Re “Ewell Rebukes the Police Union”
My name is Charles Koffman, and I am a Police Officer for the city of Culver City as well as the 1st Vice President of the Culver City Police Officers Assn. (CCPOA). I read your recent article in which you interviewed our soon-to-be former City Manager Lamont Ewell about the allegations involving the Chief Don Pedersen, and I felt strongly compelled to respond.
Your article stated, “Throughout the four months of his temporary assignment in Culver City, Mr. Ewell has devoted a remarkable amount of time to exhaustively researching each of the charges against the chief, interviewing numerous parties, confronting the accusers and the accused while gaining a clear reading on the prevailing atmosphere” (emphasis and underline added).
Your article also stated, “Mr. Ewell’s wide-ranging research carried him into the far corners of a by now long-cold case involving the late City Councilman Albert Vera and his son, Albert Jr., known popularly as Junior. The case centered on a stolen police radio, and Mr. Ewell said he learned facts that contradicted the police union claims.”
I was the lead investigator in the case, which involved sending Albert Vera Jr. to prison before the case was given to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. I would ask Mr. Ewell who are the “numerous parties” (emphasis and underline added) he interviewed and in what manner he spoke to the “confronting accusers” (emphasis and underline added)? I wonder if Ewell spoke to any of the key witnesses at all and if so, did he speak to them about the allegations in their totality. I was present, along with another investigator who now works for another law enforcement agency, with two members of the command staff in a meeting with the chief regarding the radio issue and his response was, “Are we on or off the record?” If the chief had a simple explanation for his behavior as Mr. Ewell suggests, why would he ask the investigators present a question that obviously implies otherwise? How are we “off the record” in a felony investigation?
Mr. Ewell had approximately 3-4 weeks to investigate a long list of allegations and management issues given to him by the CCPOA Board prior to meeting with the Culver City Council the night they made their initial statement backing the chief. If Mr. Ewell conducted a thorough investigation, I think he would have taken the opportunity to interview key people who were directly involved in the allegations. He did not speak to me, nor are we aware of any attempt to speak to the former officer who now works with another agency, the L.A.S.D. Investigators, two CCPD Captains (one retired and one still active), etc. Mr. Ewell never spoke to me about the detailed facts surrounding the allegation that the chief attempted to interfere, including discouraging the service of a search warrant, with my investigation. Chief Pedersen attempted to interfere during important decisions that I, along with the other case investigator, attempted in furtherance of our lawful duties. I find it incredulous, in light of the circumstances, that I was never interviewed regarding this incident. The only time I spoke to Mr. Ewell was when we (the CCPOA Board) met with him for approximately 1 ½ hours, a short time to discuss the totality of our concerns regarding the Chief, a discussion that covered numerous topics including but not limited to the following:
1. A lack of support and decision-making by the chief.
2. The most abysmal morale any of us has seen in our history with the Culver City Police Dept.
3. Failing to report collision damage to his city vehicle, and in an attempt to hide the fact, the chief had the vehicle repaired at an out-of-city body shop. When city vehicles are damaged, they are taken to the city mechanical yard for repairs. This is a violation of department policy by failing to report the damage and also an attempt to cover up the incident with an “off the books repair.”
4. On several occasions the chief attempted to intimidate CCPOA members from participating in union activities, which might not be favorable to him.
5. Refusing to identify himself when asked if he was the Chief of Police at the service of a search warrant, another violation of department policy.
As to the allegation of intimidating CCPOA members from participating in union activities, to our knowledge the involved parties have never been interviewed. This included multiple inappropriate statements and, in one case, the chief having a discussion with a CCPOA board member, now a former board member, that equated union membership/activity as something that negatively affects promotion. This is a clear violation of law and the National Labor Relations Board, which caused our attorney to draft a cease-and-desist letter to Chief Pedersen, advising of possible legal action. Members of the CCPOA board have spoken directly to witness/accusers since Mr. Ewell’s so-called investigation. Those involved parties have confirmed that Mr. Ewell never contacted or interviewed them. Mr. Ewell also cast aspersions at the CCPOA, making unfounded insinuations that the board of directors influenced the vote of no-confidence. I challenge any member of Culver City government or the city manager to come to our briefings, come to our station, and ask the vast majority of police officers their opinions in any type of forum they choose, private or public. Mr. Ewell’s insinuation treats the men and women of this department as if they were children who could not form an opinion of their own and are easily persuaded to form an opinion by five members of the CCPOA board. This idea that Ewell asserts is a ridiculous claim that declares that we control 77 officers (the vast majority of the department) and is a defensive one in the face of the facts. When faced with an overwhelming vote that speaks for itself, it seems simpler to some people to attack the manner in which it was tabulated.
Another allegation lodged against Chief Pedersen is that he failed to identify himself at the scene of a search warrant when asked if he was the Chief (lying to an inquiring citizen), another violation of department policy and a poor example of leadership. I confirmed that the Culver City police officers who were present and witnessed the incident were not contacted or interviewed by Mr. Ewell. Many of our members asked, “Would Charles Beck, Chief of the Los Angeles Police Dept., while present at the scene, deny that he was the chief if asked by a citizen who had questions regarding a law enforcement action like a search warrant? I believe we all know the answer to that question, NO! If this is Mr. Ewell’s idea of a thorough and exhaustive investigation in attempts to uncover details of factual incidents, he has fallen short of what we consider an investigation to be.
I would ask Mr. Ewell to submit to you the complete list of witnesses/accusers he contacted, from which he based his findings in the short 3-4 week investigation. Is that list simply Chief Pedersen and the Chief of the Redondo Beach Police Dept.? I would also ask Ewell to make public any report that he drafted detailing his investigation that exonerated the chief of these allegations, which should have been drafted in a personnel investigation. In any case, I don’t believe he will be able to do so because as I previously stated, the vast majority of the main witnesses still have not been contacted or interviewed. Mr. Ewell seems to gloss over the indisputable fact that 86.5 percent of the CCPOA, a union which includes patrol officers, traffic officers, detectives and sergeants, have declared no faith in the leadership of the police department due to the above allegations. For a law enforcement agency, especially one like ours that has traditionally had very high morale, it simply doesn’t get any worse than that.
One thing I do agree with Mr. Ewell about is that Culver City is “too sophisticated” to be misled by an orchestrated defense of one city administrator (Ewell) covering for another (Pedersen). In a time when other city administrators’ conduct is coming under fire in other local communities for misconduct (Bell, Ca., Hawthorne, Ca, etc.), the CCPOA is again asking for a real investigation of the allegations to be conducted by the City Council so that the truth can be heard. We urge the City Council to have a transparent, public and honest investigation and not to hide behind closed session using Brown Act protections that keep the public in the dark about the findings. The city of Culver City, its citizens, and the men and women who work so hard to serve the community deserve to have the truth.
Officer Charles Koffman
1st Vice-President Culver City Police Officer Assn.
CCPOA@culvercitypolice.com
