The story begins in early January of 2007. Based on a tip, the Vanguard ran a story that became a bombshell that reverberated throughout city. On January 10, the story ran on a formerly fired police captain ending up on the short list for police chief.
According to the tip, a Yolo County Judge, Dave Rosenberg, had sent an email to the Davis City Council lobbying them to hire this individual as police chief.
On January 22, 2007, The Vanguard made a simple request to obtain the email through a public records request shortly after the story first ran; however, the city denied the request–twice. They argued that this was part of the deliberative process and was thus exempt from disclosure under the exemption clauses of the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, they argued that this was part of the application process and thus exempt for disclosure.
Under the California Public Records Act, the eventual recourse for obtaining records is to take the agency to court. One of the problems with the California Public Records Act is that there is no administrative appeal other than to the denying agency. There is no independent agency that can examine PRA Requests. And there are minimal penalties for failure to disclose–basically you can receive the requested documents and recover court costs… if you win in court.
In March, with the help of Attorney Don Mooney, the Vanguard formally filed a petition for writ of mandate. Because the request involved Judge Dave Rosenberg, we quickly realized that no Yolo County Judge would take the case. So we had to wait for a visiting judge to take it. It would be until June 13, 2008 before the case was finally heard. Already nearly a year and a half after the fact. This is one more example of the many problems associated with the Public Records Act. The city has now long since hired a new police chief.
The city argued:
“During the recruitment process, Judge Rosenberg (former Mayor of the City), sent an e-mail to the Council with a recommendation regarding one of the applicants, apparently under the mistaken perception that the City Council was responsible for appointing the Chief of Police.”
The problem with that argument is that Judge Rosenberg is a former Mayor of Davis. Of all people, he knows the rules and knows that the Davis City Council is not the body that hires a police chief. The City Manager is.
The city goes on to argue that the application process is confidential and the applicants submitted to the process under the belief that their applications and related papers would not be made public. For some this would potentially subject them to problems in the work place.
Our counter-argument here is simple. This email was submitted not to a decision-making body but rather to the city council, outside of the normal application process. Thus this is not a simple letter of reference made to an authority that has hiring power. Judge Rosenberg knew the law and was using this as an opportunity to try to lobby for his friend to get hired.
In addition, the PRA allows disclosure of documents that might otherwise be exempt if there is a strong and compelling public interest to so.
To this point, the city argued:
“Against these strong privacy interests, there is no strong public interest in disclosure. The only possible public interest served by disclosure of the e-mail regarding the unsuccessful applicant is to assist the public in determining whether the City Manager is accurately carrying out his responsibilities in investigating and approving applicants for the police chief position. However, such checks on the process are not necessary when the top five applicants were interviewed by panels made-up of various individuals, including local residents. Disclosure of the e-mail would serve no other purpose than to embarrass the unsuccessful applicant and unnecessarily intrude upon the privacy of both the applicant and the author.”
However, to our point, a point that the Judge seemed to agree on during oral arguments, there is a strong and compelling reason for the public to know in this case. You have a sitting judge making a recommendation to the Davis City Council, which is outside of the normal application process. In other words, this is tantamount to a lobbying effort by Judge Rosenberg to pressure the Davis City Council to hire his buddy to be police chief. Judge Rosenberg has to reside over court cases brought forward by this individual and the people under this individual’s charge and duty.
As Don Mooney wrote in the response brief:
“Petitioner disagrees with the City’s assertion that this would be only public interest served by disclosure. The City’s argument ignores the source of the e-mail and the recipients of the email. The recipients of the email was not the City Manager, but the members of the City Council. More importantly, the source of the email is a Yolo County Superior Court Judge, who is now the Presiding Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court. Presumably matters involving the City of Davis Police Department will come before Judge Rosenberg in his capacity as a Superior Court. The Police Chief will be responsible for the policies and actions of the officers under his command and such policies and actions may be reviewed by the Superior Court in any number of ways and instances. The matters that come before the Court may range from criminal prosecutions in which police officers and/ or the police chief testify, to alleged police misconduct to alleged civil rights violations involving the Davis Police Department…
The City’s argument may carry more weight if the “letter of reference” was not sent by a judicial officer but instead by a neighbor or former employer or an average citizen within the community. But it was not. As such, a strong public interest exists in disclosure, not to review the role of the City Manager in carrying out his duties, but to review the role a Superior Court Judge sought to have in the selection of a Chief of Police.”
The Judge in oral arguments seemed to agree with this view, pressing the city very hard on this issue. However, in his ruling, he ruled on their side following an “in camera” review of the email in question.
In a four page ruling, the Judge wrote:
“The overarching principal is to protect the privacy of the individual and the principal must be applied in this case not withstanding the circumstances under which the case is now before the Court. In balancing the public interest in disclosure against the competing public interest of preventing secrecy in government the Court finds based on this document that disclosure would be an unwanted invasion into the privacy of the applicant and the Court finds no compelling public interest in disclosure and the need for protecting the privacy of individuals in this class of circumstances clearly out weighs any public interest in disclosure.”
This was clearly a disappointing ruling from the perspective of the Vanguard and the fight for the public’s right to know. I still believe that there is a very compelling reason for this document to be made public, because it shines a light on what I believe was an inappropriate attempt by the sitting Judge, a Judge who is now the presiding officer of the court, to insert himself into the hiring process for the Davis Chief of Police. That action in my view is highly inappropriate and the public ought to know what exactly Judge Rosenberg said in lobbying a body that had no power whatsoever to hire the police chief and in fact had no knowledge of who the finalists for the position even were.
According to the law, the Vanguard has the right to appeal the ruling within 60 days of it being filed. However, this would be a costly endeavor and that cost must be weighed against the chances for success.
To this day, this process has been a valuable one to give me further insight into the process and the weaknesses of the Public Records Act.
On Wednesday, on the Vanguard Radio show, we talked with Investigative Report Thomas Peele, who is an expert on the California Public Records Act and watchdog Barry Allen of the group, the Vanguardians, a Glendale-based public watch dog organization. One of the main topics was the California Public Records Act and how the Act is weak. Thomas Peele for instance had numerous suggestions on how to improve the public records act. To listen to the podcast online, please click here.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
and people are surprised that Rosenberg’s handling of the “investigation” of the closing of the first Topete hearing was so dishonest and inept
whether legally correct or not, the ruling has the distinct scent of one judge covering for another, but that’s what happens when a judge gets himself in the sort of silly predicament that Rosenberg did here
–Richard Estes
and people are surprised that Rosenberg’s handling of the “investigation” of the closing of the first Topete hearing was so dishonest and inept
whether legally correct or not, the ruling has the distinct scent of one judge covering for another, but that’s what happens when a judge gets himself in the sort of silly predicament that Rosenberg did here
–Richard Estes
and people are surprised that Rosenberg’s handling of the “investigation” of the closing of the first Topete hearing was so dishonest and inept
whether legally correct or not, the ruling has the distinct scent of one judge covering for another, but that’s what happens when a judge gets himself in the sort of silly predicament that Rosenberg did here
–Richard Estes
and people are surprised that Rosenberg’s handling of the “investigation” of the closing of the first Topete hearing was so dishonest and inept
whether legally correct or not, the ruling has the distinct scent of one judge covering for another, but that’s what happens when a judge gets himself in the sort of silly predicament that Rosenberg did here
–Richard Estes
The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process. Even if it did go to the correct person, the person wasn’t hired.
What is the big deal?
The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process. Even if it did go to the correct person, the person wasn’t hired.
What is the big deal?
The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process. Even if it did go to the correct person, the person wasn’t hired.
What is the big deal?
The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process. Even if it did go to the correct person, the person wasn’t hired.
What is the big deal?
The” big deal” is that the “bible”(Blackstone?) on
judicial ethics specifically addresses, and declares as unethical behavior, judges interjecting themselves into the selection process for police chiefs.
The” big deal” is that the “bible”(Blackstone?) on
judicial ethics specifically addresses, and declares as unethical behavior, judges interjecting themselves into the selection process for police chiefs.
The” big deal” is that the “bible”(Blackstone?) on
judicial ethics specifically addresses, and declares as unethical behavior, judges interjecting themselves into the selection process for police chiefs.
The” big deal” is that the “bible”(Blackstone?) on
judicial ethics specifically addresses, and declares as unethical behavior, judges interjecting themselves into the selection process for police chiefs.
Please reference this.
Why wasn’t that the issue brought up by the Vanguard?
Please reference this.
Why wasn’t that the issue brought up by the Vanguard?
Please reference this.
Why wasn’t that the issue brought up by the Vanguard?
Please reference this.
Why wasn’t that the issue brought up by the Vanguard?
To charging at windmills:
David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook. I cannot quote you the page no. where intervening in the selection process for police chief is addressed but it was not difficult for me to find.
To charging at windmills:
David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook. I cannot quote you the page no. where intervening in the selection process for police chief is addressed but it was not difficult for me to find.
To charging at windmills:
David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook. I cannot quote you the page no. where intervening in the selection process for police chief is addressed but it was not difficult for me to find.
To charging at windmills:
David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook. I cannot quote you the page no. where intervening in the selection process for police chief is addressed but it was not difficult for me to find.
Be forewarned, the title “handbook” does not describe a thin paperback. This is a hefty tome.
Be forewarned, the title “handbook” does not describe a thin paperback. This is a hefty tome.
Be forewarned, the title “handbook” does not describe a thin paperback. This is a hefty tome.
Be forewarned, the title “handbook” does not describe a thin paperback. This is a hefty tome.
Charging:
I thought I made it clear in the article that I believe it to be unethical for a Judge to intervene in such a way. The fact that the individual was not hired, something, incidentally that was not known at the time, does not excuse the behavior of the judge. Just as if I were to bribe someone to hire an individual, and they do not hire the individual, does not excuse the fact that I have bribed them.
Charging:
I thought I made it clear in the article that I believe it to be unethical for a Judge to intervene in such a way. The fact that the individual was not hired, something, incidentally that was not known at the time, does not excuse the behavior of the judge. Just as if I were to bribe someone to hire an individual, and they do not hire the individual, does not excuse the fact that I have bribed them.
Charging:
I thought I made it clear in the article that I believe it to be unethical for a Judge to intervene in such a way. The fact that the individual was not hired, something, incidentally that was not known at the time, does not excuse the behavior of the judge. Just as if I were to bribe someone to hire an individual, and they do not hire the individual, does not excuse the fact that I have bribed them.
Charging:
I thought I made it clear in the article that I believe it to be unethical for a Judge to intervene in such a way. The fact that the individual was not hired, something, incidentally that was not known at the time, does not excuse the behavior of the judge. Just as if I were to bribe someone to hire an individual, and they do not hire the individual, does not excuse the fact that I have bribed them.
“The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process.”
The City Council doesn’t directly hire and fire anyone but the City Manager and the City Attorney, but that doesn’t mean its individual memberws “do not have not influence” over the hiring.
Since the City Council hires and fires the City Manager, a City Manager would be well advised to listen to input as to whom he/she hires and fires. The City Manager’s hiring decisions could well be a major factor in a council’s evaluation of his job performance.
“The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process.”
The City Council doesn’t directly hire and fire anyone but the City Manager and the City Attorney, but that doesn’t mean its individual memberws “do not have not influence” over the hiring.
Since the City Council hires and fires the City Manager, a City Manager would be well advised to listen to input as to whom he/she hires and fires. The City Manager’s hiring decisions could well be a major factor in a council’s evaluation of his job performance.
“The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process.”
The City Council doesn’t directly hire and fire anyone but the City Manager and the City Attorney, but that doesn’t mean its individual memberws “do not have not influence” over the hiring.
Since the City Council hires and fires the City Manager, a City Manager would be well advised to listen to input as to whom he/she hires and fires. The City Manager’s hiring decisions could well be a major factor in a council’s evaluation of his job performance.
“The email – a letter of reference for someone applying for a job – was sent to people that had no influence over the hiring process.”
The City Council doesn’t directly hire and fire anyone but the City Manager and the City Attorney, but that doesn’t mean its individual memberws “do not have not influence” over the hiring.
Since the City Council hires and fires the City Manager, a City Manager would be well advised to listen to input as to whom he/she hires and fires. The City Manager’s hiring decisions could well be a major factor in a council’s evaluation of his job performance.
DPD, please make public all your emails to city council people and other elected officials, so we may save the time and expense of trying to get them disclosed after the fact. Thank you.
DPD, please make public all your emails to city council people and other elected officials, so we may save the time and expense of trying to get them disclosed after the fact. Thank you.
DPD, please make public all your emails to city council people and other elected officials, so we may save the time and expense of trying to get them disclosed after the fact. Thank you.
DPD, please make public all your emails to city council people and other elected officials, so we may save the time and expense of trying to get them disclosed after the fact. Thank you.
Those are public records and you are welcome to request them from the appropriate agencies.
Those are public records and you are welcome to request them from the appropriate agencies.
Those are public records and you are welcome to request them from the appropriate agencies.
Those are public records and you are welcome to request them from the appropriate agencies.
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
anonymous 9:46:
You might want to familiarize yourself with the Public Records Act before you wise-crack. As it stands now, if you send an email to an elected official using their government email address, it is a disclosable public record and someone can get a copy of it.
“In March, with the help of Attorney Don Mooney, the Vanguard formerly filed a petition for writ of mandate.”
Doug, do you mean “formerly” or “formally”?
“In March, with the help of Attorney Don Mooney, the Vanguard formerly filed a petition for writ of mandate.”
Doug, do you mean “formerly” or “formally”?
“In March, with the help of Attorney Don Mooney, the Vanguard formerly filed a petition for writ of mandate.”
Doug, do you mean “formerly” or “formally”?
“In March, with the help of Attorney Don Mooney, the Vanguard formerly filed a petition for writ of mandate.”
Doug, do you mean “formerly” or “formally”?
Formally. I’d claim I was under the influence cold medicine, but I don’t have a good track record.
Formally. I’d claim I was under the influence cold medicine, but I don’t have a good track record.
Formally. I’d claim I was under the influence cold medicine, but I don’t have a good track record.
Formally. I’d claim I was under the influence cold medicine, but I don’t have a good track record.
Suppose, for a moment, the E-mail in question does not exist. Could the City simply respond accordingly and save a lot of legal expenses and time for everybody?
Putting it another way, does the City’s response mean a tacit admission that such an E-mail does exist, but does not want to disclose it for the reasons stated in their formal response?
Can someone with legal experience with the Public Records Act comment on the possibility of the City of Davis not wanting to set a precedent of giving out E-mail messages when they involve personnel matters? I understand the significance of a judicial officer allegedly trying to influence a department head selection. But I also have to wonder if there is also a concern by the City of giving out this kind of information regardless of the author.
Suppose, for a moment, the E-mail in question does not exist. Could the City simply respond accordingly and save a lot of legal expenses and time for everybody?
Putting it another way, does the City’s response mean a tacit admission that such an E-mail does exist, but does not want to disclose it for the reasons stated in their formal response?
Can someone with legal experience with the Public Records Act comment on the possibility of the City of Davis not wanting to set a precedent of giving out E-mail messages when they involve personnel matters? I understand the significance of a judicial officer allegedly trying to influence a department head selection. But I also have to wonder if there is also a concern by the City of giving out this kind of information regardless of the author.
Suppose, for a moment, the E-mail in question does not exist. Could the City simply respond accordingly and save a lot of legal expenses and time for everybody?
Putting it another way, does the City’s response mean a tacit admission that such an E-mail does exist, but does not want to disclose it for the reasons stated in their formal response?
Can someone with legal experience with the Public Records Act comment on the possibility of the City of Davis not wanting to set a precedent of giving out E-mail messages when they involve personnel matters? I understand the significance of a judicial officer allegedly trying to influence a department head selection. But I also have to wonder if there is also a concern by the City of giving out this kind of information regardless of the author.
Suppose, for a moment, the E-mail in question does not exist. Could the City simply respond accordingly and save a lot of legal expenses and time for everybody?
Putting it another way, does the City’s response mean a tacit admission that such an E-mail does exist, but does not want to disclose it for the reasons stated in their formal response?
Can someone with legal experience with the Public Records Act comment on the possibility of the City of Davis not wanting to set a precedent of giving out E-mail messages when they involve personnel matters? I understand the significance of a judicial officer allegedly trying to influence a department head selection. But I also have to wonder if there is also a concern by the City of giving out this kind of information regardless of the author.
The city never denied the existence of such a record. I personally watched them give a copy to the judge for his perusal.
As a non-lawyer, my understand is that the decision not to disclose had nothing to do with who the sender was but rather the fact that the city had insured the applicants of a confidential policy. From the city’s standpoint, the decision makes perfect sense to withhold the record. I still believe this should be a public record under the framework of the act and Proposition 59.
The city never denied the existence of such a record. I personally watched them give a copy to the judge for his perusal.
As a non-lawyer, my understand is that the decision not to disclose had nothing to do with who the sender was but rather the fact that the city had insured the applicants of a confidential policy. From the city’s standpoint, the decision makes perfect sense to withhold the record. I still believe this should be a public record under the framework of the act and Proposition 59.
The city never denied the existence of such a record. I personally watched them give a copy to the judge for his perusal.
As a non-lawyer, my understand is that the decision not to disclose had nothing to do with who the sender was but rather the fact that the city had insured the applicants of a confidential policy. From the city’s standpoint, the decision makes perfect sense to withhold the record. I still believe this should be a public record under the framework of the act and Proposition 59.
The city never denied the existence of such a record. I personally watched them give a copy to the judge for his perusal.
As a non-lawyer, my understand is that the decision not to disclose had nothing to do with who the sender was but rather the fact that the city had insured the applicants of a confidential policy. From the city’s standpoint, the decision makes perfect sense to withhold the record. I still believe this should be a public record under the framework of the act and Proposition 59.
DJD, the government doesn’t have the ability to grant assurances of confidentiality to people in regard to information provided, if it is not authorized by law, there’s no “the government agreed to keep my information confidential” exception to the PRA
–Richard
DJD, the government doesn’t have the ability to grant assurances of confidentiality to people in regard to information provided, if it is not authorized by law, there’s no “the government agreed to keep my information confidential” exception to the PRA
–Richard
DJD, the government doesn’t have the ability to grant assurances of confidentiality to people in regard to information provided, if it is not authorized by law, there’s no “the government agreed to keep my information confidential” exception to the PRA
–Richard
DJD, the government doesn’t have the ability to grant assurances of confidentiality to people in regard to information provided, if it is not authorized by law, there’s no “the government agreed to keep my information confidential” exception to the PRA
–Richard
But there is a personnel matter exemption which the interview process they are claiming falls under.
But there is a personnel matter exemption which the interview process they are claiming falls under.
But there is a personnel matter exemption which the interview process they are claiming falls under.
But there is a personnel matter exemption which the interview process they are claiming falls under.
charging at windmills – The Vanguard did bring this issue up i the past. You must be a new reader.
Thank you for covering this DPD!!
charging at windmills – The Vanguard did bring this issue up i the past. You must be a new reader.
Thank you for covering this DPD!!
charging at windmills – The Vanguard did bring this issue up i the past. You must be a new reader.
Thank you for covering this DPD!!
charging at windmills – The Vanguard did bring this issue up i the past. You must be a new reader.
Thank you for covering this DPD!!
Great post DPD.
Great post DPD.
Great post DPD.
Great post DPD.
This must be why Rexroad doesn’t use a County email address. That way he doesn’t have to disclose any of the emails.
This must be why Rexroad doesn’t use a County email address. That way he doesn’t have to disclose any of the emails.
This must be why Rexroad doesn’t use a County email address. That way he doesn’t have to disclose any of the emails.
This must be why Rexroad doesn’t use a County email address. That way he doesn’t have to disclose any of the emails.
Technically if it is public business related, it could be subject to the public records act. In practice, it is more difficult to get.
Technically if it is public business related, it could be subject to the public records act. In practice, it is more difficult to get.
Technically if it is public business related, it could be subject to the public records act. In practice, it is more difficult to get.
Technically if it is public business related, it could be subject to the public records act. In practice, it is more difficult to get.
DPD,
dave rosenberg should have done this on a personal level only. of course dave rosenberg and david greenwald have similar traits. the one they sevre the biggest helping to is, themselves.
DPD,
dave rosenberg should have done this on a personal level only. of course dave rosenberg and david greenwald have similar traits. the one they sevre the biggest helping to is, themselves.
DPD,
dave rosenberg should have done this on a personal level only. of course dave rosenberg and david greenwald have similar traits. the one they sevre the biggest helping to is, themselves.
DPD,
dave rosenberg should have done this on a personal level only. of course dave rosenberg and david greenwald have similar traits. the one they sevre the biggest helping to is, themselves.
I don’t think he should have done this on a personnel. As a Judge he is forbidden from endorsing in political races except for Judge. This is not a whole lot different in my view.
As for the rest, well I guess you don’t know me very well.
I don’t think he should have done this on a personnel. As a Judge he is forbidden from endorsing in political races except for Judge. This is not a whole lot different in my view.
As for the rest, well I guess you don’t know me very well.
I don’t think he should have done this on a personnel. As a Judge he is forbidden from endorsing in political races except for Judge. This is not a whole lot different in my view.
As for the rest, well I guess you don’t know me very well.
I don’t think he should have done this on a personnel. As a Judge he is forbidden from endorsing in political races except for Judge. This is not a whole lot different in my view.
As for the rest, well I guess you don’t know me very well.
“This is not a whole lot different in my view.”
…more to the point, it is my recollection,when perusing Rothman’s
California Judicial Conduct Handbook, that the situation in question was specfically cited as one which potentially violated judicial ethics, i.e., a judge attempting to insert himself in a Chief of Police selection process.
“This is not a whole lot different in my view.”
…more to the point, it is my recollection,when perusing Rothman’s
California Judicial Conduct Handbook, that the situation in question was specfically cited as one which potentially violated judicial ethics, i.e., a judge attempting to insert himself in a Chief of Police selection process.
“This is not a whole lot different in my view.”
…more to the point, it is my recollection,when perusing Rothman’s
California Judicial Conduct Handbook, that the situation in question was specfically cited as one which potentially violated judicial ethics, i.e., a judge attempting to insert himself in a Chief of Police selection process.
“This is not a whole lot different in my view.”
…more to the point, it is my recollection,when perusing Rothman’s
California Judicial Conduct Handbook, that the situation in question was specfically cited as one which potentially violated judicial ethics, i.e., a judge attempting to insert himself in a Chief of Police selection process.
Was the person in question Nick Concolino?
Was the person in question Nick Concolino?
Was the person in question Nick Concolino?
Was the person in question Nick Concolino?
If you follow the link on the main article, you see that it is Nick Concolino.
If you follow the link on the main article, you see that it is Nick Concolino.
If you follow the link on the main article, you see that it is Nick Concolino.
If you follow the link on the main article, you see that it is Nick Concolino.
Folks there was a long article on this linked to the main article:
Concolino Story
Folks there was a long article on this linked to the main article:
Concolino Story
Folks there was a long article on this linked to the main article:
Concolino Story
Folks there was a long article on this linked to the main article:
Concolino Story
A little Davis history is called for here. The DPD second-in-command fomented such disrespect in the DPD ranks and so undercut the authority of his boss, Chief Gonzales, that Gonzales utimately could not longer lead the DPD and resigned his position. An aggressive campaign was then launched by the second-in-command’s local Davis political supporters to have him be chosen as Gonzales’ successor.
A little Davis history is called for here. The DPD second-in-command fomented such disrespect in the DPD ranks and so undercut the authority of his boss, Chief Gonzales, that Gonzales utimately could not longer lead the DPD and resigned his position. An aggressive campaign was then launched by the second-in-command’s local Davis political supporters to have him be chosen as Gonzales’ successor.
A little Davis history is called for here. The DPD second-in-command fomented such disrespect in the DPD ranks and so undercut the authority of his boss, Chief Gonzales, that Gonzales utimately could not longer lead the DPD and resigned his position. An aggressive campaign was then launched by the second-in-command’s local Davis political supporters to have him be chosen as Gonzales’ successor.
A little Davis history is called for here. The DPD second-in-command fomented such disrespect in the DPD ranks and so undercut the authority of his boss, Chief Gonzales, that Gonzales utimately could not longer lead the DPD and resigned his position. An aggressive campaign was then launched by the second-in-command’s local Davis political supporters to have him be chosen as Gonzales’ successor.
Judge Rosenberg handles criminal cases in the same conty were the Davis PD investigates and sends cases to the Yolo DA for evaluation and prosecution. The judicial endorsement of the Police Chief whose prosecutions are handled by the endorsing judge seems … somehow … not right. I have not read the judicial ethics manual or laws. It just seems to lack the appearance of being impartial and fair.
The judiciary has to be SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT from the other branches of government.
Also, there was very very very good reason for the Davis PD not to hire Concolino back … as Dunning is fond of saying, “trust me.”
Judge Rosenberg handles criminal cases in the same conty were the Davis PD investigates and sends cases to the Yolo DA for evaluation and prosecution. The judicial endorsement of the Police Chief whose prosecutions are handled by the endorsing judge seems … somehow … not right. I have not read the judicial ethics manual or laws. It just seems to lack the appearance of being impartial and fair.
The judiciary has to be SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT from the other branches of government.
Also, there was very very very good reason for the Davis PD not to hire Concolino back … as Dunning is fond of saying, “trust me.”
Judge Rosenberg handles criminal cases in the same conty were the Davis PD investigates and sends cases to the Yolo DA for evaluation and prosecution. The judicial endorsement of the Police Chief whose prosecutions are handled by the endorsing judge seems … somehow … not right. I have not read the judicial ethics manual or laws. It just seems to lack the appearance of being impartial and fair.
The judiciary has to be SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT from the other branches of government.
Also, there was very very very good reason for the Davis PD not to hire Concolino back … as Dunning is fond of saying, “trust me.”
Judge Rosenberg handles criminal cases in the same conty were the Davis PD investigates and sends cases to the Yolo DA for evaluation and prosecution. The judicial endorsement of the Police Chief whose prosecutions are handled by the endorsing judge seems … somehow … not right. I have not read the judicial ethics manual or laws. It just seems to lack the appearance of being impartial and fair.
The judiciary has to be SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT from the other branches of government.
Also, there was very very very good reason for the Davis PD not to hire Concolino back … as Dunning is fond of saying, “trust me.”
Just tuned in…
Is it really written that it is SPECIFICALLY forbidden for a judge to intervene in the hiring of a police chief. Wow.
What kind of authority does David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook, have? Is it officially sanctioned?
Just tuned in…
Is it really written that it is SPECIFICALLY forbidden for a judge to intervene in the hiring of a police chief. Wow.
What kind of authority does David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook, have? Is it officially sanctioned?
Just tuned in…
Is it really written that it is SPECIFICALLY forbidden for a judge to intervene in the hiring of a police chief. Wow.
What kind of authority does David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook, have? Is it officially sanctioned?
Just tuned in…
Is it really written that it is SPECIFICALLY forbidden for a judge to intervene in the hiring of a police chief. Wow.
What kind of authority does David Rothman,California Judicial Conduct Handbook, have? Is it officially sanctioned?
Two points: Phil Coleman served this city well and I will always believe that JG had a lot to do with PC’s retirement so what goes around, comes around. I worked for Chief Coleman for the entire time he was here and we’d all be better off had he remained Chief. No one in my opinion put in more quality hours and got more accomplished in 5 years….AND, does anyone else think it a coincidence that UCD’s chief also came from the same department as Chief Black?? The city and university conduct nationwide searches and both departments select people from the same city? And Seattle isn’t exactly next door either. Anyone else notice this?
Two points: Phil Coleman served this city well and I will always believe that JG had a lot to do with PC’s retirement so what goes around, comes around. I worked for Chief Coleman for the entire time he was here and we’d all be better off had he remained Chief. No one in my opinion put in more quality hours and got more accomplished in 5 years….AND, does anyone else think it a coincidence that UCD’s chief also came from the same department as Chief Black?? The city and university conduct nationwide searches and both departments select people from the same city? And Seattle isn’t exactly next door either. Anyone else notice this?
Two points: Phil Coleman served this city well and I will always believe that JG had a lot to do with PC’s retirement so what goes around, comes around. I worked for Chief Coleman for the entire time he was here and we’d all be better off had he remained Chief. No one in my opinion put in more quality hours and got more accomplished in 5 years….AND, does anyone else think it a coincidence that UCD’s chief also came from the same department as Chief Black?? The city and university conduct nationwide searches and both departments select people from the same city? And Seattle isn’t exactly next door either. Anyone else notice this?
Two points: Phil Coleman served this city well and I will always believe that JG had a lot to do with PC’s retirement so what goes around, comes around. I worked for Chief Coleman for the entire time he was here and we’d all be better off had he remained Chief. No one in my opinion put in more quality hours and got more accomplished in 5 years….AND, does anyone else think it a coincidence that UCD’s chief also came from the same department as Chief Black?? The city and university conduct nationwide searches and both departments select people from the same city? And Seattle isn’t exactly next door either. Anyone else notice this?
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/
documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.
Here’s an article on politicial contribution links between Judge Rosenberg, Public Defender Barry Melton and Sheriff Ed Prieto.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/
ci_10138996
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/
documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.
Here’s an article on politicial contribution links between Judge Rosenberg, Public Defender Barry Melton and Sheriff Ed Prieto.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/
ci_10138996
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/
documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.
Here’s an article on politicial contribution links between Judge Rosenberg, Public Defender Barry Melton and Sheriff Ed Prieto.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/
ci_10138996
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/
documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.
Here’s an article on politicial contribution links between Judge Rosenberg, Public Defender Barry Melton and Sheriff Ed Prieto.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/
ci_10138996
anon 1:46 AM
While Rothman may not be “officially sanctioned”, it is recognized as the “bible” on CA judicial conduct by the CA legal profession… and yes, as I recall, there is specific reference in Rothman to judges becoming involved in the selection process for chiefs of police.
anon 1:46 AM
While Rothman may not be “officially sanctioned”, it is recognized as the “bible” on CA judicial conduct by the CA legal profession… and yes, as I recall, there is specific reference in Rothman to judges becoming involved in the selection process for chiefs of police.
anon 1:46 AM
While Rothman may not be “officially sanctioned”, it is recognized as the “bible” on CA judicial conduct by the CA legal profession… and yes, as I recall, there is specific reference in Rothman to judges becoming involved in the selection process for chiefs of police.
anon 1:46 AM
While Rothman may not be “officially sanctioned”, it is recognized as the “bible” on CA judicial conduct by the CA legal profession… and yes, as I recall, there is specific reference in Rothman to judges becoming involved in the selection process for chiefs of police.
Was this situation ever reported to the Bar?
Was this situation ever reported to the Bar?
Was this situation ever reported to the Bar?
Was this situation ever reported to the Bar?
No. I have only the tip to go on with this story, no document unless I am able to prevail on an appeal.
BTW, we made the decision yesterday afternoon to appeal.
No. I have only the tip to go on with this story, no document unless I am able to prevail on an appeal.
BTW, we made the decision yesterday afternoon to appeal.
No. I have only the tip to go on with this story, no document unless I am able to prevail on an appeal.
BTW, we made the decision yesterday afternoon to appeal.
No. I have only the tip to go on with this story, no document unless I am able to prevail on an appeal.
BTW, we made the decision yesterday afternoon to appeal.
Glad to hear you are pursuing this matter. After what happened in the Topete case, everything needs to come out in the open. Sounds like the city is trying to hide something. Fact of the matter is Rosenberg knew fair well the City Council can pressure the City Manager in who is hired for Police Chief. Rosenberg did the wrong thing, but then why should that surprise anyone. He was not qualified for the job, and it is showing. He was a political appointee of none other than Gray Davis.
Glad to hear you are pursuing this matter. After what happened in the Topete case, everything needs to come out in the open. Sounds like the city is trying to hide something. Fact of the matter is Rosenberg knew fair well the City Council can pressure the City Manager in who is hired for Police Chief. Rosenberg did the wrong thing, but then why should that surprise anyone. He was not qualified for the job, and it is showing. He was a political appointee of none other than Gray Davis.
Glad to hear you are pursuing this matter. After what happened in the Topete case, everything needs to come out in the open. Sounds like the city is trying to hide something. Fact of the matter is Rosenberg knew fair well the City Council can pressure the City Manager in who is hired for Police Chief. Rosenberg did the wrong thing, but then why should that surprise anyone. He was not qualified for the job, and it is showing. He was a political appointee of none other than Gray Davis.
Glad to hear you are pursuing this matter. After what happened in the Topete case, everything needs to come out in the open. Sounds like the city is trying to hide something. Fact of the matter is Rosenberg knew fair well the City Council can pressure the City Manager in who is hired for Police Chief. Rosenberg did the wrong thing, but then why should that surprise anyone. He was not qualified for the job, and it is showing. He was a political appointee of none other than Gray Davis.