The police union selected this morning, the next-to-last day of Culver City Chief Don Pedersen’s mid-summer vacation, to make it public and official that they want him to go away permanently.
They issued a nearly 1100-word press release on their website that confirmed weeks of reporting by this newspaper that the 89-member union was staging a well-organized uprising against the chief who has been in office four years.
Sgt. Brian Fitzpatrick, a union officer, told the newspaper this morning that the timing was “completely coincidental.”
However, the timing has the effect of insuring that only a single voice will be heard — the union’s.
With Mr. Pedersen unavailable, the Interim City Manager Lamont Ewell unavailable, and other city officials unwilling to comment, the accusations against Mr. Pedersen — spelled out in a nearby story — the union’s message will circulate without fear of dilution.
Who will make the next move?
“Our strategy,” said Mr. Fitzpatrick, “is totally predicated on what the chief decides to do and what the City Council decides to do.”
Mr. Pedersen turns 50 years old next month, and will reportedly max out his pension. Police Dept. sources said many unhappy officers are hoping he will take the hint and retire swiftly.
Reports have appeared for weeks in this newspaper that the Police Officers Assn. was trying to drive out Mr. Pedersen, officially through a no-confidence vote, while other options also were being pondered.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said the POA — which voted 77 to 12, quietly and out of view, at the beginning of the month to pursue the ouster Mr. Pedersen — tried, unsuccessfully, to settle the dispute internally.
That, he explained, was the reason for the 20-day gap between the no=confidence vote and the final tally, which was not surprising.
Mr. Fitzpatrick is the first member of the POA to speak publicly on the months-long campaign against Mr. Pedersen.
Could he pinpoint the beginning of the POA’s disaffection for Mr. Pedersen?
“I can’t identify when it actually began, but there has been a gradual series of issues that have led to low morale among the rank-and-file,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said.
“I am sure dissatisfaction is an individual matter. He has been the chief for four years. The first year, he kept a pretty low profile. But I would say the dissatisfaction grew over the last two, three years. That is a very vague estimate.”
Mr. Fitzpatrick was asked what the POA’s next step will be?
Can the union force the hand of the City Council — Mr. Pedersen’s hire-and-fire party?
Three weeks ago, after a Closed Session, Mayor Chris Armenta delivered a succinct but seemingly leakproof, unequivocal endorsement of the chief and his vision for the department.
“It is not up to us what is next,” said Mr. Fitzpatrick. “As far as strategy for our union, that is entirely predicated on what happens with others, such as the City Council and the chief.
“I will say this: We did go to the City Council and ask them for help, individual Council members.”
What was the message POA leaders conveyed to the Councilmen?
“We talked to them in varying degrees of details about the issues that are in the press release as well as other issues I am not at liberty to talk about,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said.
This newspaper reported that picketing of Council members’ homes was an option under advisement. “We have no current plans, but I can’t rule it out,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said.
The 28-year veteran said the Police Dept.’s unrest with its leader “reached a point in December when the board of the union — because of so many questions from our membership — decided to conduct a survey of our membership. Our members are all of the officers and sergeants of the department.
“It was a written survey asking membership what they think the status of the department is. There were no ‘yes’ or ‘no’, not any ‘true’ or ‘false’ questions.
“That was the beginning,” Mr. Fitzpatrick said, “of what has culminated today.”
