Loading...
1978/08/2378-1119 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK~ ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23~ 1978~ 6:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTAlqT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the adjourned regular Council meeting. 156: LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK INCIDENT: Mr. Richard Ornelas stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the demands made to the Council on August 8, 1978, as well as new demands and also what word had been received relative to the District Attorney's report of the investigation of the July 30, 1978 incident at Little Peoples' Park. City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the District Attorney took over the investigation on approximately August 10, 1978 when he (Hopkins) turned over Police reports and all documents in his office pertaining to the matter. A Deputy District Attorney was assigned to the investigation and proceeded to gather together all materials. The District Attorney also asked for a trans.cript of the meeting August 8, 1978 which was prepared and delivered to his office on Friday evening, August 18, 1978. The District Attorney estimated it would take 30 days to complete the investigation because of the large number of people to be interviewed and to prepare a complete copy of the report. Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, the Council promised that a total and complete report would be turned over to Mr. Ornelas and the neighborhood. He thus believed it appropriate to obtain concurrence from the Council to turn over whatever the Council would receive. The City Attorney indicated that the District Attorney had the authority and power to release whatever he wanted to the Council. Therefore, whatever the Council received, they had the authority to turn it over to the community. Councilman Overholt stated that since he had not seen the report, he was not yet in a position to vote on its public release. Since it was of interest to the community and the City and to the extent of the contents of the report could be released in order to disclose the true facts of the night in question, he would support the release of the entire report. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilmen Kott and Roth had no objection to making the report public. Mr. Ornelas continued that since the last meeting with the Council, the neighborhood had now organized into a committee and had chosen the name People for Community Development. The group was interested in the community and its relationship with City Council and the Police Department. Their desire was to build good relations with everyone. 78-1120 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK~ ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA, COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23~ 1978~ 6:30 P.M. Mr. Ornelas introduced Joey Vargas, 317½ West Santa Ana Street, to speak on the neighborhood's first demand. Mr. Vargas stated that on August 8, 1978, they submitted a demand for the formation of an Independent Complaint Board. He claimed that at the meeting the Council chose to ignore their request and sought to find a solution by having the City Attorney investigate the Little Peoples' Park incident. They were now demanding a City ordinance that would provide for an Independent Complaint Board with subpoena power. If the Council was truly concerned with the problem, they would not hesitate to enact such an ordinance which would insure that problems would be dealt with quickly and fairly. Mrs. Connie Verdin stated that on August 8, 1978 the People for Community Development presented their demands for Protection from Police Retaliation. They were concerned that the people who filed the complaints regarding the subject incident would be harassed by the Anaheim Police Department. They wanted to know what measures had been taken to meet their request. Mayor Seymour stated they took an action directing the City Manager to direct the Chief of Police to insure that (1) no officers involved in the July 30, 1978 inci- dent would be assigned to any activity within their neighborhood and (2) directed the City Manager to direct the Chief of Police that there not be any retaliation or any retaliatory acts. He assumed that both directives had been carried out. Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that the Council's instructions had been carried out, and they were extending every effort to insure that such an incident would not occur again. Mr. Ornelas stated that due to the concern in the community, they wanted to acquire a list of names of police officers involved in the incident before the investigation was completed. The Mayor deferred to the City Attorney; Mr. Hopkins explained that the District Attorney, in his report, would formulate a list of the various officers who parti- cipated. However, he could not answer as to whether or not the District Attorney would make that list public. Relative to a legal problem that might be involved as suggested by the Mayor, Mr. Hopkins stated that pending the investigation, the list should not be released. It would be a decision that would have to be made after the District Attorney's report was available, but not before, the reason being there could be a legal liability on the part of the City and the officers involved, plus the fact that such information pending investigation should be kept confidential. Mr. MichaelIValenti, 202 East Adele Street, pointed out that it was Police policy when requested by a citizen that the police officer reveal his identity. Providing a list of the officers involved would only be an extension of that policy. The Mayor stated that he had no problem in releasing those names, but on the other hand, if the City Attorney had a legitimate concern as to the City's potential liability in releasing the names before the investigation, he was going to have to vote his conscience and not release the names since his concern extended to all citizens in that their tax dollars would not be legally liable. 78-1121 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK~ ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23~ 1978, 6:30 P.M. Mr. Larry Freeman, attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated the community was merely asking the names of the officers who responded to a community call. Mr. Hopkins stated that the City had an obligation both to the officers involved, as well as to the citizens involved, and pending the investigation by the District Attorney, it was his advice to the Council not to release such names on a completely voluntary basis. If legal action required the City to do so, that would be a different matter. He emphasized that his advice was not to make the list public at this time. Discussion followed relative to the matter wherein Mr. Freeman expressed his opinion that it seemed the City was hiding the identity of the officers who responded to the incident and that through his experience, the District Attorney's report would not contain the information they were requesting. Mr. Hopkins stated that in order to perform the investigation, he believed the District Attorney would have to have the names of the officers involved because such information would be essential. Whether or not he would release those names in his report could not be predicted. He reiterated that the City had an obligation to the officers, as well as the public, to protect the individuals concerned. It was premature to make a commitment until the report was received. Mr. Freeman contended that the request of the community was being refused in order to protect the officers and any liability involved already existed. Thus, releasing the list would not increase or decrease that liability. Mr. Ornelas again broached the subject of the Independent Complaint Board. The Mayor asked Mr. Ornela$ if he was speaking of an independent review board of citizens that would review the incident of July 30, 1978 as previously requested at the August 8, 1978 meeting. He noted that when Mr. Vargas spoke, he was talking about a continuing board for some time in the future. Mr. Ornelas first stated they were talking about the board as previously discussed, but perhaps it would be one that would be carried on into the future. He then con- firmed for Mayor Seymour that they were interested in both concepts being initiated, but presently only for the July 30th incident, and they wanted an immediate answer. Mayor Seymour stated that he could give an answer as he had at the Council meeting, although it did not carry, and that was a citizen's committee who would review what- ever investigation was completed prior to the City Council taking action. That committee would make whatever recommendations they felt appropriate after a review of the investigation, as well as any other recommendations they wished to make for a Council decision. What did carry at the meeting was to direct the City Attorney to continue the investigation and if he found himself in a conflict of interest position, he would turn the investigation over to the District Attorney. He was still willing to provide what he had suggested previously, but he did not recall promising nor was he prepared to promise this evening that there would be the creation of a permanent complaint board. However, that was not to say he would not be receptive to community involvment, such as the People for Community Development. 78-1122 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK~ ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA~ COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23~ 1978~ 6:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that at the August 8, 1978 meeting he was the one who made the motion that the City Attorney investigate the matter and in the event he found a conflict of interest, that he immediately turn the investiga- tion over to the District Attorney to preclude any loss of time. If the City Attorney had been able to complete the investigation, the Council would have had a report yesterday. They would then have been in a position to take action on the Citizen's Review Board and also a permanent review board. Since the City Attorney was unable legally to proceed with the investigation, his position then was that the District Attorney complete the investigation and when the report was received, decide at that time whether or not a citizen's committee was still needed relative to the incident and secondly, lay the groundwork for a permanent committee if that was the feeling of the community. The District Attorney was investigating the matter from the standpoint of 200,000 people comprising the City's population. Councilman Overholt, therefore wanted to see the report before he voted, and if there was nothing in the report that would endanger the civil rights of the indi- viduals involved, the report should be released. Subsequently it could be determined if there was need for a review board. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that she made a motion at Tuesday's Council meeting (August 22, 1978) to continue the current meeting for 30 days on the basis that it was necessary to review the report. She personally wanted to see the report before making any decision. Councilman Roth stated he was in agreement with both Councilman Overholt and the Mayor. However, he also wanted first to see the report so he could make a judgment. Councilman Kott stated that the concept of a complaint board was acceptable to him, but he would have to know more about the objectives of having such a board, the intent, powers, goals, etc. Discussion then followed between Mr. Freeman, Mayor Seymour, Councilman Overholt and the City Attorney relative to questioning by Mr. Freeman revolving around the fact that in his opinion the District Attorney would not release an investigative report involving pending cases. City Attorney Hopkins stated he could not speak for the District Attorney, but if the report directly affected certain individuals being tried for a public offense, Mr. Freeman was correct, the District Attorney would not interfere. As far as the overall incident, that would be up to the District Attorney. The Mayor thereupon stated that if the community as well as the Council concluded that they had not received a complete report, at that point the Grand Jury would be asked to investigate the matter. If the community was not satisfied with the City Attorney or the District Attorney performing the investigation, he wanted to know who would be satisfactory. Mr. Freeman answered, the City--it was a City problem and it should be handled by the City. Mayor Seymour explained that he made that suggestion at the August 8th meeting and it was not acceptable. He then explained for Mr. Freeman the steps the City had taken to expedite the investigation. 78-1123 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK, ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1978~ 6:30 P.M. Mr. Vargas presented the third demand -- Community Chosen Patrol Officers. He then named Officer Hector Robles, Ron Quick and Jackie Parra as the community's choices. They also requested that all the officers involved in the subject incident be removed from patrol in the Little Peoples' Park neighborhood and they wanted to know when that would be accomplished. The Mayor first stated he assumed and the Assistant City Manager had confirmed that the officers involved in the incident had not been back to the neighborhood. He then emphasized that if any citizen in that neighborhood reported to the Council that they had seen any of the officers who participated in the incident in that neighborhood again, they would find out why. Relative to the selection of officers, he believed the Council would be receptive to such a concept, but they did not have the expertise to indicate how many should be in the neighborhood and thus could not make that decision. They would be happy to take the request to the City Manager to be discussed with the Chief of Police to ascertain if the officers could, on a temporary basis, be assigned to the neighbor- hood. Subsequently, in 30 to 60 days it could be determined at that point if all requests could be granted relative to the chosen officers. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Manager to ask the Chief of Police that the three officers requested, if available, be assigned duty in the subject neighborhood until the investigation was complete and proper recommendations received from the community as to a permanent setup. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, for clarification, Councilman Kott pointed out that accord- ing to the City Charter, the Council could only direct the City Manager to do what- ever it deemed necessary and the City Manager, in turn, had to direct the department head. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, Mr. Vargas stated it appeared that the three officers named might not be able or would not be willing to serve in the neighborhood. If there was some conflict involved to where the three officers would not be able .to serve, they would be willing to form a subcommittee within the group to meet with the Police Department to look at alternatives. Mr. Ornelas referred to the fourth demand -- Community Participation in the Selection of a Police Chief. The community believed that they should participate in the selection process and therefore requested that two community representatives nominated by the People for Community Development meet with the Personnel Director to insure that all recruitment material would reflect the needed skills in dealing with minority groups, as well as, but not limited to, the following skills: commit- ment to affirmative action; knowledge and support of alternatives to the use of violence by police officers; a record of dealing strongly with officers found to have used excessive force; an understanding of the cause and effect of the relation- ship of crime and poverty; a strong commitment that police officers must be law abiding, and a commitment to the role of officers as peace officers. 78-1124 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK~ ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23~ 1978, 6:30 P.M. Mr. Ornelas continued by outlining three additional areas relative to the selection of a Police Chief--(1) review of applications--that the same two representatives be a part of all stages of the review of written applications; (2) Personnel shall be responsible in seeing that the minimum requirements such as age, educa- tion, work experience, etc., were made before the two representatives became involved. The representatives shall have the full cooperation of the Personnel Director, Garry McRae, as well as City Manager William Talley. (3) Interviews-- the same two community representives were to participate in all interviews for candidates and their recommendations were to be given full attention in the hiring process. (4) Public meeting--that a public meeting be held so that the final candidates could be met by all the community members. The meeting would provide the opportunity for the candidates to speak about their philosophies and to answer questions to assure that the best person was chosen for the position. Mr. Ornelas concluded that the Chief would be setting the example for those who would exercise life and death decisions on a daily basis and the quality of the Police Force would depend upon the attitude of the Chief of Police. Mayor Seymour thereupon relayed the action taken by the Council in their Tuesday meeting wherein Mrs. Ruth Alatori, representing the Orange County Human Relations Commission, approached the Council and asked that the selection of the new Chief include a citizens' committee of 9 people with at least two of the members to be representatives of the neighborhood. He then relayed the action that followed (see minutes of August 22, 1978) resulting in the final approved motion offered by him and amended at the suggestion of Councilman Overholt which was as follows: receive the recommendations of the Orange County Human Relations Commission, as well as recommendations made by the Mayor, and consider those along with the City Manager's program at the September 12, 1978 Council meeting. The Mayor encouraged Mr. Ornelas to make specific recommendations as to who the two community members might be and submit those to the Council before September 12, 1978. Mr. Robert Acosta, 1437 Kenwood, spoke on the fifth demand -- Business Cards for Police. He stated that a great deal of time had been spent discussing the diffi- culties in filing a complaint against Anaheim police officers. The officers refused to show their name tags or deliberately covered them up. In order to overcome the problem and to help the conmaunity become better acquainted with the officers, they suggested that all the police officers be issued business cards and that they be required to give those cards to the public. That policy should be adopted by the Police Department immediately. Mayor Seymour stated that personally he believed the suggestion to be an excellent one although~he did not know if it would be meaningful to pass a calling card to everybody with whom they came in contact. He favored the request first that police officers have business cards and secondly, that upon request the officer would submit a card to the requestor. 78-1125 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK~ ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1978~ 6:30 P.M. MOTION: The entire Council agreed that the suggestion was an excellent one. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that all Police Officers be issued business cards after which they would be required to hand out those cards to a member of the public upon request. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Freeman noted that although the idea was a good one, under the circumstances that arose in the Little Peoples' Park incident, it would not work. When a person wanted the business card most would be the imes it would not be given. He suggested instead that when a police officer came in contact with a member of the public, that he give the business card initially before being re- quested to do so. The Mayor did not agree and pointed out that if an officer wanted to violate such a directive, he would violate it regardless of the regulation. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ornelas presented the last demand -- Cultural Awareness Training. The People for Community Development found that members of the Anaheim Police Department did not understand the beliefs of the latin culture. They therefore demanded that an in-service training program be provided immediately designed by the Police Department, but before instituting the program, that it be approved by the People for Community Development. Mayor Seymour considered that demand to be approaching the heart of the issue. The orderly way would be for the People for Community Development to outline more specifically what they had in mind as to an in-house training program which would be of assistance in formulating such a program. Thereafter, it should be submitted to the Council so that the Council could work with the community on the proposal. Mr. Ornelas then thanked the Mayor, the City Council and staff for attending the meeting at the park. He then deferred to Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman stated that with all due respect, the problem was the same as with most City Councils. The Council did not have the power to do what needed to be done. He continued that perhaps such power resided within the City Manager, but he was almost autonomous at this point. The Council could only fire him and that required a majority vote of the Council. Because of that situation and because of what he had heard tonight and over the last two weeks, he announced that the American Civil Liberties Union and the Orange County Lawyers' Group had agreed to file suit on behalf of the Mexican-American community initially as a class action totally on behalf of the Mexican-American community, but more than likely there would be following class actions as well. It appeared that the sUit would be filed within two weeks. In addressing the people of the community, he asked that they submit the names of all the people who had involvement with the police, not only directly, but as witnesses. Before closing, Mr. Ornelas stated that there was a member of the co~unity present who indicated that he recognized some of the officers who were present the night of July 30, 1978, as having been in the neighborhood since that time. Mr. Vic Vierra stated that he did not know names, but only faces. Mr. Vierra then commented upon 78-1126 LITTLE PEOPLES' PARK, ELM & CLEMENTINE STREETS~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1978, 6:30 P.M. the fact that it was stated the Council had no control over matters. He urged the Council to take control of the City and a Police Department gone wild. Mayor Seymour stated he did not mean to say the Council did not have control. They had control over the City Manager and if the City Manager did not follow through, they could fire that Manager and hire one that would do so. Relative to not being responsive as had been expressed by Mr. Vierra, he attended the first meeting with the community at the Youth Drop-In Center along with Councilman Roth. Thereafter, an approximate three and one-half hour meeting was held with the community at the Council meeting of August 8, 1978, and the Council again showed good faith by attending tonight's meeting at Little Peoples' Park. The Council also had agreed to the following: (1) an investigation of the incident was underway; (2) an order was given not to permit any officers involved in the incident back into the community; (3) the Council took action to have the three officers named by the community as the ones to patrol the neighborhood; and (4) accepted the recommendation of the business cards. The other demands yet to be answered were relative to the complaint board, community participation in selection of a new Chief of Police, and the Cultural Awareness Program. He urged the community stay organized and keep prodding the Council relative to these matters. He was empathetic with their position and their frustration for having to endure the problems they had express ed for so long, and he asked for their patience in working with the Council. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:45 P.M. LINDA ~. ROBERTS, CI~ CLERK