Second of two parts
(See “POA President Has an Answer for Fewer Complaints in the Pedersen Era”)
Re “In Defense of the Police Chief”
I also take issue with Mr. Ewell’s statement in the article that seems to infer that once again pro-active policing and ethical, professional policing are some form of an oxymoron. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Ewell seems to suggest, without any foundation, that our policing in the past needs review, and he makes reference to constitutional law, another commonly used attack on any effective law enforcement agency. I doubt his extensive, detailed temporary assignment of 120 days gave him this broad insight to our Police Dept. and our profession.
I would like to emphasize, emphatically, that our officers are extremely knowledgeable in the law, case law, search-and-seizure, parole and probation searches, probable cause and reasonable suspicion, vehicle code violations and other tools patrol officers use to conduct effective, pro-active policing and routine contacts.
Because of the size of our department and the mandatory rotation of assignments, unlike many other departments that thrive on specialists, it is not uncommon for a patrol officer in Culver City to also have experience from having previously been a detective, writing search warrants and investigating crimes, have conducted surveillance operations and also handled informants in narcotics investigations. With this broad background I would absolutely put the legal knowledge of the average Culver City police officer above many of the officers of any municipality in Los Angeles County law enforcement.
Suffice it to say, I think Mr. Ewell is sadly mistaken if he believes that he is as knowledgeable in this area as the men and women who are trained professionals on this Police Dept.
Mr. Ewell’s statements show that he is misinformed, they are insulting, and they demonstrate his predisposed opinion of our Police Dept. I have been a police officer for 12 years and have served as a Patrol Officer, a Detective in the Crime Impact Team and as a Field Training Officer, training almost a dozen officers who still work at this Police Dept. I would state proudly that I have always been viewed as a pro-active officer in addressing crimes in the community. Have I received complaints from irate suspects or citizens that have disagreed with my contacts or dispositions? Of course I have. Every police officer periodically gets these, especially if they are engaged in pro-active policing.
But because I practice Culver City’s combination of pro-active policing with ethical, professional policing, because of the manner in which I deal with the public and even the criminal community – something I have trained other officers to practice – they are infrequent in proportion to a vast amount of contacts. During the last time the lieutenant in charge of the Records Division brought my file to court for a routine, common examination regarding complaints in my package, covering a span of five years, do you know how many I had? Zero. Absolutely none.
The principles of pro-active policing are not an unknown concept. It is actually the true form and foundation of the “broken windows“ philosophy of community policing. Ironically, Chief Pedersen spoke about it several weeks after being hired as the Chief of Police in Culver City. In an interview with Glenn Esterly of the Culver City News, conducted several weeks after Don Pedersen became Chief of Culver City and while at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, Chief Pedersen described his career as the Chief of the Signal Hill Police Dept. by saying that “crooks knew there was sort of a moat around the city. They knew they shouldn’t come to Signal Hill to do crime.” Esterly wrote that Chief Pedersen stated Culver City has the same reputation, and that he aimed to keep it that way. Chief Pedersen proclaimed, “Be pro-active, be thorough, let’s get the job done.”
While at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, Chief Pedersen described to the members one recent night where patrol officers “made four very pro-active arrests involving robbery, auto theft, burglary and narcotics violations.” The Chief went on to say how proud he was of the officers. I can’t tell you how many police officers on our department read this today and find it sadly ironic in light of their experience of a pronounced lack of support while working under Chief Pedersen.
We are a fine city with great schools, businesses and public safety service, both police and fire. I agree that this is an excellent place to live and work. But make no mistake; we are a jurisdiction within greater Los Angeles County and subject to the metropolitan criminal influence like any other city. In our 5 square miles, we have violent crime, property crime, narcotics-related crime, gang-related crime and other law enforcement problems just like any other city in Los Angeles County. We are not exempt.
We routinely have more violent crime in the form of robberies than the cities of Glendale and Burbank; Glendale covering 30 square miles with a population of over 200,000 and Burbank covering 17 square miles with a population of over 100,000. Both cities also enjoy a similar reputation for quality of life that Culver City residents expect. These two cities have many more police officers to patrol, investigate and prosecute their crimes. In March of this year, we had the same number of robberies committed with a firearm as the city of Gardena, a high crime area with a significant gang problem. In the first 6 months of this year, we had approximately the same amount of robberies in Culver City as the ENTIRE jurisdiction of the Ventura County Sheriffs Dept., a large countywide law enforcement agency that includes 6 stations.
Over the years, we have had gang crime that resulted in the murder of Eric Baez on Kinston Avenue, the double homicide of the Bosch brothers in Culver West Park, the homicide of a gang member and Culver City resident at Washington Place and Wade Street, and multiple other serious assaults and crimes related to gang violence.
Every week when I go to work, I see two of my close friends, current officers, who have been shot in the line of duty. One officer was shot during a traffic stop of a parolee who in a prior incident shot at a Housing Authority police station; another officer was shot at the termination of a vehicle pursuit involving home invasion robbery suspects. The 2nd Vice President of this Board is the survivor of two separate armed confrontations with suspects endangering our community and armed with rifles. The list goes on and on.
Every officer on this police department can recount similar incidents in which they were directly involved. Among just the members of the CCPOA Board we can account for many critical incidents and serious crimes during our careers as Culver City police officers. Absent these major incidents, on a daily basis our city has crimes and patterns of crimes that have included robbery, burglary, assaults, grand theft auto, theft and others. Shift after shift, our officers contact and deal with parolees, gang members, narcotics users and predatory individuals that affect Culver City as a whole.
I mention these things not for their “shock value” but to educate and explain that true pro-active policing, with the support of the community and the leadership of the Police Dept., is necessary to effectively address these types of crimes and ensure that the citizens of Culver City receive the best “customer service” and protection that Mr. Ewell described. I also offer it as a response to the ignorant, condescending comments of Mr. Noonan, someone who has never been involved in law enforcement except from the safe comfort of an interested, philosophically slanted observer, regarding his past description that described Culver City as simply being “Disneyland” with “nothing to do.”
After the heart of this problem was made public and Mr. Ewell and Chief Pedersen could not dispute the numbers themselves, they performed an orchestrated management defense. Mr. Ewell continued to make baseless statements to attack the vote of no-confidence with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his claims, which were patently untrue.
During the vote, nobody had their names listed on the ballots as he contends. They merely signed a roster to prove they received a ballot, not unlike all registered voters have done while casting their ballots at their polling places. The balloting was secret to anyone and the CCPOA Board has protected all officers’ anonymity from the beginning. Despite his assertions, and although I wish he would, Mr. Ewell has not talked to any officer that I know of. I can tell you that the vast majority of the officers in our association find his opinions and recent statements highly offensive.
In a similar move and an attempt to insulate himself by avoiding the issue of a definitive vote of no-confidence, Chief Pedersen has sought the rubber stamp of organizations like his friends in the L.A. County Chiefs of Police Assn. and the executive management team of Culver City, both organizations that have about as much knowledge about today’s working conditions, morale and lack of support for the average Culver City police officer as some firefighter from Ventura County. I work as a police officer in Culver City on a daily basis; I don’t need the Cshief of Gardena and Alhambra to offer their unfounded opinions about what is going on here.
So how do we solve this? How do we take the actions necessary to implement and preserve the philosophy of community pro-active policing that Chief Pedersen merely describes in words in a speech? How do I answer Lamont Ewell’s question, which he posed in his statement, “I don’t know what the union’s vision of pro-active would mean.”
The practice in the past, and our commitment in the future is sound, ethical, and professional pro-active policing in partnership with the community we serve. It is our daily goal and not a mutually exclusive practice. It is the foundation of how our police officers were trained and the cornerstone from which this Police Dept. was built. Unfortunately, what City Manager Lamont Ewell and Chief Don Pedersen seem to miss is that there is one absolute requirement for the officers to achieve results and to implement this philosophy into action.
That is faith and trust in the leadership of our Police Dept. with the support of the community we serve. There is no other way to make it work. Period.
If you don’t have that, then the Police Dept. atrophies into the reactive organization that we unsuccessfully attempted to describe to Mr. Ewell. Unfortunately for citizens, there are many examples of these types of failed police departments across our nation. The people who really suffer are the community, the all-too-forgotten victims of crime and the officers themselves. They become part of an apathetic, broken and ineffective system that offers no real solution.
I still believe we have the support and faith of the Culver City community; sincerely grateful residents who have treated us so well over the years.
But we have lost the faith and trust in the leadership of our Police Dept. All efforts by the CCPOA have been exhausted in honest attempts that started long before the vote of no-confidence for Chief Pedersen. It won’t come back because Chief Pedersen once gave a flowery speech at a Chamber of Commerce meeting; one that promised a commitment to the principles of community pro-active policing without the actions and vision that support it. It won’t come back as City Manager Lamont Ewell uses one of his own self-described “red herrings” to cover up an ineffective term of leadership. It will only come with change in the leadership of the Culver City Police Dept.
Mr. Treanor may be contacted at CCPOA@culvercitypolice.com
Officer Adam Treanor
President
Culver City Police Officers Association
CCPOA@culvercitypolice.com
