Re “Ewell Rebukes the Police Union”
Despite Interim City Manager Lamont Ewell’s spirited defense of Police Chief Don Pedersen, the paramount issue is that 86.5 percent (77 officers and sergeants) of the Police Officers Assn. (POA) voted no confidence in Pederson’s leadership. Only 10 union members voted to support the chief while two abstained. Notwithstanding Ewell’s (and Pedersen’s) attempts to marginalize the POA’s concerns, the defining issue is that the vast majority of rank-and-file police personnel seriously question Chief Pedersen’s integrity, accountability, leadership, and commitment to the organization. Chief Pedersen cannot effectively manage the police department under these circumstances, which are compounded by extremely low morale under his watch. Many POA members believe that Pedersen’s failures as chief will negatively affect their ability to serve the community they are sworn to protect.
While pondering his next move, Chief Pedersen would be wise to follow the advice of a senior member of his own command staff. In a recent strategy meeting dedicated to dealing with the vote-of-no-confidence, this command level officer reportedly told the chief, “It’s not about one individual, it’s about the organization.”
As elected POA representatives, my fellow board members and I met twice with Mr. Ewell to discuss our concerns, even though Chief Pedersen reports directly to the City Council and not to Ewell. Some Council members requested Ewell’s involvement because they valued his experience with personnel matters. Although Mr. Ewell was certainly gracious, and treated us professionally, I am not impressed, as is local news blogger Ari L. Noonan, by what Noonan describes as Ewell’s “wide-ranging research” and “detective work.” Contrary to that notion, I believe that Mr. Ewell decided early on to become an advocate for Chief Pedersen, even after we demonstrated that Pedersen lied to him about a specific issue they had discussed.
My fellow POA board members and I also believe that Mr. Ewell withheld information from the City Council when he briefed them prior to their closed session with Chief Pedersen. This belief is grounded in our subsequent interviews with City Council members who expressed surprise by some of the issues we mentioned, and told us they had not previously been told that information. Irrespective of his advocacy of Chief Pedersen, Mr. Ewell emphatically told us that his main priority during his short tenure was the passage and implementation of the city’s proposed sweeping budget cuts. It may not be coincidental then that Chief Pedersen voluntarily cut the department’s budget beyond the City Council’s requirement.
Mr. Ewell’s attempts to diminish the POA’s concerns about Chief Pedersen – through his characterization that the charges fail to “rise above the pedestrian level” – demonstrates Ewell’s lack of understanding of police procedures, department culture, rules of accountability and laws of evidence. For example, the fact that Chief Pedersen either damaged or discovered fresh damage to his city vehicle is not in and of itself a major concern. It is a significant policy violation, however, that he failed to properly report it, and then had it secretly repaired at a private facility, and not through department channels. Under similar circumstances, any other department member would be severely disciplined, up to and possibly including termination. Chief Pedersen professes accountability and transparency as a hallmark of his administration, and has accordingly meted out discipline for the slightest of infractions. Rank-and-file personnel cannot respect him for refusing to follow his own rules of accountability.
With respect to Mr. Ewell’s dismissal of Chief Pedersen’s alleged interference with a criminal investigation, I will state that in 28 years with the Culver City Police Dept., which included several investigative assignments, I have never before heard of a police chief checking property out of an evidence room. It’s just not a chief’s job, regardless how close he lives to where the evidence is stored. And then why would he do so without telling the Culver City detective assigned to investigate the case? It’s true that the Redondo Beach Police Dept. did not need the Culver City police radio, because it represented evidence of a crime that happened in Culver City, not in Redondo Beach where it was recovered. The defendant, the son of Councilman Albert Vera, who, coincidentally, gave Chief Pedersen his job, had allegedly burglarized the home of Councilwoman Carol Gross, to whom the radio was issued. To date, the Councilman’s son has never been charged with a burglary or theft from Ms. Gross’ home in Culver City. It does not matter to whom Chief Pedersen returned the stolen radio. The fact is that, unless he signed the radio back into evidence at CCPD, which he did not do, then he broke the chain-of-custody of evidence, thereby invalidating the recovered radio as admissible evidence in any future criminal prosecution.
Aside from Mr. Ewell’s rush to judgment in support of Chief Pedersen and his shoddy investigation aimed at exonerating him, Ewell has also brought several red herrings to the table, with which he has tried to divert attention away from the central issue, that 86.5 percent of the Police Officers Assn.’s membership voted no-confidence in the chief. These diversionary tactics include attempts to discredit the voting process by characterizing the vote, according to Noonan, as “inappropriate.” Ewell also told the blogger that he was “suspicious about the creative manner in which the Culver City Police Officers Assn. obtained a 77 to 12 [actually 77 to 10, with two abstaining] result.” The fact is, there was nothing inappropriate or creative about the voting procedure, which was conducted in accordance with POA bylaws concerning a secret ballot.
Ewell’s other red herring was to criticize the timing of the initial POA press release, which announced the vote-of-no-confidence. Blogger Noonan acted as Ewell’s willing accomplice, allotting four paragraphs of his article in support of a virtual conspiracy theory regarding the press release’s timing relative to Chief Pedersen’s vacation. Ewell told Noonan he was “…severely disappointed they [the POA] would do something like this when the chief is out on a well-deserved vacation.“
As I previously told Noonan, the timing was coincidental, but I’ll now add that it was also irrelevant. The fact is, Chief Pedersen is recurrently away from work for any manner of management seminar, chiefs meeting or conference. He frequently sends out department-wide emails advising when he’ll be away, but it didn’t seem like he did that before leaving on this vacation. Even when he is at work, he seldom interacts with rank-and-file people, or even leaves his office, other than to slip out the back door to his car. As a courtesy, the POA board gave Chief Pedersen the vote-of-no-confidence results weeks before making them public. He has undoubtedly talked to other chiefs, or his personal attorney (paid by the city) about strategies to survive a vote-of-no-confidence.
In sum Mr. Ewell, the majority of the Police Dept. has no confidence in Chief Pedersen’s ability as a leader. Despite your efforts to protect your fellow administrator, Chief Petersen is unable to do his job as police chief or protect the citizens and business people of Culver City. Chief Pedersen has to go.
Sergeant Brian Fitzpatrick
Second Vice President
Culver City Police Officers Assn.
CCPOA@culvercitypolice.com
