before Payne "resigned" which brought the city's definition of "at will" home for many people including those inside the police department. Meaning that if these employees who were "at will" to the city management office didn't bend to the will of that office's minions, then they would probably be releasing "resignation" letters of their own not long after.

But given that it's not clear whether the city management maintains a tight control of other powers traditionally exercised by Riverside's police chiefs such as hiring and firing, it's doubtful that the police chief such as Leach would have very much autonomy when it came to picking his own direct management staff if the city manager's office has to sign off on them. Something to keep in mind as being very critical now, given that a new police chief has been hired and will have to create his direct management staff. And given what's happened with Leach, how much autonomy will Sergio Diaz have to do just that? Who will really pick his management staff, he or the city manager's office?

Something to keep a very close eye on when he arrives in Riverside to take the helm on July 1.

But what was interesting to follow in the depositions was the reaction of one of the impacted employees, Pete Esquivel who had said his feelings had been hurt by what he felt was the reception to his promotion. The process involving it, he had already agreed to and according to him, he had sealed that agreement through signing a labor contract with the city manager's office.





[Then Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel testified that he had signed a contract to become an "at will" deputy chief, and that it had been sighed by Chief Russ Leach Hudson, City Attorney Gregory Priamos and an unidentified city clerk. He also testified that Hudson and DeSantis had told him that the contract had been "rescinded". Leach denied ever signing the contract in his own testimony.]


Esquivel had said that he had actually signed a contract when promoted to deputy chief that had "at will" terms that he had agreed to, and that had happened before all the controversy had arisen regarding his promotional status in regards to the "at will" situation. No one who spoke on the issue from any corner including the labor unions had actually criticized the promotional choices, just the process of the "at will" conversions to the positions themselves. Many vocally supported the choices but what's odd about this whole contract deal is the conflicting testimony about whether Leach had or had not signed Esquivel's contract. Esquivel testified that Leach had signed it in his presence. Leach denied ever signing either contract and added that he didn't believe there was a place for him to sign them.

But given all the gaps that Leach said he didn't recall including the time lines of either promotions, that brings into question how much role he played in either one.




[John DeLaRosa was also offered an "at will" contract to be assistant chief and accepted it but didn't testify about his own status or whether he had signed a contract.]



DeLaRosa who had been promoted to assistant chief in March 207 didn't testify on this issue or regarding his own promotion or whether or not he signed an "at will" contract though there's been statements by others indicating that he did. Like Esquivel's initial contact, his was voided after a period of controversy about the contracts being "at will".





[Former Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez was set to be promoted to an assistant chief position by Leach until it was vetoed by the city management, according to Leach's deposition. DeLaRosa had been promoted by Leach instead after the veto and apparently his promotion did pass the muster of DeSantis and Hudson.]



Dominguez was rumored to have been offered to go "at will" in the deputy chief position and had adamantly opposed it. If so, it was likely for valid reasons given that the city management had vetoed any suggestions by Leach of promoting him to assistant chief early on and had in fact, wanted to demote him. Dominguez was also alleged to have been included on a list of non-white management employees which included Art Alcaraz, Jim Smith and Tranda Drumwright to be targeted for termination, demotion or "resignation" and none of them are currently employed by the city.

Some individuals in the police labor unions sought to get the records released on this process including copies of the "at will" contracts signed by Esquivel and DeLaRosa. But the city initially told them they couldn't have access to them because they were "drafts" and then when challenged on that, the city had claimed they weren't just drafts (which are releasable under CPRA) but they were "preliminary drafts" without explaining why city management employees were pushing other management employees to sign "preliminary draft" contracts.

When pressed even further in the corner on this issue, the city finally produced the following excerpt of its written response to the CPRA request which is included below.




“Pursuant to Government Code 6253, the City of Riverside submits its response to your Public Records act request of April 27, 2007. In said request, you are seeking copies of any and all employment contracts for the position of Assistant Chief of Police and Deputy Chief Police entered into between representatives of the City of Riverside and John De La Rosa and Pete Esquivel.
Please be advised that there are no documents responsive to your request.”


---City Attorney Gregory Priamos, to a CPRA request by attorney Stephen H. Silver



Okay, now this is downright mysterious and this is precisely what is meant by the mystery of the disappearing "at will" contracts at City Hall which apparently is being impacted by some bizarre vortex or worm hole or something of that nature that is apparently sucking public documents right out of City Hall.

It's past time for Mayor Ron Loveridge to convene one of his special task forces to address the pressing issue of this vortex issue at City Hall. Perhaps then, these missing contracts can be found. And then the city could generate a new logo or slogan...Riverside: No Missing Paperwork here!

Thanks to the mayor in advance!


This incident might appear to be an isolated chapter in the history of both the city and police department but it was part of a pattern and practice of the dynamic which exists between City Hall and the police department. Many questions are being asked by city residents on what will be the situation involving Riverside's newest police chief and what it is that he will be allowed to do by individuals at City Hall like Hudson, DeSantis, Priamos and Councilman Steve Adams. Will he actually be a police chief who's autonomous or will he be a puppet?

And how long will it take for there to be an answer to that question?

Orange Street Station Update

The City Council and Mayor Ron Loveridge have received written notification via the leadership of the Riverside Police Officers' Association of the list of Skelly violations that former Det. Chris Lanzillo alleged took place at his hearing earlier this month. Lanzillo, the former president of the RPOA was given his notice of intent to terminate on June 4 along with former Lt. Leon Phillips. Shortly after, he submitted a written query through his attorney to Hudson asking that DeLaRosa be disqualified from hearing his Skelly due to conflict of interest since he's suing DeLarosa. Hudson denied this request and DeLaRosa did Lanzillo's Skelly hearing and terminated within 15 minutes of the end of the hearing.

Shortly after, Lanzillo filed a second claim for damages and had already filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

Phillips' Skelly hearing had been postponed but will be heard either at the end of this week or next week. The actual disciplinary action against him has not been either decided or enacted at this point in time.

Eight days until Diaz takes the helm of the police department and many individuals are counting every day until July 1. Two former employees of the department had some advice they passed along to other employees a while back on the importance of involvement in the things that matter in this city and of the responsibilities as well which are important to keep in mind if the department is to head in a different and healthier direction than it has been lately.







“Here at RPD, we have a proud tradition and coming to work used to be something you looked forward to doing. We believe you all deserve much better than acquiescing “at will” department heads; which is what you’ll get if Brad Hudson and his staff have a part in choosing a Chief. If you want to effect change in our department, then get involved. Educate yourself on what’s been happening in this City and police department since Brad Hudson and Tom DeSantis arrived. “Play along to get along” should never be the first consideration of police officers at any level of command when it comes to making decisions that are ethical and right.”

----Statement by former Lts Tim Bacon and Darryl Hurt, March 2010

Wi Fi Update

[The Wi Fi network has had some periodic slow performances and outages in the Northside Area on Iowa, related to the ongoing construction project involving Iowa and Columbia Streets near Hunter Park. AT&T will be running the network until around Sept. 12 when it will be transferred to the city for management and maintenance.]

City Council Members Go Sailing and City Management Acquires Guns

Five Riverside Council members participated in the second annual Regatta at Lake Evans inside Fairmount Park to raise money for the new sailing program there and for other charities. The race consisted of two laps around one of the two lakes and after a little warm up and the sounding of the horn, they were off!

The wind picked up and died periodically during the race so the boats either remained idle or cruised along. Occasionally a boat or two went off course, while the councilman frantically worked the rudder to try to inch the stubborn craft along, attracting some curious looks from the local water fowl.

Last year's champion, Councilman Paul Davis was out of town during this race and Councilwoman Nancy Hart opted to stay on dry land but the others competed mightily. After the grueling second lap was finished, Councilman Andrew Melendrez improved off of last year's race and won the regatta in good form and with a commanding lead. Councilman Chris MacArthur squeezed in for second in the final yards over Councilman Rusty Bailey who atoned for his last place finish last year. Then came Councilman Mike Gardner followed some time later by Councilman Steve Adams who at one point, it looked like he would need rescue.

There were no sightings of the dreaded Lake Evans serpent.

Over a 100 people cheered the race on and ate at the barbecue while listening to Beach Boys song music.

Here are some photos captured of the event:







[The award ceremony after the successful completion of the Regatta on Lake Evans]




[Councilman Mike Gardner getting out of his boat after the race and a fourth place finish. He had scraped his head on the boom during the race.]








[Regatta winner, Councilman Andrew Melendrez returns to the dock after his race.]





[Although Melendrez won the race handily, it took a few moments for him to get his land legs back and he almost took a dip.]



Press Enterprise Columnist Dan Bernstein comments on the regatta.

Meanwhile Back in River City...





"We are going to a new world... and no doubt it is there that everything is for the best; for it must be admitted that one might lament a little over the physical and moral happenings of our own world."


---Voltaire, Candide

Recently, I was given the unenviable task of trying to explain all the events that have taken place in Riverside during the past few months. It's getting harder to do so without a rather intricately drawn flowchart and it might irritate some who think we bloggers are all supposed to sit around and play Pangloss in the midst of all these emerging scandals. For some of us, it might be harder to do that than for others.

But while it was difficult enough to know where to start this narrative of incidents that created the chain reaction which led the city where it is today, again in the national headlines for something embarrassing, it's even more difficult to see where it all might end. The point in time somewhere in the future when all the dominoes will stop falling and none will be left.

Somehow it doesn't appear that Riverside's quite there yet.


Anyway, one of the most interesting if disturbing elements of the recently reported shenanigans involving the handling of the police department's operations by certain individuals at City Hall surely must be the now infamous firearms sale. That would be the one that took place involving the police department as the illicit dealer and City Manager Brad Hudson and Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis as its customers. Now the two men when they had first set foot in the Wild Wild West which is Riverside said that they had to get concealed and carry gun permits. DeSantis stated on his permit application that he needed the gun because he had to go into dangerous neighborhoods and attend sometimes hostile and volatile community meetings.

Some issues arose with their CCW permits right off the bat. Hudson's included his work address, that of City Hall, instead of his residential address and DeSantis included a residential address that was located in another city not Riverside.


In both cases, not in accordance with the regulations concerning the issuance of CCW permits. Hudson had to amend the address on his permit and DeSantis had to have his permit issued by then Police Chief Russ Leach revoked and a brand new one quickly issued by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department after the Press Enterprise got wind of it. Senior Assistant State Attorney General Gary Schons, addressed both issues in his June 11, 2007 letter to Leach asking the question which many others have, which was how could such an obvious reason for rejecting DeSantis' application been missed?

Maybe that was the first sign that something was seriously amiss with this whole guns and CCW permit deal. Because one would think that a police chief like Leach would, when reviewing an application for any potential disqualifiers that he would have looked at DeSantis' city of origin (which wasn't Riverside) and said, hey wait this is outside of my jurisdiction for issuing CCW permits.

But then again, maybe that's what he did.

At any rate, DeSantis had to get a new permit with the county and apparently that's what he had on his record when a woman in Hemet called 911 on him after he allegedly brandished a firearm at her and threatened her while wearing his city issued polo shirt. The woman also mentioned something about him carrying handcuffs and DeSantis denied owning a pair. But then again, he wouldn't need to own a pair, not when he and Hudson have been apparently trying to collect police equipment to deck themselves out in. Cold Plates, emergency police equipment for vehicles, badges and Glock guns had been among these items.

The badges and the cold plates were illegal according to state law and it's interesting how after passing the buck to others, the city management employees say that this behavior wasn't illegal because they weren't charged with any crimes. Well, if it were true that the badges and cold plates were in compliance with state law, then both men probably would have been able to keep their badges and their cold plates and play around with both of them. Instead, the State Attorney General's office provided them with the opportunity to "fix it" to their criminal violations and it's not clear whether this remedy for avoiding criminal charges is applied to everyone else in this situation or just reserved for certain "high profile" people who were afforded the same special treatment they had made public statements prohibiting for other people including the city's former police chief.

Law Enforcement Agency or Gun Dealership?

What the City Government Paid to Keep Away from a Jury

[Riverside Police Department's administrative headquarters on Orange Street in downtown Riverside, the setting of a very questionable firearms transaction involving the police department and two city management employees.]






However, if the situation involving the badges, cold plates and emergency equipment wasn't enough, then came news that the State Attorney General's office had decided to investigate the department and city for potential illegal activities involving a gun sale that took place between city employees working for two different city departments. The state's highest law enforcement/prosecutory agency was concerned that laws might have been broken in the process and that the police department might have been placed in the position of serving as an illegal weapons dealer to two city management employees.

Ironically, in the beginning it hadn't looked like a sales transaction had taken place at all, more like a giveaway because somehow the two city management employees had just acquired these police guns. But in the process, some documents came to the attention of individuals who saw some improprieties on several documents. What had happened is that Hudson and DeSantis had gone to the firing range to participate in a firearms safety course they needed to take to qualify for carrying guns on their persons. At the range, the employee in charge had checked them out each a Glock with a model type and a serial number attached to it.

But some time later, when records checks were conducted on the CCW permit status of both men, something highly suspicious appeared on those records and that was that the weapons they purportedly had owned had the same information right down to the serial numbers of the Glocks which had been checked out to them by the department's shooting range employee while they had been taking the firearm course.

How could that be? How did these two city management employees wind up "owning" guns that had been the property of the police department?

[This is the document detailing City Manager Brad Hudson's completion of a firearms safety course before getting his conceal and carry permit from the Riverside Police Department. On it, you'll notice a serial number for a Glock used that was checked out by Hudson from the police department's shooting range for use in the training. These pictures aren't very clear so clicking on them makes them look better.]





[This is another document showing Hudson's status with his permit record. This is page two which shows his record of gun ownership and if you compare the two documents, the serial number for the two Glocks listed, the one he checked out and the one he claimed ownership of here are identical, meaning they're the same gun. There are also similar trends noted in similar documents involving Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis who would up "owning" the gun that had been checked out to him as well.]


There were some inquiries made and at some point, some sort of sales transaction was produced in an attempt to put those suspicions to rest so that life could go on as normal for the two gun-toting city management employees. But alas, the sales transaction itself began shooting up red flags all over the place. Not to mention questions about whether or not it was even a legal sales transaction at all.

Because though Hudson and DeSantis were the buyers, the vendor appeared to be the city's police department which wasn't legally licensed to sell guns and the "private party" (as noted on the transaction form) appeared to be a sergeant named Cliff Mason. These and other issues became the focal points of concern raised by the State Attorney General's office out of San Diego.

Schons and Leach engaged in exchanging letters between them while Schons investigated this situation. It's not clear whether Schons ever interviewed any of the parties or witnesses involved including the two individuals, Fred Haller and Mason who were both mentioned in the documentation of the firearms sale. Haller was on the purchase order to the city's Finance Department as the "requester" of the acquisition of the equipment, with his reason being that it was for "inventory per Mason" which is interesting given that another form listed the transaction as a "private party" sale. That makes it appear that rather than purchasing these particular items for "inventory" purposes, they are being purchased on behalf of "private parties" such as Hudson and DeSantis.

Interviewing these individuals and perhaps others including Leach, Hudson and DeSantis would have enabled these parties to explain in their own words closer to when this all transpired exactly what they perceived was happening and why it happened the way that it did. Why these two men who both earn generous salaries would have to be given guns as it appeared at least initially that a paper trail for any sales transaction was somewhat lacking.

Leach acted in the initial letter that he wrote in response to Schons telling him that an "inquiry" had been conducted which makes one ask, did that mean he was entirely clueless that the agency he was heading had been involved in a highly questionable and possibly illegal firearms transaction? Was it really news to him at the time he started hearing about it from the State Attorney General's office or like in the case of the cold plates situation did he already know and was this another case when his bosses overstepped their authoritative bounds?






[The first letter from the State Attorney General's criminal division asking for an explanation as to how Hudson and DeSantis were shown as owning guns they had "borrowed" from the police department for firearm safety training.]



It's pretty clear from the sales records provided for the weapon purchases for DeSantis and Hudson that the police department was the vendor of these sales. Initially Leach explained it as saying it had been legal because the department had only been conducting less than six guns sold each year so it qualified under an exemption in state law.

Schons didn't appeared very much moved by that excuse and he raised more questions in his letter, which Leach then responded to by saying that the weapons in question had been confiscated from Hudson and DeSantis and then the sale a "legal sale" was conducted through a local dealer, Centerfire Firearms in January 2006. But one really has to ask, why would it be necessary to seize back weapons which were clearly purchased by the police department from a vendor in San Jose to give or sell to Hudson and DeSantis? Why weren't the appropriate laws abode by in the first place so that the initial illicit transaction wouldn't have to be essentially laundered later on? Why didn't these individuals care enough about obeying the laws to handle the firearms transaction in an appropriate and legal manner from the start?

That clearly didn't happen since Leach had to respond to several letters of inquiries from Schons who asked questions about why the department was selling guns and why one of its employees had participated in that sale. Leach answered some of the questions but one he didn't really answer is why it had been done improperly in the first place, who caught them doing it and why they had to redo the sale and then why after that, was Leach acting as if were as surprising to him as it had been to Schons. So many questions but per usual not much in the way of answers except to dodge responsibility for the issue at hand, in this case the guns transaction which had been the focal point of an outside investigation.


[A page from the sales transaction involving guns and paraphernalia for both city management employees that clearly states on the upper right hand corner what city department is to be billed for the transaction, which is the police department.]



In July 2007, Schons did finally write Leach a letter dropping the situation but essentially Leach had done what DeSantis and Hudson had done so much already which was to pass the buck. It's a bit disconcerting that his first letter makes it appear as if he had no idea what was going on involving gun acquisitions by his bosses in his own department. And why like in the situation involving the badges and cold plates was a cleanup done, and would other people in this situation who didn't enjoy their status in the municipal pecking order had been afforded the same treatment as they received from Schons' office?

Three legal violations that the State Attorney General's office had to investigate and all three times, the parties investigated claimed they had no idea about the law, either before or after, they conveniently laid the blame for these violations on subordinate employees. But so-called ignorance of the law has never been a viable excuse for most people who in the scheme of things are mere mortals.

So what was Hudson saying about no one in Riverside's halls of power getting special treatment?

After this embarrassing episode, many people were left thinking that before making statements like that and about equal protection and treatment under the law, people like Hudson and DeSantis need to examine their own receipt of special treatment to ensure that they apply the same rigid standard of expectations to themselves.


Because three times there's been evidence provided that they tried to acquire the tools that they believed would grant them special privileges even among those their own positions afforded and three times, they were investigated by the State Attorney General's office, which is just three too many times. They act that after they've been pretty much pressured into compliance with the laws, what the fuss is about and how they didn't do anything wrong. But more people (certainly more than 50) are having trouble believing that. But despite that their actions were called into question to be investigated, and violations were found to have taken place that had to be fixed and maybe who they were provided them with the privilege of being able to do just that.

But what they never answered, was why these violations were committed in the first place, instead of doing things legally?

And except perhaps for the guns, they weren't really allowed to keep their toys.

One Councilman's Response to Cold Plates

[The license plate on Councilman Mike Gardner's Segway.]

Lt. Leon Phillips Skelly Hearing

Coming up is the Skelly hearing for Lt. Leon Phillips who was terminated by the city for his involvement in the mishandling of the Feb. 8 incident involving Leach. It had been scheduled earlier but had been postponed for several weeks. It's not clear at this point whether Phillips termination will actually be finalized or whether he'll receive lesser disciplinary action such as a demotion to sergeant.

Sources say that he's in good spirits and that as a man of strong faith, he will be fine with whatever happens.

Unlike with the case of Acting Chief John DeLaRosa, Phillips wasn't given a retirement option. DeLaRosa announced his July 23 retirement on the same day Hudson selected the city's next police chief, Sergio Diaz. It's alleged that Hudson issued him a notice of intent to terminate on the same day that Phillips and another employee, Det. Chris Lanzillo received their own notices of termination.

Lanzillo was terminated within 15 minutes of the ending of his Skelly hearing several weeks ago. Unlike Phillips, Lanzillo wasn't able to have his request for a postponement of his own Skelly hearing and his hearing was conducted by DeLaRosa, the same employee that had been listed as a defendant in Lanzillo's initial claim for damages and federal lawsuit. His attorney had requested to Hudson that someone besides DeLaRosa conduct the Skelly hearing due to a conflict of interest and Hudson denied that request.

The internal investigation was initially investigated against Lanzillo not long after he had confronted DeLaRosa in a roll call that DeLaRosa had visited and said he wouldn't support him.

The investigation was allegedly moved to the top of the priority list for internal investigations the day after Lanzillo's claim and his allegations about DeLaRosa hit the Press Enterprise.


In related news, I was asked about how many police retirements have been given out recently because people seem to notice that they've been given out seemingly like candy lately. Are they right, well that's a subject of debate but here's a list of some of them this year so far:


Former Chief Russ Leach

Former Asst. Chief (and Acting) John DeLaRosa (July 23)

Former Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel

Former Sgt. Frank Orta

Former Lt. Tim Bacon

Former Lt. Darryl Hurt




Believe it or not, that's actually about 1.5% of the sworn division of the police department. And the year's still young so who knows what will happen?





Riverside's Parkview Hospital faces its future.



Grand Terrace's council members are considering paycuts.

Public Meetings

Tuesday, June 22 at 2 p.m., 3 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The Riverside City Council will meet to discuss this agenda.



Wednesday, June 23 at 2 p.m. Public meeting for Community Police Review Commission to argue over this agenda. This policy recommendation addressing intentional omissions of information from police reports will be discussed and voted upon. What still remains undecided for the fracticious and fractured commission is when they will hold their special meeting to you know, decide when to hold meetings. The commission is split nearly in half about whether they want to hold them at a time when city residents can actually attend them.

Riverside County Superior Court Unveils New Fees to Gouge Public

Not long after deciding to eliminate their monthly furloughs, the courts come up with more ways for the public to balance its budget, by charging fees not just to access documents and court records online but also to pay just for searching for names. It's going to be $1 per name searched and you can do an unlimited number of searches per month and pay $250. To really buy into the argument that this is going to save the county money is really difficult to do.

They are eliminating the $7.50 initial charge for downloading civil documents to $1 for the first five pages, a lower cost per page past that up to $40 cap. These fees are probably being lowered because the courts hadn't received as much money in fees as it had hoped when it unleashed the first round of fees six months ago. So they're hoping to make it up with name searches.

Good Luck. You can still access all this information for free though you'll have to pay $0.50/page for printed copies at the courthouse of record.

How Other Nearby Jurisdictions Operate

San Bernardino County Superior Court is still free for name searches.

Orange County Superior Court operates under an invalid security certificate so this can't be ascertained.


Los Angeles County Superior Court criminal fee shedule and civil fees schedule.


San Diego County Superior Court has no fee schedule for name searches.


Ventura County Superior Court has no fee schedule.

River City: When Racial Comments Can Get You Employed and When they Can Get you Fired

UPDATE: Marisa Yeager from the Woman's Democratic Club considering an election run for Ward One next year, against Councilman Mike Gardner.

More to come...






UPDATE:

The Riverside Police Department conducted a DUI/DL checkpoint in the Eastside at around 8 p.m. near Bobby Bonds Park. Motorcycle officers reportedly preventing anyone from turning off the street leading to the checkpoint and a white unmarked car with people with green uniforms inside led people to believe that ICE or Border Patrol is involved in the checkpoint. People had to turn over their cameras for inspection and told they could take photos but a couple police officers allegedly took photos including that of a teenaged girl and then allegedly one detective laughed at them.

The operation's supervisor was said to be Sgt. Duane May of the department's traffic division.






The Press Enterprise published this article about the claim for damages filed by former Riverside Police Department Det. Chris Lanzillo who was fired on June 11, only several months after he had filed an earlier claim. In that earlier claim which later became a lawsuit, he had alleged that he had been retaliated for his union activities while serving as the president of the Riverside Police Officers' Association. Not long before filing his first claim, Lanzillo had allegedly confronted Acting Chief John DeLaRosa in one of his post-DUI incident roll call visits and said that he wouldn't support him. He also asked him why he had waited so long to turn the DUI incident involving former Police Chief Russ Leach over to the California Highway Patrol for investigation. Questions that many people were certainly asking and talking about outside the department and probably inside it as well but Lanzillo had spoken it out loud in a setting where DeLaRosa had been trying to make a strong impression as the department's acting chief.

Not the right thing to say as it turned out if you want to stay in the police department. Because even though Lanzillo had been right about DeLaRosa's early involvement in the Leach incident, it didn't appear that the acting chief had taken it very well.



The investigation against Lanzillo allegedly was initiated not long after he made these comments in roll call. After Lanzillo's comments about DeLaRosa had made it into the Press Enterprise, a directive reportedly was issued from Orange Street Station to the department's internal affairs division placing the investigation involving Lanzillo's use of racial language to the top of the list of cases to be handled by that division. Which in itself is pretty amazing dedication by the department and city given the history but as it turned out, more than a bit suspicious as well.

Before anyone claims that I'm defending Lanzillo for the racial remarks which he admitted to making, here's a little bit of history for those who don't know but I won a sustained complaint against him for discourtesy in the summer of 2003. In the autumn of the same year not long after that complaint was disposed, he was promoted to detective. As someone told me, the department didn't take it seriously when he was making comments towards me, but only after he starting challenging the system that he had worked under for 17 years and how it handled a controversial incident involving the chief breaking the law did he become a problem for the city. That's why this person said, he's been fired not too long after filing his claim with the city which included allegations of misconduct by DeLaRosa because he had gone public with what the city and department wanted to keep swept under the rug. A cardinal sin in his profession and in the city's own dynamic of secrecy at all costs (paid for by city residents) as well.

A rule that Lanzillo broke.

And the fact that they're trying to pin his termination directly or indirectly on racial comments or jokes he made just makes it all the more suspicious because since when has Riverside's management really ever cared about racism in its workplace especially after Black and Latino management employees at City Hall began "resigning" or getting fired after the current city management came to work for Riverside in June 2005.

How about never?

After all, more employees in this city have lost their jobs for complaining about racist and sexist language in the workplace than in for engaging in it. And many more employees in this city have lost or been forced out of their jobs for trying to challenge unethical or even illegal practices by management personnel than have been lost them for racist or sexist language. Even though the city posts guidelines to whistle blower protection all over its workplaces including the police department.

So yes, I find this sudden fervor to run off and place Lanzillo and his racial joke at the top of the investigation list and then to fire him very suspicious, coming not long after he called DeLaRosa on the carpet and then filed a claim against the city. And yes, it does smack of retaliation and also opportunism by the city to make this all about a racial comment which is laughable considering the city's own more than checkered history of addressing racism in its workplace. Especially when the city's currently actively fighting against cases filed by other city employees who have alleged racist language in their workplaces and when it comes to all the city's departments including that of the police, everyone knows by now that all of them have the same ringmaster and his sidekick running the show.

There's one Los Angeles attorney who just by himself is handling between 5-6 racial harassment claims in the city's work force right now at the same time that the police department management's in a dither about an employee's racial joke...but only after he's challenged DeLaRosa and then filed his claim with the city.

The only reason the management of the police department or anyone in the city gives a damn about this racial joke said in a cultural diversity training class is again because the person who said it later challenged DeLaRosa and it's at that approximate time, it became the capital offense that they're trying to make it look like now.

Sorry Lt. Blevins but while it would be interesting to hear what you had to say on the matter, you know the city won't allow you to open your mouth and it will speak for you under its indemnity clause until after it settles this case down the line and then it still might not let you speak. You could testify in trial if the city ever took any cases to trial which since its $1.64 million payout on Officer Roger Sutton's racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit it doesn't not and will not no matter what it claims early on.

If he doesn't abide by those rules, then Blevins and Lanzillo could very well be standing in the same line awaiting dates with the labor arbitrator to get their jobs and/or their money back. The city government through the advice of its legal department and at the expense of the city residents doesn't buy truth, but it does buy silence.


No offense, but that's when some of us started to get a little suspicious of this state of affairs at the minute where the city actually takes a racial comment or joke spoken by a city employee seriously. Because that's never happened when many city employees have complained about them in the workplace throughout the city's history. And when it finally happens, it's one that again was allegedly uttered in a cultural diversity training class. A learning and teaching environment where the use of a racist or sexist comment or joke could be read depending on its context and the direction of the training. Probably the only workplace environment where that it's really possible, for a comment to be said that can be offensively intended or not and without further information, it's difficult to know the context. And there might be that same variation in how comments of this nature are read as well in that type of environment. Without further information and eyewitness accounts, it's a bit more ambiguous in this type of environment, more so than in others like those faced by other employees of the city.

I've lost count of how many complaints or reports that I've received of situations in Riverside's workplace of racist or sexist comments or jokes. It's a much, much shorter list of the times when these comments have taken seriously because believe it or not, Lanzillo's joke is the only member of that very, very short list.

I don't think the issue here is whether racial comments should be taken seriously or not but that's never really been the case in Riverside. They should be but one of the major problems in Riverside's employment ranks is that sometimes they are taken seriously and sometimes they are not and often what determines that is some factor outside the context of the incident itself. And as trite as this might sound, in Riverside, yes it does depend on who you are and on the circumstances.

Racial slurs, jokes and remarks in Riverside's workplaces including those outside the police department are hardly uncommon events. At one point last year, a single Los Angeles attorney who specialized in labor law was representing city employees in about six cases of racial harassment and hostile working environment that were filed as complaints, grievances or lawsuits. Rommel Dunbar, Anthony Joiner and 15 other African-American city employees filed a joint racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit in 1997, which had been 10 years in the making since the first incidents of racism in the workplace including the use of racial slurs. Dunbar, a well known martial arts instructor needed his skills just to protect himself in the workplace when he was assaulted by other city employees while trying to clean off spray-painted racial slurs, swastikas and "KKK" spray painted on walls at the city's corporate yard on Lincoln Street. Human feces were smeared on vehicles used by Dunbar and Joiner.

The city refused to respond in any way about what was happening despite numerous meetings between the employees and city management with members of the city's community relations division mediating these discussions. When these employees later sued the city, they received letters from their attorneys telling them that if they lost, the city would go to court and force them to pay its legal bills.

But for actual incidents that took place and their disparate outcomes which often depend on who you are and what your place is in the city's pecking order, here are a few that happened more recently.

But what's really fascinating here, is the correlation between the terminations and whether or not those fired had initiated any complaints, grievances or lawsuits. Because the answer is yes in all the termination cases whether the person terminated had been the one who complained about the racial joke or comment or the one who made it.

You file the lawsuit and you're the complainant, you get fired. You file the lawsuit and you make the comments, you get fired.

So as you can see, there's very little to this situation that really has anything to do with racist language except that this sudden concern over it is being used to cover up some questionable behavior by the police department's management.

When Saying a Racial Slur is Okay and Then Not Okay

Employee: Fired

Lawsuit filed by employee disciplined: Yes

Lanzillo allegedly made his racial joke when attending a cultural diversity training at about the same time that Leach had made his ill fated drive through Riverside while inebriated. It didn't appear that what he said caused problems at first. Lt. Ed Blevins who had supervised the Vice/Intelligence Unit where Lanzillo had been assigned had reported the comment though it's not clear whether or not he had actually witnessed the incident.

Lanzillo was technically fired when his statement about having made another racial comment about three years earlier wasn't substantiated by witnesses. Well it's possible any witnesses might have been leery to admit that they'd heard it knowing that the next question might have been why they hadn't done as Blevins did and report it so going back and looking for substantiation isn't necessarily going to result in much further information. But because there was no agreement with his statement, he was fired by the department for dishonesty and the time frame from the incident to the Skelly hearing where his firing was upheld was just over four months, with the investigative process taking somewhat less time to complete than that. Which does lend support that for whatever reason, it was a highly prioritized investigative process.

But Lanzillo had two things against him. The fact that he had challenged DeLaRosa and that he wasn't a member of the command staff.

When Saying a Racial Slur is Okay

Employee: No Discipline, Retirement, Job at City Hall

Lawsuit filed by employee disciplined: No

This incident when I first heard it shocked me. Okay, maybe considering the history of how racist jokes and remarks are treated in this history, it should have appeared more as par for the course but this notorious incident is one of the city's worst kept secrets and it is a definitive example of how there's a double standard of behavior for those in higher management positions in this city even beyond being able to engage in shenanigans including illegal actions involving badges, cold plates and illicit gun sales. This incident also involved a police department employee, in this case a lieutenant, who in this case used a racist slur, "wetback", in a training session. The outcome of his case is much, much different than that involving Lanzillo.

One day, an assistant city attorney had to deliver some training on the legal issues associated with Use of Force incidents. The class of police employees including one lieutenant who was assigned to of all divisions, Internal Affairs watched videos of highly controversial use of force incidents. One of these incidents was the 1996 beating of undocumented immigrants by Riverside County Sheriff's Department deputies. After conducting some training, the class took a break and they engaged in chit chat. The topic turned to some of the videos viewed in the training including that 1996 video.

The lieutenant at some point said something like "that beating of those wetbacks looked pretty good" and the reaction was immediate. Brown walked out of the room abruptly and another lieutenant in the class started loudly asking everyone in the room if they heard the slur. Now this lieutenant who later reported the comment could have been very concerned about what he just said or it could have been because he had been #2 on the captain's promotional list behind only the lieutenant who used the slur and thought reporting him might help his own trajectory. Anyway, an investigation was done and the lieutenant just received a copy of the incident in his file. He wasn't written up, suspended, demoted and certainly not fired.

In fact, this lieutenant retired later on and currently works as an investigator under City Attorney Gregory Priamos at City Hall, remarkable given that he had made this slur in front of one of Priamos top employees.

But this incident actually comes in two parts with the earlier portion detailed below.

When Saying a Racial Slur Is Not Okay But Becomes Okay

Employee: Suspension, then Written Up

Lawsuit filed by employee disciplined: No

The lieutenant mentioned above worked in the Internal Affairs Division overseeing its operations which included the sergeants who conducted investigations involving the department's employees. Not long before this lieutenant used the racist slur, his division had been investigating a special investigations detective who had in what must be one of the all-time greatest coincidences, used the very same racist slur...also in training!

Only this detective was providing instruction in a roll call session, inside one of the rooms that had to have a camera installed with a live feed to the police chief's office to help reduce the occurrences of racist and sexist comments and jokes under the five-year consent decree with the State Attorney General's office. His comment had been more along the lines of saying that they had gone into the "wetback's house" and his comment was reported for investigation as well. Only in his case, he had been looking at a 40-80 hour suspension.

But all that changed when the Internal Affairs lieutenant had been the focus of investigation for the same slur and had received really no disciplinary action at all. So in the interest of appearing to be committed to due process and equal protection under the law and all that, the detective's disciplinary action was reduced to a written reprimand. It remains to be seen whether he'll get a City Hall job after he retires.

When You Read the Racial Slur the Wrong Way

Employee: No disciplinary action but complainants terminated by city

Complaints filed by employees disciplined: Yes in both cases

Not too many years back, an employee who worked for the Park and Recreations Department was in the same room as another employee in his unit who was talking to someone on the phone and in the process, the employee on the phone said quite loudly, a racial slur. The employee who heard it complained to the head of the department who told him that he must have heard it wrong and that the employee hadn't meant it "that way". The employee who reported it wasn't swayed by that explanation so he filed a grievance with the city. Within two days of filing it, he was terminated in a meeting with the department head and former Asst. City Manager Michael Beck.

Another case involved a woman in the police department who had among other things, reported that a male volunteer asked a male officer if he wanted to hear "a Black joke" while they were at a coffee place not long after they all had been assigned to work one of the police department's first DUI checkpoints in the Eastside. She tried to complain to the volunteer coordinator and was told that yes, things like that happen but there wasn't anything that could be done and they all had to get along. Within two days, apparently the management of the department couldn't "get along" with her, because she was discharged from the volunteers program. She met with an Internal Affairs lieutenant (but not the one who made the above racial slur) and it's not clear whether any investigation was conducted.


These are but several examples of the many different ways that the city and its departments handle the use of racial comments, slurs or jokes among the employment ranks. And yes, it does seem that some people may get fired, they might get reprimanded, they may get no disciplinary action or they could even get jobs with City Hall after they retire. There does seem to be a difference with how the command staff in the police department is treated in respect to other officers and there's some tacit understanding of the differences and how bad they might look given that the detective who made the remark in roll call had to be re-disciplined with a lessor action.

But there's more on this chain of events to come as this situation involving the police department and City Hall continues to play itself out in the upcoming weeks.





William Malone, embroiled in controversy over his handling of the Fox Theater loses his contract with the city's municipal auditorium.






Riverside's Fairmount Park debuts its new universal playground on Saturday, June 19 at 10:30 a.m. not long before the City Council's sailing regatta competition at 1 p.m.






[Officer David Taylor and his former canine partner, Von who retired and later apparently died from a heart ailment. The city council will be voting on an item to purchase a new dog for Taylor and for training at Adlerhorst International.]

The New Chief Meets and Greets Amidst a Mad, Mad World

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it"

---Edmund Burke





Over 100 people, from the neighborhoods of Riverside and inside the walls of the police department congregated at the Grier Pavilion on the top floor of City Hall to welcome the city's new police chief, Sergio Diaz, a retired deputy chief from Los Angeles. Many people snacked on the catered food while mingling before sitting down or standing while various speakers stood at the podium to address the crowd. Community leaders from the Eastside, Casa Blanca and downtown showed up in force, alongside the department's command staff, many dressed in blue. Elected officials intermingled with others including a police detective who was terminated from employment last week. Chris Lanzillo the former Riverside Police Officers' Association president had appeared as well, not long after the leadership of his former union had gone to City Manager Brad Hudson to express its belief that the termination was unjustified but Hudson denied their appeal.

Mayor Ron Loveridge spoke about the utopia that he lives in while apparently unaware that the floor of City Hall that he resides in is currently in the state of meltdown, in the light of the revelations coming to light about legal violations that were apparently committed within its walls, with even more awaiting to come out in the days and weeks ahead.

City Manager Brad Hudson talked about the search process, including the recruitment firm of Roberts which had been used by the city in other employment searches. Councilman Steve Adams for some reason was elected to be the spokesperson for the city council and made some strange speech about how someone in San Diego was brought in and created the San Diego Police Department. Then someone from L.A. came in to try to create the Los Angeles Police Department but that wouldn't work for Riverside.


"We are RPD," averred Adams.


Actually, it's curious to see Adams bite the hands that fed him with Leach because in his deposition as part of a lawsuit filed by two former lieutenants, Leach testified that Adams (along with another elected official) were constantly around and involved in the police department. And if city management personnel are telling the truth rather than passing the buck, then Leach was responsible for Adams' cold plates that were issued for his city-issued car. Adams also allegedly involved himself in at least two, perhaps even three promotions at the captain's level, essentially vetoing one and "clearing the air" with one other candidate in a restaurant in Corona less than 24 hours before that individual was promoted.


But maybe this was his way of laying claim? That remains to be seen and maybe it's just natural because Adams had played such a role in the department's operations, probably more than he did when he worked there as a patrol officer.

Adams attended the event with his brother Ron, a retired officer who works for the city's red light camera program and who was the defendant in a sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit filed by a former female sergeant during the 1990s that the city paid a huge sum to settle.

But Diaz quite deftly deflected Adams' challenge and hopefully he'll be able and given room to continue to do so. He said that "respect" marked every positive interaction involving police and community members and that would be the mark of his tenure as chief. He also said that he would ensure that by the time he departed, there would be commanders who were capable of taking the helm of the department. Perhaps that indicates that he has some inkling about the immense challenges which lie ahead in connection with doing that. As he does have a background in mentoring in the LAPD, it will be interesting to see how that transfers to the RPD where mentoring in some areas of the department is absent or highly deficient but could have great benefits for many of its employees. For one thing, studies show that mentoring employees increases retention which in the RPD has been abysmal particularly for its female officers, from the time they go to the academy to the time they hit the 3-4 year mark.




[City residents come down to City Hall to meet Riverside's new police chief.]




[In the front rows, are many of the elected officials and management police personnel listening to the introductory speech by Mayor Ron Loveridge who doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of what's happened in the past several months. ]





The event was joyful and people stood up and clapped---twice. A festive environment was definitely in the air as people hoped that this was a sign that both the police department and city were turning an important corner.

But then afterward, everyone had to go home. Many took the happiness of the occasion with them but many reflected concern about the days ahead. Feeling that the new chief really has his work cut out for him just to dodge the minefields in this city.

Meanwhile Back at the Mad, Mad World...

“Don’t talk to the bloggers. Don’t talk to the press. We are one family…”


---Acting Police Chief John DeLaRosa at roll call, in February 2010

[The epicenter of the final days of Acting Chief John DeLaRosa's career at the top of the chain and he's been quite busy terminating employees including those who sue him and engaging in some rather interesting activities involving the department's lieutenant's list.]








[Acting Chief John DeLaRosa in different times. He was implicated in the mishandling of the traffic stop involving his former boss, yet his new boss, City Manager Brad Hudson kept him at the helm to show people what an officer who should be facing discipline who's issuing it himself looks like.]







[Capt. Mike Blakely (l.), the only member of the management staff who didn't rise up through the ranks under the promotional system which was the focus of lawsuits filed by two former police lieutenants, alleging that other individuals including a city councilman were influencing or making promotions at the highest level. As head of Internal Affairs, Blakely's, who mentored DeLaRosa up through the ranks, been involved in the opening of internal investigations and the transfer of at least a half dozen officers to the "penalty box" at the Orange Street Station.]





They say that when they transfer an officer to the Riverside Police Department’s administrative headquarters on Orange Street these days, it’s akin to having a scarlet letter attached to your chest. That those who walk its floors are waiting for the next shoe to drop, as the clock ticks away the final days of the regime of Acting Chief John DeLaRosa. For most people, the date of June 30 which will mark his final day as acting chief can’t come fast enough. Feeling it most intently are those who haven’t been playing on the right team which at the moment is his team.

And it's not just that officers are being transferred to the Station from the field, the dynamic duo that now runs the police department has opened up internal investigations on other individuals in relation to incidents that are fairly old and they have made transfers of some individuals out of the Orange Street Station allegedly to fill patrol vacancies which they then draw from to fill these same vacated positions. All this frenetic activity brings to mind what's happened to many a regime that's in power over a population of individuals just before it's about to fall or to experiment an exchange in power. Not every ruling party hands off the keys to its kingdom in ways that are without some degree of turbulence and not every king leaves the throne quietly and it's appearing as if the final days of DeLaRosa's brief career as the chief will reflect that. That's not the way that it should have been but the next two weeks are expected to be particularly...frantic particularly for those individuals not on Team DeLaRosa.

Whose Team? My Team!

The Riverside Police Department had become during the reign of former chief, Russ Leach an environment where officers apparently had to play for one team or the other, almost like some strange variation of the reality show, Survivor Island. Whereas Hollywood has Team Jennifer and Team Angelina for deciding which woman deserves the prize of Brad Pitt, the police department had Team Leach and Team DeLaRosa to decide who will have access to what, inside the RPD. When Leach mentioned the ongoing issues of "bickering" inside the department, this was partly what he meant but what he didn't add was that he played a large role in if not creating this dynamic inside the department in fostering it to ensure that it became one of the strongest dynamics under his watch.

Dynamics like this can be extremely destructive. They take what should be a cooperative, collaborative level from the top levels of management in the department to the officers at the lower levels and turn it into a competitive and even in some areas of the department downright ruthless situation instead. At the highest level of command, there's a very dysfunctional and fractured management staff, which isn't surprising in the least when you research the history including that provided by sworn testimony in the lawsuits filed by former lieutenants Tim Bacon and Darryl Hurt and learn about all the different individual climbs to power. You'll read about who stuck which stiletto where and how far some of them went to reach their positions, selling out the person who might wind up working with them.

You have to ask yourself this, what part of the promotional process involving captains that was detailed again in sworn testimony reflects anything remotely similar to cooperation, collaboration, leadership skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills or professionalism for that matter. If people are being ruthless to each other to get where they are and they succeeded, then it's these skills which will dominate at the level they work at in most of their interactions rather than the ones they really need.

Under the system that is only beginning to come to light, there's no room for any of the skills that management really needs for the police department to grow and thrive. The fact that in recent months and years the opposite has happened is reflected largely in what's happened at this level and how the management tier of the department had been built. One of the new chief's greatest challenges and one that has to be addressed immediately is how to address what other police leaders have done (not to mention his own bosses!), that's now been left on his door step.


He's definitely got his work cut out for him.


Some say that in the waning days of his short reign at the top of the command structure, DeLaRosa has been disciplining officers including those who filed lawsuits against him and that he and Personnel Capt. Michael Blakely have been transferring officers to the Orange Street Station and just as importantly, transferring certain officers out of the building into patrol. Almost immediately after DeLaRosa was appointed by Hudson to become acting chief, four officers were placed on administrative leave, an internal affairs sergeant was investigated after being a victim of a car burglary and then there's this whole issue of what's been called, the "penalty box" at the Orange Station.

There's at least six officers who were placed in this box, and of those six, four remain. Most of them are younger officers with most of them having less than five years work experience. And in what can surely only be explained as a bizarre statistical anomaly, three of them testified at the same criminal trial involving a former police officer charged with sexually assaulting three women in a three month period in early 2008.

There's about 350 officers left in the police department. There's about four left in the penalty box and three of them testified in this trial. During the Forman trial, about seven officers testified and a sergeant so while about 2% of the department's officers testified in that case, about 75% of the officers left in the penalty box had testified in that trial and these three represent just under 50% of those who testified in that trial. At least 66% of the Forman officers in the penalty box testified in ways viewed (but not necessarily so) as being favorable to Forman's defense.

Having been a student of statistics, this naturally caught my attention but whether it's what is called in statistics, a "random cluster" which can definitely happen or if there's some significance to it, one definitely can't be sure without further information but it would be hard for even professional statisticians to ignore and would definitely be interested in studying further. It's too early to tell in terms of drawing any conclusions except to say that's one hell of a statistical anomaly the department has here.

Officers Assigned to the Department's "Penalty Box"
By DeLaRosa

Lt. Leon Phillips, received note of termination for Leach incident for failure to properly supervise

Det. Chris Lanzillo, terminated within several months after filing his claim and lawsuit for dishonesty

Officer Michael Bucy: Awaiting disciplinary action for an incident from Oct. 2009, testified in Robert Forman Trial in autumn of 2009 as a former trainee of his.

Officer Richard Glover: Awaiting disciplinary action for an incident from Oct. 2009, testified in Robert Forman Trial in autumn of 2009 as having worked with him.

Officer Jeffrey Adcox: Awaiting disciplinary action for an incident involving a pursuit. In March 2009, involved in DUI accident and plead guilty about six months later.

Officer Justin Mann: Awaiting disciplinary action for an incident involving a pursuit, testified in Robert Forman trial in autumn 2009. He testified about receiving and forwarding one victim's report.



The idea of this "penalty box" is interesting because apparently it's not regular practice for all these individuals to be removed from the field to the administrative headquarters to sit idly waiting for discipline. The serious cases usually are placed on paid administrative leave (when not being promoted to acting chief) and most of the others are disciplined from the positions of their particular assignments. Some say it's done to humiliate officers who are facing disciplinary action who for whatever reason don't fall along the lines of being Team DeLaRosa just before the department terminates them.

Because most likely there are officers who have engaged in even serious misconduct who weren't treated in this fashion. It's ironic beyond belief that these disciplinary or punitive actions are being carried out by an individual who was allowed to retire out of the department either in lieu of disciplinary action or without any disciplinary action. In most cities, an individual in DeLaRosa's shoes would have been placed on paid administrative leave, not given a pay hike to be the acting chief. But then maybe other cities have city management employees who don't get themselves in this kind of situation and who incidentally aren't more focused in decking themselves out like cops than they are in being competent managers. Not to mention elected officials who as a legislative body play much stronger leadership roles than the Riverside City Council and Mayor Ron Loveridge.

But for there to be a "penalty box" under DeLaRosa who should be inside it himself is not the appropriate way to do business or to manage a police department or even to micromanage one for that matter. All of the officers inside the "penalty box" including Lanzillo should have their administrative processes brought to an immediate halt and suspended until they can be more appropriately handled by Diaz. Any disciplinary action should be stopped or reversed until that process under Diaz is completed. Phillips and Lanzillo should if not be reinstated to duty be put on paid administrative leave until their cases are handled and processed by individuals who have the authority but do not harbor an actual or perceived conflict of interest in the outcomes.

Lanzillo for his racial comments should be afforded the same discipline given to the now retired lieutenant who currently works for the City Attorney's office as an investigator. If it's good for a command staff employee to receive no disciplinary action for engaging in very similar misconduct, then it's good enough for someone lower in the chain of command as well. The police management at the time had some clue that what they did wasn't equivalent to how they would treat a lower level employee because after letting this command staff member completely off of the hook, more severe disciplinary action given to a detective was reduced to a written reprimand. It's not clear exactly why people in the upper ranks are able to skirt disciplinary action but if they are granted greater authority and power in the chain of command, they also hold greater responsibilities and should if anything, face greater disciplinary action.

Diaz has a wealth of experience in the Internal Affairs Division of the LAPD and thus has the tools to address this issue and he already has greater credibility than an acting chief who's proven that preferential treatment for a certain class of employees is still alive and well in Riverside. This just seems the best way for these situations to be handled in ways that practice equal protection under the law including pertaining to conflict of interest and will likely save the city huge litigation expenses in the long run if the actions against these officer are not being conducted fairly.

Fired Detective Files Second Claim for Damages with City

Lanzillo who was fired within 15 minutes after the end of his Skelly on June 11 has filed another claim for damages with the city, alleging that his rights to have his Skelly hearing heard by an impartial party were violated when his requests to have DeLaRosa removed from the process through his attorney were denied by Hudson. The claim is against the city, DeLaRosa, Blakely and Lt. Ed Blevins who supervised the Vice Unit where Lanzillo had been for several years until he was transferred out earlier this year not long after his two-year term as RPOA president ended.

During his Skelly, Lanzillo appeared and saw the Internal Affairs sergeant assigned to his case in the hallway which led him to believe the outcome was pre-determined. He had been investigated in relation to a racial joke he told in a cultural diversity training class that had been reported by a supervisor who hadn't attended the class.

According to Lanzillo, he had a confrontation with DeLaRosa during one of the roll calls where DeLaRosa was telling the department's officers to stick together and among other things, challenged DeLaRosa on why he took so long to send the case involving Leach's incident to the California Highway Patrol. The investigation was launched soon after and after Lanzillo's comments hit the pages of the Press Enterprise, the Internal Affairs Division was allegedly ordered to place his investigation at the top of its list in terms of priority by someone in management at Orange Station.

The city council will upon legal advice from the City Attorney's office or from outside counsel will decide whether to uphold or deny the claim.





When DeLaRosa hasn't been firing employees who have sued him, he has been engaging in transferring employees in and out of the Orange Street Station for other reasons besides disciplinary action. One interesting story to follow has been the ongoing situation involving the police department's promotional list for lieutenants, which as has been shown here several times is top-heavy with both men of color and especially women. Four out of five people at the top of the lieutenant's list weren't white men. But even though two candidates have been promoted, first Andy Flores from #6 and Melissa Bartholomew from #5, this is what has happened to other individuals on the top five of the lieutenant's list in recent weeks.

Promotional list for lieutenants:

Jaybee Brennan, white female –transferred from chief’s office to patrol allegedly to fill vacancy

Daniel Hoxmeier, white male—transferred from PACT/patrol to Communications after Williams goes to patrol

Lisa Williams white female-- transferred from Communications to Patrol after she is required to report to Blakely instead of the police chief

Val Graham Black male, Internal investigation activated on him in relation to an incident involving other officers and a sergeant that took place six months earlier.



More to come on as the DeLaRosa regime draws to a close...and a new era begins?

Committee Hears Ethics Complaint

At Riverside City Hall, the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee minus the mayor appeared to hear and rule on the ethics complaint of Michael Morales who alleged that Councilman Paul Davis had been operating a catering business out of his garage without the appropriate permits. Morales who had been railing at city council meetings against another councilman, Mike Gardner had disappeared for a while and then resurfaced with complaints against Davis.

Loveridge did show up in the middle of the affair, saying that the meeting had never appeared in his appointment calendar and if a meeting's not in that book, then he doesn't appear at it. Well anyway, he missed part of the proceedings but stuck around for the rest as the committee grappled with issues like whether or not people would be cited for lemonade stands and making cookies and whether or not women could be independent business owners or whether they were merely props of men to do what they are told.

Oh and whether the complaint filed by Morales fit under the purview with the city's code of ethics. City Attorney Gregory Priamos said it did not and so the committee voted 4-0 in agreement with Priamos. Ironically, Morales who spoke about the importance of equal protection under the law as being important in terms of code enforcement didn't seem nearly as clear on this issue when it comes to how people who are DUI like police chiefs are treated. Earlier this year not long after the incident involving former police chief, Russ Leach he claimed that Leach hadn't been drinking but it had been only medication that he had taken. Well, the video at the Club 215 proved that Leach had in fact been drinking seven "doubles" on top of what he had already drank. So what's good for Davis, isn't good enough for Leach?

What struck as ironic about the process is that it came on the wake of the revelations in recent weeks of city management employees and at least one council member, Steve Adams, had been implicated in the commission of what were illegal actions including the issuance of cold plates.

Two former high-ranking police employees in the city's department who are now police chiefs each responded to this article in different ways but revealing similar information in that city officials and city management employees did use cold plating on their cars.

First Palm Springs Police Chief David Dominguez said to the Press Enterprise that city management employees had directed the issuance of cold plates.


One of those who had cold plates in his city issued vehicle, Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis responded by calling Dominguez a "disgruntled" employee but every time DeSantis opens his mouth to explain away his involvement in these "inquiries" made by the State Attorney General's office, he just defies logic further. Maybe he should just quit while he's ahead.


Then Hemet Police Chief Richard Dana announced the removal of cold plates issued to city officials there. Here's a narrative on what happened in Hemet according to Dana, who like Dominguez has worked in upper management in the Riverside Police Department.


(excerpt, Press Enterprise)

The chief said he didn't realize putting untraceable plates on cars used by civilians was illegal until he read a June 9 Press-Enterprise story on Riverside's use of the plates

"It was a mistake, and I am taking them off," he said.

Dana said that when he was a commander at the Riverside Police Department, he was aware that non-police employees such as council members and the city manager's staff had cold plates on their city vehicles.

So what DeSantis and his boss, Hudson have to realize is that now they apparently have two "disgruntled" employees. Because clearly if there's more than a handful of "disgruntled" employees, then that would seem that it's more and more likely on a geometric causation scale that this would point to problems with management's relationships with its work force.



But anyway, it's just a bit strange and more than a little bit surreal to have an ethics complaint against one city councilman being heard by a panel of his peers which includes one member who was part of an investigation into illegal violations involving the issuance of cold plates. But maybe that's why the suggestion of some organizations like The Group and the League of Women's Voters to instead have the hearing process on complaints done by an independent board perhaps made up of retired judges might need revisiting. After all, the city council had said that the idea was supposed to go back to the Governmental Affairs Committee for further discussion and then that got dropped.

Save-Riverside's Kevin Dawson talked about the relationship of what he referred to as the Betro/Schiavone clause that had been passed not long after his own complaint had been rejected in the summer of 2007 by the City Attorney's office and how maybe the city council needed to rethink its inclusion. And yes, women can operate independently of men and are individuals who can think, act and even conduct business independently without having to cleave to men to do so.

Anyway, here are some snapshots from the meeting.






[Michael Morales who filed a complaint against Councilman Paul Davis prepares to make his speech.]





[Riverside Councilman Paul Davis appears at the ethics code hearing by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee which held a joint meeting with the City Council to satisfy the provision of the state's Brown Act which prohibits serial meetings. Davis said he supported Morales' right to file complaint but called his views on his wife, "sexist". ]




[Councilman Steve Adams (l.), Councilman Rusty Bailey who are members of the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee sit with City Attorney Gregory Priamos to decide Davis' fate. Adams was implicated in the recent revelations about the cold plating of city issued cars which is a violation of state law.]

Introducing the New Police Chief

The denizens at City Hall including those employed in the city management office put the newly hired police chief, who's retired Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Sergio Diaz on display at the Grier Pavillion on the top floor of City Hall.

Talk about a new employee in a difficult and interesting situation, of having to work directly under a city management which has been implicated in several scandals involving violations of state laws involving badges, guns and cold plates. To be a newly hired police chief overseeing a department which appeared to be put to use by individuals inside of City Hall in ways that had nothing to do with the mantra, to protect and serve the public. Because of actions being taken by these individuals, it was at least in part being used to equip and service city officials and management employees. In ways that go even further than what's been unveiled so far. The lid's still not come completely off of this boiling cauldron and the Seventh Floor as it has been called is definitely feeling the heat.

Well, its denizens have to remember that they created the cauldron and if it's heating up, well they have no one to blame but themselves for that.

With talk in the wards about candidates preparing to come out of the woodwork for the elections next year in each ward, there's discussion of what leadership really means in a city which has seen very little of that from City Hall even as illegal activities by some of those inside have come to light. The most that city residents get is some patronizing words about it all being "old news" which is only true because City Hall tried to keep it "buried news" and failed miserably.

D.A. Closes Books on Witness Tampering Case involving Former Elected Official

An announcement came out today that the Riverside County District Attorney's office won't file charges of persuading a witness against former Councilman Frank Schiavone which is probably the only responsible decision it can make at this point because everyone's taped each other at this point and there's really no case to file for this situation if the complainant has provided two entirely different accounts of the incident in question on tape. If there's not enough of a strong case to win at trial, then charges shouldn't be filed past what can be proven in court. A lesson that at least outgoing District Attorney Rod Pacheco learned just in time to make a final ruling on Schiavone's case.

I did receive a rebuttal from Schiavone of sorts where he fully denied any involvement in any of the scandals at City Hall, including the cold plates scandal in response to the posting where that documented that lists city-owned vehicles to be cold plated was posted. That response is duly noted.

As for his assertion that it's "killing me" that he's not guilty of witness tampering, no not...really.

With all the problems hitting Riverside at once, most of them in relation with how the city government and city management did business in the past five years not to mention all the collateral damage that resulted, it's been too busy to really give him and his somewhat colorful exploits much thought.

Though hopefully he will move on and do something constructive and positive with his life to help those people who are wrongfully accused and have charges filed against them who lack the resources that he enjoys. That's a worthwhile endeavor and I wish him good luck with that.

Still, it's definitely ironic that the only one who spent time in jail was the only one in that situation that lacked privilege and social status.


But to refresh memories so that people want to know what the rebuttal's at least partially in reference to, here's the document.

As far as council members go, testimony from the depositions mentions at least two people receiving them and both Dominguez and possibly Dana from their comments seem to be saying that it was more than one elected official who received them in Riverside while they were employed there.


[Document posted previously of city-issued cars to be cold plated. Click to enlarge.]





Menifee struggles with cityhood.

Riverside City Council Regatta and Barbecue

Saturday, June 19 from 1-4


Fairmount Park

The second regatta among the city council members takes place this Saturday and it remains to be seen whether Councilman Paul Davis will repeat or whether Councilman Rusty Bailey will atone for his very surprising last place finish during last autumn's event. Part of a day's worth of events taking place at this historic park.