Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

We live in a sometimes bleak and dark world.  Not every wrong can be righted and justice does not always prevail.  If he is telling the truth, then probably not many understand the reality of those statements as well as John Brumbaugh.  I say if he is telling the truth, because his is one of those stories that is almost too hard to believe.  By all accounts, John should have given up on his now 16 year quest summarized here years ago.  Surely he must realize it’s a losing cause – a wasted effort.  I’m sure some would say, and probably many have.  It’s time to pack it in.  Go home, move on.  It’s not worth it.  Yet, despite the impractical odds, notwithstanding numerous setbacks, and with only the slightest glimmer of hope, there was John Brumbaugh appearing before the Council last night to plead his case one more time.  Amazingly, he has not given up.

Given the above, John might be either a self-delusional borderline psychopath bent on creating havoc for perceived wrongs or a tragic victim that has shown incredible grit and perseverance in the face of injustice.  Many that know him well will testify it’s the latter.

In his carefully worded statement he laid out startling allegations asserting that the Council was “lied to by your police department,” and that the City had been “duped into wasting over ½ million dollars of the tax payers money defending an illegal, unethical, and out of policy investigation.”  He also questioned whether the Torrance Police Department has violated California Penal Code section 832.5 for failing to investigate his complaint.

His story is a complicated one with many twists and turns interwoven over the past 16 years, but the ultimate question he is posing before the Council is actually quite simple.  A background investigation conducted on his behalf by the Torrance Police Department (TPD) to evaluate his fitness for reinstatement to duty was either conducted in an unbiased manner in accordance with policy and procedure or it wasn’t.  It’s really that straightforward.

All John wants now, the only justice that he seeks, is that the background investigation be reviewed by an independent investigator with the findings presented to the Council.  John continues to be so confident in his position that he reiterated that he would reimburse the City all of the money they have spent litigating his case (~600K) if the independent investigation did not reveal blatant violations of POST [Police Officer Standards and Training] and investigative protocols that he believes it will.

Given those terms, as John stated in his address, “even if the TPD is not required to investigate the matter, why wouldn’t they?” If there was incompetence or wrongdoing wouldn’t the Council want to know?  At the very least, wouldn’t they want to know if the decision made by the previous Council not to reinstate him was based on inaccurate information?  If the fate of a veteran and former police officer was in your hands, wouldn’t you want to be confident that information made available to you upon which you relied to make your decision was not unduly filtered?

Call me a bleeding heart, but I tend to be slightly deferential toward someone like John who as a veteran and police officer has given many years of service to our country and our community.  I would like to find some way to give him the benefit of the doubt and provide him with the closure he seeks.  If cost is the deterrent, I wonder if maybe a qualified independent investigator could be located that is willing to conduct a pro bono cursory review of the case just to determine if there is enough validity to John’s claims to pursue a full investigation.

Maybe, just maybe John is telling the truth.  Isn’t it worth the relatively small amount of effort it would require by the Council to at least review the evidence he claims he has in support of his allegations?  What harm could there be in that?  The Council can’t right every wrong or find a just solution for every problem that comes before them.  That’s the reality.  But they could give John’s case a little more consideration and for his sake I hope they will.

The City Council is expected to formally approve this coming Tuesday a labor agreement with AFSCME and two smaller collective bargaining units representing library employees and crossing guards.  The agreement includes a $261,000 thousand payment for retroactive pay and a three month accelerated promotion on the back end of the deal at a cost of $185,000.  Former Mayor Scotto and Councilmember Sutherland criticized the agreement in a recent Daily Breeze article claiming it was an indicator that that the unions would be running the show in Torrance.

The payments in and of themselves are significant as the City is currently operating under a tight budget.  The much larger concern, however, is the precedent the payouts set for future labor negotiations.  These payouts represent something more than what other City Public Employee Unions received in recent agreements and those unions will almost certainly press for the same treatment in future negotiations.  Agreeing to the payouts essentially eliminates key leverage City officials have in labor negotiations.  Without the threat of delayed pay increases due to stalled labor negotiations, the unions can hold out on other contractual provisions until they get what they want.  This weakened negotiation position could force City officials to concede on contractual points that they might otherwise fight.

One of these lesser known contractual provisions included in the proposed agreement is called “Release time.”  This common provision in labor negotiated agreements is designed to allow employees paid time-off to participate in union activities such as meeting with management, holding negotiations, or attending union meetings and hearings on personnel matters.  The practice has been harshly criticized by some, including one legislator found here who claims that “receiving a taxpayer funded salary to be nothing more than a political operative for a union organization is inherently wrong.”   The co-author of Shadowbosses is quoted in the same article as stating that:

“Official [Release] time is a ruse for getting taxpayers to support union activities in the government workplace, including the lobbying of legislators for ever-more benefits. This effectively subsidizes unions so they can spend more dues income on political organizing. And it’s all done without taxpayers’ knowledge. It’s a shadowy practice that must be stopped.”

The proposed Torrance agreement takes the common “Release Time” provision a step further by allowing the Union President “paid release time of two days per week [Tuesday and Wednesday] to conduct Union activities.”  This paid release time is in addition to the release time typically afforded by the Clause.  The provision also allows the Union President to receive overtime pay for conducting City business during scheduled release time days.

This provision was included not only in the AFSCME agreement, but in that with the Torrance Library Employee Association (TLEA) as well, which represents 88 City library employees.  City officials have provided no details as to what union activities would require the TLEA Union President’s attention for a minimum of 16 hours per week.

Increased union strength under the new Council should not be unexpected to Torrance Residents.  Mayor Furey, and the rest of the recently elected Council (Councilmembers Ashcraft, Weideman, Goodrich, and Rizzo), relied heavily on Union support to win the election.  Councilmember Goodrich is currently employed by the California Association of Public Employees (CAPE) and Mayor Furey and Councilmember Rizzo are drawing pensions as former public employees.  Rizzo retired from the Torrance Police Officer Association.  His estimated pension is listed publically here at an amount of nearly $167,000 per year.

On only the second round of voting, Mike Griffiths received the requisite 4 votes from the sitting Council members to receive the coveted appointment.  Griffith’s received 3 votes in the first round with Councilmembers Barnett, Ashcraft, and Rizzo voting in his behalf.  Mayor Furey cast his vote for Ray Uchima, while Councilmember Goodrich opted for Alex See, and Councilmember Weideman selected Milton Herring.

Prior to voting, the Council heard from most of the candidates themselves as well as many members of the community.  At least 12 people rose to speak on behalf of Ray Uchima citing his 19 years of service to the community, ability to attract business to Torrance, as well as his ability to resolve challenging view obstruction disputes as a member of the Planning Commission.  Uchima stated that he planned on running in the past election, but withdrew to better care for his ailing father.

Several folks also spoke on behalf of Jimmy Gow noting his love for Torrance, the city of his Birth, and his dedicated involvement with community matters.  A letter from Betsy Butler recommending him was also read by one supporter.  For his part, Jimmy Gow expressed how the death of his father had motivated him to seek the appointment as you can’t wait to live your dreams.

One resident received a hearty applause throughout the room when he confessed that he did not vote for Leilani Kimmel-Dagastino in the past election, but felt that the Council should honor the will of the people by selecting her for the position as she was the highest finishing non-elected candidate in the past election.

Others suggested Sue Herbers as they felt that were an election to be held today for the vacancy that almost certainly she would win based on her many years of service to the City as City Clerk.

In the end, however, the consensus on the Council was for a man that did not speak publicly on his behalf at the meeting nor had any supporters do so.  That’s not to say he doesn’t have strong support from the community as many in attendance seemed pleased with the decision and eager to welcome the only non-party affiliated member of the Council.