Incorporated November 17, 1911, the City of Rialto covers 28 square miles. Citizens enjoy the services of City-owned water, fire, and police departments, as well as community recreation facilities. The Police Department offers a variety of services and assignments to include Field Patrol, K-9 Units, School Resource Officer (SRO), Multiple Enforcement Team (MET), Investigations, Traffic, Narcotics, Training and Backgrounds, SWAT and Crisis Negotiations.
Showing posts with label Rialto City Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rialto City Administration. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Rialto Police To Offer Electronic Home Surveillance To Residents On Vacation
RIALTO (CBSLA.com) —Rialto police will soon implement a new electronic home surveillance program called “Safe House” to protect residents’ personal property while they are away on vacation.
“It’s an officer, pretty much like an invisible officer, there for us,” Rialto police Det. David Padilla said.
Starting in May, residents leaving their homes for an extended period of time will be able to contact the Rialto Police Department and arrange for an officer to place a small tracking device on valuable items that are particularly attractive to burglars, such as electronics and safes.
The motion-sensitive device will activate as soon as the resident leaves the property and will set off a signal that sends a text message to both the resident and police if motion is detected.
If any of the property is stolen, officers can use tracking software on the device to locate the item, as well as the thief.
KCAL9’s Jeff Nguyen reports that a computer system traces the movement of the tracking device through cellphone towers, and dispatchers can see it on a mapin real-time.
“So we can see on a map where it’s going, how fast it’s going, and we can determine if someone’s walking, if they’re running or if they’ve just jumped in a vehicle or where they’re going with the property that we want back,” Emergency Dispatch Supervisor Angela Haddad said.
Resident Jean Sharp said burglaries are on the rise in the area. She said her grandchild’s car was recently stolen from their driveway.
“People having their homes broken into…it has been more often than there used to,” she said.
Sharp said the technology may prevent a crime and make criminals think twice.
“If you can deter something from happening, you don’t have that worry of somebody coming into your home,” she said.
Rialto residents wishing to take part in the program can contact Lt. Dean P. Hardin at (909) 820-2634 or email dhardin@rialtopd.com.
The Rialto, Calif. Police Department has been testing
the merits of its force of 70 officers donning small cameras while on
duty.
According to police chief Tony Farrar the results are “truly amazing.”
These officers are the first in the country to complete a
detailed pilot program, and as of Sept. 1, all of the department’s
uniformed officers will be wearing them.
Rialto has seen an 88 percent drop in complaints against
officers and a 60 percent decrease in use of force. These amazing
numbers speak for themselves.
At more than 5,400 officers, outfitting Houston’s police
department would be no small feat. At around $900 each, these gadgets
are no minor expense. Perhaps this is a small price to pay when compared
to the ease with which disputes between officers and citizens could be
resolved. In fact, one Rialto officer has already beaten a false charge
of police brutality thanks to his device.
The other hurdle to overcome would be the potential officer
resistance to being constantly monitored. The measure would no doubt
create extra work for them. One Rialto officer had this to say about the
mutual benefit that comes with the cameras: “When you put a camera on a
police officer or anyone, the natural human reaction is that you behave
a little more professional. You follow the rules a little more.”
“On the other side, if a citizen knows the officer has a
camera, that person acts and behaves a little bit more professional,
too.”
That is to say, the nerve-wracking aspect of being watched
by one’s superiors, though daunting, includes the convenient trade-off
of well-behaved suspects.
With camera phones in the hands of every man, woman and
child, it’s unlikely police will be escaping scrutiny anytime soon,
regardless. When Rialto officers balked at the new system, Farrar
reminded them of this and asked, “so instead of relying on somebody
else’s partial picture of what occurred, why not have your own?”
If an officer is doing their job correctly, there should be no need
to fear this innovative safety measure. The cameras create an equal
footing for officer and citizen. This technology has the ability to
eradicate “he-said, she-said” situations where there is a 50 percent
chance of the wrong party facing punishment.
This would be a worthwhile investment for any police department that
deals frequently with combative citizens, and there is certainly no
shortage of those in Houston. Opinion columnist Katie Wian is an English junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com Tags:Cameras, law enforcement, Rialto Police Department
Complaints and Use of Force Drop after Rialto Police Don Tiny Video Cameras
(photo: NBC Southern California)
The Southern California city of Rialto has become the poster child of
police videotaping after being cited by a federal judge in his decision (pdf) two weeks ago striking down New York City’s stop-and-frisk law as an unconstitutional use of racial profiling.
U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin quoted a New York Timesstory
attesting to the usefulness of body-worn cameras by police during an
experimental period that began in February 2012 and ended last month.
“[T]he results from the first 12 months [were] striking. Even with only
half of the 54 uniformed police officers wearing cameras on any given
day, the department overall had an 88 percent decline in the number of
complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before
the study.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that officers with cameras used force 60% less often.
Rialto Police Chief William Farrar, with the assistance of Barak Ariel,
a visiting fellow at the Institute of Criminology at the University of
Cambridge and an assistant professor at Hebrew University, randomly
selected officers to place a small video camera on their lapels that
recorded events, which were automatically uploaded to a computer for
storage.
Police use of video cameras to observe the public has increased
dramatically in recent years and drawn the attention of civil liberties
advocates who aren’t fond of the authorities recording activities of
people not suspected of wrongdoing and storing the data for indefinite
periods of time.
Cameras are showing up on street corners and states are considering
imbedding trackers in digital license plates. Police also use license
plate scanners to profile drivers through storage of their GPS movement.
But recording the activities of police officers, while still raising
questions about privacy and surveillance, is a different matter. Jay
Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union told the Times,
“We don’t like the networks of police-run video cameras that are being
set up in an increasing number of cities. We don’t think the government
should be watching over the population en masse,” Stanley said. But
“when it comes to the citizenry watching the government, we like that.”
Stanley, however, expressed reservations about the police videos being
stored indefinately and popping up in public at inappropriate times,
like on CNN.
Rialto is not the only city using the tiny police video cameras.
Oakland, Albuquerque and Fort Worth use them too, according to the Times, as do others. Oakland has 450 cameras for its 660-member force and stores video indefinately.
Former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton is a fan and some
experts think their widespread use is inevitable as the price comes
down.
Chief William A. Farrar of the Rialto Police Department viewing video recorded during an arrest.
“Cross your legs; don’t get up; put your legs back,” he said, before
pointing to the tiny camera affixed to his Oakley sunglasses. “You’re
being videotaped.”
It is a warning that is transforming many encounters between residents
and police in this sunbaked Southern California city: “You’re being
videotaped.”
In the first year after the cameras were introduced here in February
2012, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent
compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by
almost 60 percent over the same period.
And while Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg railed
against the federal court, which ordered New York to arm some of its
own police officers with cameras, the Rialto Police Department believes
it stands as an example of how effective the cameras can be. Starting
Sept. 1, all 66 uniformed officers here will be wearing a camera during
every shift.
William A. Farrar,
the Rialto police chief, believes the cameras may offer more benefits
than merely reduced complaints against his force: the department is now
trying to determine whether having video evidence in court has also led
to more convictions.
But even without additional data, Chief Farrar has invested in cameras for the whole force.
“When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little
better, follow the rules a little better,” Chief Farrar said. “And if a
citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen
will behave a little better.”
Despite concerns about privacy and cost, more citizens across the
country will probably soon find themselves on camera when talking to the
police.
Albuquerque, Fort Worth and Oakland have all begun arming officers with
tiny video cameras. And demand for the devices has exploded in recent
years, according to Taser International, one of the companies marketing body cameras to law enforcement agencies.
Experts increasingly say that body cameras are likely to become an
industry standard over the coming years, just as cameras in patrol cars,
which once prompted similar objections about privacy, have become
commonplace in recent decades.
William J. Bratton, who has led the police departments in New York and
Los Angeles, said that if he were still a police chief, he would want
cameras on his officers.
“So much of what goes on in the field is ‘he-said-she-said,’ and the
camera offers an objective perspective,” Mr. Bratton said. “Officers not
familiar with the technology may see it as something harmful. But the
irony is, officers actually tend to benefit. Very often, the officer’s
version of events is the accurate version.”
Still, the technology has proved divisive. Police officers and citizens
alike have bristled at what they see as the latest incursion of Big
Brother. In New York City, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association called
the equipment “an encumbrance.” Privacy advocates worry that video of
police officers searching a suspect’s home could end up on the evening
news.
“The body camera issue opens up certainly more questions than it
answers,” Raymond W. Kelly, the commissioner of the New York Police
Department, said Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “The only place that this has been implemented are cities that are much, much smaller.”
Mr. Bratton acknowledged the difficulties that would be involved with
phasing in body cameras in a large police department like New York’s,
which employs about 35,000 uniformed officers.
At up to $900 per camera, the cost of phasing in officer cameras in
major cities promises to be immense. While he was police chief in Los
Angeles, from 2002 to 2009, Mr. Bratton pushed to have
cameras installed in squad cars, after a recommendation from the
federal monitor. But it took years, and $5 million, to outfit less than a
fifth of the department’s fleet with cameras.
Nonetheless, police officials from Oakland to Greensboro, N.C., all
cited the swift resolution of complaints against officers as one of the
primary benefits body cameras had offered. In some cases, citizens have
come to the police station to file a complaint and decided not to after
they were shown the video of the incident.
In other cases, though less frequently, officials said, accusations of
officer misconduct have been corroborated by video from body cameras.
“It’s definitely not cheap,” said Paul Figueroa, an assistant chief with
the Oakland Police Department. “But over the long term, just from a
liability and management perspective, it’s definitely an investment
that’s worth it.”
Thus far, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has
not received any complaints about police body cameras. And despite
privacy concerns, the organization supports increased used of the
technology.
“Cameras hold real promise for making it easier to resolve complaints
against police,” said Peter Bibring, a senior lawyer with the A.C.L.U.
of Southern California. “They do raise privacy concerns, but ones that
can be addressed by strong privacy policies.”
Mr. Bibring said that video should not be stored for prolonged periods,
except in cases of alleged misconduct, and at least some video, like
searches of private homes, should not be made available to the public.
Thus far, though, almost every department has handled officer cameras
differently. With about 450 cameras for 620 officers, the Oakland Police
Department is one of the largest agencies using them; it stores video
indefinitely.
Next month, the Police Executive Research Forum
will host a conference on officer body cameras, with the goal of
developing best practices for departments across the country.
Rialto’s experience offers other cities a lot to emulate.
During the yearlong study, half of the city’s patrol officers were
randomly assigned to wear body cameras each week, and instructed to turn
them on whenever they made contact with a civilian.
Officers used force 25 times, down from 61 over the previous 12 months.
And those wearing cameras accounted for 8 of those incidents.
Sergeant Hice said he has come to view the camera as a kind of
protection. The video would show the two teenagers running through the
field matching the description he was given, he said, and that he did
not use excessive force while detaining them.
“It captures what’s really occurring in real time,” he said. If the
suspects later “think of a good story, with bits of detail thrown in to
enhance a false story,” he added, “we can dispel it.”
A
car hit a brick wall and a tree off Cactus Avenue in Rialto early
Thursday, Aug. 15, killing two adults and critically injuring two
children in what police described as a road-rage crash. (JOHN
ASBURY/STAFF PHOTO)
A man and woman were killed and two children in their backseat were
critically injured early Thursday, Aug. 15, when the woman slammed into a
tree just after causing another road-rage crash, Rialto police said.
Witnesses told police the road rage incident began about 12:15 a.m.
on Highway 210 and Cactus Avenue with the suspect in a 1999 Honda was
driving recklessly and aggressively toward another driver, said Rialto
police Capt. Randy De Anda.
The driver of the Honda, later identified as Yvette Pulido, 31, of
Fontana, collided with the other car near the Metrolink tracks on
Cactus Avenue, then sped away, De Anda said. No one was injured. Police
considered that crash an assault with a deadly weapon, De Anda said.
About three or four blocks away, police believe Pulido’s car lost control and hit a tree and a brick wall.
Rialto firefighters found Pulido and her front passenger, Martin
Serrano, 32, of Bloomington, dead at the scene of the 12:20 a.m. crash.
CRIME BLOTTER: Two killed, two children injured in Rialto road rage crash
Firefighters had to use the jaws of life to cut the roof and door off
the car, then remove the front seats to free the two boys, ages 6 and
1, Rialto Firefighter-Paramedic Matt Payne said.
The baby was found in a car seat, Payne said.
The 6-year-old broke both legs and the baby suffered multiple
lacerations. They were taken to Loma Linda University Children’s
Hospital in serious condition.
Rialto police have not determined what sparked the road rage or
whether Pulido was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, De Anda
said.
The victims of the first road rage crash are not suspected of any wrongdoing, he said.
By Thursday morning, the brick wall had been boarded up, but remnants
of the crash remained. Skid marks in the street showed where the car
veered off the street and over a sidewalk.
Remnants of the car remained, including a perfume bottle, baby wipes
and an emergency “do not resuscitate” pamphlet for a relative.
Serrano’s relatives said at a Bloomington apartment that they were too distraught to comment.
Serrano pleaded guilty to spousal abuse in 2009. He pleaded guilty in
2010 to conspiracy to commit a crime in exchange for a gang charge to
be dismissed, according to court records.
Pulido was cited four times since 2001, and as recently as 2011, for failure to properly restrain children in the car.
Prosecutors on Thursday cleared three Rialto police officers in the February 2012 shooting of a 24-year-old Rialto man.
The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office said Officers Glen Anderson, Mike Martinez and Javier Pulido were justified when they opened fire on Huston Leron Parker because he pointed what they suspected was a gun at them.
Parker was actually armed with a replica gun. He survived the shooting.
Police came to a cul-de-sac in the 100 block of East Jackson Street on Feb. 8 after receiving a call about a man holding a gun and shooting at a car.
Officers later discovered that Parker called the police and armed himself with the replica gun. They found a note in his car with statements that indicated he wanted to commit "suicide by cop," prosecutors said in their report. Reach Melissavia emailor call her at 909-386-3878. Get the latest crime and public safety news on Twitter@IECrime.
The San Bernardino County district attorney’s office said Thursday, March 14, that separate shootings by police officers in 2011 were justified.
On June 2, 2011, Rialto police Officer Glen Anderson fatally shot Anastacio Verduzco Jr., 47, of Rialto.
“Under the facts, circumstances and the applicable law, Officer Anderson was justified in using deadly force to protect himself and others,” the DA’s office said in a news release.
On Dec. 1, 2011, Sheriff’s narcotics officer Kevin Warner shot a dog, and in the process, Lena Winn, 29, of Lucerne Valley. The DA’s office ruled that the dog was attacking Warner, and that Winn’s injury was “collateral and unintentional.”
Follow Brian Rokos on Twitter: @Brian_Rokos and online at blog.pe.com/crime-blotter/
RIALTO: Rodney King drowns in own pool; autopsy report pending
TERRY PIERSON/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Rialto Police Detective Carla McCullough, left watches as technician Noretta Barker photographs evidence by the pool in Rialto where Rodney King was found dead, Sunday, June 17, 2012.
Rodney King, whose videotaped beating at the hands of Los Angeles police officers set in motion events that would lead to the deadly Los Angeles riots of 1992, died after an apparent drowning in the backyard swimming pool of his Rialto home. He was 47.
The encounter with LAPD officers in 1991 brought King his unwanted fame. And it was law enforcement officers who provided the coda to his life early Sunday, June 17, when they jumped into the pool wearing their uniforms and equipment in an effort to save him.
An autopsy was scheduled for Monday morning June 18, said San Bernardino County Sheriff's spokeswoman Jodi Miller. She said toxicology tests were also being performed.
The results will take weeks to return, she said. The county coroner releases autopsy and toxicology results at the same time, she said.
Rialto police Capt. Randy De Anda said in a Sunday June 17 afternoon news conference that it was not unusual for King to go swimming at any hour, including the early morning.
He said Kelley, whom he described as "not a strong swimmer," tried to pull King out, and called 911 when she could not.
Responding officers jumped in and retrieved King. They tried to give him cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Rialto Fire Department paramedics also treated King at the scene. He was taken to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton, and pronounced dead at 6:11 a.m.
"Last night I heard a commotion," said neighbor Bob Carlberg, 53, who lives two doors away. "It really wasn't like a fight-fight-fight, but it was like yelling back and forth," he said. "He had a little party yesterday."
"He had something going on all night … the neighbors that live behind him were kind of yelling over to be quiet … the people who actually live next door to him said it was really loud," Carlberg said.
Carlberg said the disturbances were uncharacteristic of King, who lived on East Jackson Street, which is lined with single-story ranch-style and tract homes with well-trimmed lawns and shade trees. "He really kept to himself. The last couple of weeks he had more people over because he was planning his marriage. That's only my theory."
A neighbor of King said that around 3 a.m. she heard music and people talking next door and what sounded like someone who was very emotional.
"It seemed like someone was really crying, like really deep emotions," said Sandra Gardea, 31, a dental hygienist instructor who recently moved in. "And it just got louder and louder. Everybody woke up. Even the kids woke up."
She described the sound as "like moaning, like in pain. Like tired or sad, you know?"
Gardea said this went on for some time and then stopped.
"I heard someone say, 'OK, Please stop. Go inside the house.' … We heard quiet for a few minutes. Then after that we heard a splash in the back. And that's when a few minutes later we see the cops arrive and everyone arrive and we see him being taken in a gurney."
"You didn't see parties here or a lot of people. He was very withdrawn, and (kept) to himself," said neighbor Tondalaya Baker, 55, who lives around the corner from King's home. She said she most often saw him when he was working on his lawn or the front of his home.
He said he did not know the content of the conversation. "At this time I do not know what Mr. King's toxicology was, or if he was intoxicated, or whether he was under the influence of any substances." He said detectives would try to determine what was going on at the moment King fell into the pool.
On Sunday afternoon, evidence was being carted away from King's home, including what looked like a marijuana plant. King had said in interviews last year that he had a doctor's recommendation to use medical marijuana. Medical marijuana users are permitted some legal cultivation.
De Anda said a coroner's investigation will include an autopsy and a toxicology report. He said there were no signs of drugs or alcohol near the pool when officers arrived, and that detectives had interviewed Kelley as a routine matter. Kelley had been one of the jurors who awarded King $3.8 million in his lawsuit against Los Angeles over the beating. King said recently he had spent most of the money.
Neighbors described King as friendly and willing to talk about anything except what happened in Los Angeles two decades ago. "The best neighbor in the neighborhood," said Baker, who said she spoke to him frequently.
Asked if King ever discussed his past, Baker said, "he never wanted to talk about that. He really just stayed to himself … he was extremely private." She said he often kept his drapes drawn at the home.
Carlberg said he liked to talk about cars with King.
"He was a pretty nice guy. Seemed like a real nice guy, I had no problems," Carlberg said.
Carlberg described the neighborhood "real quiet, peaceful, friendly. Everybody gets along. Everybody talks to everybody."
Two decades ago, King uttered five words that captured the sentiment of millions of Americans horrified by the scenes of death and destruction in the Los Angeles riots.
"I just want to say, you know, 'Can we all get along?'," King said in a quavering voice after rioters ravaged Southern California neighborhoods.
King was pulled over by LAPD officers in 1991 for speeding. He was drunk but unarmed. Officers responded to King's lack of cooperation by beating him with batons and kicking him repeatedly.
The beating was video-taped by a bystander, which elevated the case to international headlines.
Four of the officers, all white, went to trial. Their acquittal sparked the infamous Southern California riots on April 29, 1992. At least 53 people were killed, more than 2,000 were injured and more than $1 billion in property was damaged or destroyed.
King reflected in an interview with The Press-Enterprise in early April on how his lawyers handed him a four-page statement to read at a news conference. It was 1992, two days after the beginning of the disturbances that began when four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of beating him.
But instead of reading the statement, King improvised.
"I spoke from my heart, you know," King said. "I felt there was a need to say something from the heart."
King moved to Inland Southern California from Los Angeles County in 1999 to escape some of the continued attention.
"At the time, I felt a little too much heat," he said. "The smoke hadn't cleared in Los Angeles for me. I thought it would be more comfortable for me to be in the IE."
Recently, King said he supported himself in part by doing handyman and construction work. He's also made money on reality-TV appearances, including "Celebrity Rehab."
The headlines that followed King during his 13 years in the Inland area generally had not been complimentary. He wasn arrested several times, including for driving under the influence and domestic violence.
In the latest case, he pleaded guilty in February to reckless driving after he was pulled over in Moreno Valley.
King acknowledged his mistakes. He wrote about them in his book, "The Riot Within," which was released in April.
He said his days of drinking heavily were over — although he said he hadn't quit alcohol entirely.
"I sip now," said King, whose father was an alcoholic. "I'm not guzzling drinks anymore. No one knows the future, but I sure feel comfortable where I am today with myself."
Staff writer David Olson, dolson@pe.com, and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Leave Comment
Having problems seeing comments?
Guidelines: We welcome your thoughts, but for the sake of all readers, please refrain from the use of obscenities, personal attacks or racial slurs. All comments are subject to our terms of service and may be removed. Repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges.
On the night of September 13, 2005, the Rialto City Council approved by a 4 to 1 vote a contract for police services to be taken over by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. This was done with the minimum 24 hours notice required to hold a Special Council meeting. The next day, Sheriff's personnel were taking inventory of equipment and moving quickly to take over operations. To many, including those within the Rialto Police Department, it was a "done deal" and there was nothing left to do but work on a smooth transition. Fortunately, a handful of officers, supported by the vast majority of the membership of the Police Association, decided to put up a fight. The Association President, Andrew Pilcher, was an officer in Compton when the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department took over that city and felt that his Association (in Compton) did not strongly enough oppose that takeover. He was not willing to see the same thing occur under his watch.
Rialto POA's attorneys, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill, took swift action to lay the groundwork for what would be a six-month legal and political battle over the survival of the Department. A Temporary Restraining Order was sought and obtained in San Bernardino County Superior Court, immediately putting a halt to the Sheriff's takeover. Fortunately for the RPOA, the City Attorney, Robert Owen, gave bad advice to the City in regard to its obligation to meet and confer over contracting out police services. Superior Court Judge Bob Krug agreed with Rialto POA's position that the issue was subject to the meet and confer requirements. Accordingly, a Preliminary Injunction and later a Permanent Injunction was issued instructing the City to not implement a Sheriff takeover until it had fully complied with its meet and confer obligations. Given the meet and confer requirements, which included Court ordered meet and confer sessions, an impasse fact finding procedure, as well as, potential binding interest arbitration, this was a significant delay for the City to implement its plan.
The legal battles were highly publicized in the local media. Although delayed, the talk of Rialto focused on how much longer the Police Department could survive. First the Temporary Restraining Order was granted giving a few weeks, then a Preliminary Injunction was granted allowing two more months and finally a Permanent Injunction was obtained requiring the City to go through the lengthy meet and confer procedures before a takeover could commence. The City's petitions to the Court of Appeal and even the California Supreme Court were summarily rejected and the City was left with little choice but to go through the meet and confer and subsequent procedures required by law.
The City went through the meet and confer process, maintaining its position that a Sheriff's takeover was unstoppable. City Council members in the local newspapers remained adamant in their positions that the police department would be disbanded. At first, the reason given was that it would save money. When it was clearly shown that it would not be a money saver based on the amount of personnel, the City then claimed that the crime rate had increased and that the Sheriff's Department could do a better job. When the facts were shown that the crime rates had in fact decreased, the City was shown to have been doing nothing more than union busting in its effort to get rid of the Rialto Police Officers Association. The City Administrator had also complained that too many lawsuits had been filed by Rialto Police Officers against the City in his written reasons for contracting out the Sheriff's Department. With that admission, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill also filed a retaliation lawsuit in Federal District Court against the City alleging the disbanding of the police department was in retaliation against officers protecting their rights and filing litigation.
While the legal battles were continuing, the RPOA geared up on the political front. RPOA PAC Chairman Glen Anderson gathered up community support for the cause and designed political strategy with political consultant Jim Freeman and this author to apply political pressure to the City Council. Anderson and Freeman even made a trip to Sacramento to garner support of state legislators who then contacted City Council members over what was clearly painted to be union busting.
Also taking place during the legal and political fight, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill drafted a ballot initiative to place the issue on the next ballot of whether the Council should have sole authority to contract out police services without voter approval. Rialto's citizens assisted in gathering signatures for the initiative and it was submitted to the City Clerk. Unfortunately, the City Clerk supported the City Council's effort and did everything in her power to frustrate the ballot initiative. She deemed invalid most of the signatures on the ballot initiative and claimed it could not proceed. Lackie, Dammeier & McGill filed for injunctive relief in the Superior Court to compel the City Clerk to validate the signatures. Days before the hearing in Court on the issue, the City Clerk relented, but only after receiving a letter from the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office explaining that her reasons for invalidating the signatures were unlawful.
Recall petitions of two city council members were drafted and served. Here too, the City Clerk attempted to stall or otherwise interfere with the recall process, at one point refusing to certify the recall petition for signature gathering. Again, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill sought injunctive relief in the San Bernardino Superior Court and days before the hearing, the City Clerk relented and certified the recall petitions for signature gathering.
Another tactic used by the Police Association was very frustrating to the City. The City in 2003, with the assistance of the RPOA, passed a utility user's tax which passed by only five votes of the residents. Since the public was sold on the idea that the tax would be for public safety, and given the City's pursuit of disbanding the police department, the RPOA felt the citizens should not have to continue paying this tax. Accordingly, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill drafted a ballot initiative repealing the utility user's tax should the police department be disbanded. Since this tax amounted to over 25% of the City's general fund, this elimination, which would have easily been approved by the voters, would have been financially devastating to the City.
Finally, on March 21, 2006, in the midst of seven lawsuits filed against the City, two recall petitions, a referendum and two ballot initiatives, as well as the public outcry, the City Council finally relented and reversed its position. The City negotiated a new two-year MOU with the Police Association calling for salary increases between 5% and 15% (depending on rank). The MOU also calls for the Police Association to have positions on the selection committee for the next police chief. As part of the global agreement, the RPOA agreed to dismiss the litigation cases in exchange for the City paying all of the Association's legal expenses it had incurred in fighting to maintain the Department, totaling $118,000.
The RPOA should be proud of its success in this case. This is the first case in California in which a contract was entered (approved by City Council) into for police services to be contracted out and the Association was able to reverse the tide and come out triumphant. They could not have done it without the support of fellow police associations from throughout the state and PORAC who rallied behind Rialto POA in its time of need.
