Posted by Aram James, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2009 at 1:16 pm 9/21/2009 ( thoughts on CT scandal & related matters) __
>
> Hi Larry, (Larry Klein-- Palo Alto City Council Member)
>
> I am glad to see ( as reported in the Daily Post –September 18, 2009)
> that you will be deliberating re your decision on the Dennis Burns’
> selection-- as Palo Alto's next police chief-- over the weekend. Below I
> will list a few issues for your possible consideration.
>
> *The Pay Issue—Burns contract*
>
> 1. I am far from an expert on PERS (Public Employees Retirement
> System)—but did retire as a Santa Clara County deputy public defender
> (May -2004) –and my retirement is tied to that system.
>
> 2. As I recall—when I retired-- line public defenders and line
> district attorneys –in this county -were tied to an identical pay scale
> based on years of service. I believe in 2004 the formula for determining
> final compensation was something like this: years of service i.e. 25 x’s
> 2% or 2.5% (at 50) --and the practice was to use the last highest 12
> months salary as the third component.
>
> 3. Okay so if someone worked as a DA or PD for 25 years at 2.5%---
> they would receive approximately 62.5 % of their final highest salary
> for the balance of their life in addition to life time medical.
>
> 4. For public safely workers –police & firefighters --the formula
> was slightly different--- instead of multiplying years of service times
> 2% or 2.5% the percentage was 3% at age 50.
>
> 5. The 3 %( for public safety workers) --higher then other forms
> of public service-- was in recognition of the added risk police and fire
> workers face.
>
> 6. Assuming this is the case for Dennis Burns –he is currently
> eligible for retirement as he is over age 50 and has 27 years of service.
>
> 7. Here is what my rough calculations are re what he would receive
> if he left/retired today. *****But certainly check the numbers with
> someone with more knowledge re the PERS system then me.
>
> 8. 27 years x 3% =’s 81% of his final compensation –( currently
> per the press—Burn’s salary is set at
> approximately=$175,000)—_approximate retirement pay per year
> _*_$135,000_*_ for life plus life time medical benefits—if he retires
> now-- in addition to annual cost of living adjustments.( Given that
> Burns actual salary last year was—per the press-$187,255.25—my
> calculations may actually under estimate his current retirement should
> he leave tomorrow._
>
> 9. My first question is *_why should a public-sector employee who
> is eligible for retirement in the amount of $135,000 per year for life
> be given a public give away in the form of a severance payout of $89,286?_*
>
> 10. Isn’t the primary purpose of severance pay to assist departing
> employees who will need time to find another job—and to cushion the
> departing employees living situation during the search? None of this
> reasoning of course applies in the current situation.
>
> 11. The Daily Post piece suggests under his at-will contract Dennis
> Burns will be eligible for bonuses. _When did it become the standard to
> pay public sector employees bonuses_?
>
> 12. During my years as a public defender I never heard of any public
> defender, district attorney, judge, probation officer etc, asking for or
> receiving bonuses.
>
> 13. Most people who decide to take on public service careers do so
> out of a sense that public service work carries with it a sense of pride
> in giving 100% to our respective clients while, at the same
> time---receiving a very good salary.
>
> 14. I can’t imagine a public defender saying I won 7 cases in a row or
> I settled all of my cases without the necessity of trial ---so I should
> be entitled to some sort of bonus.
>
> 15. _What are the listed requirements for the bonuses that Dennis
> Burns may receive and what is the minimum and maximum bonuses he could
> receive in any one year?_
>
> 16. Has anyone else in the history of the PAPD been eligible for bonuses?
>
> 17. I know of no federal judges- or state judges-- who receive
> bonuses. Again working as a public servant has traditionally carried
> with it a sense that you give 100% of your efforts –of your
> professionalism- without an expectation that you should receive any
> financial rewards above and beyond your normal salary.
>
> *18. **I oppose such bonuses and ask that you consider the consequence
> of such a policy in public sector employment, economic recession or not.*
>
> * Credibility Issue-can Burns be
> trusted*
>
> As the Post editorial of September 18, 2009 ( */No time for the rubber
> stamp/*) pointed out--- the PAPD has had one scandal after another over
> the last few years while Dennis Burns has been in upper management. *Now
> there appears to be a concerted effort by city manager James Keene---
> and Dennis Burns himself-- to distance Burns from any responsibly for
> these scandals. *
>
> *Is this city council –whose task it is to affirm or reject Burns’
> contract --willing to accept this "late-in-the-game" attempt to
> shift/avoid responsibility?*
>
> * Burns’ involvement in the Children’s Theater
> Scandal*
>
> 1. It has been widely reported in the press that Dennis Burns
> referred to the now totally discredited former Palo Alto Police sergeant
> and detective –Michael Yore—as the “_Quintessential Detective_.”
>
> /2. /In yesterday’s ( September 18, 2009) Daily Post (/_Burns
> picked as police chief_/) the following statement by Burns was offered
> by James Keene in an attempt to excuse or mitigate Burns’
> “quintessential detective” comment and his related lack of judgment re
> those under his immediate command ---at the time of the CT scandal://
>
> /“Keene said he questioned Burns extensively about the Children’s
> Theater investigation, and Keene said Burns told him “that the
> investigation was controlled pretty closely by the chief herself, with
> (former city manager) Frank Benest as the lead manager on the
> investigation.” “ When asked about Burns’ praise for Sgt. Yore—who
> headed the Children’s Theater investigation—Keene said Burns told him
> that he was speaking about Yore in general and his years of general
> detective work and not how he had investigated the Children’s Theater
> issue.”/
>
> · First it is interesting to note that the two individuals (
> Lynne Johnson & Frank Benest) ---who Burns now claims were actually in
> control of CT scandal--- are now being thrown under the bus by Burns.
>
> · In addition, apparently--- Mr. Keene has failed to investigate
> or question either Benest or Johnson to see if in fact Burns’ claims are
> credible.
>
> · Adding insult to injury re Keene’s lack of due diligence in
> conducting a more complete investigation of Burns last minute claims--
> re not be intimately involved in the CT scandal---- is the still
> unanswered question _re whether Burns was Yore’s direct supervisor
> during the course of the CT scandal_—and, if not-- who was??? And if not
> Burns, why not???
>
> · In addition—when Burns was asked about Yore’s reputation the
> question was asked in the context of the CT scandal *(*see or
> google*-/Who is Sgt. Michael Yore?/ by Becky Trout, Palo Alto Weekly
> –April 29, 2008).*
>
> · Burns’ response at the time— was that Yore was the
> “_Quintessential Detective_” and Burns answer was not modified or
> couched to suggest that he was referring to Yore’s reputation prior to
> the CT Scandal.
>
> · Even if Burns had attempted to so modify his response-- at the
> time he was asked about Yore--- by reporter Becky Trout-- *_there would
> still be a major problem_*.
>
> · In the same article where Burns made his “_Quintessential
> Detective_” comment ---it is pointed out that Yore was involved in at
> least two other very high profile investigations ( Galbraith & Eddie
> Pereles) (both long before the CT scandal) that where Yore’s skills
> and reputation as a detective were called into “big-time” question.
> ****The Galbraith botched investigation resulted in a major
> settlement/finding of $400,000 against the city. ( error--money paid by
> county not city of Palo Alto--but still taxpayer money).
>
> · Yet there was never an attempt by either Keene or Burns to
> explain this major problem/discrepancy re Burns credibility around the
> “_Quintessential Detective_” comment.
>
> · If Burns was referring to Yore’s work re the CT scandal his
> comment is problematic and –given Yore’s less then stellar reputation as
> a detective prior to the CT sandal ( if Burns is now claiming the
> statement referred to Yore’s prior detective work) Burns’ comments still
> remains problematic.
>
> · In either case Burns’ credibility or judgment--- re Yore’s
> work is questionable at best.
>
> · Bottom Line: The reputation often associated with Dennis Burns
> is that he is a man careful with his words ( measured speaker) .
>
> · Here he is stuck either way—he called Yore the
> “_Quintessential Detective_ “ when asked about Yore at the time of the
> CT controversy –now-- when his word are challenged-- he claims he was
> referring to Yore’s past detective work.
>
> · The Problem with Burns most current explanation is that Burns
> knew or should known that Yore’s past reputation as a detective was
> equally suspect.
>
> · Dennis Burns is _not_ a man who –upon careful examination – is
> credible or believable –two essential ingredients before a claim that he
> is a man of integrity can be given much credence.
>
> · If you affirm Burns’ employment you do so knowing this is a
> man with a substantial character flaw—an individual who plays fast and
> loose with the truth.
>
> · You might ask: Would you buy a used car from this man? Not me!
>
> · Should Burns be trusted to lead the Palo Alto Police
> Department based on his own words? You’ve been warned!
>
> *Keene**’s Lame excuse*
>
> · In the September 18, 2009—Daily Post- */Burns picked as police
> chief/*—it was reported that James Keene apparently failed to ask Dennis
> Burns any questions re the Kan & Lee case –the brutal beating of Albert
> Hopkins:
>
> “/As to the Hopkins case, Keene said that happened a long time ago and
> he was not familiar with the issues” ( /September 18, 2009—Daily Post)//
>
> · For months-- prior to Burns selection-- both the press and
> ordinary citizens- by way of articles, editorials, letters to the
> editor, etc, requested that James Keene inquire of Dennis Burns re
> allegations that he led a cover-up of the internal investigation of the
> Kan & Lee case.
>
> · It is at minimum disingenuous for Keene to suggest he would
> have needed to understand all the issues surrounding the Kan & Lee case
> to have been able to put together a series of questions for Burns re
> his involvement in both the internal investigation as well as Burns’
> motives and reasoning for testifying for the defense –not the
> prosecution-- in the case against Kan & Lee.
>
> · How hard would it have been to google the press accounts on
> the case or to ask members of the local press ( or city council members)
> who were in town during the scandal ---to submit questions for Keene to
> ask Burns.
>
> · Bottom Line: Keene knew it was likely Burns could not give
> satisfactory answers-answers that would have satisfied the community—so
> instead he buried his head in the sand ( no wonder he refused to allow
> public forums where the candidates could have been asked these questions).
>
> *Joseph Ciampi Case unanswered questions*
>
> · Joseph Ciampi constitutional rights were violated by three
> members of the PAPD ( April Chan Wagner, Manuel Temores & Kelly Burger)
> —as a result -in December of 2008 –Santa Clara County Superior Court
> Judge Thang Barrett dismissed the felony charges against Mr. Ciampi.
>
> · In addition –Mr. Ciampi was brutally tasered by at least two
> of the officers.
>
> · It is likely that this case will result in costly civil
> litigation against the city.
>
> · Dennis Burns is a proponent of the use of deadly tasers
> despite an ever growing body count –now more than 440 taser related
> deaths in North America since 1999.
>
> · Why was Burns not questioned re the above issues by James
> Keene and what if anything is Burns going to do to prevent future acts
> of police misconduct by the above officers?
>
> · Is Burns willing to take a second look at the Taser
> issue—consider shelving tasers in light of the growing body of
> information re their extreme danger?
>
>
>
> *Other issues still
> unanswered*
>
> · Will James Keene allow Burns to establish an advisory board to
> the chief with meeting to be held behind closed doors?
>
> · Burns continues to hedge on the issue of racial profiling
> –has never acknowledged that it exists in Palo Alto –either historically
> or presently—the best he can say is some have a perception that such an
> issue persists. Why wasn’t Burns questioned on this issue?
>
> · In light of a growing body of data that coercive interrogations
> lead to wrongful convictions –will Burns’ exercise his discretion to set
> a “best practices policy” in Palo Alto—prohibiting his officers from
> using lies or deceit in the course of interrogations, prohibit other
> coercive tactics?
>
> · Will Burns –change the policy that now allows his officers to
> turn on and off the MAV unit at will-- and require—instead--- that the
> MAV remain on at all time?
>
> Okay, Larry Klein, Esq. –thanks for taking the time to review the above
> listed concerns. I do appreciate that you are willing to deliberate over
> the issue of Burns hiring and not simply come to a knee jerk conclusion.
>
> If you should have any questions for me re any of the above issues—and
> for that matter if any other council members do-- ( I will be copy the
> entire council –and others)—please feel free to ask me---- and I will do
> my very best to respond.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Aram James
>
|
Send this story
Print this story
