Who monkeyed with the agenda?

'Tis a good question.

At the October 2, 2012 meeting, just prior to the adjournment, Council Member Doug Chaffee moved to agendize discussing the position of the chief of police in the next open meeting.  Up to that time all discussions regarding the position have taken place behind closed doors during the closed session meetings.

Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva, who is running against Assembly Member Chris Norby, said she would only go along with Chaffee's motion if it was to discuss the matter and not vote on it.

It bears repeating.  The Mayor said she would approve agendizing the discussion of the position so long as there was no vote taken.  Council Member Chaffee said, "well then why don't we just have a general discussion on the topic."

It was the clearly stated direction from the Mayor to City Manager Joe Felz to place on the agenda a public discussion regarding the position of chief of police.

If I sound like a broken record, play back the City's video at about 4:05:00.  

http://fullerton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=400

With this clear direction given, why did the item get agendized with the following language:

During the Staff / Council Communications portion of the October 2, 2012 City Council meeting, staff received direction to agendize City Council discussion regarding entering into negotiations with Acting Chief Hughes for the position of Chief of Police. Recommendation by the City Manager’s Office: Pleasure of the City Council.

Who came up with that?  Who decided that the discussion was "regarding entering into negotiations with Acting Chief Hughes"?

The Mayor agreed to agendize discussing the position but was reluctant to do so until after the election.  Chaffee responded, "then why don't we just have a general discussion on the topic...?"

The Mayor replied, "I can support having a conversation about it, agendizing it for our next meeting, October 16th, but not committing to a vote until the second meeting in November.  Then I think that way we are moving something forward as far as specifics but we're not voting on it, so I could support that.  Is that clear enough?"

"Yes" said Chaffee.

So again I ask, why does the City Council agenda state that the item is a discussion regarding entering into negotiations?

Shouldn't we be discussing terms and conditions?

Since Council Member Chaffee wants to discuss the position publicly, shouldn't the Council discuss what the terms of employment would be for the position?

Or is Fullerton so desperate to hire a police chief that the Council should select a chief before figuring out what the terms should be?  This would be a first.

The agenda memo says that the position has been pending for several reasons, specifically: "further consideration of the position classification; the conclusion of several reports regarding the status of the Fullerton Police Department; and the potential consideration of an informal analysis by the Orange County Sheriff Department."

With those unanswered questions lingering, why would the Council discuss directing the City Manager to begin negotiating with anyone?

And back to my initial question, who misunderstood the "clear" direction from the Mayor and monkeyed with the agenda?

Did Fullerton Police Chief Violate Contract?

From KTLA

KTLA: Council member Whitaker says police chief violated his contract by living in San Clemente

Chief Michael Sellers, who is currently on medical leave, never moved to Fullerton as required by his employment contract. KTLA’s David Begnaud’s filed this report Thursday night:

 

SAN CLEMENTE, Calif. (KTLA) -- Fullerton Police Chief Michael Sellers, who has been on medical leave since August, has some questions to answer about one of the terms of his contract with the city.

Chief Sellers' contract -- signed on April 1, 2009 -- dictated that he had to "make a bona fide effort" to make Fullerton his primary residence by December 2010.

That deadline passed almost a year ago, but Sellers still lives some 40 miles away, in a gated community in San Clemente.

Property records indicate that he has lived there for the past 10 years.

"I think there were no efforts of any sort that he exhibited," Fullerton City Councilman Bruce Whitaker told KTLA.

Whitaker is one of two councilmembers who have, in the past, called for Sellers to resign.

"I think we should press the matter," Whitaker said.

"On behalf of taxpayers, they understand right now that we're paying large amounts of money for a chief not to be on the job."

Sellers was hired at a salary of $192,000 per year -- about $16,000 every month.

"If he hasn't lived up to the terms of this agreement, I'd be in favor of pushing our side of the equation," Whitaker said.

But legal expert Ken Rosenfeld says the phrase "make a bona fide effort" is so vauge that it would almost be impossible to prove that Sellers did not make an effort.

Councilman Whitaker says he will try anyways.

"I've talked to the city manager about it, but we haven't pressed for an internal opinion about it," Whitaker said. "I imagine that will follow shortly."

Sellers' medical leave began in August amid growing scrutiny of his department's handling of a violent altercation between six police officers and 37-year-old homeless man Kelly Thomas.

He recently asked a second extension to his medical leave, which would last at least another 60 days.

City Manager Jose Felz says Sellers is legally allowed to take up to 12 months medical leave as a law enforcement officer.

The city has hired a doctor to review Sellers' medical records, however, then make a recommendation to the city.

Capt. Kevin Hamilton has taken over as acting chief in his absence.

Mayor Throws City Manager & Interim Police Chief Under Bus and Apologizes

After FPD interim chief Kevin Hamilton apologized to the Nordell family and after Mrs. Nordell accepted the apology, Fullerton's Mayor Dick Jones said that it wasn't until the apology was placed on the council's meeting agenda did the council begin to get information.

Mayor Jones went on to blame the lines of communication between the council and police chief are poor. 

"Its not real easy to get information out of departments.  We don't have direct access to them," said Mayor Jones who added "Usually the information chain goes through the City Manager to us."

Mayor Jones apologized as both the Mayor of Fullerton as well as an individual.

The Mayor uses the excuse of poor communication as a way to not apologize for the council's clear lack of concern until a month ago after a year-long bureaucratic ordeal.  The Mayor's admission of poor communication tells us a few other things as well:

1. The Mayor is aware that his department heads and managers are not openly communicating very important information to the council;
2. Our fears of a dysfunctional City Hall are justified;
3. The severity and depth of corruption within the walls of the FPD is being kept from the Fullerton City Council;
4. The Fullerton City Council is ill-informed and, therefore, unable to adequately govern;
5. The Mayor and perhaps other council members do not seek out information on their own from department heads, choosing instead to rely solely on the City staff and the Council's meeting agenda;
6. If the Council is being kept in the dark, how much is being kept from Fullerton residents? 

The City Council should be given progress reports from each department regarding allegations of misconduct.  The Council should know that their were several reports against former Fullerton cop Albert Rincon alleging sexual assault, kidnapping, battery, false imprisonment, etc. all under the color of authority.  And when Federal Judge Andrew Guilford slammed the City saying, "the City’s failure to investigate or punish sexual harassment allegations suggests tacit authorization."

But the Judge didn't stop there. "As stated above, Plaintiffs raise a triable issue of fact as to exactly when the City first learned about allegations against Rincon. The sheer volume of incidents in 2008 alone relative to Rincon’s arrests is sufficient to call into question what exactly the City knew or should have known before November 2008."

It would appear that the command staff of FPD chose not to do anything. 

The sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and chief (McKinley at the time Rincon was implicated) ALL CHOSE TO DO NOTHING.

Last night I suggested the council publicly share what a contract with the Orange County Sheriff's Department might look like.  How much money would we save, not just from law suits but from the actual contract services? $5-million?  $10-million?  More??? 

And if you wondered why the FPD should be scrapped, please read this conclusion from U.S. Judge Andrew Guilford:

You can read the entire Motion for Summary Judgement at FullertonsFuture.org.

seven women certainly raises questions about the City’s custom and practice around sexual assault. Requiring Rincon to attend “pat-down” training is weak sauce that does nothing to hide the unpleasant taste of complicity. At the end of the day, the City put Rincon back onto the streets to continue arresting women despite a pattern of sexual harassment allegations. A reasonable juror could conclude, based on these facts, that the City imply did not care about what its officers did to women during arrest.

Most shocking is the City’s weak “Reprimand” of Rincon. If one woman had brought an allegation of sexual assault, then the Court could understand how the City might have concluded that the allegations were not believable, and find no misconduct on Rincon’s part. But to dismiss the accounts of

Clearly the Fullerton City Council has relinquished their elected authority and are no longer able to effectively communicate or lead.

How long will Fullerton residents allow this to continue before they have had enough?

Sheriff: Aide Becomes Right Hand

Sheriff: Aide becomes 'right hand' 

News - The Orange County Register

LAKE FOREST – An up-and-comer. A man with incredible talent and leadership. A man who speaks his mind.

That's how Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens describes