Unless he is released before hand, that is.
Bernard Kerik.
The former Police Commissioner of the New York Police Department is now an inmate after a U.S. District Court Judge revoked Mr. Kerik's $500,000 bail (while awaiting trial on corruption, conspiracy and tax-fraud charges) and ordered him to jail during a pre-trial hearing.
Kerik was the NYPD Police Commissioner who led the department, alongside Rudy Giuliani, after the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and who was nominated by President Bush for Secretary of Homeland Security before withdrawing from consideration due to questions about his character and conduct.
Wow. Top to bottom. Go figure!
Link: New York Post article - Bernie Kerik in the clink
Link: New York Times article _ Ex-Commissioner Kerik is Jailed as Judge Assails Pretrial Conduct
Briefing is over.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
'Not a Monster' Asserts Family of the Killer of Four Oakland Police Officers
"The Oakland parolee who took the lives of four Oakland police officers knew he was a wanted man and deliberately skipped out on a meeting as part of a feud he was having with his parole agent, his family said today.
Lovelle Mixon's shocked family, gathering at an East Oakland home where the parolee had been living until recently, apologized to the officers' families and to the public, and said they don't understand what might have triggered his burst of violence.
"He's not a monster," said his sister, 24-year-old Enjoli Mixon, whose apartment on 74th Avenue was where Mixon was slain in a gun battle with police that left two Oakland SWAT officers dead. "I don't want people to think he's a monster. He's just not. He's just not."
"We're crushed that this happened," said his grandmother, Mary Mixon. "Our hearts and prayers go out to the officers' families....This shouldn't have happened."
Link: Family's account of Oakland parolee who killed the four police officers (San Francisco Chronicle)
Briefing is over.
Lovelle Mixon's shocked family, gathering at an East Oakland home where the parolee had been living until recently, apologized to the officers' families and to the public, and said they don't understand what might have triggered his burst of violence.
"He's not a monster," said his sister, 24-year-old Enjoli Mixon, whose apartment on 74th Avenue was where Mixon was slain in a gun battle with police that left two Oakland SWAT officers dead. "I don't want people to think he's a monster. He's just not. He's just not."
"We're crushed that this happened," said his grandmother, Mary Mixon. "Our hearts and prayers go out to the officers' families....This shouldn't have happened."
Link: Family's account of Oakland parolee who killed the four police officers (San Francisco Chronicle)
Briefing is over.
4th Oakland Police Officer still hanging on to life (UPDATED)
UPDATED: Apparently there was an awful mis-communication made earlier in the day regarding the status of Oakland Police Officer Hege. Reports from the morning said that he DIED from his injuries and a most recent afternoon report is that Officer Hege is on life support - yet BRAIN DEAD while his family decides on organ donation.
This post have been changed to reflect this important development.
(Sources: The Sacramento Bee and The Oakland Tribune)
See previous post for other information on this tragedy.
Briefing is over!
This post have been changed to reflect this important development.
(Sources: The Sacramento Bee and The Oakland Tribune)
See previous post for other information on this tragedy.
Briefing is over!
3 Oakland Police Department officers killed
Bow your heads, say your prayers and keep the men and women of the Oakland Police Department in your thoughts. The wearing of black bands on badges has been approved.
Three Sergeants with the Oakland Police Department were shot and killed while trying to arrest a parolee who had a "no-bail" warrant for his arrest. A fourth officer was shot and is in a life threatening condition. A fifth officer was also shot, but was released from the hospital after treatment.
The Sergeants killed in the line-of duty were:
Sgt. Daniel Sakai, 35, was hired December 2000. He was pronounced dead after he was shot as he entered an apartment on 74th Ave. in search of a suspect that shot at Oakland police officers hours earlier in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, March 21, 2009. (Oakland Police Department)
Sgt. Ervin Romans, 43, was hired January 1996. He was pronounced dead after he was shot as he entered an apartment on 74th Ave. in search of a suspect that shot at Oakland police officers hours earlier in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, March 21, 2009. (Oakland Police Department)
Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, was a traffic officer that was hired November 1991. He was pronounced dead after he was shot during a traffic stop at 7400 MacArthur Blvd. in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, March 21, 2009. (Oakland Police Department)
The Officer in critical condition is:
Officer John Hege, 41, is a traffic officer that was hired November 1999. He is in grave condition after he was shot during a traffic stop at 7400 MacArthur Blvd. in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, March 21, 2009. [UPDATED: This officer has died from his injuries]
Here is some of the responses from public officials to this tragic event:
Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums:
"In these moments, words are extraordinarily inadequate," Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums told reporters at a news conference Saturday night at Oakland police headquarters. "We come together in shock, in grief, in sadness and sorrow. Our hearts go out to the officers' families who are experiencing a level of tragedy that goes beyond our ability to comprehend."
"These folks leave their homes in the morning, with every expectation of returning," Dellums said, "but they did not."
California Governor Schwarzenegger:
"All four officers dedicated their lives to public safety and selflessly worked to protect the people of Oakland," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Maria and I join the Bay Area in remembering their service and honoring their sacrifice."
Oakland City Council member Ignacio De La Fuente:
This is unbelievable," said City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente. "The officers were just doing their jobs to protect their community. ... They went in that building and paid the ultimate price. All of us are mourning."
Oakland City Attorney John Russo:
Oakland City Atty. John Russo called the deaths "senseless.""We didn't lose four officers in the earthquakes or the worst of the fires," he said. "You want to find meaning in it. It underscores what a difficult job it is to be a police officer."
Oakland City Council member Desley Brooks:
Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks, whose district includes the area, said her heart was with the officers' relatives."Our prayers go out to all of the families of all the officers," she said. "They do such a tremendous service. And I can't even find words beyond what I have just said."
LAPPL President Paul Weber:
"We join our fellow police officers in praying for the families and friends whose hearts ache for their lost loved ones," Paul M. Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said in a statement. "The murder rampage today in Oakland should serve as a reminder that every day police officers bravely protect our families, friends, and neighbors from crime."
Stories abound in the media. A few links here:
3 Oakland officers killed, one critically hurt. San Francisco Chronicle.
Three police sergeants dead, suspect killed in East Oakland gun battles. The Oakland Tribune.
Beleaguered police force, weary city grapple with tragedy, unite in grief. The Oakland Tribune.
State mourns three slain Oakland police officers. Los Angeles Times.
Briefing is over.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Too much defense for these Sex Offenders
Two stories today that highlight the challenges for law enforcement and our criminal justice system in protecting certain members of our society -- in this case, victims of sexual attacks.
No 3-strikes for missing the registration requirement for this sex offender.
The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the "three strikes" sentence for a sex offender who failed to register within five days of his birthday (AS REQUIRED BY LAW).
His "three strikes" sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeals who stated that the registration requirement was a TECHNICAL violation of the law and thus not fair to use against this particular sex offender.
"Gonzalez's harsh sentence was grossly disproportionate to his "entirely passive, harmless and technical violation of the registration law," the appeals court said."
Link: Judges rule three-strikes sentence unconstitutional (Los Angeles Times)
Ten attempts should be enough for 3-strikes?
A guy gets arrested for being drunk in public and a "jailhouse routine immigration check" discovers that the drunk has "extensive violations" of the law and "had been deported or voluntarily returned to Mexico 10 times."
The "extensive violations" include being a suspect in these crimes:
---- INTENT to commit rape on a woman jogging at a lake in 2006
---- A RAPE of a woman jogger in 2004
----ATTEMPTED sexual assault and RAPE with a foreign object in 2005
----Drunk driving arrests in 2005 and 2006
San Diego police and sheriff's detectives suspect this guy in additional sexual assault cases.
Link: Mexican wanted in sexual-assault cases arrested (San Diego Union Tribune)
Give the 10 time returnee his final ride to the state prison cell being vacated by the other guy who is being released on a technical violation. That's a slam dunk decision!
Why is the system protecting these guys and not the victims?
Briefing is over!
No 3-strikes for missing the registration requirement for this sex offender.
The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the "three strikes" sentence for a sex offender who failed to register within five days of his birthday (AS REQUIRED BY LAW).
His "three strikes" sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeals who stated that the registration requirement was a TECHNICAL violation of the law and thus not fair to use against this particular sex offender.
"Gonzalez's harsh sentence was grossly disproportionate to his "entirely passive, harmless and technical violation of the registration law," the appeals court said."
Link: Judges rule three-strikes sentence unconstitutional (Los Angeles Times)
Ten attempts should be enough for 3-strikes?
A guy gets arrested for being drunk in public and a "jailhouse routine immigration check" discovers that the drunk has "extensive violations" of the law and "had been deported or voluntarily returned to Mexico 10 times."
The "extensive violations" include being a suspect in these crimes:
---- INTENT to commit rape on a woman jogging at a lake in 2006
---- A RAPE of a woman jogger in 2004
----ATTEMPTED sexual assault and RAPE with a foreign object in 2005
----Drunk driving arrests in 2005 and 2006
San Diego police and sheriff's detectives suspect this guy in additional sexual assault cases.
Link: Mexican wanted in sexual-assault cases arrested (San Diego Union Tribune)
Give the 10 time returnee his final ride to the state prison cell being vacated by the other guy who is being released on a technical violation. That's a slam dunk decision!
Why is the system protecting these guys and not the victims?
Briefing is over!
Monday, December 22, 2008
OC Supervisor Moorlach calls school employees "tax-eaters"
O.C. Supervisor Moorlach in an article published in the Orange County Register launched into an ad hominen attack on the curent President of the CalPERS Board of Retirement and on school employees, too!
The final paragraph from John Moorlach's article published today in the Orange County Register:
"When Mr. Feckner states that "market downturns are followed by recoveries," he is correct. The opposite also is true: Market upturns are followed by corrections. Instead of using the overfunding from banner years and protecting the taxpayers during the next down cycle, he increased benefits to the tax-eaters, of which he is one. I guess blatant conflicts of interest make it difficult to tell the entire story." {Emphasis mine}
Mr. Feckner happens to be Rob Feckner who has been on the CalPERS Board of Retirement since 1999 representing school members, and is serving his fourth annual term as President of the CalPERS Board.
Mr. Feckner is the same Rob Feckner who is in his 32nd year with the Napa Valley Unified School District, where he is currently employed as a glazing specialist. He has also worked as a school bus driver and instructional assistant for special needs students.
Mr. Feckner is also the Association President of the California School Employees Association, and he is serving his 14th year on the Board of Directors. He also serves as an Executive Vice President of the California Labor Federation.
Rob Feckner's article was in response to other media reports on the residential property portfolio losses sustained at CalPERS trust fund. The Orange County Register published a portion of it in today's newspaper after editorializing about the portfolio losses in yesterday's paper.
Why did Supervisor Moorlach called this distinguished public employee and those he represents a "tax-eater?"
Was it because Rob Feckner had the audacity to clarify the position of CalPERS regarding recent fund losses on residential property (as published in the OC Register today)?
Was it because Rob Feckner has the audacity to be a public school employee who is enrolled in a defined benefit pension plan?
Was it because Rob Feckner serves as an elected member of the CalPERS Board of Retirement?
The final paragraph from John Moorlach's article published today in the Orange County Register:
"When Mr. Feckner states that "market downturns are followed by recoveries," he is correct. The opposite also is true: Market upturns are followed by corrections. Instead of using the overfunding from banner years and protecting the taxpayers during the next down cycle, he increased benefits to the tax-eaters, of which he is one. I guess blatant conflicts of interest make it difficult to tell the entire story." {Emphasis mine}
Mr. Feckner happens to be Rob Feckner who has been on the CalPERS Board of Retirement since 1999 representing school members, and is serving his fourth annual term as President of the CalPERS Board.
Mr. Feckner is the same Rob Feckner who is in his 32nd year with the Napa Valley Unified School District, where he is currently employed as a glazing specialist. He has also worked as a school bus driver and instructional assistant for special needs students.
Mr. Feckner is also the Association President of the California School Employees Association, and he is serving his 14th year on the Board of Directors. He also serves as an Executive Vice President of the California Labor Federation.
Rob Feckner's article was in response to other media reports on the residential property portfolio losses sustained at CalPERS trust fund. The Orange County Register published a portion of it in today's newspaper after editorializing about the portfolio losses in yesterday's paper.
Why did Supervisor Moorlach called this distinguished public employee and those he represents a "tax-eater?"
Was it because Rob Feckner had the audacity to clarify the position of CalPERS regarding recent fund losses on residential property (as published in the OC Register today)?
Was it because Rob Feckner has the audacity to be a public school employee who is enrolled in a defined benefit pension plan?
Was it because Rob Feckner serves as an elected member of the CalPERS Board of Retirement?
Mr. Feckner's article didn't single out Supervisor Moorlach in anyway that I could determine-- in fact, his article didn't mention Orange County.
Supervisor Moorlach could be expected to spin negative portfolio performance in his campaign against public defined benefit pension benefits, so perhaps he wants to take advantage of the statewide publicity associated with the CalPERS portfolio?
But having a contrary factual argument is one thing. Why would Supervisor Moorlach decide to include personal attacks on school employees and the President of CalPERS in his article?
Supervisor Moorlach does have a history of ad hominen attacks upon those that disagree with him. It was THUGS two years ago, when Supervisor Moorlach called OC law enforcement union members "thugs" for their role in opposing his election as county supervisor.
Today, he called public school employees "tax-eaters" because they get public pension benefits and the trust fund investments of their pension contributions suffered an significant loss?
I don't get why Supervisor Moorlach would do this, but it is an interesting approach from an elected county public official who may be interested in higher elected office!
Briefing is over!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Orange County Jail Audit Report Released
Let's just say ---WE TOLD YOU SO!
Just watched the one hour and forty-five minute presentation on the Jail Audit findings that was given to the Orange County Board of Supervisors by the O.C. Sheriff and the Crout & Sida Criminal Justice Consulting Firm.
The report drew a new baseline for the jail system.
My summary of the main areas:
-- A well managed jail system in "relatively good shape"
-- Some areas for "course corrections" like reducing hot meals for inmates, consolidation of non-sworn positions and shift changes.
-- Jail inmate population is more challenging to manage than at any time in the past.
-- OUTDATED JAIL FACILITIES.
-- Cost savings in a shift to Correctional Officers will be short-term and inefficient in the long-term.
-- NOT ENOUGH JAIL STAFF! 454.65 positions were recommended to BE ADDED!
-- Privatization can never be recommended for a county jail system like OC.
The Supervisors asked for a follow-up report and action plan from Sheriff Hutchens in 60 days.
That will give time for Supervisor Moorlach and Norby to ask their libertarian anti-government friends for talking points to attack the recommendations from the consultant on the state of the OC Jail. The jail audit report contained NOTHING that fit the political agendas of these two -- so they'll need the time to regroup.
It will also give time for the defense attorneys and ACLU to get their lawsuits prepared against these same Board of Supervisors should they abdicate their now enlightened responsibility to staff, equip and maintain a complex urban jail system of over 6,000 inmates in a much different way than what they have been used to.
For those of us that have worked in the OC jail system it was a report of NO SURPRISES!
None.
It will be hard work going forward for the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors --- but WE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM THIS STUFF A LONG TIME AGO..... Too bad for missed opportunites.
Seriously, it will be hard work going forward and will require a cooperative effort by the Board of Supervisors, OC Sheriff Command and the rank-and-file. I know that two of three are ready, willing and able to go forward.
For the third party (Board of Supervisors): It sucks to be you guys BUT your legacy to this county will be determined greatly by what you do with this jail audit now that you have it before you!
If the Supervisors continue the political dance toward avoidance of leadership and responsibility that two of them started at the meeting today it will be some show going forward!
Link: OC Register article on today's presentation.
Link: Board of Supervisor meeting video (Afternoon session).
Briefing is over!
Just watched the one hour and forty-five minute presentation on the Jail Audit findings that was given to the Orange County Board of Supervisors by the O.C. Sheriff and the Crout & Sida Criminal Justice Consulting Firm.
The report drew a new baseline for the jail system.
My summary of the main areas:
-- A well managed jail system in "relatively good shape"
-- Some areas for "course corrections" like reducing hot meals for inmates, consolidation of non-sworn positions and shift changes.
-- Jail inmate population is more challenging to manage than at any time in the past.
-- OUTDATED JAIL FACILITIES.
-- Cost savings in a shift to Correctional Officers will be short-term and inefficient in the long-term.
-- NOT ENOUGH JAIL STAFF! 454.65 positions were recommended to BE ADDED!
-- Privatization can never be recommended for a county jail system like OC.
The Supervisors asked for a follow-up report and action plan from Sheriff Hutchens in 60 days.
That will give time for Supervisor Moorlach and Norby to ask their libertarian anti-government friends for talking points to attack the recommendations from the consultant on the state of the OC Jail. The jail audit report contained NOTHING that fit the political agendas of these two -- so they'll need the time to regroup.
It will also give time for the defense attorneys and ACLU to get their lawsuits prepared against these same Board of Supervisors should they abdicate their now enlightened responsibility to staff, equip and maintain a complex urban jail system of over 6,000 inmates in a much different way than what they have been used to.
For those of us that have worked in the OC jail system it was a report of NO SURPRISES!
None.
It will be hard work going forward for the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors --- but WE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM THIS STUFF A LONG TIME AGO..... Too bad for missed opportunites.
Seriously, it will be hard work going forward and will require a cooperative effort by the Board of Supervisors, OC Sheriff Command and the rank-and-file. I know that two of three are ready, willing and able to go forward.
For the third party (Board of Supervisors): It sucks to be you guys BUT your legacy to this county will be determined greatly by what you do with this jail audit now that you have it before you!
If the Supervisors continue the political dance toward avoidance of leadership and responsibility that two of them started at the meeting today it will be some show going forward!
Link: OC Register article on today's presentation.
Link: Board of Supervisor meeting video (Afternoon session).
Briefing is over!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
WHEN will the O.C. Board of Supervisors SUE the STATE over RETROACTIVE benefits?
Today, California State Lawmakers received a RETROACTIVE INCREASE in their per diem pay when the state Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board set the rate as required by state law.
According to one media report, "the hike in per diem pay is retroactive to Oct. 1, so lawmakers will receive the extra $3 per day if they are called into special session, as expected, by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger next month."
Earlier this year, the Orange County Board of Supervisors sued the rank-and-file cops of the county over their RETROACTIVE INCREASE in pension benefits saying that "the prior Board's action amounted to an award of extra compensation for work already completed on the public's behalf. As such, it violated the California Constitution's limitations on granting extra pay for completed work to incumbent public employees."
Shouldn't the Board of Supervisors sue the State Legislature in order to protect the taxpayers of Orange County from this unconstitutional gift of public funds and extra compensation for work already performed by these state legislators?
By-the-way.
"State law requires the California per diem rate to match the rate set by the federal government for federal employees" who apparently will also get the RETROACTIVE INCREASE back to the beginning of the federal fiscal year (October 1, 2008).
Shouldn't the Board of Supervisors sue the Federal Government too in order to protect the taxpayers of Orange County from this unconstitutional gift of public funds and extra compensation for work already performed by these government employees?
Of course they should sue.
Unless of course, RETROACTIVE INCREASES are not unconstitutional after all since the Federal and California State government seem to be okay with it.
Then they shouldn't sue.
And they shouldn't be suing county cops either.
(No overtime was earned during the creation of this blog post!)
Briefing is over!
According to one media report, "the hike in per diem pay is retroactive to Oct. 1, so lawmakers will receive the extra $3 per day if they are called into special session, as expected, by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger next month."
Earlier this year, the Orange County Board of Supervisors sued the rank-and-file cops of the county over their RETROACTIVE INCREASE in pension benefits saying that "the prior Board's action amounted to an award of extra compensation for work already completed on the public's behalf. As such, it violated the California Constitution's limitations on granting extra pay for completed work to incumbent public employees."
Shouldn't the Board of Supervisors sue the State Legislature in order to protect the taxpayers of Orange County from this unconstitutional gift of public funds and extra compensation for work already performed by these state legislators?
By-the-way.
"State law requires the California per diem rate to match the rate set by the federal government for federal employees" who apparently will also get the RETROACTIVE INCREASE back to the beginning of the federal fiscal year (October 1, 2008).
Shouldn't the Board of Supervisors sue the Federal Government too in order to protect the taxpayers of Orange County from this unconstitutional gift of public funds and extra compensation for work already performed by these government employees?
Of course they should sue.
Unless of course, RETROACTIVE INCREASES are not unconstitutional after all since the Federal and California State government seem to be okay with it.
Then they shouldn't sue.
And they shouldn't be suing county cops either.
(No overtime was earned during the creation of this blog post!)
Briefing is over!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
NYPD Cops get raises to deal with retention and recruitment problems
This article speaks for itself regarding the issues that the City of New York has had in recruiting and retaining cops in an area where recruits and currently employed officers have choices to work elsewhere for more money.
The recruitment and retention of police officers and deputy sheriff's is NOT just an east coast phenomenon and is a real problem -- despite what Orange County Supervisor Moorlach says!
Moorlach "doesn't buy the competitive salary argument and its link to recruitment" although NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg had this to say about the newly signed police contract, "We believe this will help make the job more attractive to potential recruits."
Portions of the article have been re-printed from the New York Daily News.
17% pay raise just the ticket for NYPD
BY CAT CONTIGUGLIA and JONATHAN LEMIRE
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Friday, August 22nd 2008, 10:30 PM
A long overdue raise has finally helped NYPD cops shake their financial blues
The surprising announcement of a 17% raise, which brings NYPD salaries more in line with other metro police departments, was met with joy by scores of cops Friday.
"It's the first time in my career that [my pay] is up to date," said Officer Jeanette DeLucia, a 15-year veteran working in the 13th Precinct in Gramercy.
"Now my nephew wants to come on from the Marines," DeLucia said. "At first he was skeptical, but when I called him last night to tell him, he said, 'I could do this.'"
"I had to move out from where I was to a smaller place," said one cop from the Midtown North Precinct who asked not to be identified. "I love [the raise]. I can't wait to see it."
"It's going to attract more educated people," cadet Jose Ocasio said. "There's going to be a higher standard because of the pay."
"It was a struggle, but now I think we're getting what we deserve," said Officer Brett Topping of the 13th Precinct. "I was going to stick around anyway, but it's just nice to be paid more."
Though the maximum NYPD base pay still lags behind the area's suburban police departments, the gap has closed. The top pay in Nassau County is $92,432, $97,958 in Suffolk County and $80,366 in Westchester County.
The entire New York Daily News article is here.
BRIEFING IS OVER!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The "routine" dangers faced by cops
Law enforcement is a dangerous job with risks not faced by many other occupations when one considers the intentional acts of violence directed at cops in the line of duty versus the risks of accidental death faced by various other occupations, such as timber workers or miners or commercial fishermen.
This week -- three such incidents of violence where the cops were doing their jobs protecting an innocent child, keeping watch over convicts in a prison and investigating a man exposing himself to hotel guests:
YOLO COUNTY, CA. Suspect in Yolo deputy shooting is ex-convict. (Sacramento Bee). "The man suspected of fatally shooting a Yolo County sheriff's deputy is an ex-convict who has served years in state prison for assault with a semiautomatic rifle and for driving recklessly during a police pursuit.
The incident began around 7 p.m. Sunday when the Davis Police Department issued a bulletin to law enforcement stating that Topete was driving drunk with a child in the car, according to the sheriff.
Marco Antonio Topete, 35, was arrested at 8 a.m. Monday after an overnight manhunt involving hundreds of law enforcement officers. The Arbuckle man is suspected of gunning down Deputy Jose Antonio Diaz, 37, during a traffic stop near Dunnigan 11 hours earlier."
ATWATER, CA. Federal prison guard stabbed to death. (Los Angeles Times). "Two inmates fatally stabbed a prison guard Friday afternoon in an incident under investigation by federal authorities, officials at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atwater, Calif., said Saturday.
Jose Rivera, 22, of Chowchilla was attacked by inmates armed with homemade weapons about 3:30 p.m., according to a statement by Warden Dennis Smith. The assault took place in an inmate housing unit and the alleged assailants were immediately restrained, he said."
ANAHEIM, CA. Officer Shot Responding To Indecent Exposure Call (CBS2.com). Sunday morning an Anaheim police officer "was reportedly shot in the leg" while responding to an indecent exposure call at an Anaheim hotel, according to officials. "The suspect fled the scene and remains at-large" and reports say the officer's injuries are not life threatening.
Keep the injuried officer, the deceased officers families and their co-workers in your thoughts and prayers.
Briefing is over.
This week -- three such incidents of violence where the cops were doing their jobs protecting an innocent child, keeping watch over convicts in a prison and investigating a man exposing himself to hotel guests:
YOLO COUNTY, CA. Suspect in Yolo deputy shooting is ex-convict. (Sacramento Bee). "The man suspected of fatally shooting a Yolo County sheriff's deputy is an ex-convict who has served years in state prison for assault with a semiautomatic rifle and for driving recklessly during a police pursuit.
The incident began around 7 p.m. Sunday when the Davis Police Department issued a bulletin to law enforcement stating that Topete was driving drunk with a child in the car, according to the sheriff.
Marco Antonio Topete, 35, was arrested at 8 a.m. Monday after an overnight manhunt involving hundreds of law enforcement officers. The Arbuckle man is suspected of gunning down Deputy Jose Antonio Diaz, 37, during a traffic stop near Dunnigan 11 hours earlier."
ATWATER, CA. Federal prison guard stabbed to death. (Los Angeles Times). "Two inmates fatally stabbed a prison guard Friday afternoon in an incident under investigation by federal authorities, officials at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atwater, Calif., said Saturday.
Jose Rivera, 22, of Chowchilla was attacked by inmates armed with homemade weapons about 3:30 p.m., according to a statement by Warden Dennis Smith. The assault took place in an inmate housing unit and the alleged assailants were immediately restrained, he said."
ANAHEIM, CA. Officer Shot Responding To Indecent Exposure Call (CBS2.com). Sunday morning an Anaheim police officer "was reportedly shot in the leg" while responding to an indecent exposure call at an Anaheim hotel, according to officials. "The suspect fled the scene and remains at-large" and reports say the officer's injuries are not life threatening.
Keep the injuried officer, the deceased officers families and their co-workers in your thoughts and prayers.
Briefing is over.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Board of Supervisors muck up the selection of new OC Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
Let me be very clear:
Congratulations to Sheriff Hutchens and I look forward to working with her!
BUT.
She is starting off in her new job with a "jacket" that did not need to be placed upon her by those that selected her for the position.
Led by Chairman John Moorlach, the Board of Supervisors this morning completely mishandled what should have been a debate about the qualities and characteristics of two outstanding law enforcement professionals and instead became a political debacle.
As a result, in the aftermath of the meeting today Sheriff Hutchens had to spend time and energy dealing with allegations that her selection was “gender based.” This undercurrent will likely continue to consume energy and time unnecessarily in the months and years to come and ONLY arose as an issue because her supporters on the Board of Supervisors were so ineloquent today.
What should have been about public policy and leadership of a county agency became a display of political posturing and a shell game of hidden agendas by these elected officials.
By couching the reasons for their votes, the three Supervisors who supported our new Sheriff unnecessarily set her up for second guessing and undermining. Today it was completely about them and their political future.
The future of the Sheriff's Department and the success of Sheriff Hutchens became second fiddle to the politics of this Board of Supervisors. What should have been a re-sounding send off into a new era of law enforcement leadership was cut to shreds because of how the process was so mishandled by this Board.
The aftermath of today's selection process generated negative responses by news media writers (Steven Greenhut and Peggy Lowe)and bloggers (Red County and The Liberal OC) that blasted the Board of Supervisors for how they conducted the "people's business" today. That a message like this was so consistent and so immediate should be evidence enough!
As an example, the Supervisors have mentioned that they wanted to select a Sheriff who would reform a promotional selection process described as flawed. These comments cast aspersions upon current supervisors and managers. Yet the Board of Supervisors certainly didn’t set a good example of what a fair and open selection process should look like with their actions today and publicly saddled the new Sheriff with unfair questions about her selection.
It's just too bad that the Board of Supervisors were unable to help focus everyone on an exciting opportunity presented by having such an outstanding and respected person take over the helm.
The irony is that the Board of Supervisors could not have picked badly because both finalists (Paul Walters and Sandra Hutchens) are obviously outstanding law enforcement leaders. Either would have brought extraordinary leadership to a fine department that needs it right now.
Somehow, this Board found a way to muck it up. They had the shot they were looking for and they became the story being told today. In the end, it was more about them!
If ever anyone needed a reason as to why the county sheriff is an elected position and not an appointed one -- today's process speaks loudly and clearly why. The law needs to be changed to take this appointment process away from future Boards of Supervisors.
Again, I repeat.
The person selected is outstanding.
Be very clear on that!
Good luck and much success to our new Sheriff, Sandra Hutchens.
Related links: Sandra Hutchens named as Orange County sheriff (L.A.Times) and New sheriff is self-described 'change agent' (O.C. Register)
Briefing is over!
Congratulations to Sheriff Hutchens and I look forward to working with her!
BUT.
She is starting off in her new job with a "jacket" that did not need to be placed upon her by those that selected her for the position.
Led by Chairman John Moorlach, the Board of Supervisors this morning completely mishandled what should have been a debate about the qualities and characteristics of two outstanding law enforcement professionals and instead became a political debacle.
As a result, in the aftermath of the meeting today Sheriff Hutchens had to spend time and energy dealing with allegations that her selection was “gender based.” This undercurrent will likely continue to consume energy and time unnecessarily in the months and years to come and ONLY arose as an issue because her supporters on the Board of Supervisors were so ineloquent today.
What should have been about public policy and leadership of a county agency became a display of political posturing and a shell game of hidden agendas by these elected officials.
By couching the reasons for their votes, the three Supervisors who supported our new Sheriff unnecessarily set her up for second guessing and undermining. Today it was completely about them and their political future.
The future of the Sheriff's Department and the success of Sheriff Hutchens became second fiddle to the politics of this Board of Supervisors. What should have been a re-sounding send off into a new era of law enforcement leadership was cut to shreds because of how the process was so mishandled by this Board.
The aftermath of today's selection process generated negative responses by news media writers (Steven Greenhut and Peggy Lowe)and bloggers (Red County and The Liberal OC) that blasted the Board of Supervisors for how they conducted the "people's business" today. That a message like this was so consistent and so immediate should be evidence enough!
As an example, the Supervisors have mentioned that they wanted to select a Sheriff who would reform a promotional selection process described as flawed. These comments cast aspersions upon current supervisors and managers. Yet the Board of Supervisors certainly didn’t set a good example of what a fair and open selection process should look like with their actions today and publicly saddled the new Sheriff with unfair questions about her selection.
It's just too bad that the Board of Supervisors were unable to help focus everyone on an exciting opportunity presented by having such an outstanding and respected person take over the helm.
The irony is that the Board of Supervisors could not have picked badly because both finalists (Paul Walters and Sandra Hutchens) are obviously outstanding law enforcement leaders. Either would have brought extraordinary leadership to a fine department that needs it right now.
Somehow, this Board found a way to muck it up. They had the shot they were looking for and they became the story being told today. In the end, it was more about them!
If ever anyone needed a reason as to why the county sheriff is an elected position and not an appointed one -- today's process speaks loudly and clearly why. The law needs to be changed to take this appointment process away from future Boards of Supervisors.
Again, I repeat.
The person selected is outstanding.
Be very clear on that!
Good luck and much success to our new Sheriff, Sandra Hutchens.
Related links: Sandra Hutchens named as Orange County sheriff (L.A.Times) and New sheriff is self-described 'change agent' (O.C. Register)
Briefing is over!
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Will the OC Board of Supervisors violate the California Constitution on Tuesday?
UPDATED.
On Tuesday, June 3, 2008 the Orange County Board of Supervisors will vote on Consent Calendar Item 4 to replace a sitting member of the retirement board with another person. ("Board of Retirement, OCERS -Appoint Patti Gorczyca to complete term ending 6/19/11." )
1. The Board of Supervisors way or the highway?
Retirement Board members are given "plenary authority" under the California Constitution with the "sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension or retirement system" AND these members "shall discharge their duties with respect to the system in the interest of, and for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to, participants and their beneficiaries..." (CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 17).
We all know that Supervisor John Moorlach made an issue over the "Constitutionality" of the retroactive portion of the "3% @ 50" pension benefits for safety law enforcement officers in Orange County and led the Board of Supervisors down the path to file a lawsuit against the OCERS Board of Retirement over these pension benefits.
Of course, the retirement system does nothing about setting pension benefits and only administers benefits that have been agreed to by others -- such as between the County of Orange and the deputy sheriff union, in this case.
Today, the OCERS Board of Retirement is defending itself, on behalf of the active members and beneficiaries of the retirement system against the lawsuit on various grounds, including that it is the wrong party to sue.
The decision by the Board of Retirement has apparently upset Supervisor Moorlach.
During a recent meeting in his office, Supervisor Moorlach made a statement that he asked the recipient to pass along to the members of the Board of Retirement. Supervisor Moorlach said that he was "unhappy with the direction of the Board of Retirement on the lawsuit."
Is this move to replace one member of the Retirement Board in the midst of a term and who has been repeatedly been re-appointed by the Board of Supervisors an attempt to intimidate or punish a retirement board member whose exercise of his "plenary authority and fiduciary responsibilities for investment of money and administration of the system" as required under the California Constitution might be different than their own?
2. The Board of Supervisors makes their own rules?
The current member of the Retirement Board that is being replaced was originally appointed to the seat by the Board of Supervisors in 1989 and has continuously been re-appointed to the seat ever since. He was last appointed to the office in June, 2005.
The Board of Supervisors did not act in January on the re-appointment of the current member even though the term of office expired on December 31, 2007.
Generally, this lack of action has been typical of the Board of Supervisors which has let the appointed members of the retirement board continue to serve in their seats for years without formal action and usually only act to replace a member at the request of the seated member.
But now, as indicated above, Supervisor Moorlach wants to replace one current member with someone else for the term of office that is January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010.
Terms of office for retirement board members are set in the California Constitution and cannot be altered by the Board of Supervisors without "voter ratification." We heard this term used by the Board of Supervisors before in their justification for the pension benefit lawsuit. Are their concerns about "voter ratification" situational, at best?
The problem is that the agenda item on Tuesday before the Board of Supervisors sets the term of office for Patti Gorczyca as ending on "6/19/11."
The Supervisors have been told about the law and that her term of office will expire on 12/31/2010. Will the Supervisors set a term of office that follows the California Constitution? They know what it should be -- but do they care?
3. What did the Board of Supervisors know and when did they know it?
Finally, what did the current board member do that made Supervisor Moorlach "unhappy" and led to this agenda item?
John Moorlach sat on the retirement board as the "ex officio" member by way of his duties as Treasurer-Tax Collector and he served with the current member being replaced for many, many years. He knows this board member very well. Though they agreed a lot -- they likely also did not agree a lot. Does John have a long memory and is he now collecting on it?
In addition, all meetings of the retirement board to discuss this lawsuit have been held in closed session and none of the Supervisors were a party to these meetings. Anything about the actions of any retirement board member regarding this lawsuit would have to be speculative at best.
4. Is this an issue of prudent public policy or is this political pay-back?
It was this Board of Supervisors that asked for more transparency from the Sheriff's Department - so they must also now be more accountable to the public.
Will they pull the item and make a public record of their reasoning for this sudden, drastic and unusual change or will they hide behind the consent agenda item and stay silent?
Will the Supervisors explain to the public why they are taking this action and why are they unhappy with this board member they seek to replace?
Shouldn't the public and the other members of the retirement board be given an explanation for the midstream appointment of a replacement trustee?
Will they explain how their actions are consistent with the California Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend?
Is there more of this to come?
UPDATED. The Board of Supervisors voted (3-2) to postpone the new appointment until June 24th because of concerns they had about what the proper term of office should be (as described above in item 2).
Briefing is over!
On Tuesday, June 3, 2008 the Orange County Board of Supervisors will vote on Consent Calendar Item 4 to replace a sitting member of the retirement board with another person. ("Board of Retirement, OCERS -Appoint Patti Gorczyca to complete term ending 6/19/11." )
1. The Board of Supervisors way or the highway?
Retirement Board members are given "plenary authority" under the California Constitution with the "sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension or retirement system" AND these members "shall discharge their duties with respect to the system in the interest of, and for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to, participants and their beneficiaries..." (CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 17).
We all know that Supervisor John Moorlach made an issue over the "Constitutionality" of the retroactive portion of the "3% @ 50" pension benefits for safety law enforcement officers in Orange County and led the Board of Supervisors down the path to file a lawsuit against the OCERS Board of Retirement over these pension benefits.
Of course, the retirement system does nothing about setting pension benefits and only administers benefits that have been agreed to by others -- such as between the County of Orange and the deputy sheriff union, in this case.
Today, the OCERS Board of Retirement is defending itself, on behalf of the active members and beneficiaries of the retirement system against the lawsuit on various grounds, including that it is the wrong party to sue.
The decision by the Board of Retirement has apparently upset Supervisor Moorlach.
During a recent meeting in his office, Supervisor Moorlach made a statement that he asked the recipient to pass along to the members of the Board of Retirement. Supervisor Moorlach said that he was "unhappy with the direction of the Board of Retirement on the lawsuit."
Is this move to replace one member of the Retirement Board in the midst of a term and who has been repeatedly been re-appointed by the Board of Supervisors an attempt to intimidate or punish a retirement board member whose exercise of his "plenary authority and fiduciary responsibilities for investment of money and administration of the system" as required under the California Constitution might be different than their own?
2. The Board of Supervisors makes their own rules?
The current member of the Retirement Board that is being replaced was originally appointed to the seat by the Board of Supervisors in 1989 and has continuously been re-appointed to the seat ever since. He was last appointed to the office in June, 2005.
The Board of Supervisors did not act in January on the re-appointment of the current member even though the term of office expired on December 31, 2007.
Generally, this lack of action has been typical of the Board of Supervisors which has let the appointed members of the retirement board continue to serve in their seats for years without formal action and usually only act to replace a member at the request of the seated member.
But now, as indicated above, Supervisor Moorlach wants to replace one current member with someone else for the term of office that is January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010.
Terms of office for retirement board members are set in the California Constitution and cannot be altered by the Board of Supervisors without "voter ratification." We heard this term used by the Board of Supervisors before in their justification for the pension benefit lawsuit. Are their concerns about "voter ratification" situational, at best?
The problem is that the agenda item on Tuesday before the Board of Supervisors sets the term of office for Patti Gorczyca as ending on "6/19/11."
The Supervisors have been told about the law and that her term of office will expire on 12/31/2010. Will the Supervisors set a term of office that follows the California Constitution? They know what it should be -- but do they care?
3. What did the Board of Supervisors know and when did they know it?
Finally, what did the current board member do that made Supervisor Moorlach "unhappy" and led to this agenda item?
John Moorlach sat on the retirement board as the "ex officio" member by way of his duties as Treasurer-Tax Collector and he served with the current member being replaced for many, many years. He knows this board member very well. Though they agreed a lot -- they likely also did not agree a lot. Does John have a long memory and is he now collecting on it?
In addition, all meetings of the retirement board to discuss this lawsuit have been held in closed session and none of the Supervisors were a party to these meetings. Anything about the actions of any retirement board member regarding this lawsuit would have to be speculative at best.
4. Is this an issue of prudent public policy or is this political pay-back?
It was this Board of Supervisors that asked for more transparency from the Sheriff's Department - so they must also now be more accountable to the public.
Will they pull the item and make a public record of their reasoning for this sudden, drastic and unusual change or will they hide behind the consent agenda item and stay silent?
Will the Supervisors explain to the public why they are taking this action and why are they unhappy with this board member they seek to replace?
Shouldn't the public and the other members of the retirement board be given an explanation for the midstream appointment of a replacement trustee?
Will they explain how their actions are consistent with the California Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend?
Is there more of this to come?
UPDATED. The Board of Supervisors voted (3-2) to postpone the new appointment until June 24th because of concerns they had about what the proper term of office should be (as described above in item 2).
Briefing is over!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
