In this instance, the issue is not simply that there was no explicit opportunity for public input into Leon Churchill’s contract extension — it is that the extension was a foregone conclusion well before the Oct. 18 vote.
Mr. Churchill’s original contract, in force through May 4, 2012, states that if the city chooses not to renew his contract for reasons other than malfeasance, it must provide nine months of advance notice or provide nine months of severance pay, including benefits. Thus, the time to seek public comment and to make the decision regarding renewal of his contract was prior to Aug. 4, 2011. In fact, the minutes of the closed session City Council meeting on Aug. 2 identify Mr. Churchill’s performance as an agenda item, but I have been unable to find any prior attempt to solicit the public’s input.
It seems reasonable to assume that any public input made after this date, and certainly after the Sept. 6 meeting when the City Council voted to draw up a new contract, would have been ignored. Given this background, how are we to interpret the assurance provided by Mayor Brent Ives, as reported in the Press, that the council would debate and vote on the contract extension in the near future at a regular meeting that includes public comment?
Not only did this not happen, it would have been pointless.
The problem here is deeper than misleading the public. The failure to seek timely public input is a severe shortcoming in the overall management of our city. Several members of this community, including myself, have severe reservations regarding Mr. Churchill’s integrity and performance. These reservations have not all been communicated to the council, and my personal experience has been that written communications to the council can go unread.
While Mr. Churchill is entitled to have his performance evaluated and discussed in the privacy of a closed session, the residents of Tracy should also be entitled to provide public input into this process free of a five-minute time constraint (as is instituted by rules governing public comments during council meetings).
By failing to provide the community an explicit opportunity to voice their concerns, the City Council chooses to govern in ignorance.
Beyond this specific example, the council has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to avoid controversial discussion, leaning on the Brown Act’s prohibition of discussion of items not on the agenda. This is directly contrary to the spirit of the Brown Act, which exists to foster open government.
The preamble to the Brown Act reads: “The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.”
Under city rules, in the absence of sponsorship by a council member, there is no mechanism by which the public can place an item on the agenda for discussion. In the course of attending numerous City Council meetings, I have time and again observed frustrated attempts by citizens to place their concerns on the agenda. A more responsible council would act to correct this situation.
• Paul Miles has been a resident of Tracy for 19 years.
We th people have created our government. We allow it ta function in accordance with our will. Yep, when we don't participate an work with th government we have created thangs inevitably go wrong ta whair those who do actively participate get what they want an those who just complain an hope somethang positive will happen don't.
Respectfully I thank both of ya are somewhat wrong in viewin yer government. If ya participate an follow th established rules it may be slow an somewhat difficult but ya usually, if ya have enough citizen backin behind ya, can get somethang positive accomplished. But through all of that ya gotta remember th government ya have participated in th creation of is somethang ya did an not some mythical entity without a brain or even a life did. It's a system, not an entity.
If yer one that simply thanks that every citizen hangs on yer complaint an agrees with it yer sadly mistaken. Most people fall inta this catagory. If ya don't follow th rules established by th people who did it through th government they created, yer not gonna get very fer.
It's not Burger King an ya don't always get it yer way. It's also not fast food but has ta be prepared, simmer an cook an then, hopefully, will yield somethang that is palatable ta all citizens an not just you an th few that agree with ya.
This is not ta say yer complaint ain't valid. What I am sayin is that these people are attemptin th take th fast track ta gettin it resolved an expect it ta all magically happen without followin all of th rules of engagement.
They too have participated in th creation of this government that presides over em. But thair voice, largely, is unheard by that government because they don't engage in it an participate in it in accordance with th established rules of engagement they also have created within thair government.
All of th avenues ta gettin thangs done in government are equally available ta all who choose ta use it.
If someone chooses that avenue of active participation an work, an is successful in thair endeavors, does that mean that they received some special consideration? I don't believe that. So why are people like dcose continually castigated by others fer usin th government ta get thangs done when they too have th same opportunity ta do so?
Does cose do all of this by himself? I don't thank so. He has ta convince others in government ta support his efforts ta get them done.
Folks, it's a lot more than just printin a complaint here in th comment sections or standin up once or twice in an open city council meetin an articulatin what yer issue is.
We all have equal opportunity an if ya don't have th time then is that th problem th rest of us need ta consairn ourselves with?
I am of th notion that raderfan has more than one person that feels he's correct. But what I also see is that they haven't done everythang necessary ta convince thair government ta take action on it. That ain't always done by simply pointin out th issue ta th government but gettin enough like minded people ta put forth th effort ta work within th government all of em have created an get what they want accomplished.
dcose, ya seem ta have pretty much figured it out. An even though ya don't always get what ya want yer pretty successful most of th time.
raderfan, while yer complaints may be entirely valid, ya don't impress me as someone who has figured it out an end up not gettin yer complaint rectified an thus get frustrated an end up thankin that yer government has let ya down.
I don't really know how ta put this inta somethang ya can comprehend. Take cookin. When ya fry an egg do ya first break in inta th pan, apply th heat an then apply th cookin oil so it will heat an cook properly? Or do ya do it th correct way, put th pan on th heat, apply th oil an then when th pan is ready ta cook put in yer egg ta fry?
Th point is that thair are steps anyone can take, all be it sometimes difficult an time consumin, ta get what they want done.
I thank both of ya are good people an do wish th both of ya success in yer endeavors. But I can't really get solidly behind or have much sympathy fer someone that don't follow all of established steps an ends up frustrated without accomplishin much of anythang except sound off about how they have been wronged.
This tit fer tat, you have favoritism I don't nonsense isn't accomplishin much of anythang now is it? So PERHAPS ya should take a different tact an work within th framework of th government we collectively have created instead of buckin it or not even considerin what that framework is.
We th people designed it ta operate slowly an we intentionally made th road ta success difficult ta follow precisely because if it was easy thangs that were not ta th benefit of th greater whole, We th People, would cause more harm than good.
Good luck ta th both of ya an I suggest that both of ya stop quibblin over what both of ya are doin an utilize th system within our government that leads ta th pathway ta success.
Is it easy? Nope. Is it rewardin? Well it must be fer dcose cuse he keeps doin it an seems ta be successful.
Have a good day an I hope ta catch up with this later tanight.
raderfan an dcose. I find it odd that anyone can honestly complain, "you're a good businessman . . .
" an "You've been part of designing the system which makes it difficult for you to see the flaws with an outsider's point of view" whair th person makin th statement has an equal opportunity ta participate in that government.
I also find it odd that th response, "I did not design the system. Staff, Commission, and Council hear my comments . . ."
Tell me this, who designed th government an th "system"?
Did th Staff/Commission/Council do it?
Let me cut ta th chase here fer expediency sake.
It has long been my observation about people in respect ta th government THEY have created. Yep, that's correct, you two an all of th rest of th citizens created th government we USE. Th government didn't create itself.
In my observation these two classes of people fall inta two categories; those who identify a perceived problem they would like ta rectify an yes, even profit frum. actively use th government th people have created. CONT:
'...but that's not to say that you see things clearly. You've been part of designing the system which makes it difficult for you to see the flaws with an outsider's point of view."
Seeing my flaws, yours, and governments is pretty clear. I did not design the system. Staff, Commission, and Council hear my comments on:
the treatment new and existing businesses receive with regard to permits, conditions, rules, requirements, treatment etc.
Development issues i.e. condo conversions. Staff thought rule changes were needed to slow down a rush of conversions coming after a project approval. I explained why the new requirements were unnecessary. They passed. When I asked the planner how many conversions were approved a decade after mine, response, none.
I've watch people talk themselves out of the approval they received. On numerous occasions I've helped applicants gain approvals because staff asked me to help or just felt like lending a hand. My success rate is due to the length of time doing this and comprehension of issues, not because I helped design every city and county's "system". Your knowledge is the depth of a new seedling, Grasshopper.
I dont think so.
Then it is more of a complaint than an accusation.
Our government is designed to allow special interests to provide information in order to influence city staffers and city policy makers. Rightfully so, you are well within the limits of the system to do just that. But let's be perfectly honest.
Your work with City Staff, Elected Officials, Boards, Commissions and City Council is an effort to design a system that best serves your interests, as well as the interests of others.
That's not a bad thing, it's just is what it is. So let's call it what it is and stop denying the fact that you directly and indirectly benefit from your efforts to influence. Just be honest enough to admit it so everyone is aware of it.
From what I understand you're a good businessman Mr. Cose, and you do a lot of good things for the City, but that's not to say that you see things clearly. You've been part of designing the system which makes it difficult for you to see the flaws with an outsider's point of view.
and yet he continues to skirt responsibility for his actions. The real question is this:
Is this the type of person we want operating our City Government?
Is this the type of community Tracy has become?
Is this what our City Council believes to be in the Citizen's best interest?
True responsibility rests in the lap of our Mayor and City Council. It is up to them to take a stand on behalf of the Citizens of Tracy and say "enough is enough!" If one Resident of Tracy California feels as though he/she has been wronged by the City Manager, then that should be enough for our Mayor and City Council to say "Enough is Enough" and take action to remove the cause of the problem.
Ornley is correct in that Churchill is innocent until proven guilty. But that's not to say that just because no lawyer has taken up the case proves he is innocent. That just means no one has taken up the case to prove him guilty.
This may in fact be due to the facts asserted by Mr. Miles. If you read his complaints intently you will find that Churchill stands accused of continually hiding evidence; lying to the City Council and the Public; mishandling of investigations; and generally being a very poor City Manager. (The last item is a non-criminal offense).
If Mr. Miles charges are true then Mr. Churchill's actions will come back to haunt both he and the City Council. Much like the actions of the City Manager in Bell California, he too will be found to be criminally liable for his actions and could end up spending a significant amount of time in jail, as well as being held financially responsible for his actions.
Of course, if you look at his history you will find his actions have not changed over the years. He's had the same problems everywhere he's been employed. (cont)
It seems like you have documented five complaints filed by two people that were never taken before a judge? And a two year rant by tommybahama that the local tabloid eats this stuff up? Is that correct?
ta come up with factual an verified information that would prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Say what ya will. Imply what ya will. But until ya can provide factual an verifiable information that can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt then he's not guilty an we should move on ta other thangs.
Once I thought someone had stolen somethang frum me. Thought I had th facts that would prove it cus th thing he had looked like th thang I thought he had stolen. Turned out he hadn't stolen th thang I thought he stole frum be but purchased it frum th same place I got mine.
Later I found th thang I thought he had stolen an realized that I had accidentally pushed it off th table an it got wedged between th table leg an th wall. But, because he had been in my house when th accident happened I was convinced he had stolen it frum me.
Boy did I look stupid in my allegations that he was not only a thief but a liar because he denied takin it an I just knew he had an even had seen him with it.
It taught me ta be a little more careful before I started accusin someone of somethang. Now I need ta see th facts, verify them an then investigate it thoroughly before makin accusations of guilt.
Seem ta recall that ya are presumed ta be innocent, not guilty, until bein proved of bein guilty. He said, she said, they said, he said don't prove guilt or innocence. Now if ya can prove beyond doubt that guilt is thair, by presentin verified facts, then th person is guilty. If ya can't, even though ya might thank he or she is guilty, then he or she is completely innocent an its wrong, in fact it's libelous, ta continue ta say that th person is guilty.
I will also say it's awfully easy ta slander an liable a person frum th couch of anonymity because it's virtually impossible fer em ta legally respond. Quite a different thang ta put yer own name forward with yer allegations whair, assumin th person is innocent, can take legal action against ya.
Not sayin ya need ta divulge yer name but suggestin that when ya write an accuse someone of wrong doin that ya do it as if yer name is attached.
Now if ya got th conclusions of those suits an investigations that clearly an factually indicate thair is guilt then ya got me listenin.
But, sorta like a person standin trial ta establish his guilt or innocence in a crime an that trial has not come ta a conclusion can ya say he or she is guilty of committin th crime he or she is acused of.
We, th average citizen, often condemn people of crimes they didn't commit cus they might dress a certain way, act a certain way or have said somethang we don't like.
Churchill may be guilty of all ya say. Then again he might not. Seems ta me thair are a lot of smart lawyers out thair that if they felt that they could prove his guilt they would take on th case an have him prosecuted an found guilty.
That, ta my knowledge, hasn't happened. I have no desire ta convict someone without th established an verifiable facts that can prove he's guilty. So I rest on our Constitution that says we must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A lot of mud has been slung around but strangely no one has been able CONT:
Jimminy Crickets, if a guy makes up a conspiracy list as long as santa clause's then one day he is bound to be right about something.
Even Steve Jobs said if you live every day like it was your last one day you will be right.
Fundamentally, I believe Mr. Churchill’s behavior cannot hold up to public discussion and scrutiny, and the City Council knows this and hence seeks to avoid it. Mr. Churchill is entitled to privacy in many areas, but the manner in which he manages this City, the decisions and actions he takes in the course of performing his job, is not one of them. This principle is embodied in the preamble to the Public Records Act: "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state."
Consider the following:
1) For a period exceeding one year, Mr. Churchill refused to respond to complaints and documentary information regarding police misconduct, including misconduct on the part of the Chief of Police. See www.tracy-ca.us/churchill.htm for documentation. This represents not only gross negligence, it was a willful breach of duties explicitly defined in TMC 2.08.060. In a City governed by a rule of law, this alone would void Mr. Churchill’s contract (see section 7B of www.tracy-ca.us/churchillcontract.pdf).
Here is one of the complaints: www.tracy-ca.us/thiessencomplaint.pdf;
Here is Mr. Churchill’s response: www.tracy-ca.us/churchillinvestigation.pdf;
Here is Chief Hampton’s summary of the third party investigation: www.tracy-ca.us/hampton.pdf;
3) While I do not believe all of the third party findings are accurate (if, indeed, they are fully represented in Chief Hampton’s letter), a comparison of his letter with Mr. Churchill’s leads to only two possible conclusions: Either Mr. Churchill conducted an investigation and lied about the findings, or he lied about having conducted an investigation and the findings he reported are fiction. Mr. Churchill deliberately attempted to conceal misconduct on the part of high-ranking Police Dept. staff. If this misconduct was criminal, as I believe, then Mr. Churchill is complicit in these crimes and acted to obstruct justice.
4) My complaints were not isolated. Concurrently, Mr. Helm was expressing concerns regarding Ms. Thiessen’s honesty, a retired Alameda Co. Sheriff’s Deputy was complaining to Mr. Churchill regarding similar police misconduct, Mr. Denman was filing his federal civil rights suit against Ms. Thiessen, and Captain Espinosa had filed his lawsuit alleging retaliation and violation of law. Against this backdrop of significant corroborating evidence and a police department in crisis, Mr. Churchill chose to engage in a cover-up attempt.
For my part, I believe that Mr. Churchill should be removed from office immediately, and his actions carefully evaluated for possible criminal prosecution. On the other extreme, Mr. Churchill might have been placed on probation. However, to award him a 4 year, no-holds-barred contract extension with a healthy pay raise is ludicrous. It is difficult to express my disappointment in the City Council over this action. If they have information that justifies this action, or exculpatory evidence that vindicates Mr. Churchill, the people deserve to know. If not, Mr. Churchill must go.
"With all due respect and to be completely honest Mr. Cose..."
I appreciate your "all due respect" though your complete honesty in this instance has nothing to do with your comment. It is your bias coming forth, not knowing the mechanics of what I do.
"...When someone, like yourself, is part of the system of creating special interests it becomes difficult for you to objectivcely see the flaws you and others have created through your efforts."
You assume much. Ask staff, department heads, commissioners, council people, mayors if I have not argued policy and/or projects with them. If I've missed something in your statement, explain my creating a flawed special interest. Kissing government derrière does not work, it creates more problems.
"Having done this for a living for more than two decades, working with and against staff in different jurisdictions before a number of different Planning Commissions, Councils, and Board of Supervisors."
"I was unaware that every council's member's voting decision is already made before public discussion. All this time, I mistakenly thought I was good at what I did. :-)"
With all due respect and to be completely honest Mr. Cose;
When someone, like yourself, is part of the system of creating special interests it becomes difficult for you to objectivcely see the flaws you and others have created through your efforts.