[Editor’s Note: See earlier story, “Ex-Cop Slams Police Dept. ‘Abuse’ Under Cooke and All of His Successors,” March 12.]
Seeking to tamp down a potentially radioactive case that threatens to rattle the foundations of the Police Dept., City Atty. Carol Schwab has informed recently retired Police Lt. Greg Smith that she was rejecting his $250,000 claim for damages regarding overtime pay from six years ago.
In a succinct notification dated last week, Ms. Schwab ruled that Mr. Smith had failed to satisfy the six-month window allowed by law to file such a claim.
Sending off a steaming response to City Hall after taking the City Attorney’s advice —to file a so-called “late claim” — the furious Mr. Smith told the newspaper he was perplexed “but I am not surprised” by Ms. Schwab’s verdict.
Payback Time
He believes it is “yet another” illustration of City Hall retaliating against him for blowing a whistle on alleged abuses within the Police Dept.
The case is noteworthy, and it is being closely followed in a number of city offices.
Mr. Smith, regarded as the main watchdog of a police department he says is routinely corrupt, encased numerous charges against specific individuals within his claim.
His spectacular accusations cover alleged misbehavior of supervisors throughout the department plus the retired longtime Police Chief Ted Cooke and three of his successors down to the present day.
Ever suspicious in his years’ long prickly dealings with City Hall, Mr. Smith suggested Ms. Schwab denied his bid for reasons having more to do with skullduggery than integrity.
Alternative Strategy
In her missive to the 31-year Police Dept. veteran, Ms. Schwab told Mr. Smith his “only recourse” “is to apply without delay to the City Clerk of Culver City for leave to present a late claim.”
By transferring his case to a different legal track, Mr. Smith said, the entire atmosphere of the action is overthrown. His claim now has been taken out of a public venue, any public inspection. Hereafter, it only can be discussed in privacy by city officials.
“What the rejection really means is, the city does not have to address or investigate any issues brought forward in the claim,” he said.
“Secondly, this forces the claimant to file a lawsuit against the city in order to have a court of law address the claim. This means all of the issues brought forward by the claim are hidden from the citizens of Culver City.
Making a Difference
“From this point on, the only people who will know what the issues are, and how they are being addressed, are the City Attorney, contract attorneys hired by the city and the City Council. All of this will be behind closed doors, in closed sessions of the City Council.
“The only information the citizens of Culver City will hear is. ‘No comment because of pending litigation.’”
There is nothing complicated about his claim, according to the former officer.
Assembling a Case
“My claim is for time off that was promised to me by my department head for extraordinary overtime worked at the L.A. Impact task force,” Mr. Smith said.
“When I requested this time off, I was denied the time because I had reported abuse within the Police Dept. to city management.
“Millions of dollars in this type of overtime has been granted to other management personnel over the past years. If these department heads are not allowed to grant this type of compensation, then that would be misuse of public funds.
“I am not aware of any time statute in the state of California for bringing charges of misuse of public funds.
“If the department heads are authorized to grant this time off, then I should be compensated for the time I was promised.”
He Says He Started Early
Mr. Smith declared he had filed his claim at the earliest possible date, in 2002, after unspecified Police Dept. supervisors denied him compensation for his work at L.A. Impact, a task force law enforcement agencies contract with.
Ever since, Mr. Smith said, he has been avidly pursuing relief through every avenue available at City Hall.
It is not as if Mr. Smith’s claim, filed on March 10 and rejected on April 1, came as a surprise to Ms. Schwab. The opposing parties have danced this dance numerous times in the past six years.
