White-knuckled drama of the most intense kind will be cooked and baked to a simmer between early Monday evening in the bowels of City Hall and Tuesday morning at the American Legion in southern Culver City — with the status of Police Chief Don Pedersen in the balance.
Long restless leaders of the Police Officers Assn. have called for a no-confidence vote on Mr. Pedersen, who marked the fourth anniversary of a mostly quiet tenure last month.
News of the scheduled 9 a.m. POA vote set off a domino effect.
The first event to watch will be a quickly organized Closed Session, spotlighting Mr. Pedersen, just ahead of Monday night’s 7 o’clock City Council meeting.
Behind the dais in Council Chambers, the City Council, Interim City Manager Lamont Ewell, City Atty. Carol Schwab and Human Resources Director Serena Wright will be on one side of the table, Mr. Pedersen on the other.
Emphatically, this will not be an adversarial scene.
Rather, all are on the same team.
Labeled a job evaluation session, it will be a thoroughgoing airing of the so-far-unseen bill of particulars brought by the police union. The lengthy gripe list, percolating awhile but accelerated in the last half-year, includes the chief’s allegedly routine unavailability, his alleged invisibility around the department, his perceived long-distance style of leadership, his favoritism of certain groups of officers and personnel, and several explosive matters.
Honing in on a Potential Uprising
It is not clear whether the sometimes thundering unrest is the work of a small group of officers or whether it is wider spread. “That is what everybody wants to know,” said one officer, “but it is almost irrelevant because the core group has a lot of influence over younger members of the department. Agitation, you know, can be infectious, especially among those who feel vulnerable.”
Rekindling a familiar chorus that has been cranked up a number of times since the legendary Chief Ted Cooke retired seven years ago, several officers agreed that at least some leaders of the POA “yearn for a return to the Cooke era.”
It first bobbed up when Cooke protégé John Montanio held the office for a very brief year and a half. The refrain never has gone away. A cop known for his sardonic humor stiffened when the Cooke era was mentioned. “That time is gone, and it will not come back,” he said.
“I would like to ask people this question: Is the culture of the department and the city better today than it was 10 years ago.”
Oxymoronically speaking, a recycling of Mr. Cooke’s three decades in power would bring back a peculiar blend of good, ol’ boys’ chumminess and iron-fisted rule, plus regular charges of high-octane favoritism. A story that has made the rounds for years concerns the chief’s card-playing crony who got into deep trouble for defeating Mr. Cooke at their favorite game. For many of Mr. Cooke’s 28 years on Duquesne, he was the ultimate authority in Culver City, unchallengeable, at least by the smart people.
Pedersen and Changes
During 49 months in the chief’s chair, no one ever has accused the much lower-key, easier-going Mr. Pedersen of resembling Mr. Cooke in any way except that they wore the same color of uniforms.
Defenders of Mr. Pedersen, who may have been outshouted up to here but are not necessarily outnumbered, say that the squeaky-clean image he brought to Culver City remains intact, a departure from the past, according to critics of Mr. Cooke.
“The department has undergone major transformations in the last several years, and that is to Pedersen’s credit,” said an upper-rank cop. “Look at the technological advances he has introduced, a transparency that is new, a sense of evenhanded accountability, and accessibility. But, people naturally are resistant to change.”
Mr. Pedersen was not available for comment.
But a veteran who insisted he is neutral on the flareup told the newspaper, “Even if you reached him, I am sure he would not respond to the allegations. If he did, he would probably be accused of interfering with union activities.”
The lottery question is:
Where would a successful no-confidence vote lead the POA?
The safest answer, days before the vote, seems to be roughly nowhere, relatively speaking.
The most obvious motivation of the projected uprising is to make Mr. Pedersen’s job conditions intolerably unpleasant. Ringleaders appear to realize that the chief’s ouster would be almost impossible to accomplish, at least directly. Inside uprisings, however, offer more than one path to a rebellious group’s objective, as many former bosses will attest.
Between civil service regulations and the ultimate arbiter, the City Council, Chief Pedersen’s job seems secure, virtually guaranteed. Although politics is an inexact science and this edition of the City Council has not been tested, all five are believed to be reliable supporters, with one, but only one, possible exception.
(To be continued)
