Ethics Complaints 101: The Dog and Pony Show

UPDATE: Conduct unbecoming from a management team member at a fundraising event for a fallen officer?

UPDATE: Lieutenant's list

11 tested on the same day, one on the following day, test
combination of written and oral interviews by a four personal panel of two
"community" and two outside management level police officers

No numerical ranking provided so the names are alphabetically listed

"A" Band

Jaybee Brennan

Christian Dinco



"B" Band

(in alphabetical order)

Frank Assuma

Steve Bradshaw

Val Graham

Duane May

Mark Rossi

Skip Showwater

Russell Shubert

Lisa Williams



"C" Band

Bryan Dailey

Gary Touissaint


To be Continued...

UPDATE: Will former Maywood Police Chief Frank Hauptmann be the next Community Police Review Commission manager?






[Members of the Riverside Police Department's Metro Team including Officers Brett Stennett and Dawson Smith received awards from the state's firefighters association at the city council meeting.]





The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee heard the ethics complaint filed against Councilman Steve Adams by the La Sierra/Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance alleging that he violated the code by disrupting its Sept. 2 meeting after the group wouldn't let him speak after he attended the meeting in tow with City Attorney Gregory Priamos. Two city employees Tom Boyd and Cindie Perry had abruptly left at a meeting they were expected to present at after a long conversation with Adams in the parking lot. Even after Priamos had allegedly assured LANA board members that they hadn't committed any violations at their meetings, the two employees were allegedly ordered by Hudson to pack up and leave without any further explanation why. Which is perplexing because one would think that if the concerns raised by Hudson involving LANA had been such old news that the city employees would have never shown up at the meeting in the first place. But they showed up and left without a word to those who had invited them. Nor did Adams or anyone else including Hudson explain to them in person or through a phone call that evening why the city employees had left abruptly which makes it more than a little suspicious that this form of protocol wasn't followed.

But anyway, the complaint was filed, rejected by Hudson (who doesn't have that authority under the ordinace governing the Ethics Code) and then refiled in an amended form to head this time to the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee which normally includes Adams as a member but this time, Councilwoman Nancy Hart stepped in to replace him for the hearing.

Witnessing the Committee fumble with what allegedly will be its final direct hearing of an ethics complaints after city resident pushed changes were approved by the city council including the creation of a new independent panel to hear complaints (though it will still serve in an appellate category to this panel) was once again an exercise on why the city council membered committee is unable to objectively handle ethics complaints filed its members. All three members serving on the Governmental Affairs Committee had voted against those changes (most of them saying because of the "discovery" issue) that they themselves had voted to send to the city council. Councilwoman Nancy Hart had voted for the changes not because she herself supported them but because of her constituents. In fact, at least she, Councilman Andrew Melendrez and Councilman Paul Davis had received dozens if not over a 100 responses from constituents in their respective wards pushing for the changes.

The hearing on this complaint was one reminder of why this is important.

[Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee and witness, City Manager Brad Hudson hear the ethics complaint filed against Councilman Steve Adams.]

[Councilman Rusty Bailey (l.) had to rush to make the mid-morning start time which had been unsuccessfully protested by the complainants as only two of them could attend the meeting.]

[City Manager Brad Hudson shows up to defend one of his bosses, Adams at the hearing.]


The original complaint had been amended after becoming the third complaint filed against Adams to have been tossed before even reaching the appropriate hearing body pursuant to the resolution, and the issue was disruptive behavior at a meeting as well as a potential violation of City Charter Amendment 407 forbidding administrative interference by elected officials of city employees even their own. What was so striking about that is that there's been allegations by Adams and other that it's just a political attack against him because Taffi Brandriff, one of six members who filed the complaint is married to John Brandriff who's running against Adams in the Ward Seven race.

Of course, that could always be true, especially in a world where wives of husbands are automatically assumed to do their husbands' bidding for them because of course, women including those married to men have no minds of their own, living solely to clean house, cook food and whatever else they are ordered to do. While the same assumptions are hardly made about men who marry women who run for office. They are usually assumed to be acting and thinking independently and separately. Is it possible that the complaint was politically motivated, perhaps but it's not an automatic assumption especially when you take into light Adams' past history with allegations of violating the city charter provision against administrative interference or disrupting or manipulating a process he didn't have authority over. He had been accused to have done that before in 2005 and 2008 through lawsuits filed by two police lieutenants Tim Bacon and Darryl Hurt that stated he had allegedly interfered with two promotions made by former Chief Russ Leach of captains.

The actions that were alleged to have been taken by different denizens at City Hall and the police department were testified to great length in depositions taken of the involved parties including Adams.





[Capt. Meredyth Meredith allegedly had her promotion canceled when Adams called the city management protesting against it. ]




[Capt. John Carpenter's promotion apparently got put on ice until he allegedly met with Adams and former Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel on Leach's advisement to smooth the waters between the councilman and the cop.]



The lawsuit which would have hashed out these and other allegations of corruption and misconduct involving City Hall and its handling of Leach and the police department were to have gone to trial last April and one would think that the city council and mayor including members of the hearing committee would have pushed for a day in court for Hudson, former Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and Adams to be able to testify on their own behalves. But what did the city government do behind closed doors instead, they settled the case quite generously with the plaintiffs in lieu of a trial in a public forum called a courtroom. They had litigated the case to that point in U.S. District Court but then for some reason, opted out just before the trial at least in part because the city already had been mired in scandal from the Leach DUI incident and there were allegations documented by work product that would have been discussed through testimony in court, the last thing the beleaguered city wanted at this time.

Losing a lawsuit at trial and paying out a lot of money, like the city did in the trial involving Officer Roger Sutton's lawsuit, is one consequence of taking a lawsuit inside a courtroom to trial rather than keeping it behind closed doors. The other is win or lose, the public airing of what's being determined at trial can be potentially very embarrassing especially if news of it spreads outside the courtroom.

So the second allegation involving Adams engaging in administrative interference just sounded familiar. Heard by a body of individuals that had decided behind closed doors to offer a hefty settlement in a lawsuit rather than take it to trial perhaps in hopes of limiting the embarrassment to the city government but also to Adams. In essence using city residents' money to settle yet another lawsuit to protect its own members and direct employees given that the city no longer has an insurance carrier tied to litigation. So it's just not really news to hear that allegations of administrative interference involving Adams have popped up again and it's beyond inappropriate for those who opted to settle a lawsuit which included allegations of administrative interference behind closed doors rather than take it to trial to sit and decide on an ethics complaint. Not to mention if these individuals have or choose to endorse him in his reelection bid, in the usual political circling of the wagons by city council against outsiders running for incumbent seats.

The committee not surprisingly voted 4-0 more or less to dismiss the allegations of the complainant pretty much what they always have done. During the process, several of them showed confusion on what an ethic violation really entails. Two council members, Hart and Melendrez expressed concern about Adams' conduct at the LANA meeting calling it unfortunate and at least one of them planned to talk to him. And they raised the issues of the importance of communication as if it were a new concept as to LANA's responsibility to clear the air with Adams and that would be the case with any dispute between city residents and an elected official. This might work with some of the members of the dais much better than others who are more receptive to addressing issues in that manner but Adams is not the easiest individual to address those disagreements with, as he doesn't seem interested in what the public says.

He's often left city council meetings during public comment to go sit in the conference room until the comment period is over apparently so he doesn't have to listen to it, according to another official. Is that acceptable behavior from an elected official during a public meeting, simply because he doesn't like hearing public comments that might be critical? Well, Adams like elected officials is being paid and whether it's a full-time or part-time job or salary (which after a full term served includes a generous departure package) is debatable but if he's being paid, then he really should plant himself in his chair because elected officials can't pick and choose to participate in the parts of the job that they like and avoid the ones they dislike.

[City Manager Brad Hudson puts on his show, dropping shocking allegations and innuendo without elaboration.]

But the really interesting if unsettling part of the meeting is the Committee's tendency to put the complainant on trial which wasn't as pronounced as it had been in the earliest days of the complaint process but was there nevertheless. This time, courtesy of Hudson who pulled a stunt he did one time before which was to make allegations of serious misconduct against an entity in this case an organization without elaborating. In this case, he alleged that LANA's board members had engaged in misconduct that was "borderline criminal.". Interestingly enough but also disturbing was that none of the elected officials on the committee asked him to explain himself, to show that he had factual basis for such a statement. Instead he left it hanging for people to draw their own conclusions which had been the purpose of making that statement in the first place.

Hudson later said away from elected officials that two people had said they had contributed money and it was used for reasons than they thought so they had contacted the city and Hudson had referred the case to the police department which he said didn't file charges. However, it didn't appear as if any of the board members even knew that Hudson had contacted the police department to investigate them or their organization until after the fact and people out it disturbing that Hudson had said they were "borderline criminal" after the police department had declined to recommend filing charges. But then again, allegedly this had happened before where Hudson made comments about "almost criminal" or "borderline criminal behavior" to other people when there was no basis for those remarks. And who's the boss of the police chief who runs the department, Hudson of course. It's interesting to see what would have been a civil matter between different parties which perhaps might have been litigated in small claims court be escalated so quickly to some sort of fraud investigation against a community organization apparently without its knowledge. How is that for a breakdown in communication, to rush to prosecute individuals over allegations raised by members of an organization without doing what the city council members and mayor kept on advising, which was to sit down and communicate better.

But the elected officials who employ him don't even question him when he drops statements like that during an ethics complaint hearing and that's disturbing to witness and it left people in attendance feeling like the city council and mayor should have said something in response but once again, tail wagging the dog. And the thing is that elected officials are and should be held to a higher standard of conduct because after they get elected, they stand up before the city's residents who attend the meetings or watch them online or on television and take an oath to essentially carry out their duties including behaving ethically. They also receive training from Priamos on ethics and avoiding pitfalls which might lead to ethics violations. And they hold the public trust through their public service, which issues them privileges but also pushes for accountability.

Still, the ethics complaint process might be entirely meaningless and without teeth and both at this point are pretty much true, and it's not clear whether the changes made to it will really result in a process that can be trusted by the city's residents, many of whom didn't like the current practice of having the fox guarding the hen house as it's been put through the use of the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee. But the amazing thing about Riverside's city residents is that when they vote for their elected representatives, one of the qualities that's clearly looked at by many of them is how their elected officials conduct themselves including on the dais at meetings. For the most part, those elected officials who acted out on the dais, called people names or told the police officers working there to eject them have been sent packing, not through an ethics complaint process that many an elected official has tried to contain or control but through the even bigger ethics process called the ballot box. Some of them have discounted how much difference it makes and then found themselves suddenly unemployed and cleaning out their offices at City Hall. That's usually how it's worked out.

And the four city councilmen up for reelection next year have most of what happened that splashed the media as a check mark against them given the dearth of leadership from the dais that came once again during one of the city's greatest crises. When instead of strong, assured leadership, silence prevailed even as scandal after scandal emerged, still the city government had little to say about it except Adams, who dismissed it all as "old news", simply a testament of the city's ability to keep it all under wraps for several years.

Next year, the new changes in the ethics code and complaint process just voted on go into effect...well maybe unless one or more city council members use the meeting in January to hammer out the amended language to instead reverse their vote. But during an election year that could be contentious, is that worth the risk? Election 2011 is sure to be an exciting year with much action to play out and perhaps some changes on the dais, well that remains to be seen.

New CPRC Manager to be Announced?

The Community Police Review Commission is set to announce soon the hiring of the new manager to fill in the vacancy left behind by the departure of former manager, Kevin Rogan who now works for the Los Angeles Police Commission. Leading candidates include a former chief of the now defunct Maywood Police Department (hopefully the only one that can pass the background check), a retired chief from California State University's police department and a high ranking management member of Pomona's police department.

Public Events

Saturday, Dec. 11 from 10 am-2pm, Cops East Winter Fest will be held at the Town Square rear parking lot on Chicago and University. Law enforcement and military representatives will be present at this event which reaches out to the communities including the Eastside.

Saturday, Dec. 18 is the deadline for the toy drive being done by Councilman Paul Davis with dropoff locations :

Orange Terrace Community Center

Martin Luther King, Jr. High School Band room

Nation's Rent to Own in Riverside

Riverside City Hall, Seventh Floor c/o Davis

River City: Anatomy of an Ethics Complaint

UPDATE: The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee sided with colleague Councilman Steve Adams in the ethics complaint (through a 4-0 decision) filed by the La Sierra/Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance while City Manager Brad Hudson makes shocking allegations, well hints of them without elaboration of course, against the organization including some that were news to those on its board.

[Members of the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee heard and ultimately voted against complainant.]

UPDATE: Former Riverside Police Department officer Anthony Fletcher sentenced to prison for one year after being convicted of multiple felony counts of child molestation.

From the Ashes of Maywood to Riverside:

The hiring of a city employee...

Coming soon...

UPDATE: Human Resources Board member Rosetta Runnels passed away last week, a very nice and conscientious person and board member, who achieved her law degree after many struggles and worked as a lawyer in Riverside while also serving as a mentor.



What: Ethics complaint involving Councilman Steve Adams

When: Tuesday, Dec. 7 at 10 a.m.

Where: Mayor's Ceremonial Room, Seventh Floor City Hall


Backup material: here



The formerly postponed ethics complaint against Riverside Councilman Steve Adams filed by the La Sierra/Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance will finally be heard by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee at City Hall. The incident came to light when reported in the Web site Our La Sierra here a day after the alleged incident took place. Adams allegedly appeared at a meeting of LANA to speak at it along with City Attorney Gregory Priamos in tow and after being told that there would be time later for him to do so on the agenda, he allegedly called several city employees who had been scheduled on the agenda to give presentations to come out and talk to him in the parking lot. After whatever discussion took place, the city employees who had been scheduled to present left the premises. This led the members of LANA to the conclusion that Adams had told the city employees to leave the meeting in lieu of remaining there and providing information through presentation to the membership.


The allegation against Adams is that he violated Charter Amendment 407 prohibiting administrative interference by elected officials covered in this section of the Charter. Violating the section of the charter constitutes a violation of the city's Ethics Code, according to an email submitted by LANA to City Clerk Colleen Nicol.

The original complaint was denied at about the same time Hudson suddenly came forward publicly and said that he not Adams had been the ones to order the employees to depart even though he hadn't been present at the meeting location. Adams in the press claimed the complaint had no merit that it was a political attack against him because Taffi Brandriff's husband John was running for city council against him in 2011. Throughout the entire ethics code discussion process, Adams has said publicly that he believes that the code has been used against elected officials for political reasons even in one case making vague references to a hypothetical example of a car accident three years ago, at a Governmental Affairs Committee causing no small degree of confusion in the process.

So LANA filed an amended complaint which like the first edition, detailed the chain of events it took place in greater detail.


Amended Complaint:



On the evening of September 2, 2010, LANA met at the Senior Center at La Sierra Park. Our guest speakers for the evening were Cindie Perry, Public Works Manager and Tom Boyd Director of Public Works; they arrived prior to the meeting in business attire, briefcase in hand, and ready to present.

Councilman Steve Adams arrived early and brought with him Greg Priamos, City Attorney for Riverside. Councilman Adams told Co-Chair of LANA, Taffi Brandriff, that he (Councilman Adams) WOULD be speaking at the beginning of our meeting. He cited undocumented “complaints”, allegedly received, regarding the manner in which LANA meetings were conducted. He was advised by Mrs. Brandriff that the agenda had been set, and that time did not allow a speaker added at the last minute. He was advised that time would be given at the end of the meeting for any, and all, interested persons to have the floor for a set time period. He was invited to participate in a future meeting by making a timely request.

Mr. Priamos discussed with Mrs. Brandriff, the nature of LANA of its affiliation with the city and queried Mrs. Brandriff on the possibility that LANA was organizing as a Governance group. Mrs. Brandriff reiterated that LANA was a community group through the RNP (Riverside Neighborhood Partnership) and in no manner had ever indicated, or acted in any way to suggest, that LANA was organizing as a Governance group. Both Councilman Adams and City Attorney Priamos left the meeting room.

Councilman Adams Legislative Field Representative was seen informing Public Works Manager Cindie Perry that Councilman Adams would like to speak with her outside. They were viewed speaking at length in the parking lot. After their conversation neither Ms. Perry nor Mr. Boyd returned to the building nor answered our call. Since Ms. Perry and Mr. Boyd were seen by many in readiness to present at our meeting and then left the premises after a conversation with Councilman Adams, the concern is that Sec. 407 of the City Charter was violated, which as stated above is an ethics violation.

Councilmember Adams displayed conduct unbecoming an elected official and retaliated against the members of LANA and the community. We are asking that this be investigated and a report be given to us regarding the findings of that investigation. This abuse of power is inexcusable and the Community should not be penalized because of politics and this is another reason why this matter must be investigated by you. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation, respectfully yours,


Mr. Scott Andrews
Lana Board member/ RNP Chairperson/ W3C member

Mr. Richard Long
LANA Board member/ Pacific Palisades Neighborhood Watch

Mrs. Taffi Brandriff
LANA Vice Chairperson/ RNP member/ La Sierra Hills Neighborhood Watch

Mrs. Sophia Diaz
LANA member/ La Sierra Hills Neighborhood Watch

Ms. Sharon Mateja
LANA Founding member/ RRR Co-Founder and Chairperson

Mrs. Mia Alvarado
LANA member/ La Sierra Hills Neighborhood Watch /Alvord Council PTA Vice President



So this sets the stage for the public hearing that has now been scheduled for Dec. 7 and most likely will prove to be a lesson plan in why the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee is so ill-suited for hearing ethics complaints filed against elected officials, a process that has been somewhat amended by a recent narrow city council vote. A vote that according to Priamos could be reversed when the city council meets next month to discuss and vote on the language of the changes to the resolution defining the code and complaint process. If the city residents don't continue to be engaged in the process, then all it would take is one or more council members, say Nancy Hart, and the changes voted on by the city council recently would be undone including the most at risk provision, the creation of a separate and independent panel to hear complaints involving elected officials. But it's an election year for four of them coming up including Adams and that would make any such political reversal potentially damaging to their political campaigns.

[Councilman Steve Adams, subject of the ethics complaint]

[Brad Hudson, Key Witness for Adams who employs him]

[Mayor Ron Loveridge, if in town, will chair the panel]






[Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee minus Adams will hear complaint and lustily dismiss it ]





[Councilwoman Nancy Hart(l.) will substitute in for Adams]

Before the amended complaint came the original complaint filed by LANA which received some responses from interesting parties. According to the ordinance defining the complaint process, complaints against elected officials are supposed to head to the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee but relatively few filed against city officials have actually made it to the correct venue. Several were essentially rejected by Priamos but not the LANA complaint, that one was actually denied by a different city employee for a change, this one being Hudson. Whether to provide clarity on the situation or to fall on the nearest bayonet, Hudson actually was allowed and perhaps even sanctioned by city council members to reject an ethics complaint filed by one of his employers. Oddly considering his history, Hudson essentially put himself under the bus instead of throwing someone else adding a nuanced anecdote to the history of this particular complaint and the process itself in the process.

Hudson stated his denial of the complaint when he responded with the following email around Sept. 22.

(email, Hudson to LANA)


This is in response to the letter from the La Sierra/Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance (LANA) dated September 10, 2010 and received by the City Clerk on September 13, 2010. The letter incorrectly asserts that Councilmember Adams violated Section 407 of the Riverside City Charter.

As you may know, Councilmember Adams received complaints from several citizens that LANA was misrepresenting the group’s scope and authority. Councilmember Adams appeared at the meeting for the purpose of sharing the City Council’s action of May 25, 2010 creating a formal neighborhood council approach and answering any questions as to the process and guidelines for becoming a neighborhood council. Councilmember Adams was not allowed to address the group and offer the information.

Thereafter, I made the decision relative to city staff’s participation at the meeting. My decision was based upon the citizen complaints that the LANA group was misrepresenting its scope and authority and the refusal to permit Councilmember Adams and the City Attorney to provide clarification as to City Council’s action. Consequently, there is no basis for your assertion and there is no further action to be taken on your letter.



The language that is in red is that used by Hudson in the email to take it upon himself to act as the judiciary body denying the complaint before it was filed. Perhaps it was because Priamos was busy doing something else too much so to slip into that role himself. But the response from the city council and mayor when once again, the ethics complaint process involving elected officials was sidetracked was silence. Because as most people know, the tail wags the dog and not the other way around.


So in essence, in this particular case, the ethics complaint that was supposed to go to the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee pursuant to the ethics code resolution went to Hudson and ended there in violation of the resolution that governs it which is pretty funny in a way to have an ethics code and have a government that can't even adhere to the written language City Hall itself passed. But then again, this is Riverside which has been awash in embarrassing revelations and scandals this past year, so the fact that it's governing body is tripping over the ethics code mandated by the city's voters should come as no real surprise. But LANA amended the complaint taking into consideration Hudson's declaration of his recollection of the events and filed anew. The complaint was originally scheduled to be heard in early November but that meeting was canceled because Hudson had been called out of town to see his mother and his presence at the hearing was "key", according to City Clerk Colleen Nicol.

But LANA apparently had concerns about the hearing process itself and what person exercising basic common sense wouldn't, because the current process allows the fox to guard the hen house given that the city council has never been quite effective or even interested in addressing ethics code violations that take place at meetings made by current but mostly former city officials who berate and in some cases even slandered members of the public who said things at the dais they didn't like, like when Adams called several women "liars" and the complaint filed against him, the ethic code's very first, was tossed out on some technicality not included in the language of the ordinance as excluding the filing of complaints.

So LANA listed its concerns which match those made publicly by other individuals regarding the serious problems and yes ethical issues involved with having the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee hear complaints filed actually as it turns out, mostly against its own committee members.



October 7, 2010

To: Members of the Mayors Nominating and Screening Committee, City Council and City Attorney.
From: LANA Riverside
Re: Ethics complaint, re-filed September 27, 2010

It has come to our attention that the process for the review of the ethics complaint filed against Councilman Adams by this group could be problematic for the Council and for the City of Riverside. It would seem that the members of the Mayor’s Nominating and Screening Committee are all endorsers of Mr. Adams reelection campaign to the City Council in 2011. As such it might be perceived as a conflict for the Committee to hear a complaint against Mr. Adams. If the Committee were to clear him of the charges it might look to some in the community like a cover-up. Conversely it might be difficult or embarrassing to uphold charges against someone whom the members of the Committee have endorsed. While we are convinced that Mr. Adams did behave unethically, we also think he should have the opportunity for this case to be heard by an unconflicted and unbiased panel. We would suggest that a good faith effort be put forward to empanel a committee that could hear this matter and adjudicate it fairly and with no suggestion of partiality toward any outcome.

We also are requesting enough time for our request for records to be processed so we may present them at the hearing.

It would also be very helpful if the hearing could be scheduled in the evening when all of our complainants’ can be present. Most have jobs that would preclude them from being able to attend an afternoon meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns,


LANA Riverside.




LANA is right to be concerned, the first time the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee heard an ethics complaint involving then Councilman Dom Betro, the exercise consisted mostly of commiserating with Betro about the complaint filed against him and berating the person who filed with, Letitia Pepper, saying it was only filed to align with political motives. At that point in time, most of the city council had already endorsed or were in the process of endorsing Betro for that election cycle. And that's been a main issue that has come up as well, is how can elected officials take a serious look at ethical code violations involving their own peers after they've endorsed them for election. After all, they wouldn't endorse them without endorsing their politics as well as their positions on issues not to mention that blanket endorsements of city council members towards each other is very instrumental in trying to circle the wagons against any potential encroachment to their elected body by "outsiders". The issue of Adams being endorsed by most of the elected officials was raised in the email that LANA sent to City Hall.

Another email was sent involving how the process would be handled by the panel hearing the ethics complaint involving one of its own members.

LANA sent an email close to the original hearing date raising further concerns about the lack of communication by City Hall about the ethics complaint hearings dates and how hearings are conducted by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee. The complaints mirror those raised by at least one commissioner who had a complaint filed against her and learned about that complaint through the Press Enterprise.



(excerpt of letter in response to initial scheduling of LANA complaint in early November)


"It is Tuesday November 9th and it is painfully obvious that the hearing process for ethics complaints is extremely biased, the committee knows what they’re going to do all along but the complainants don’t have a clue and aren’t told. We were never notified of the time or location of the hearing until the last minute and then it had to be rescheduled We also requested that the hearing be in the evening because the complainants have jobs and other responsibilities and are unable to attend in the middle of the day, obviously to no avail, although there was never any response to any e-mail. Consequently we have no idea what will happen tomorrow.

There is no place on the City’s website you can go to get any information on when, where, what and how the process will proceed. From the beginning we have been at a disadvantage, with the complaint originally thrown out based on semantics, and with little or no help in how to properly fill out a complaint. With no response to any e-mails that we sent and with next to no time, because of no communication as to the process and protocol of the hearing, we will do our best to present a justification for this complaint. The following is as brief and concise as we could make it and trust you will consider this as if we were there. We would also request that this statement be read for all those in attendance at the hearing."



That had followed an earlier email raising similar concerns about the process of the hearing itself in terms of the procedure followed including introduction of evidence, interviewing witnesses.


To: City Attorney, Gregory Priamos October 11, 2010
Re: Mr. Adams Ethics Hearing

Mr. Priamos, as the party that filed the complaint we have some questions regarding the procedure and protocol for the Ethics Hearing of Mr. Adams on November 2, 2010.
1. When will we be able to speak with or ask questions of the two City employees that were involved in this complaint or will they be available on the day of the hearing to answer any inquiries.
2. Since the City Manager has stepped up to take responsibility for this incident when will we be able to speak with or ask questions of him or will he be available on the day of the hearing to answer any inquires.
3. As an attendee at these proceedings and a witness to a portion of the interaction that took place on September 2, 2010 will you be able to discuss or answer any question that may arise or can we address any questions to you in advance.
4. If the hearing is scheduled at a time when the complainants cannot attend will their written statements be allowed to be read as a matter of record?
It is our hope that we will be able to present all the facts in this case including all records and information along with the statements of the witnesses and those directed to leave the premises that day. To that end we would appreciate a little latitude as we are not lawyers or are we familiar with the legal procedures of this hearing.


Actually most of the ethics complaint hearings have been conducted pretty similar to most of the other meetings held by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meetings. In that the agenda item, in this case an ethics complaint, is presented, the public gets three minutes to speak apiece and then the city council members discuss the complaint mostly to talk about how frivolous it is is. There's not really been much in the way of people questioning city employees or even elected officials as for the most part (except on one occasion), city officials or board or commission members haven't attended meetings where complaints filed against them have been heard.

One of the most interesting chapters of this complaint process was when LANA tried to gather information through the public records act on the communications between Priamos, Adams, the city employees involved and Hudson. Now it was Priamos' turn to come to the plate and engage in the art of skillful deflection.

On Oct. 14, LANA received a letter from Priamos stating that the city was denying its request for any and all documents pertaining to phone records and text messages for Adams, Hudson, Cindie Perry and Tom Boyd for the time period between 5-11 p.m. on Sept. 2. as well as any similar records in connection with references to LANA going back to May 2010. Except for phone records of Adams and Hudson only after 7 p.m. and two emails in relation to reference to LANA not protected under the attorney/client privilege. Any communications between Priamos and anyone else were deemed confidential in the letter under attorney/client privilege.

This is somewhat different, except in the case of Priamos, to information disclosure in the case of cell phone records in connection with the handling of the DUI incident involving former Police Chief Russ Leach. It's not logical on its face how Priamos could be assuming attorney/client privilege when he allegedly according to City Hall had little involvement in what happened at the LANA meeting in September and if Adams did nothing improper, why would he be seeking legal counseling from Priamos that would be deemed confidential? But it does speak to what Priamos once told someone was his number one responsibility as the city attorney which was to protect the city council and mayor. When he was asked what he would be protecting from, he really had no answer.

But as far as Hudson, it's kind of interesting because remember during the Leach incident when his city-issued cell phone records were somewhat...sparse in nature? His phone had been turned off most of the day while he was out of town touring theaters while Rome was burning. Then at some point he found out from someone what happened with Leach even as the records collected from the Press Enterprise showed no phone calls coming to or from his cell phone until after 5 p.m. on Feb. 8. Why is it only at 7 p.m. that the apparent witching hour takes place?

So one might ask in all seriousness, even if Hudson had his phone on after hours which was when the LANA meeting took place, would he pick it up and answer it? But what about the phone calls before the meeting earlier in the day, why are those deemed unreleasable? But it's pretty much a given that if the information is damaging to the city, that it's "confidential" and when it's not, it's able to be handed over while City Hall praises its transparency because again, Priamos' main job is to protect the city government, with the second job being to protect the city from civil liability.

At any rate, the ethics complaint will be heard tomorrow and the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee, Hudson (who was said to be attending), Priamos and their chorus will put on a good and lively show. But what it will ultimately prove to be is another case in point that the city government can't evaluate and police it's own behavior and that the entire code and process has yet to be worth the paper it's written on let alone that it's responding to the will of the public vote that put it in the city's charter.


But the charter review process is coming up again and no doubt the city's ethics code and complaint process will be among the myriad of topics discussed during that process, with perhaps some recommendations for charter initiatives to put on the ballot to strengthen it.






More charges possible in corruption probe in San Jacinto.


Some Northern California public defenders have sent a new labor contract to the Board of Supervisors, urging them to reverse the decision not to hire Virginia Blumenthal's firm and chose it over Criminal Defense Lawyers run by Paul Grech and Steve Harmon.

The RPD Rounds out its Stragetic Plan Forums

The Riverside Police Department held its most recent Strategic Plan forum at the California School for the Deaf located in the Central Neighborhood Policing Center and in the ward of Councilman Paul Davis.

Both Davis and Ward Three Councilman Rusty Bailey attended the forum which attracted about 30 people and listened to input from members of the Deaf Community including Gerald "Bummy" Burstein, CODAs (Children of Deaf Adults) and students from an interpretation program at Riverside Community College. Conducting the presentation were Central NPC Commander Lt. Daniel Hoxmeier, Sgt. Jaybee Brennan, Deputy Chief Jeffrey Greer and Asst. Chief Chris Vicino.

Chief Sergio Diaz was absent due to the recent tragic death of his son and also absent was Deputy Chief Mike Blakely.

Almost immediately after the initial presentation, there were issues and concerns raised by members of the audience, predominantly the RCC students in attendance about officers' driving, handling of domestic violence cases and the homeless and how handcuffing impacts deaf people's ability to communicate.

Bummy asked if a separate meeting could be held between the police officers and the Deaf community because of issues that are "unique" with that community and that the San Bernardino Police Department's officers were more in tune with the Deaf community than those in Riverside closer to one of two state schools. There had once been a Model Deaf Task Force Committee that started after an incident involving a Deaf individual and the police department some years ago that had apparently gone fallow in recent years. Some asked about where Det. Rick Wheeler, the department's first fluent American Sign Language officer had gone and Hoxmeier said that he had been very busy doing critical work as a homicide detective and had to step down. Another female officer who had been fluent in ASL medically retired from the department several years ago but Vicino said that several other officers had families or friends in the Deaf community.


Suggestions for taking ASL classes included those at Riverside Community College and Cal State University at San Bernardino. Not too difficult a language to learn especially if you've studied French, which shares many grammatical rules with ASL, not surprising since the language has origin ties to France. Though in recent decades, the language is changing to have more of an English influence. Facial expressions (or nonmanual markers as they're called and signing with a blank face might be considered rude) and active "listening" are important components of the language not the signs of aggression that they may often be read as appearing.

Together, Deaf and hard of hearing individuals and their family members made up over 15% of Riverside's population.






[Deputy Chief Jeff Greer and Asst. Chief Chris Vicino observe the presentation on the Strategic Plan]





[ City residents, both hearing and Deaf attended the latest Strategic Plan forum at California School for the Deaf in Riverside and heard a presentation from Sgt. Jaybee Brennan]






[Central NPC Area Commander and Lt. Daniel Hoxmeier addresses audience through an interpreter as Sgt. Jaybee Brennan looks on]




[Some of the suggestions made by people in attendance at the forum]



What was interesting is that unlike other forums, there were more younger people including students at this forum and they participated pretty enthusiastically. But it's hard to hold forums and ask younger people including students to attend them, it's much better to go to the institutions like colleges and high schools to solicit input from this age demographic.

Also touted was the department's Community Services Division which Vicino said they would be starting soon. Actually, it is being restarted in January because this isn't anything new as the department had a similar division which included Youth Court, Crime-Free Multi-Housing and other similar programs several years ago inside Special Operations. Several lieutenants who had been in charge of it had included former Lts. Tim Bacon and Rick Tedesco. It was disbanded in an ill-fated effort by the department to "decentralize" its community policing in 2008-09 which didn't really happen.

The revamped division will be helmed by former Traffic Divisions Lt. Guy Toussaint and will include the Volunteer Division which had been struggling with problems while under Traffic Division. Including the discharge of a female volunteer allegedly after she tried unsuccessfully to file a complaint of sexual harassment and a racially hostile environment several years ago and the turnover of volunteers in more recent years. She had allegedly been told that yes, these things happen but we have to learn to go along to get along...only they couldn't "get along" with her because within days she was gone. Allegations of related problematic behavior at one of the police department's first DUI checkpoints was apparently investigated and Mayor Ron Loveridge was made aware of the allegations but apparently had little or no response.



[Lt. Guy Toussaint (center)here shown at a DUI checkpoint in the Eastside was apparently appointed by Chief Sergio Diaz to run the Community Services Division]


It was encouraging to see the police department reach out and conduct the forum in hopes of reestablishing its relationship with the Deaf community. Vicino's presentation since the first Strategic Plan has greatly improved including his recollection of the history of the first round of Strategic Plan: The Sequel. And Brennan who allegedly topped the list of lieutenant candidates being of the two "A" banders this past testing round provided that historical perspective. Ironically or not, after being abruptly transferred out of the Orange Street Station (on the heels of the departure of Sgt. Lisa Williams) before Diaz started working there by then Acting Chief John DeLaRosa, Brennan has returned to her haunts as working on the Strategic Plan and serving as public information officer while still remaining in her position as a field sergeant.

The area commanders were actively involved in the forums in their respective NPCs including attending earlier ones to get a feel for the formats. The department's inhouse survey of its employees has been conducted with allegedly some interesting results and the command staff will meet on what direction to take the Strategic Plan (the second round) in light of the public input taken from both rounds sometime early next year.

The Group Holds Its Annual Breakfast

Organization Honors Two Retired RPD Lieutenants

[Dozens of city officials, employees and community members attended the Group's annual breakfast at the Canyon Crest Country Club]




[Dr. Lula Mae Clemmons, 93, won a community service award from the Group for her years of civic involvement.]



Dozens of individuals, including four city council members attended the annual breakfast sponsored by The Group at the Canyon Crest Country Club where three individuals were honored including Dr. Lula Mae Clemmons. Also honored were Robert Bratton, owner of Gram's Barbecue in downtown Riverside and the folks who own the Coffee Depot in Riverside which will be closing its doors and moving operations to Simi Valley.

The Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability gave its Bill Howe award (named after the retired police chief and original member of the Community Police Review Commission) to retired Lts Darryl Hurt and Tim Bacon for their roles in bringing to light misdeeds by denizens at City Hall particularly involving the guns, badges and cold plates scandals. They along with former Riverside Police Officers' Association present, Det. Chris Lanzillo had been working on public information requests as well to find out how other police designated resources had allegedly been used or misused by individuals at the top floor of City Hall. If you'll notice, none of these former leaders of the two police associations are employed with Riverside any longer. The two lieutenants are retired or will be as top level captains back to 2008 and Lanzillo received a settlement from the city which includes a medical retirement on the eve of the initiation of the deposition stage of his federal lawsuit.

Three out of three former union leaders retiring after being involved in these actions of exposure and in Lanzillo's case challenging DeLaRosa in one of the roll call bull sessions which DeLaRosa and the management staff conducted not long after the Feb. 8 DUI incident involving former chief, Russ Leach. The sessions were geared towards rallying the troops behind the thin blue line to protect mainly those in management including DeLaRosa when he had the perfect opportunity to admit what had happened to those he managed who were taking heat because of the anger and distrust fostered against the department in the wake of that incident. That is, depending on how much iron clad control the city management had over him.

Not particularly happy at the award was City Manager Brad Hudson who departed not long after the award was presented with some of his staff. Accepting the award on the behalf of Bacon and Hurt who couldn't attend was Davis.

But what would have been nice is if City Hall had just issued press releases to the people who really own that building, the city residents when these scandals first came to light inside its walls. That would have been appreciated in the cases of Leach's DUI incident as well as the scandals unearthed in the discovery material in the Bacon and Hurt lawsuits. The public elects the representatives who lease space in City Hall for four-year periods subject to renewal or eviction (complete with the 30 day notice). But no, City Hall covered up the guns, badges and cold plates scandals until it became what Councilman Steve Adams called "old news" in the press and thus outside the purview of an ethics complaint being filed involving portions of it under the old rules of the Ethics Code and Complaint process.

Mayor Ron Loveridge did say that on the DUI incident he did receive anonymous notice of it on the morning of Feb. 8 by a woman who called his office even though he wasn't in town at the time. But was a press release issued to the city's residents of that town, no there was a lot of intrigue of whether or not Leach was at City Hall for a meeting later that morning, how City Manager Brad Hudson was notified about it given that his city-issued phone had been turned off all day and didn't receive or send any phone calls. Hudson did his "sweeping" investigation which deftly avoided any real investigation of either his office or City Attorney Gregory Priamos' office (and remember his phone records were never released at all) and was overseen by an "independent" person he hired in the form of Best, Best and Krieger partner, Grover Trask who surprisingly didn't find anything wrong with an investigation that later was apparently somewhat discredited in some other intrigue involving one of the investigated parties.

Lt. Leon Phillips remains in that rank today working watch command in the field division and issuing press releases on what happens there in that capacity not as a demoted sergeant because while under house arrest in the "penalty box" at the Orange Street Station, he hadn't remained idle. After this blog posted that he had been transferred from his watch command to the penalty box in lieu of discipline including possible termination, DeLaRosa went running down to a roll call session to assure officers there that no Phillips wasn't at Orange Street to be disciplined but to receive training for a "special assignment". But oddly enough, instead of shifting into a special assignment say with Personnel and Training, Phillips received his notice of intent to terminate a week later. Wow, did they put all that preparation for this alleged special assignment (including transferring a lieutenant out of field command which already experienced a 50% vacancy rate at the time) to waste on a person that was to be fired. So what was the truth here, was it that he was being transferred to fill a special assignment or were the plans instead to fire him?

Of course he wasn't because after all, apparently he had been busy finding problems in his own case investigation including apparent bias in how veracity was determined in the face of conflicting information provided by different parties where Hudson's office took the words of management employees as being factual every time. Hudson even implied to the press that Phillips was dishonest because of conflicting statements but DeLaRosa was telling the truth because his statements were consistent. Yet Phillips' retention as lieutenant to this day speaks for itself in that he and his lawyer allegedly were able to build a case to City Hall that the problems with the investigation and the culpability with the handling of the DUI incident lay higher than the supervisory level. After all, an officer and former Sgt. Frank Orta offered information about management's knowledge of the intoxication of Leach that matched that given by Phillips if not management in their interviews with CHP investigators who belatedly probed the incident.

Which of course brings the whole integrity of the most important internal investigation done by the city of the year into question and not Hudson nor his office have provided any clarification on the actual truth of what had become of that "sweeping" investigation to this day. That episode which marked the investigation into the handling of the DUI incident only went further to show that the mishandling of it continued even after its exposure.

But no, Loveridge, Hudson nor anyone else released any information to the public about what had happened. They themselves researched the incident to inform themselves and then worked to withhold it from the public which makes the idea of the internal investigation coming out of City Hall all the more ludicrous. The public was never supposed to know anything about the DUI incident any more than it was supposed to find out about the other scandals which emerged this year. The only reason it did was because people decided they didn't want to remain silent and go along with this status quo and they deserve the city residents' appreciation and thanks for their very risky endeavors in a city that punishes severely those who don't keep its problematic behaviors secret. The fact that the city government for the most part accepted Hudson's "sweeping investigation" as the final answer to get themselves off the hook out of saying anything at all publicly just goes to show that the election cycle next year can go a long ways towards ferreting more definitive answers on these issues as long as the voting public holds their incumbents' feet to the fire on the trail.

There are some outside City Hall that probably wish these issues hadn't come to light and blame those who wrote about it for the very scandals that they feel have cast the city in a bad light. As if someone outside those responsible for the scandalous behavior was what painted the city negatively when the fact is, the city including those in its most powerful positions did that themselves. They shamed all of us who live and work here inside and outside of the city's employment. Just because you don't hear or read about a scandal doesn't mean it didn't happen and remaining ignorant about it in all of these cases would have just guaranteed more damage to the city and departments including the police department. Look at the police department for example and see how quickly the management fell apart, well there were reasons for that that were years in the making. You didn't have people in high places deciding to retire at the same time for other reasons besides what unfolded this year on different fronts.

More than one person has said that the police department had turned into the butt of jokes among the public, but not really, what it did was put it under public scrutiny and criticism. People just lost faith and trust in it beginning before Leach's downfall, because of the arrests and prosecution of a number of its officers that looking back, was a red flag of issues involving the department in that all of them were higher risk individuals (due to family strife, drug addiction, prior disciplinary history and similar misconduct) impacted by a management system that was built essentially on corruption. With all the misbehavior at the top that was going on including illegal behavior, there were bound to be individuals including those already facing stress to misbehave because those who were supposed to set high standards of behavior openly subverted them instead. Knowing about that came because there were people deeply embarrassed about it which is hopeful because as long as they are there, those situations can be addressed but knowing about what's going on with the arrests and prosecutions of officers doesn't determine whether these actions take place.

They have already happened whether the public knows about them or not through the media and if they cause damage, they do so regardless. It's interesting how much some people wish they could still be left in the dark as if that prevents scandals from being done. But the police department for example, was going to run aground at some point given the behavior that had taken place and it would have if not for those who decided they wanted something better in their workplace than what had taken place.

That's what the ostriches in this city who would prefer everyone had their heads in the sand miss is that it wasn't just the city residents who were affronted and unhappy about what happened and its coverup. If that hadn't been the case then the city and department would be in a much different place and certainly not a better one. Living in a vacuum that the truth shouldn't be told because it's too unpleasant and somehow telling it is what causes it to happen, is one way to live but it's just an assurance that more unpleasantness to cover up will be coming.

The mishandling of the DUI incident impacted the public the way it did because of the double standard of handlng criminal conduct involving drunk driving including accidents and traffic stops. Leach received preferential treatment even under the heavy suspicion of DUI reported by the patrol officers to their supervisor and a hit and run crime yet unlike most people, he received a ride home. Officers and former officers in different law enforcement agencies reported similar actions involving high ranking law enforcement officers and even elected officials in a couple cases so this isn't unique but once the public knew about it, they reacted coming from the idea of whether or not high ranking police management personnel were above the law. After all, at least two lower leveled police officers in Riverside's department had been prosecuted and convicted of DUI after off-duty crashes. Not knowing about Leach's incident or knowing about it doesn't serve as a determining factor in whether it happened or not. If they had been successful at covering it up, then Leach could have been involved in a DUI crash in the future which could have resulted in injuries or death and a much larger scandal because before the Feb. 8 incident, there were allegedly other DUI stops involving Leach in and out of Riverside County.

A lot was going right with the police department but it's hard to notice it when it's an impoding mess up at the top. And today's makeup of that management reflects it with an outside police chief in Diaz and two out of three of his cabinet also coming from the outside. The captains' level which was both a creation and casualty of some rather cut throat promotional competition failed to be able to provide candidates to those positions except for one individual, Blakely, who was promoted outside of that process.

The challenge remains to rebuild the department's management and its leadership, to as one management personnel put it to create future leadership coming from within the department that could fit so seamlessly in the top positions that those currently holding them wouldn't be missed. There's great potential to do that but you have to bridge the grand canyon that exists between those candidates and the top positions partly created by what the public didn't know about that had been taking place for years involving the advancement of individuals into management positions. And foster an environment more based on collaboration and not cutthroat competition. But the management are going to have to want to achieve those things rather than maintain past practices and so far the jury's still out.




Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco announced his office is seeking the death penalty in the Officer Ryan Bonaminio case and Columnist Dan Bernstein examines the handling of the man charged with killing him by the penal system.

Public Meetings

Monday, Dec. 6 at 4 p.m. Human Resources Board meets at City Hall on the fifth floor conference room.



Mon. Dec. 6, at 5:30PM Riverside Unified School District meeting at Palm Adult School to discuss budget proposals for athletic facilities including North High School




Monday, December 6, 2010 7:00 PM, the police department will hold a forum for input in the Strategic Plan at Nichols Park – Multi Purpose Room 5505 Dewey Avenue


Tuesday, Dec. 7 at 10 a.m. Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meets in the Mayor's Ceremonial Room on the ethics complaint filed by La Sierra Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance against Councilman Steve Adams.


Tuesday, Dec. 7 at 2 pm and 6:30 p.m. the city council will meet in the chambers at City Hall to discuss this agenda. Among other things, the police department's Metro Team including Officers Dawson Smith and Brett Stennett by the California Firefighters Association. Oh and it didn't take long before the argument over making and amending motions during the discussion on the Ethics Code changes at a recent meeting to return to the city council under a resolution to change them on the consent calendar naturally so the public can't really participate in a discussion.


Wednesday, Dec. 8 at 3 p.m. The Finance Committee will meet to discuss this agenda on the situation involving the fact that Riverside shared its financial auditing firm with cities like Bell that had so-called perfect audits but problems and criminal conduct were discovered later.


Wednesday, Dec. 8 at 5:30 p.m. The Community Police Review Commission will discuss this agenda in the city council chambers. This will be the monthly meeting for December.

Chief Sergio Diaz Vs the 'Cheeto' Brigade

[Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz objects to the online commenters on the Press Enterprise Web site who criticized the tactics of deceased officer, Ryan Bonominio.]



Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz expressed his displeasure at online comments made criticizing tactics used in relation to the killing of one of his officers, Ryan Bonaminio who responded to his last radio call on Nov. 7. Hundreds of comments were written in response to the article, most of them deleted by the Press Enterprise which also posted unprecedented administrative warnings on content within the comment thread the kind an action not taken when commenters demean women who have been killed or raped including Norma Lopez or racial and gender slurs are used in postings. Diaz, a Cuban-American, himself was initially labeled as a Mexican who would turn Riverside into a Sanctuary City after his hiring by the city and before he had even started working as the newest police chief. Meaning that he was labeled based on his last name and where he had worked previously with a stereotype before he had even arrived.

And Diaz responded to the latest round of comments by throwing out a label of his own.


(excerpt)

Those online critics "sitting at home eating Cheetos in their underwear," Diaz said, may know little about police work and not understand all the variables in the case but don't hesitate to question the officer's decisions.

"I have to laugh, but it's an angry laugh, when I read some of the comments, (like) 'Well, if Officer Bonaminio had followed procedure...'" Diaz said.

"There's no academy class that says if you're in a one-officer car and it's 10 o'clock at night and you encounter a hit-and-run driver, this is what you do."

The comment seems to be geared towards individuals who criticized the tactics used by Bonaminio most markedly when he responded alone to a pursuit of suspect Earl Ellis Green into Fairmount Park where he allegedly fell on a slippery pavement and then was attacked by Green who shot and killed him by the officer's own gun before taking off with it. People on the site argued whether he should have gone in to the park after Green after Green fled a traffic stop of what turned out to be a stolen truck cab involved in an earlier hit and run or whether he should have waited for backup. Whether or not he should have been patrolling by himself at night, whether there's a "procedure" or not involving such stops and pursuits, or whether there's an unwritten rule (or not) not to run into Fairmount Park alone at night as officers.


Interestingly enough, other highly insensitive comments made against Bonaminio by anonymous commenters apparently weren't included in his criticism. Which makes it appear as if the criticisms not necessarily the intent behind the commenting is what galvanized his public response.

These issues have been discussed in other venues and including by law enforcement officers from other agencies as is not uncommon after a highly charged and tragic incident involving a loss of life. Maybe some of it is second guessing, or what's called "Monday morning quarterbacking" but a lot of that discussion is tinged with sadness and the sense of wishing the past had turned out differently as much as anything else. Including some of it on the Press Enterprise site.

There's a sense of loss and the futility of second guessing life itself before it happens that fuels some of these discussions and that's difficult to get around. That's what has dominated discussions in many places including on the newspaper's comment threads which Diaz says he reads because he's interested in learning more about the public sentiment involving his department and perhaps himself as well. Not to mention that a fair number of comments clearly come from inhouse on many articles in relation to the department.

Diaz was clearly frustrated by the commenting and that's understandable given a lot of the content and the criticism of the actions of an officer who can't respond to them. The department including Diaz has said in press conferences that much is known about what happened in the final moments of Bonaminio's life thanks to eye witness accounts and other evidence not to mention that the face of his alleged killer was caught on the dash cam of his squad car both leaving and coming back to the stolen truck. But what can never be known was what Bonaminio was thinking, what was running through his mind during the incident because he's unable to relate that to anyone. A lot of people have guessed and tried to explain that for him but the truth will never be known about what he was thinking or feeling, while responding to the call, deciding to chase the guy or facing a man who had his gun.

There's been some errors posted that he shouldn't have gone after someone feeling from a stolen vehicle but it's not clear whether the vehicle had been reported stolen at any point beforehand to the officers on duty and it is known that the license plates of the truck were not placed on the back of it so the plates couldn't be run through KLETS. All that was known was that it had been reportedly involved in a hit and run accident a short distance away, a little bit earlier in the night. Bonamino had called for backup before running into the park, and the backup officers were arriving, as the window of time between the departure of Green in the truck and the officers' arrival was about a minute or less.

But Diaz words of criticism or of "angry laughs" towards a group he said was sitting in its underwear eating cheetos isn't likely to really move them or encourage them to change their behavior or their posts. Instead, he's probably made them more likely to respond in kind in the future now that they know he's reading and that they have his attention. Some members of this crowd don't care what they're labeled or whether the attention they attract is negative or positive. And shaming them by attributing a stereotype isn't going to stop them from commenting either after some of them stop laughing about it. angrily or otherwise.

I received some interesting responses about the article, which surprised many with its publication because even though it's titled to address questions being raised by individuals including the commenters about the fatal shooting of an officer by a man who's been charged with capital murder, it's mostly geared towards Diaz' reaction to online commenters. And most of them likely are not members of Diaz' chitos brigade but are asking questions about whether or not some of what the critics have said have struck a chord inside of him or whether this is indicative of how he handles criticism of other forms as well and in other forums. Being a police chief including in difficult times is a challenging profession and part of it is facing critics of all kinds.

Diaz came into the Riverside Police Department on the heels of a chief who was prosecuted and convicted of drunk driving charge and after revelations of how that incident was handled inhouse came out, not to mention other controversies including the guns, badges and cold plates scandals. Other serious issues await in the wings in relation to a period of the city's history when apparently people in the position of authority in management and perhaps in elected office abused or misused that authority. It's a difficult task that he fared and many people are still watching and waiting to see how he will make his mark and what kind of chief he will prove to be, not to mention the roles that will be played by his cabinet, two out of three coming from outside the department. As with most chiefs who serve as ambassadors and spokes people for their agencies, he will receive compliments and he will receive criticisms and he has to be open enough to accept both.

But what some have asked is how well Diaz will receive criticism outside of the so-called underwearing, chito chomping crowd as the commenters he spoke against have been labeled. Others even those who disagree with the comments themselves have asked, well if I have a criticism or a complaint that I tell him, will he take it seriously or will he figure out a label to call me that's unflattering including in the press? Can he handle that or does he want to surround himself with "yes" people?

Diaz has shown that he can address controversial incidents on his watch including launching an investigation into the alleged incident involving the trashing of a homeless encampment by officers rather than defending their actions the day after the incident takes place. But he's shown that he can stumble in some comments he's made to the press as well as in the case of the comments made by a now-medically retired detective who he had a charged verbal exchange with before making them. He's made himself more available and open to media outlets than the previous chief in his final years when he was pretty much invisible after the controversial appointments of two upper management personnel in March 2007 which was followed shortly after by a hefty salary increase from the city manager's office. But he had been less visible to front line officers in roll call appearances after he made over a dozen promotions to fill vacancies in July. Even as several of those promotions generated controversy themselves.

He's set out to reinstitute abandoned community programs and the Community Services Division which will be headed by Lt. Guy Toussaint and carried out his first promotional testing and listing process with some changes to the lieutenant's level. He's brought in two outside and "at will" management personnel but maintains close ties with former Acting Chief John DeLaRosa who retired not long after his involvement in the mishandling of the Leach DUI incident came to light courtesy of the public release of city-issued cell phone records.

But how will he take criticism if he applies labels to some of his critics? Because that action on a smaller group of people who might be a pain in the butt could ripple out to how others view his ability to really listen and accept criticism and perhaps even look into it and consider action if necessary. He's considering changes to how the DUI grant funded checkpoints are conducted based on feedback he's received including from the community which caught people's attention There's diversity of opinion on issues including those that impact policing in communities and that's really needed to improve operations in the department, to continue and build upon what's positive and works and to improve or fix that which doesn't. Hopefully, Diaz will recognize that particularly from his years spent in the Los Angeles Police Department including commanding the downtown area while recognizing Riverside as its own unique city.

The city's residents including those living in the over 25 neighborhoods in seven wards and four neighborhood policing centers need to feel confident that the new leadership of the police department can accept input both positive and negative. But it goes behind just the residents of the city that need to have this confidence, it includes the over 600 employees both civilian and sworn that Diaz leads who need to have this as well. They need to be able to say what's positive and to applaud what works but more importantly, they need to be able to feel they can freely, openly and safely criticize the department that employs them. The reason why the latter component is more important is because it's the side of dialoguing that's often endangered in many police agencies, many of Riverside's city departments including the police department. Diaz talks about wanting better and more open communication within his own agency but to do that he has to remove the fear and intimidation factor that resides there in connection to criticizing the actions of the department and its leadership. In avenues and channels that don't impact officers' ability to get promotions, special assignments and their careers themselves.

Officers need to be able to criticize actions to their superiors including the police chief without worrying that someone at Orange Street is going to call up someone in Internal Affairs at the downtown bus terminal saying hey, we need to get together and compare notes on this officer who just mouthed off at me, filed litigation or said something else I didn't like. The history of the misuse of Internal Affairs to go after officers who file complaints, grievances and lawsuits is very well documented through litigation from that filed by former Sgt. Christine Keers in 1996 to the lawsuit filed by Officer Roger Sutton in 2001 to the dual lawsuits filed by two lieutenants several years ago. Of these lawsuits, two received pretty large settlements, the other a $1.64 million jury's verdict in a trial where both jurors and the presiding judge said the strongest case was made against the department concerning retaliatory action against Sutton. So the city has paid a lot of money in these cases and perhaps because it's settled so many lawsuits filed against it, it's now "self-insured". So the retaliation against officers and other employees who criticize their agencies or file complaints against them has proven to be expensive for city coffers, enough for the leaders to sit up and take notice that creating an environment of fear and intimidation inside many city departments doesn't help the city and it might prove to be expensive in different ways including financially in the long run.




The article also included different police practices experts responding including Ray Martinelli a former law enforcement officer who happens to be one of the investigators on retainer by the city manager's office involving the Community Police Review Commission. The police department itself is expected to review the tragic incident as part of its practice of analyzing critical incidents involving its officers. It's not clear whether any changes in policy, training or tactics including deployment of officers would be made or in what form since that process is highly internalized. But in order to do an analysis that worthy of the officer who lost his life, that really tries to look at it objectively and if necessary, to make a difference for future officers, that means asking some hard questions and perhaps finding more difficult answers. That's just the nature of these types of procedures and the police department's used them well in the past to implement some serious improvements in the department including procuring of equipment, implementation of new training (and for several years, the police department's officers received more training than those in many other agencies) and even hiring more officers.

But it involves allowing and even encouraging an environment where different opinions of those doing the analysis can be heard and accepted, including the more difficult ones.

Diaz mentions that his former haunt the Los Angeles Police Department uses two-man officers mainly at night and in high-crime areas but it's rare to see single officer cars in L.A. at any time of day in different areas including the Westside. The only time I saw a one-officer squad car during my recent trip was a officer responding to a 911 call I made around Third and Oxnard of an accident involving injuries to different parties. L.A. like Riverside's a highly horizontal city over most of its acreage and has about 10,000 officers after a hiring drive by former chief, William Bratton. It traditionally has had a higher resident to officer ratio including 426 to 1 in 2005. So the LAPD is different than Riverside's own department but these issues will probably continue to be raised and debated and discussed which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. If you're going to as chief ask city residents to be engaged in their department, "OurPD" then you've got to take the criticism along with the compliments and do your best to head the department in the best direction for its future development. Because not everyone who criticizes even likes chitos.

Ethics Complaint Against Councilman Steve Adams to be Heard

[Riverside City Councilman Steve Adams will have an ethics complaint filed against him heard by his panel of peers on Dec. 7]



The complaint filed against Councilman Steve Adams by the La Sierra Arlanza Neighborhood Alliance alleging administrative interference which would constitute a violation of the city's charter will be heard by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee on Tuesday, Dec. 7 at 10 a.m. in the Mayor's Ceremonial Room at City Hall. There was some protest that the earlier dates had put it during the day when many people couldn't attend and City Hall's response was to put it earlier in the day in the morning. Since Adams sits on the committee, Councilwoman Nancy Hart has been approved by the city council as sitting in on the complaint hearing in his stead.

Fox Guarding the Henhouse

[The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee will hear Councilman Steve Adams' (center) ethics complaint on Dec. 7 and will exonerate him no doubt adding to its pristine record doing so.]




The process of having a city council staffed committee led by Mayor Ron Loveridge hear and decide on an ethics complaint against an elected official was one that it seemed that only those who actually are elected officials trusted and believed to have integrity. But the public's will finally won out as the city government's own ethics review committee included in its recommendations to have an independent and separate panel of non-elected officials receive complaints leaving any disputed findings to go back to the city council. With an election year coming up after the Year of Scandals, it's interesting to watch how elected officials could first vote to rescind the so-called "24/7 language" from the code itself and then go for this independent panel, some of them kicking and screaming granted.

But these issues matter to the public who've been reading about the travails of Riverside's power structure during the past year not to mention hearing and reading about what's been going on in Bell, California's capitol of corruption this year from the very evil media. More have been vocal about what they wanted including in a ward survey conducted by Councilman Paul Davis.

Still City Hall has to address the issue of complaints, the majority of them, either getting sidetracked to City Attorney Gregory Priamos or City Manager Brad Hudson as happened to a recent complaint filed against Adams, again for administrative interference this time involving promotions made at the highest level of the police department.






Riverside's City Hall kicks off its venture as a hotel owner when construction of the new Hyatt begins and it also wants to run a state owned park within its boarders.



First the gates have been closed, now they shall be closed as decided by City Hall in recent weeks.


K9 officers get themselves some armor and Hemet Police Department in light of recent attacks gets reinforcement as well.







Riverside Sets Deadline for Applying to Boards and Commissions


That deadline is going to be Dec. 15 for the public to apply to fill any current or upcoming vacancies on the city's boards and commissions. What struck as a bit odd was the openings made available to residents of Ward One for both the Community Police Review Commission and Human Resources Board given that the former already had three out of nine positions filled by Ward One residents and the latter already has members from Ward One too. But that's because the terms are coming up for expiration in 2011 with one being ward representative and the others citywide positions. If it's a first term, then the commissioners have the option of applying for renewal which will be evaluated through the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee along with the applicants for all the board and commission vacancies. But others like CPRC Commissioner Brian Pearcy will be terming out.

The applicants and their information will be forwarded to the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee which will engage in an exercise of sifting through the applications and then asking each other, "do you know this person", and making their decision rather or not to consider them usually based on that. For the Planning Commission, the Board of Public Utilities and the CPRC, the applicants will be interviewed by the full city council and appointed through a public vote.

Applying is encouraged especially in underrepresented wards but it should be known that this process is often highly political and often still it comes down to who knows who on the city council and more importantly, vice versa.

RPD to Conduct Two More Strategic Plan Forums in December

Two more Strategic Plan public forums will be conducted by the police department in December to solicit information from city residents which will be part of the process to create the police department's next five-year Strategic Plan. The department has also been surveying its own employees as well.




Central NPC

Thursday

December 2, 2010 7:00 PM

California School for the Deaf – Social Hall

3044 Horace Street




Monday

December 6, 2010 7:00 PM

Nichols Park – Multi Purpose Room

5505 Dewey Avenue