Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Friday, October 15, 2010

Charter Review Meeting Wednesday Oct. 20

When I was appointed to the Charter Review Commission, I promised that I would periodically give you updates as to what is going on. While it's now been over 5 months since our first meeting, we're still in the process of gathering information and developing ideas. That is about to change.

As a recap, the Charter Review Commission is charged with reviewing the city's charter and coming up with an amended charter (if needed) to present to the voters at a future election. Whatever comes out of the commission will be placed on a future ballot and the voters will decide if they want whatever comes out of the commission. The commission has 1 year to come up with such a document. (April 2010)

The 15 member commission has been meeting both as a group and in smaller subcommittees to formulate such a document. Each subcommittee is responsible for doing the research and coming up with plans that will be put forward to the entire commission for possible inclusion in the final document.

The first subcommittee recommendation was made at last month's meeting. This one dealt with proposed changes to Article XVII, which created the charter review commission. Because of the drama that surrounded the formation of the current commission, it was felt that certain things, like the number of commissioners and how they are chosen, should be codified within the charter itself. No action was taken on this item, whether to approve or not, and it was held over to the next meeting, which is Wednesday.

All sections of the charter were assigned to subcommittees, with the exception of Article IV, which deals with elective offices, the city council, how vacancies are handled, districts, and compensation and expenses. You can read the charter HERE (pdf file).  Because this is such an important issue, it was decided that the entire commission would take it up as a group instead of going to subcommittees. This Wednesday's meeting is when that will occur. It is anticipated that we will be getting a lot of public input, especially from those who are pushing for a new plan for district elections. To accommodate anticipated public input, the meeting will be held at the Ganesha Park Community Center at 7:00 pm.

If you have input on how you feel districts elections should be held, or if you don't want districts at all, or if you feel that we should have more or fewer council seats or anything else regarding Article IV, please be sure to attend the meeting and let us know. We value your input.

Charter Review Commission
Wednesday, October 20
7:00 pm
Ganesha Park Community Center
1575 North White Avenue, Pomona
Some of the issues that are currently being discussed in the subcommittees include the formation of an Ethics Commission, a Police Commission, and a wide variety of minor and major adjustments to the current Charter. The Commission meets the  4th Wednesday of each month, usually in the Council Chambers annex (to the south of the council chambers where the council usually holds their closed session meetings). Because of theIt's a Brown Act Commission so the public is always welcome.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Ethics and Pensions

With the scandals that rocked the city of Bell, it's been suggested that we need to look in our own back yard. Anonymous asked if someone wouldn't bring forth the evidence of wrongdoing in our city. I'm not personally privy to anything that would rise to that level where a prosecutor would be interested, but I'm very aware of some things going on that are of very questionable ethics.

The most recent case-in-point was the "gaming" of the system by Councilmember Cristina Carrizosa to significantly increase her retirement once she leaves the city council. While it appears that she did nothing illegal, the ethics of this situation is certainly in question.

But even more importantly to me, is that the problems in Bell have been linked to citizens' not being aware of what was going wrong with their city. Here in Pomona, we have several blogs and some decent reporting that has stanched many of the grevious problems. A few years ago a few members of the city council decided that they should also get paid (separately) for being the redevelopment agency. Citizens found out about it and rose up and stopped it. I'm currently on the city's Charter Review Commission and we are looking at the possibility of creating an ethics oversight commission within the city and strengthening the ethics for the council, commissions, city management, police, candidates for office, and others under the perview of the charter, all to enhance citizen oversight to avoid the problems that Bell ran into.

However, I have an even more basic question. SHOULD PART-TIME COUNCILMEMBERS BE GETTING A PENSION AT ALL? Those in the private sector who work part-time usually don't get any benefits. This is the way that banks, grocery stores, and WalMart have been keeping their costs down for years. By hiring people and limiting their work hours to under 30 per week, they don't pay retirement, medical, and other benefits. Why are we so generous to our city council members?

Public service is not supposed to enrich those who are serving. To suggest that council members are doing such an extraordinary job as part-time employees negates the work of all of the others who work part time at little or no personal benefit (do you hear me unpaid commissioners?). Councilwoman Carrizosa stated that she "earned" the additional pension money. So that means that she worked harder than councilmembers Lantz, Atcheley, Saunders, Rodriquez, Soto, and Mayor Rothman? I undestand that their pension will be based on a $9600/year salary (the mayor twice that) and not what they got from their full-time jobs.

Again, this is not about what is legal, but about what is ETHICAL and FAIR.

I look forward to the comments on this item.

_________________________

Remember, August 2nd the council will decide whether or not to put replacing Pomona's Police Department on the ballot. I will be out of town and can't attend. I'm fairly sure that the council knows where I stand on this issues as I've spoken on it in the past. If you haven't spoken out, do so!!!

Friday, April 30, 2010

And the Survey Says . . .

Last night we got a call at the Clifford home from someone asking our opinions. Yes, we were surveyed. So what were the important issues? Was it what movies we like? What laundry detergent we use? While we've had those in the past, this one was about things going on in the city of Pomona. The interviewer didn't identify who had commissioned the survey, but they had our information, who we were, where we lived, etc. (Is it time to get paranoid?)

The main issue that they wanted to know about was what we thought of saving $5 million by bringing in the LA County Sheriff's Department. They asked the same question in four different ways (a common technique when you're trying to influence the outcome of the survey). So now the idea is floated that the Sheriffs will save us $5 million, a full month before the "study" is done. WOW, that was fast!! This was obviously a campaigning effort on someone's part to try and get backing for the "proposal" of the Sheriff's.

So what other questions did they ask. Hmmm. With three council seats up for re-election (and none in the district where we live) they asked what we thought of councilmember Carrizosa, and how we through Mayor Rothman was doing (and he's NOT up for re-election until 2012). They also asked which proposal for the waste transfer station that we preferred. As well as some generic questions such as "What do you think is Pomona's biggest problem?"

Have any of you out there gotten this call? What did you think of the survey?

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Monday's Council Meeting Report


Hmmm, Where to start?

The council chambers were completely full with standing room only in the outer lobby. About 100 folks were there to discuss the DPOA issue and others for the various issues such as the closing of Monroe St. and the city's budget cut and outsourcing proposals. Here's a a recap of what happened:

DPOA
This is so complex I've decided to shorten this post and add it as the next post so this is not too long.

MONROE STREET CLOSURE
With over 30 speaker cards, this became the largest issue of the evening to be heard. Residents of Monroe spoke to the burgeoning problems with "cut through" traffic on Monroe, which juts out from Orange Grove and Garey and curves up to meet McKinley. Monroe has been a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get caught in the traffic trying to get on the freeway when they want to head east on McKinley. Tales of cars ending up in front yards and accidents as well as fear for the safety of the growing number of families with children in the area made an impression on councilmembers.

In opposition were Frantz Cleaners and the Dentist office at Monroe and Orange Grove, both of whom felt that the closure would have negative impacts on their businesses. Other speakers opposing included residents of surrounding streets who feared that the closure of Monroe would move the problem to their streets.

However, councilmember Lantz gave a very well thought out history of the intersection and the problems that have occurred during the past 20 years or so. She noted that when the street was originally laid out, that there was no freeway and that the changes in traffic patterns necessitate such action.

For myself, a resident of Monroe, I spoke to the historic nature of our district, which was more urban and does not have cul-de-sacs and questioned making such a drastic change while acknowledging the very real problems that exist. I'm afraid that I probably was not as clear as I could have been in my 3-minutes. I was not actually against the closure, but felt that there might be an alternative mitigation.

The council voted unanimously to support the closure of Monroe. At least it should have a positive impact on my personal property value as being on the only "quiet cul-de-sac" in the city's National Historic District.

BUDGET
It was pointed out at the start of discussion that this was not a public hearing, but mearly an exploratory meeting so that staff could better understand the council's direction on preparing the budget. There were several speakers from the city's employees' union decrying the use of outsourcing and the probable reductions in service as jobs are taken over by individuals who don't know the city and have no long-term committment to serving our citizens.

There was a lot of discussion about the impacts of cuts. Councilmember Soto was concerned that if we moved to outsource a service such as street sweeping that we'd have a hard time bringing it back in-house if we wanted to, especially since the plan would be to sell off all of the city's equipment. It was also noted that at one point that we had outsourced the street sweeping of Holt Avenue and that it was so bad that we had to take it back.

Councilmember Lantz spoke at length about the fact that they were not given "apples to apples" comparisons as to where the savings were coming from. In some cases the solution to elimianting a city position was that the duties would fall to others in the department, but how would that affect service? Would there be additional delays in getting jobs done. As for the outsourcing, the proposals note that there would also be a reduction in service, but there was no indication what the costs would be of a similar reduction using current city staff.

Probably most intersting was City Manager Lowry's analogy to the budget process as potentially being a yo-yo diet with the budget getting fat and skinny as conditions change, but what she felt we needed was liposuction. I can only guess that she means getting rid of anything that is fat and then going on a starvation diet. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the patient might be thin, but dead in a very short period.

The next meeting on the budget will be on June 15. Mayor Rothman asked that the meeting be dedicated to the budget and that other items be postponed to later meetings so that they can concentrate on the budgetary matters.

WATER CONSERVATION
Also on the agenda was an ordinance mandating water conservation throughout the city. This was a requirement by the Metropolitan Water District if the city wanted to be eligible for grant funding for water related projects in the future. Basically MWD was telling the city what it had to do, even though Pomona gets over 75% of its water from local sources and only relies on MWD for a maximum of 25% of its water.

The ordinance includes restrictions on when residents can water their yards, with automatic irrigation limited to three days a week and a maximum run time of 15 minutes. For myself, in my back yard I have a system with three zones that each run for 10 minutes, three times a week. The sytem is a moderate drip system, unlike lawn sprinklers which run full tilt. So will I be out of compliance with this new ordinance? Do my plants have to die?

Speaking on the subject was Dawn Van Allen, owner of The Garden who expressed concerns about her business which relies on irrigation system watering. Ms. Van Allen was assured that her business would be protected under the new ordinance.

With an amount of conern, the council passed the ordinance. Councilmember Lantz noted that with cutbacks and an already overburdened code enforcement division, that we probably have little to worry about from the "water police." However, she did hope that all residents would conserve water as much as possible, especially in this period of drought. Staff noted that they are planning on having "friendly reminder" cards created to give to residents when violations of the new ordinance are noted.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Monday Council Meeting


Monday's council meeting will be very critical on a series of issues that will dramatically affect the future of our city.

DPOA
First up will be the re-certification of the Downtown Pomona Owner's Association (DPOA). The DPOA is a special assessment district that funds, through assessment of property owners, increased services for the downtown area beyond those that the city normally provides. Other such assessment districts in the city include the landscaping district in Phillips Ranch, as an example, which provides extra landscaping for the hillsides and streetscapes of the Phillips Ranch area that are paid for by the property owners in that area.

For the DPOA, the mission is a little different. They are tasked with providing a clean, safe downtown AND to promote our downtown as a destination for our citizens and for those in our surrounding communities. DPOA also goes by the name "Metro Pomona." It is the DPOA that coordinates such activities as the 2nd & 4th Saturday Art Walks, the farmers' market at the art walks and the farmers' market on Wednesdays in the Antique Row area. They also sponsor and support many other activities that focus attention on the businesses and opportunities in our downtown. They also pay for two police officers dedicated to patrolling downtown to keep us safe when we visit there, and cleaning of the streets and sidewalks so our experiences are pleasant when we visit.

It has been suggested that the city can't afford its participation in such an enterprise at this time. Because the city is a major property owner within the assessement district, they are assessed the same as any other property owner. It has been suggested that pressure be put on the council to vote against renewal of the district as a cost-saving function. However, the reality of the situation is that most of the city-owned property is either redevelopment agency and vehicle parking district. Funds from these two entities cannot, by law, be transferred to the general fund and must be used solely for activities related to the properties that they own, such as the DPOA. In addition, the DPOA takes part of the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks and adds two police officers that the city does not have to pay for from general funds. So the city definitely gains value from any money paid toward DPOA activities.

If you believe that we need to have a DPOA and actively support our downtown, please show your support with a letter to your councilperson or by coming to Monday's meeting and speaking in support of the DPOA. Let's not let short-sightedness rule



CITY BUDGET
Also on the Agenda for Monday is the city's budget. This is particularly difficult as the city is looking to make significant cuts to city staff, police, and services to children and seniors.

On the chopping block will be:
  • 20 Police officers / positions, including 5 police investigators
  • 5 Police report takers, whose work will go to patrol officers
  • 2 Police crime prevention officers (I guess we don't prevent crime, we just respond to it)
  • Reduced patrol overtime to the tune of $100,000 (so fewer officers working fewer hours)
  • Reduced homicide weekend standby to the tune of $7,000
  • Reduction of funding for unexpected repairs to police facilities, $25,000
  • Outsourcing of Park Security
Fire
  • Elimination of one engine company for 7 months, $819,000
Housing and Planning
  • Outsource Building and Safety Department
  • Eliminate 1 Planner and 1 Planning Assistant
  • Outsource street sweeping including a reduction in the number of days/streets
Public Works
  • Outsource Parks Division, eliminate 19 positions
  • Eliminate downtown and weekend graffiti removal position
  • Eliminate 3 Engineering/Construction positions
  • Eliminate 3 Equipment Division positions
  • Eliminate tree trimming positions resulting in fewer street trees being trimmed, planted, removed
  • Reduce median maintenance resulting in mowing, trimming, watering, fertilizing, weed control, etc.
Community Services
  • Eliminate 5 Parks coordinators and recreation coordinators/supervisors
  • Eliminate Admin. Assistant in Youth and Family Services program
  • Eliminate Veteran's Park Rentals Coordinator
  • Eliminate Concessions program at Veterans Park
  • Eliminate 4 Parks/facilities custodians
  • Eliminate Senior Trips and Tours Program
  • Eliminate funding for Cultural Arts Commission
  • Eliminate funding for Pomona Concert Band
  • Reduce facilities maintenance by $15,000
  • Eliminate funding for Youth Advisory Committee
Library
  • Close Library on Mondays
  • Eliminate 2 Library Assistants
  • Reduce Operations budget by $14,000
  • Reduce library book and materials and related personnel, $32,600
Total reductions by category:
  • Planning & Housing $130,670
  • Public Works $636,030
  • Library $83,055
  • Community Service: Level 1 $341,855 | Level 2 $751,505
  • Police: Level 1 $341,225 | Level 2 $448,740 | Level 3 468,770
All of this information comes from the Staff Report, which is part of the information online. Read the full report to see other areas of cuts and staff's assessment of the impacts of the cuts. I admittedly didn't include everything as this post is already too long.

This is another of those areas where if you disagree with the cuts, please write your councilperson or address the council at Monday's meeting. The council has some tough choices and they need to know what we citizens are willing to let go and what we feel we truly need.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Chief Joe Romero FIRED!!!


I have it from very reliable sources that an emergency meeting of the city council was called this morning to discuss a personnel matter. At that meeting Police Chief Joe Romero was fired. Since it takes 4 votes for such an action, and since newly elected councilperson Danielle Soto has not been sworn in yet, it appears that the votes to fire came from Mayor Rothman (who I'm sure is still smarting after being charged, and cleared, of DUI) and the three council persons who have objected to police checkpoints and other issues. As of this point I don't know if councilperson Paula Lantz was even part of that meeting as I earlier noted that she wasn't sworn in until this afternoon.

I personally want to thank Chief Romero for reaching out to the community. I find this to be a terrible loss for our city. We can only guess as to the "reasons" for the firing that created the need for a special meeting just before the holidays.