Which Investigation?
City Hall’s investigatory response to the mass of corruption allegations has not been entirely unpredictable. When thefrontpageonline.com met separately this week with the two executives bearing chief responsibility for initiating a probe, their answers were difficult to match up. Prefacing his remarks with a brief explanation of his reasoning, Mr. Fulwood said that not long after he received the first letter, a second event occurred that prompted him to turn full responsibility over to Ms. Schwab, as the city attorney. That completely ended his role in matters, Mr. Fulwood said. Not one word about an investigation or its progress, he asserted, has passed between him and the city attorney since the initial meeting. Any discussion of the subject, he said, would have defeated his purpose for recusing himself. Moments later, after first asking, “which investigation? Which letter are you talking about because we get many?” Ms. Schwab said she needed to consult with Mr. Fulwood before saying more. She did not, however, return a call to the newspaper.
Discussing the Chief Executive’s Role
In his fourth year as chief executive and in the opening stages of a new three-year contract, Mr. Fulwood is as comfortable at the pinnacle of Culver City as if he were born for the chair.
Mr. Fulwood: I don’t know. I say that for three reasons. One is that when I first received the letter, I met with the (interim) Police Chief (Bill Burck, since retired). I met with Chief Burck to initiate actions, saving records and doing a number of things.
Question: What do you tell Mr. Burck?
Mr. Fulwood: I told him we had these accusations, and I wanted to make sure nothing is lost (because) that could create great problems. I would like to know more about this situation — have to bring in an investigator and so forth.
Question: Is that Mr. Burck’s responsibility or yours?
Mr. Fulwood: It depends. Basically, I am responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city. If something occurs within the city, it is my job to then insure that the proper processes are followed.
Question: Did you tell Mr. Burck to initiate an investigation?
Mr. Fulwood: No, I did not. What I said was, I asked about the situation — that I received information, historically speaking, about investigations that were done in the past in each of the related areas. I was able to see a number of things. With that, we also informed City Council of the accusatory letter, the history of it, and what happened years ago when the same complaints were filed. This was not the first time the complaints were filed.
Question: Regarding the earlier complaints, was there an investigation at the time by Mr. Cooke?
Mr. Fulwood: I have to look at the facts. I shared the facts I had as relayed to me (by Mr. Burck). Somewhere in that time period, the same (letter-writing) party filed a grievance against me. Once that happened, I turned everything over to the city attorney. I told the city attorney, “A grievance has been filed against me. Here is a copy.” “Council, here is a copy. I am stepping back, out of the whole process, at this point so no one can say I did anything, which wasn’t right or in retaliation. The grievance against me goes to Council. I will not attend their closed session meetings. I will not be involved any longer. Let Council evaluate the grievance against me. (I did not directly hand the information to the City Council. Proper protocol was for me to go to the city attorney, and she took it to the Council in closed session. I said to (the city attorney), I should not be involved. Whatever happens, happens.)
Question: That means you have withdrawn from any investigation relating to charges of corruption in the Police Dept.?
Mr. Fulwood: I have withdrawn myself from all aspects of any item related to the officer because it takes in Workmen’s Comp and a lot of other issues. Once that happened for me, I took a step back.
Question: On the grounds —
Mr. Fulwood: That he filed a grievance, which was broad-based, on a number of things. No matter how that grievance turned out — if it had turned out negative, and if I had then stayed involved, the officer could say, “This happened because Fulwood was involved. He had it in for me because of the grievance.” It was a no-win situation for me to be involved, and it’s not fair to him if he felt that way about me being involved. The city attorney’s office is now the lead entity. I have no idea where we are with this case because I choose not to be involved.
Question: You washed your hands of it?
Mr. Fulwood: No, I wouldn’t say that. I would say because of the grievance he filed against me, I believe that professionally, to insure he does not feel I have done something prejudicial, that is why I am not involved. I t isn’t that I have washed my hands of it. I am not involved with any of the issues associated with his cases.
Question: Have you heard from the letter-writer?
Mr. Fulwood: I don’t think I have heard directly from him.
Question: Has there been an adjudication of the grievance against you?
Mr. Fulwood: I believe… To be honest… I am going to suggest you talk to the city attorney on that one.
Question: Would protocol call for the city attorney to keep you apprised of the case’s progress?
Mr. Fulwood: I don’t want to be informed. I don’t need to be.
Question: But if the city is your responsibility —
Mr. Fulwood: Then, on a neutral basis, whatever process is being done, that will move forward. If I have knowledge of everything that is going on —
Question: Except that the investigation is a crucial component because he has made accusations about the Police Dept. Given the breadth of accusations, would that make it more compelling for you to be kept abreast of developments?
Mr. Fulwood: For what purpose? We have a city attorney who reports directly to City Council, who works with City Council, and has not been named in any grievance.
Question: I don’t understand not being informed of progress.
Mr. Fulwood: As long as there is a lead person, appointed by City Council, working with whomever, then the issue is actually being addressed. You have to remember that the City Council appoints me and the city attorney. It’s checks-and-balances. We both report to City Council. There are many issues in the city — rather than duplicating efforts, we deal with it. Bottom line, I do not see a need for me to be involved. If I kept involved, some people could perceive that as trying to manipulate or influence the system.
Postscript
Moments later on the third floor of City Hall, Ms. Schwab was encountered and was asked about the investigation. She responded with vagueness followed by a declination to acknowledge any aspect of a probe. Before continuing, she said she should huddle with Mr. Fulwood before commenting further. Ms. Schwab has not been heard from since.
