Key players in San Bernardino police rift to talk

How ironic the timing of this. Just when Billdt is going to meet with the council and try to enlighten them or at least a couple of them. The POA knows full well Billdt is restricted by POBAR unless the vengeful approve it or it goes to court. Of course they keep getting delays for that. Just a couple years ago Filson and Lawhead despised each other because Filson was run out of power by the current POA and now they are buddies again. The press also by now knows Billdt can't open up or in the way I suspect he wishes he could. The scheming revenges seekers holding grudges in concert with the POA and all its manipulation is at it again.

Manipulating POA,

I have to respond to just one component of your post. You said, "The press also by now knows Billdt can't open up or in the way I suspect he wishes he could."

I'll tell you that I, a member of the press who knows Chief Billdt as well as any other, know that Chief Billdt has never been one to "open up" or have frank discussions with the press and public. It just is not his style. Some chiefs are open and engaging with the press and public, and some are not. Billdt is not.

Before any of this controversy erupted, Andrew asked the chief to lunch to introduce himself as the new beat reporter. I suspect 99 percent of chiefs would have accepted. Billdt declined.

He showed no interest in communicating with the press and, through the press, the public.

LAPD Police Chief William Bratton, for instance, goes on tv stations, radio stations and newspaper editorial boards monthly. Always has. He answers questions and communicates with the public, and does so rather effectively.

Closer to home, Redlands Chief Jim Bueermann is given to writing Op-Ed pieces in the newspaper and having long, breezy chats with reporters and other members of the public.

Chief Billdt doesn't do this. He won't even provide a professional biography on the city's Web site. After more than 1-year of refusing, Chief Billdt provided the press a first glimpse at his resume just weeks ago, after this reporter was assured by Jim Morris that Billdt would capitulate to my request and provide the document. Was he ordered by the mayor? I don't know, but it looks that way.

Whether this close-to-the-vest style is good or bad I'll leave to you to decide.

But it is a simple, objective fact that Chief Billdt has consistently declined opportunities to communicate with the press and public during his tenure.

Thank you,

Robert Rogers

Billdt is allowing himself be exploited for Morris' personal gain. One look into his genial, but fake smile and vacant eyes as he randomly shakes ANYBODY'S hand while he appears to be looking for babies to kiss would tell you that he's not a very decisive man. He seems the type to take all that is dished to him. Most citizens reason that Morris is the idiot and I'm here to tell you this is not the case by any stretch of the imagination.

I cannot tell you how I know this, but I can tell you that I've checked: Billdt isn't making more than his salary. He's not getting anything from any non-profits. He wanted to be a good cop. He is, simply put, not equipped to handle the post of Chief of Police. He heeds Morris' advice because Morris has control of his position and Morris has Billdt under the impression that Morris is some sort of a brilliant mind who wants to bring tranquility and prosperity to our city.

I don't like Billdt any more than the next person; however, we must not be satiated, as Billdt has been with Morris' misdirection, with condemning the tool and not the craftman. If Billdt communicated with the press and educated, concerned citizens here, he would not behave this way. He'd turn around very quickly. He does not mean harm on a grande scale. He's under the impression that he's doing this for the greater good of San Bernardino. True colours are showing. Let us not be appeased with what we are fed from the table of lies.

seriously

Manipulating POA (mitch)
Thanks for your comments but the only person manipulating anybody is you, the playgroung bulley. You have no honor at all. do the right thing and leave with the chief.

I have sat back for days reading these ridiculous remarks, and feel I can't sit back any longer allowing the "witch hunt" to continue.

Take several disgruntled employees, who are not "man" enough to own up to their just punishments, and couple that with their strong influence on POA leadership, other officers, and what do you have? Yes, it's a witch hunt. Ready to burn Chief Billdt at the stake? I'm sure you are. Is'nt it ironic that before the handful of disgruntled employess, everyone, including the POA and its president thought Chief Billdt was one of the best chief's S.B. every had? Oh yes it's true. I heard it myself.

Now it's to the point that if you don't agree with the POA and it's vigilanties, you will be "Bullied" and "Harassed" until you give in. No wonder the vote went the way it did. Do you want to be that officer voting against them? Fear of retribution!

So lets call this what is really is. Bullies in the P.D.
This POA has always tried to "run" the department and will never be happy with any management!

Cheif Billdt has been and STILL is a great Cheif

Mr. Rogers,

I have another perspective for you regarding Chief Billdt's unwillingness to talk with the press. The Sun has never been pro-police in its reporting. In past articles, reporters have had a clearly liberal slant which gives police officers, who are typically conservative, reason to cringe.

No offense to you or Mr. Edwards, you both have been fair during the events of the last several weeks. However, I believe part of that has to do with this forum. More than with newsprint, the ability to post responses here allows for more freedom of expression.

Chief Billdt spent 30 years seeing the press in action. He's been heard saying in past meetings that he has given the press statements which were never printed. I don't know if that's true or not, but giving him the benefit of the doubt on this issue, I can see why he may be reluctant to meet with you. Given the current atmosphere, the press represents a clear and present danger to Chief Billdt's career.

The other possibility is that he would be unable to intelligently defend his actions, or lack there of. We'll see.

"Chief" is spelled "CHIEF" not "CHEIF". But, being the current homicide seargent and one of the 43 Billdt supporters doesn't require you to have a college degree, DAVE!

I would think the percentage of officers with a vote of no confidence , is enough to question his ability . And yea employees become disgruntled when there's unfairness or harassment , or just plain lousy leadership . How our city can promote , or even hire unqualified personal blows me away . You get what you pay for . I see it everyday . I'd like to see a number of our management heads qualification's . I'd like to see Mike Miller's path from "rec guy" to (as quoted by the sun) a city official ? A great leader has great followers . I belive these officers have real issues , and there standing togeather . But your also standing up for the citizens of S.B who deserve quality work , and employees . "Thank You" guys for looking out for San bernardino .

I would think the percentage of officers with a vote of no confidence , is enough to question his ability . And yea employees become disgruntled when there's unfairness or harassment , or just plain lousy leadership . How our city can promote , or even hire unqualified personal blows me away . You get what you pay for . I see it everyday . I'd like to see a number of our management heads qualification's . I'd like to see Mike Miller's path from "rec guy" to (as quoted by the sun) a city official ? A great leader has great followers . I belive these officers have real issues , and there standing togeather . But your also standing up for the citizens of S.B who deserve quality work , and employees . "Thank You" guys for looking out for San bernardino .

Sick and Tired of the BS,

Thanks for your reply. It was well-expressed.

I know, from numerous sources, that Chief Billdt spends some time maligning the press and even the ethics of specific reporters. Billdt has even questioned the ethics of some reporters in conversations with other reporters.

I can say that with very few exceptions local reporters are just trying to do their jobs. They don't have axes to grind or anything to gain by persecuting anybody. The vast majority of the time that public officials attack the press or specific reporters, it's as a silly defense mechanism to divert attention from their own real problems.

While the reasons may be unclear, it is objectively true that Chief Billdt is either reluctant or unable to effectively engage the press and public. In times of crisis, that hurts any leader.

As for denigrating the press or specific reporters in one-on-one conversations or in private meetings, such actions don't look very good, especially in light of all the accusations from police officers and a Cal State professor.

We will continue to be fair on this blog. We will keep asking tough questions of all sides. We are out for one thing, the truth.

We don't give a rip whether the truth gets Chief Billdt a big raise or a pink slip out of town. The same goes for any other public official.

We just want the truth. We want to find it, know it, and tell it to you, our readers.

Thanks again,

Robert Rogers

Mr. Rogers,
I am going to assume you are a man of integrity and doing the right thing. I hope your not into sensationalism,omissions, and inaccurate reporting to generate controversy and therefore sell papers. I have to agree with what" tired of BS"' just said because in actuality that is the truth. I'm sorry but have to laugh that you think you know this Chief because you really don't. But at this point and time there is no convincing you of that. I'm 100% confident that if the Chief sat down with you and was not restricted from revealing everything, you would be dumbfounded about what has occurred. But unfortunately without this insight your attention won't be directed in the right places. If by some way it was, your career would skyrocket and your articles would have a whole different slant. "Some" of this started with a couple disgruntled employees called on the carpet for not doing the right thing and thusly held accountable. (But don't do that to them), because there vengance is ruthless. This ordeal has manifested itself into personal vendetta's with the help of others to epidemic proportions. Billdt is getting smeared viciously and is fully capable of running the department. It is not relevant that Chief Billdt does not open up or go to lunch with Andrew. The prevailing attitude for years at the department is they don't trust the media for numerous reasons. Slanted reporting, omitted information, biased reporters to name a few. Mentioning Chief Bratton and comparing that to Billdt is apples and oranges. Bueermann and the Redlands PD over the years have gotten usually positive press and its and internal joke inside the SBPD. And again right now its apples and oranges between there and here. Maybe some chiefs are open and engaging with the press but I would suspect Billdt does not trust the media and the media is only needed by some in the department if they have an agenda to push. This administration is not playing favorites or retaliating. The retaliating is being done by a few others who hold grudges, were disciplined, had IA's opened against them or did not get things the way they hoped. Focus your attention away from the POA line, the administration, don't trust what your being fed. What I initially meant by "open up" was Billdts restricted ability to elaborate on this. Good Luck

Truth will Prevail,

Thank you for that insight.

Perhaps I would be dumbfounded if I heard the full story from the Chief's mouth. But the fact is that I have not. This basic argument has been used time and time again, usually by Lt. Scott Paterson: "We can't tell you anything, but if we could you would know that we are doing the right things."

Well, that doesn't work in democratic government, for obvious reasons.

It is relevant that Chief Billdt won't go to lunch with Andrew for a lengthy discussion. The argument that "slanted" reporting, "omitted" information, etc. has made the department less open to the press and public assumes that the failure is that of the press.

There is another theory: That the inability or reluctance of department leadership to engage with and be open to the press and public may have something to do with the coverage they receive.

You said Billdt does not trust the media and the media is only "needed" by some in the department to advance an agenda. That kind of thinking is part of the problem here. The department, and Chief Billdt in particular, absolutely does need the media as a means by which to reach the public.

Guys like Bratton and Bueermann are just two examples of Chiefs who recognize that, and deftly use the media to their advantage. Chief Billdt does not.

As for suggesting that I not go after some people in the department because their "vengeance" is ruthless, I can only say one thing: I will go after the truth every chance I get, and I don't care whose feathers it ruffles. That's my duty to my readers, and nothing dissuades me.

Fear the "vengeance" of an officer of the law? First off, I don't fear anyone when I work as a journalist. Second, the mere suggestion that any law-abiding citizen should fear any officer of the law is troubling.

So thank you for responding. I hope you'll receive my ideas here in the friendly spirit in which they were offered.

Thank you,

Robert Rogers

Robert,
With all due respect your just not getting it. I never suggested you fear going after some in the department. There vengeance,(one's who messed up and have been disciplined), is ruthless because there going after Billdt through numerous channels and using other vindictive people who have twisted there accusations in order to destroy him. I also never said any law abiding citizen should fear any officer of the law. Your not reading what I said carefully and now someone will read what you posted and get the wrong impression.

Your right Billdt probably does need the media to some degree but as said a zillion times by him and Patterson they are prohibited by law about revealing the particulars about personnel issues unless the complainants approve so or it goes to local court. Trust me that crowd is not going to approve that, they just want Billdt removed because they have lost so far and then likely assume they won't have to cross that bridge. You said thats not the way it works in a democratic government for obvious reasons. In this ordeal that is the way it works for obvious reasons. The federal courts have not been favorable to some revenge seekers so they use the association and push their destructive "agenda" through the press. Then throw in the knuckleheads who don"t know what they are talking about and this just gets muddier.

Like Manipulating POA said, Filson and Lawhead and company hated each other when they forced Filson out of leadership of the POA. Now suddenly there buddies. Theres another story to that crap. There meeting with the editorial staff, boy is that going to be twisted. Trust me Billdt is getting screwed. He is a fine man and very knowledgable. Its unfortunate but you probably won't get to the bottom of this but if so you will be the James Woodward of Berdoo. Your focus is unfortunately now misdirected and misguided but because of circumstances it isn't any fault of yours.

I just had to comment on an anonymous poster up there who was correcting someone's spelling.
"anonymous said:
"Chief" is spelled "CHIEF" not "CHEIF". But, being the current homicide seargent and one of the 43 Billdt supporters doesn't require you to have a college degree, DAVE!"

Well, "Sergeant" isn't spelled "seargent," either...ROFLMMFAO@U!!!!
You're a great teacher.
WHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Truth Will Prevail:

Do you have a newsletter you can subcribe to or any information about upcoming gigs? You are a funny guy and I would like to see your stand up routine live.

By the way, thanks for learning how to hit the enter button to create paragraphs.

Robert:

How does it feel to be told by a guy who can barely put a cogent sentence together and most likely got his degree out of a Cracker Jack box like his idol Chief Billdt that you are focusing in the wrong area and are misguided because you are too stupid to see that you are being manipulated?

I wonder, does TWP have an altar dedicated to Billdt in his home or office? His man-love for the top lap dog is borderline creepy.

I bet TWP jumps out of bed and is so excited to run over to the Chief to get his "pat" on the head.

And then the Chief says: "Sit! Roll over...Goooooooood boy."

I am sure that when TWP looks in the mirror, looks down below his waist and sees that his "onions" are missing, it must dawn on him that he has two wives.

The missus keeps one stowed away in her purse, and Chief Billdt keeps the other one tucked away in his desk.

Mr. Turner's comments are precisely what I'm "sick and tired" of. The issues here are legitimate concerns about how the police department and the city are being mismanaged. Your (Turners)personal attacks on "truth will prevail" are surprising given that you have previously demonstrated your ability to make an intelligent argument. However, your comments show an immature side of your personality and illustrate your lack of depth.

Oh, yeah. Feel free to correct my spelling and grammar.

It does not surprise me that Joseph Turner resorts to personal attacks and is showing his true colors. Thats because that is all he has to offer. Seems to me for being the former spokeshole for the POA and all they spoon fed him he is a bitter man. We are lucky he was not elected when he ran against Rachel Clark. Billdt may well leave but when the systematic dismantling of his leadership comes out many will crawl back under their rock. I also thought "truth to prevails" letter to Mr. Rogers was well written. After reading your rant it seems that considering you have a college degree you are truly the one who received it from the Cracker Jack box. Everything that has happened to Billdt goes back to a few central issues, manipulated and controlled by some scheming people. It can be explained and hopefully it is but in the meantime the attack dogs are out and when the tide turns or that perception is there, people like Turner ramp up the flow of venom. Joseph, I also did not use the enter button this time just so you have something to do today. And by the way the use of the word "cogent" is commendable but how long were you in the dictionary figuring out that it started with a "c" and not a "k"?

This is from someone that has worked in this City for years (not the Police Department).

Robert, just as you felt it "blogworthy" to report seeing Glenn Baude and Mayor Morris having lunch, why don't you report the sighting of Wendy McCammack, Jim Penman, Rich Lawhead and Steve Filson having lunch a few weeks back when the "news" regarding Billdt started to flow. Everything the few bloggers with a different perspective have said are true. Politics and disgruntled employees are driving this witch hunt. Lawhead and Filson suddenly have become inseparable buddies seen together all the time. And the "supposed rift" between Penman and the POA has been resolved and now they are scratching each other's backs in this entire mess (with the help of McCammack). Robert, investigate that!

"Anonymous too",
Congratulations. Finally someone is getting a clue although its just the tip of the iceberg. The people you mentioned need to get exposed especially the first two along with about four others. If that were to happen the general membership of the POA for starters would have another vote of no confidence but not against the chief. Forty three members did not vote against the chief but are cast off as useless and traitors. i think there is some intelligence there just as you have keenly displayed.

Sick and Tired of the BS:

I want to bow to your magnificence and bask in your glow, for until this moment, I was unaware that you were the arbiter of moral authority.

I find it ironic that you attempt to minimize my comments without addressing the points in my comments. It is amusing to watch you castigate my supposed immaturity while at the same time ignoring the fact that TWP personally attacked me by questioning my honor in another comment on these blogs, intentionally distorts the record to prop up Chief Billdt and then belittles Robert Rogers by insinuating that he is too dumb to realize that he has been had.

But...according to The Great One, I am immature and show a lack of depth. Pointing out that TWP's logic is about as thin as Billdt's resume and even more useless than Billdt's degree from Augie U (at least he got a promotion out of it) is and was so ridiculous. I couldn't help but praise TWPs sense of humor.

What is ridiculous is the sycophantic ramblings of Billdt's loyalists like TWP.

But, then...you aren't "sick and tired" of that, are you?

Sick and Tired of the BS:

Now, lets dissect one of your earlier missives in this thread where you went to bat for the Chief citing a hostile media environment.

I agree with you to a point, especially when it comes to the rank and files perception of the media. However, The Sun has historically treated Chief Billdt very well.

Even though on at least two occassions Chief Billdt lied to the Council...to their faces...the editorial board never called him out.

When I first came aboard and started helping the POA, I was putting a lot of pressure on the Chief. Soon after, Robert Rogers was transferred from the city beat and Andrew Edwards took over the city reporting.

In January or so, the PE did a story on how ten brand new police cars were sitting idle in the yard for about a year even though officers were being sent home from scheduled shift due to a lack of vehicles.

Instead of running with that story, which was embarassing to Billdt, the editorial board decided to criticize my hiring by the POA while simultaneously praising some of the very changes within the POA that I was advocating. To this day, The Sun never published that story.

Then in February, The Sun runs a laughable story about how crime is at 20+ year lows that has been gift wrapped and delievered to The Sun.

That story states that crime in 2006 was down significantly due to Operation Phoenix. Um...Operation Phoenix wasnt even up and running until the Summer of 2006, at the earliest.

So, how could Operation Phoenix get the credit? And even if you ignore that fact, why didn't the paper question how it was possible for crime (based on the same stats) to have risen in 2007 when this fantastic program had a full year to work?

There are a lot of other instances I could cite, but I believe these are sufficient.

Ultimately, your point that The Sun has been hostile to The Chief and thus a reason for his reluctance to be open and candid to the media is simply not supportable.

Anonymous Too,

I do feel it's blogworthy. I just don't know about that meeting, other than what you posted above.

Thanks,

Robert Rogers

In response to Anonymous Too and Truth Will Prevail, please don't assume that because people, including elected officials, have lunch with someone that the meal is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that those breaking bread with one another are in agreement with each others agendas.

I've had lunch with Mayor Morris, breakfast with Tobin Brinker and supper with Dennis Baxter. Yet we continue to have our areas of agreement and disagreement.

I've made my support for Police Chief Michael Billdt known for some time. I continue to defend him in the press. Am I concerned about some of the allegations that have been made? Absolutely. Do I believe all of them? No. Do I believe some of them? Yes.

The Police Union has not mended their "supposed rift" with me as Anonymous Too concluded in this blog. I don't take being called a "liar" lightly. I am not going to seek vengeance, scream and yell, never speak to people again nor act out in any of the sophomoric ways my critics have accused me of doing, usually in an election year. Somehow, they never seem to be able to document their allegations, other than the retreat to the "I saw it myself," refuge of those who engage in character assassination.

Nonetheless, public insults are matters of personal honor for all of us who are in the public eye just as they would be for any private citizen. Although I have the capacity to "suck up" a great deal, there is no real basis to accept someone's apology unless an apology is offered.

(That doesn't mean that I can't personally and privately forgive an offense, as my religion teaches me to do, with or without an apology. I have done so many, many times and will continue to do so, without feelings of animosity against the people who make remarks with which I take umbrage - remarks about me, my family or my friends.)

But in the public arena propriety demands that an unjust insult by one public figure, such as a police union official against another public official, such as an elected city attorney be publicly corrected before any real reconciliation may take place. That may or may not materialize as an apology, it may be a joint statement that "we've talked the matter through and agreed to disagree on some issues, agree on others, but both parties acknowledge that differences of opinion do not necessarily mean that one of the parties is being or was untruthful."

The correction may take some other form.

Why is that important?

If that were not what political tradition calls for, the aggrieved party would be deemed to be a pushover, a doormat, or worse by anyone seeking to exert an advantage over that official in the future. History teach us that elected officials who permit themselves to be walked over, get walked over.

Now, if that only impacted the public official as an individual, maybe it would be O.K. if he/she could handle it.

But the truth of the matter is, it is the people represented by the public official who lose out if other politicians show disrespect for their elected representative and believe they can act against his constituents best interests and escape without any consequences being visited upon themselves for their boorish, and sometimes practically detrimental behavior.

If other county politicians believe a Mayor is a pushover, and as a result they regularly "slight" that Mayor and his/her city by not giving his/her city its share of the road improvement funds, as one example, the big losers are the residents of that Mayor's city.

The same is true for councilmembers and yes, for city attorneys as well.

I felt that it was more than a personal insult towards me when, in a news article printed in the Sun on September 7, 2007, reporter Robert Rogers wrote, "(Police Officers’ Association President Rich) Lawhead later called Penman a 'liar' and denied ever telling the city attorney the union's endorsement was contingent on certain actions."

This article went on to quote Mr. Lawhead, reportedly saying, " 'Mr. Penman's suggestions are outright lies,' Lawhead said." "When he attacks my integrity, I object to that, and I won't be afraid to speak out."

I felt those statements were also an insult to the character-determining abilities, and to the judgment of those who put their trust and faith in me by electing me city attorney.

That is one of the principal reasons that same news story quotes me saying, "(Lawhead) owes the people of San Bernardino an apology for attempting to pressure one of their elected officials into pursuing an unethical, and in my opinion, dishonest course of action in exchange for his endorsement," Penman wrote.

I was running for re-election as City Attorney at that time and I knew that the public position I was taking - breaking with the police union - could very well cost me the election, and in fact, it almost did.

Nonetheless, I felt strongly enough about the issue to say, as I was correctly quoted at the time,"I will not compromise my professional ethics nor my personal integrity to get that (the Police Union's) endorsement, and if that means I'm not re-elected, that's a consequence I'm willing to accept."

I meant that when I said it and I still feel the same way today.

After that quote ran in the newspaper, my opponents took advantage of the San Bernardino Police Officers' Association's official neutrality (I personally believe to this day that POA President Rich Lawhead privately supported my opponent, as was his right) by sending out political mailers with large police badges printed on them saying "Cops Say It is Time to Dump Penman," or words to that effect.

As a direct result, many people who might have voted for me believed the police union had endorsed my opponent and voted for her instead. Such is Life.

However, despite that risk, I would do the same thing again if I believed the POA President was making their endorsement of me contingent on my speaking out against the Police Chief in regards to a lawsuit filed against the Chief and the City (my clients) by the POA.

As an elected official, I feel I have an obligation to listen to all points of view. For example, I continue to focus on the opinions of our Mayor, because he is the person the voters chose to be the leader of our city. His opinions influence my positions as city attorney, both inside and outside city hall.

I continue to support much of what the Mayor does as long as doing so does not conflict with my integrity, my other basic values or my duties to the city and my client.

If I disagree with the Mayor on a point that I feel is significant, or if I feel that another point of view needs to be expressed, I have done so and will continue to do so.

I believe Chief Billdt is doing the best he is capable of doing in a job that would cause many to throw up their hands in disgust and just walk away. I believe he is under tremendous pressure, not only from the Police Officers' Association and the media, but from within city hall.

He feels the Union is trying to run the police department and that he, as police chief, has a moral obligation to stand up to that kind of pressure.

While reasonable minds may differ as to what the motives of the Police Union are, I believe the Chief is correct to assert that he, and only he, is the person whom we expect to direct and to manage our police department.

The Union tells me they don't disagree with that either.

Much of the pressure on the Chief, in my opinion, and the Chief denies this by the way, comes from within city hall. In my opinion, that pressure is politically motivated out of a desire to reduce, if not prevent, the negative image that has attached to the current city government administration on several issues that seem to have gained the interest of the public.

Some politicians have more difficulty admitting a mistake than others. We all make mistakes and I don't believe publicly acknowledging them is a sign of weakness or an admission of ongoing faulty judgment. It is what it is, owning up to a mistake, then trying harder not to repeat that mistake.

The test for Chief Billdt, again in my opinion, as it has been for many police chiefs in the past, is whether or not he can resist succumbing to that pressure, or yields to it.

I remember one Police Chief refusing to fire one of his top management staff even when a City Administrator, supported by a Mayor, demanded it.

That Chief said he would resign first. The subordinate kept his job.

I remember another Police Chief refusing the Mayor, when a Mayor ordered him to take over supervision of the team inspections coordinated by the City Attorney's office in order to gather evidence for prosecutions filed by the City Attorney .

That Police Chief told the mayor that wasn't the role of his department, it was the role of the City Attorney, and that was that.

Yes, I could refuse to meet in a public restaurant with the police union leadership, and with Council members and mayors who may not be liked by many of my supporters. But I decline to do so.

I believe it is a positive thing for city government, for city hall, and for the people when their elected leaders are publicly seen having breakfast, lunch or dinner with individuals and groups of varying and even different positions and interests.

It would be naive to believe such meetings do not take place because they do occur all the time.

If I was afraid, or for some other reason refused to be seen eating in a public restaurant with someone, than I don't think I should meet in secret with them either.

The Police Officers' Association (POA) has some legitimate concerns. Chief Billdt acknowledges as much. Some of the information the POA has acquired, and some of their assumptions have not been supported by the facts. I have been able to show them, on some issues, that the information upon which they were basing their beliefs was faulty.

On other occasions, the POA has provided me, the Mayor and the Council with information that we were not previously aware of, information that had evidentiary value in support of some of their beliefs and allegations.

I will continue to break bread, time permitting, with most of those who invite me to do so and I will continue to be true to my upbringing. By doing both I feel I will be acting in the best interests of the people who elect me.

I will accept the risk that some may whisper, "he shouldn’t be meeting with them in public," regardless of who "them" happens to be.

Jim Penman
City Attorney
City of San Bernardino

Manipulating POA:

Surely you must note the irony of your own words whereby you castigate me for making personal attacks and while doing so...simultaneously insinuate that I am too dumb to think for myself and that my opinions are based on spoon fed lies and innuendo provided to me by those dastardly members of the POA.

I was unable to understand your "Cracker Jack Box" dig at me above. I only graduated from a top 10 business school, so I am a little slow on the uptake.

And while I understand why some people do not use their real names, I am always amused by those who take shots at me behind a pseudonym.

Man up.

Very interesting blogs in defense of Chief Billdt.

It sure is making me rethink issues, and tells me that there is obviously two sides to a story.

In reading these I find that the people attacking the Chief seem to be awful defensive, especially Joseph Turner!

It leads me to believe that Mr. Turner has realized that some people are possibly speaking the truth and as the saying goes "the truth hurts".

Remember, those who yell the loudest usually have something to hide.

Lets try to rally behind the Chief, show our support and maybe try to work matters out rather than throwing away a man with an apparent excellent 30 year career?

So much rhetoric, so much defending each other's positions. Is it a wonder there is soooo much division? The reality is that there is an unhealthy atmosphere and culture within our PD. No matter your rank, there is a measure of distrust throughout. If someone has been promoted, the promotion is under the suspicion of manipulation. If you are the receiver of that promotion you feel you earned it. It is apparent the man at the top is taking direct orders from his boss, the Mayor. You blame all of this on the chief, but the truth is he is a "good soldier" as all of you would be if asked of your direct supervisor. There is only one problem, when you follow a direct order that compromises your integrity, you become the target and rightly so. This is all a grand scheme, intended or not, by the Mayor to remove himself of all blame. This is the Chief following the Mayor's orders and the Chief covering his boss's butt because that is what good soldiers do. The same goes for Kimball, Goggin, Lemos, Boom, Henson, Patterson, etc. You would all do the same. The only difference is that all those people ist mentioned were just as passionate if not more so about the previous management, while they were POA members, as the current POA members are now. Boom was one of the loudest but slid through a Chief transitionary period so he held no allegiance one way or the other (a fence rider when a promotion is at stake. This is all a power war to those at the top. We are the kings and they WILL obey our orders. Unfortunately, at the same time, Billdt is helping to pad retirements of his buddies, by pushing them to the top of a pension pay grade, just before he leaves. The sad thing is that some of them had already clearly retired while leuitenants waiting for their 50 year mark. And now they are captains, etc? This is unhealthy for everyone involved, but most of all the public, who suffers the burden of officers afraid of getting out of their cars to make arrests for fear of retaliation or discipline. People's lives, careers and family incomes are on the line here. Accountability, the chief's buzz word, is his issue? Well it is time to hold the Chief accountable to the electeds. It is time for his performance to be professionally reviewed.

"Concerned Citizen"

I find your comments mildly amusing. Not sure where you got a defensive vibe as I am not sure exactly what there is for me to be defensive about.

I would appreciate it if you or any other Billdt defenders (all of which refuse to identify themselves) would care to rebut anything I have stated regarding the chief.

Let us start with the first point and go from there:

1. On two separate instances Chief Billdt lied to the City Council regarding parolee baseline figures and the police activities league.

Do any of you care to refute this claim?

Let me know when you say "uncle" so that I can move on to point number two.

For my final entry, I'd like to commend Joseph Turner on his command of the English language and his use of a thesaurus (sarcasm intended). USC is an outstanding school with an excellent reputation. Yet, despite your obvious intelligence, in order to defend your position, you have repeatedly stooped to name calling. In my humble opinion, that takes away from any valid message you may have.

While I agree you have some leigitimate points, it's the manner in which you express those points that's disturbing.

As for my "moral authority", I DO believe that expressing opposing points of view in a civilized manner is more conducive to effecting change (Is it "affecting" or "effecting"? I can't remember, but then, I didn't go to college.) Also, "agreeing to disagree", as Mr. Penman puts it, is a sign of maturity. Personal insults reflect poorly on the messenger.

For example, I think you absolutely, 100% believe in the positions you take. I actually agree with your stance on illegal immigration. But, if I were to believe your detractors who claim you're a racist who belongs to a hate group (SOS), without listening to any opposing views you may have, then I'd only get half the story. You frequently expressed your anti-illegal immigration opinions succinctly. However, other times you were vulgar and offensive (Yes, I watched the video footage). That behavior, like stooping to name calling, detracts from your message.

Who knows, you may have beat Rachel Clark and launched your political career if your mannerisms weren't so abrasive. But, what do I know, I don't have a college degree from one of the top ten colleges in the country.

Good luck to you.

Jim Penman,

I stopped reading halfway through your missive....it appears as though I hit a nerve. Seems you can dish out the veiled attacks and backhanded compliments on others (as if you think we are too naive to read into your comments) but you sure can't take it. For a blog posting that simply mentioned you had lunch with the POA, it seems strange that you felt the need to write an essay. But, I guess you have to set the stage for when you and Wendy announce your alliance with the POA. That will also most likely be the time when whatever deal you made with Esther comes to light also. We too can put a puzzle togther.

Anonymous too...whoever you are......if you cannot identify yourself, then your comments are discounted as well. If you were to follow me around town 24/7 you would find me meeting at breakfast lunch and dinner with hundreds of people. Fire, Police, General unit, Laborers, Carpenters, and AFL-CIO union members. Larry Sharp, City Manager, City Attorney, ALL council members (not all at once of course), developers, Pat Morris, District Attorneys, judges and many many more. I am one to research all the issues which can be difficult in a 30 minute meeting with secretaries breathing down your neck (next appointment is here!). I have always attempted to build alliances with everyone. But an "alliance" to me means fairness to all employees (including PMA who once were POA members) and all department heads and anyone with whom I have had a dissenting opinion. If you mean back room deals...back scratching...which appears to be your accusation...not even close. I have had serious battles with Fire and Police unions. Some of those wounds have yet to heal. I am sad, very sad about that. But that is our problem, but the healthy part of agreeing to disagree is so we can move on to healing the problems of morale and employee fairness. If you had written a "missive" you would expect others to read it, but maybe you don't have that much to say. Nonetheless, respect for other's opinions is what I practice whether I agree or not. Are you fearful, however, of me building an alliance with the POA? The union that has not contributed one dime in support of any of my campaigns? And why do you care? Do you believe the rank and file deserve fair, consistent treatment? Do you believe the public deserves a police department who is more concerned about solving and preventing crimes as opposed to whether or not they will be disciplined for certain legal law enforcement activities because they are not in the right "camp" today? Do you think alliances make for guarantees? Naive. Very naive. I have made alliances with the Chief of Police in the past. Does that make me a hypocrite or...one willing to work on the issues at hand because they are important, setting disagreements aside, or maybe we were attempting to heal those disagreements. I am surprised so many of the posters using hate and discourse to forward their opinions when speaking about facts and specifics gets you so much more respect and believability. I understand why cops don't want to name themselves, retaliation is, in my opinion, really happening. But that's the power of the media and thank you gentlemen for the ability to do so.

Sick and Tired of the BS:

I like you. Great response.

I always screw up on the a/effect situation as well. So, then I just restructure the damn sentence to avoid it.

In all seriousness, I am a young, energetic, passionate and sometimes rough around the edges sort of guy. I am not an automaton and I'll be the first one to admit that I have made some mistakes and died on some wrong hills.

That is why I admire anyone who steps into the arena and risks getting bloodied.

If you ever want to get together for lunch or coffee, you can reach me at:

baas9403 (at) yahoo (dot) com

It sounds like it would be an interesting conversation.

Wendy,
I just read your comments and am awestruck by some of it. Your discounting comments from someone for lack of identity? Give me a break, many people are now bringing to light much needed information that is and has happened regarding this. Just because they stay anonymous means nothing and it happens in many venues to serve a purpose or goal and I'm sure it happens in your arena. I realize many comments are absurd but I guess there alot of bored people out there and the Oprah re-runs are getting old.

You have been for the most part a popular councilwoman with the best interests of the city at heart. However, I don't believe the POA feels it needed to donate money to your campaigns because of solid support in your ward. And they do support you in ways that doesn't require money.

Your comments about the rank and file deserving fair and consistent treatment and alluding to officers being disciplined for certain legal law enforcement activities because they are not in the "right" camp reveals whose camp you are in. It's no secret at the department that the person and persons your talking about were held accountable for some inappropriate actions and it appears you have been told what they want you to hear and their culpability in this should be checked into. Maybe in your mind you have already justified this or the favoritism factor is too great.

This is troubling coming from someone who holds your position in a large city like San Bernardino.

Wendy,
I just read your comments and am awestruck by some of it. Your discounting comments from someone for lack of identity? Give me a break, many people are now bringing to light much needed information that is and has happened regarding this. Just because they stay anonymous means nothing and it happens in many venues to serve a purpose or goal and I'm sure it happens in your arena. I realize many comments are absurd but I guess there alot of bored people out there and the Oprah re-runs are getting old.

You have been for the most part a popular councilwoman with the best interests of the city at heart. However, I don't believe the POA feels it needed to donate money to your campaigns because of solid support in your ward. And they do support you in ways that doesn't require money.

Your comments about the rank and file deserving fair and consistent treatment and alluding to officers being disciplined for certain legal law enforcement activities because they are not in the "right" camp reveals whose camp you are in. It's no secret at the department that the person and persons your talking about were held accountable for some inappropriate actions and it appears you have been told what they want you to hear and their culpability in this should be checked into. Maybe in your mind you have already justified this or the favoritism factor is too great.

This is troubling coming from someone who holds your position in a large city like San Bernardino.

Sick and Tired of the BS:

Name-calling is nothing new on this blog. So are the crazed rants from people desperately seeking attention for themselves, positive or negative. I agree it detracts from the message but most people resort to insults when they have nothing else.

Joe Turner:

I realize now I misjudged you in the past and your motives when you were running for office. If I could go back in time I would cast a vote for you now. You say what you mean and mean what you say. I realize that you actually put your money where your mouth is by running and you tried to do your best to change things in this city which is more than most people who whine on this blog have done.

Whitewashing continues: You should feel troubled if your elected officials are not willing to tell the truth. I am sorry you feel that I have taken a strong stance for the rank and file and I am sorry you have determined for your own that I am one camp or another. As a matter of fact, I have voted in favor of several recent promotions of the command staff. Anyone that takes the time to talk with me personally knows that I am a straight shooter and if I felt you were remiss in doing your job or treated someone unfairly, no matter your rank, I would tell you (and many reading this blog no that to be a fact). Not that I have direct control over anyone in PD, of course I don't. But I have a serious and strict accountability to those in the 7th ward and the city as a whole, to do my best and deliver whatever it takes to give them the highest quality law enforcement department.

I only mentioned the lack of campaign contributions because many posts have stated that some of us are in the pocket's of the POA. I needed to clarify that for this viewing public. And there is not a campaign out there that couldn't use a donation. Campaigns are expensive.

And as far as accountability, I have heard of officers that deserved discipline and did not get it, including LT's of the past. That is the consistency I have been asking for and will continue to ask for, again, no matter the rank. This inconsistency has been happening since Zimmon when some of the current command staff were POA members. To me, this is not new. It has just escalated to where the morale is in the toilet. Even some of the command staff is uneasy. I have made no decision as to the discipline pending on several officers right now, but I know in the recent past there has been discipline written and placed in the file and other discipline verbally given and NOT placed in the file. That is where I believe there are consistency issues. I hear now that the new discipline of the week is the "lack of supervision". They must make this up as they go along, because there have been cases before us with that exact problem, where no one was disciplined.

The truth is expected from a person in my position. I carry no favorites in the PD. I admire all the men and women who continually put their lives on the line, but when I read disparaging comments, I get angry and feel I need the truth to be written. You should expect that from all your elected officials.

Wendy,

As a POA member I can say I was very frustrated when you ratified Kimball's promotion. I think that specific promotion more than any single incident has lead us to where we're at. That being said, I don't think any of us expect you to do what we want all the time. I understand that we're not always "in the know" when it comes to the dynamics influencing your decisions. What matters is the totality of all your decisions regarding the Police Department . In that regard, I think I speak for the majority in saying we have felt you support us. I don't know what you've been told by our POA officers, but from reading your posts I feel you have a good grip on our issues. I know the comments are getting personal and even embarrassing, but after seeing Billdt show up to work Thursday I think many of the guys just don't care anymore. I'm not excusing it, just saying I understand what caused it. Hopefully it will all stop soon. As for the person criticizing you and Mr. Penman, he's just a manager trying to impress the Chief. Hell, it may even be the Chief himself. Don't take it seriously. Just continue to stay out of everyone's pocket, stay informed, and keep working to keep this crooked mayor in line.

Anonymous Too,

I believe you quit reading half-way through. Unfortunately that is a habit many of our "leaders" have developed. It is too often "my way or the highway" and "please don't try and confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

Sorry the length of my response challenged you. I like to write, much more than I like to talk. Something about being able to take the time to think one's thoughts through before sharing them with others.

Also, I'm like most lawyers/politicians, give me an opening and I'll give you a sermon.

Jim Penman

I finally figured ou who Sick and Tired of the BS is, if I am right your better half is out of town until early Sunday....busted.

Maybe if Penman and McCammack had submitted their opinions through the Ortiz family, as is their usual practice, the posts might have been more interesting. It is always amusing because it is so obvious to all watching the council meetings and reading the paper, yet you two continue to do it as if no one knows. That's the entertaining part!

Thanks for the info annonymous too. Now I know why I find myself agreeing with Joe Ortiz so much. He's got good advisors.

As far as supporters go I'd rather have Joe Ortiz and family in my corner than Susana Atanasova any day! Or Tom Kanavos.....anybody want to help with the list? It's late, I'm tired.....

Thank God the Ortiz's are willing to say and write (via their real names) what everyone else wants to say but thinks may be politically incorrect. Not the Ortiz's. I applaud their courage to stand up and say what most taxpayer's feel. Maybe they feel empowered to speak the truth because they hear Penman and McCammack voice similar opinions. Funny how more than 3 people can think alike. Just look at this blog. Is everyone listed above (pro-Billdt) taking their posts directly from Billdt? And is everyone listed above (pro-POA) getting their scripts from Lawhead or Filson? I think not. How insulting to the Ortiz's.

Anon, you forgot Pat Morris' BFF's......Jerry Luellen Wennen Martin and Sonia Marianela Cuevas Fischer......Google them if you dare........yikes! One word, FREAKS!!!!!!!!! They were asked to leave OP, that is how bad they are. They are being investigated for elder abuse. Their recent mugs shots circulated the town. They really are the abyss of society.

Anon.....At least Captain Henson had Sonia Marianela Cuevas Fischer Martin removed from citizen's patrol within one week of her joining. He is the smartest one they have at the PD.