We couldn’t help but wonder what may have occurred behind the closed doors of the Mayor’s chamber..did Priamos apologize profusely for his actions to the Mayor? or was the Mayor angry and lectured Priamos? We couldn’t help but imagine…
or does the mayor have a special “apology” key on his laptop in which he command one to apologize when politically necessary?
The following is the play by play apology given publicly, not for the public, but to the Council and the Mayor:
Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council.
First I’d like to take this opportunity to express my sincere apologies for the issues and distractions that my actions may have caused over the last several weeks. Second, I would like to address the letter from the RPOA to the mayor and council. Unfortunately Brian Smith, the president of RPOA, did not speak before he wrote and sent that letter. Brian and I spoke last evening and we discussed the call I received from the Press Enterprise. I advised him that it was never my intention nor would I ever want to create an issue from this incident. I also advised him that I made a brief comment to the officer on the way out of the chambers that afternoon. I advised him that my first notice that anything was in the police report was the call from the press enterprise. I also advised him that I was not suggesting nor would I suggest that the officer did not have cause to act.
He apologized for not calling me before sending that letter. He stated that he did not believe for a moment that I directed the officer to arrest Ms. Wright. I apologized for this unfortunate situation. And I advised him that I would not want to harm the relationship with the officers of my client department of which I worked so hard to develop over these past 20 years. I also advised him that I very much valued my relationship with the RPD and it’s officers. At the end of our discussion, he said that he considered this matter closed as far as the RPOA is concerned. And He and I agreed to speak in the future, if there was ever a problem or an issue. Third, I would like to clarify that any City Manager, senior city staff or any elected official directed me to speak with the officer following the afternoon meeting on October 23rd regarding Ms. Wright. Finally it was never my intention to cause any complications or problems, and for that, I sincerely apology.
First, what I found quite discerning was Priamos’s continued use of the term “advised.” He was always “advising”, now let’s not forget this is an apology, and he is now “advising” the president of RPOA, Brian Smith, of how it is. I found it condenscending. The term “advised” in Webster’s can have a number of different conatations such as: admonish, advocate, caution, charge, commend, counsel, direct, dissuade, encourage, enjoin, exhort, forewarn, give a pointer, give a tip, guide, instruct, kibitz, level with, move, opine, point out, preach, prepare, prescribe, prompt, put bug in ear, put in two cents, recommend, steer, suggest, tout, update, urge, and warn. So if you are now buddies with Smith, wouldn’t the conversation be on equal and amical terms?
Second, this apology was made toward the Mayor and Council…why wasn’t there an apology to Officer Sahagun? Or the RPOA? Or Ms. Karen Wright? Or to the community of Riverside for another nation wide City Hall public relations debacle? So now will the charges be dropped against Ms. Wright? After all it just appears now to be just a big misunderstanding… but again, was this only an apology to the mayor and council for publicly embarrassing them? Or should they all on the daiz apologize to each other, since they all had something to say which was quite inaccurate to begin with. Shouldn’t the mayor, council and city attorney simply take responsibility? Taking responsibility would be an action that would heal the community, and that we would never see. An apology would be an action of admitting guilt, and that certainly would not be tolerated by the City Hall moguls. Transparency takes a back seat for now, at least for the City Attorney, the Mayor and some Council members.
Thirdly, I find it quite remarkable that in this apology, the community still doesn’t have a transparent answer as to what really happened. You would think after this “rant”, oops that’s a term used for gadflys. Let’s try it again. You would think after his sincere apology, he would find it appropriate to drop the charges against Ms. Wright.
Fourthly, if the City Manager nor any of the elected officials was responsible for giving Priamos the directive, than why hide under “attorney-client” privilege? Who was the client if you were solely responsible for the directive given to Officer Sahagun? You certainly cannot be both the “attorney” and “client” at the same time. But if you are not completely forthcoming with your response, we must certainly ascertain that your “client”, is the Mayor and and those on the council. Regardless, the community is still not buying it.
Now, this was not Officer’s Nick Sahagun’s first time lending police security to Council Meetings, he was a familiar figure to all, and by all considered a nice guy, even the gadfly’s like him. So you must understand that his behavior that day was considerably unusual and out of the ordinary. Priamos again continues to skew this issue and has yet, in the name of transparency, has refused to give an explanation what he exactly said to Officer Sahagun. But to call Officer Sahagun’s police report “inaccurate” is not only wreckless, but states that the officer was lying. Lying on a police report is a criminal act. If that is true, why haven’t charges been brought up against Officer Sahagun?
I must say that every time an elected or staff official speaks the greater the mystery becomes, more holes than what you find in block of swiss cheese.
RPOA Brian Smith responded to the city’s accusation of inaccuracy in a police report by spewing off a fiery response letter, now the City Attorney and RPOA President are best friends. What is it? Does Priamos want to keep his police radio, emergency police lights and siren in his vehicle? What political prowess entered into the equation between City Hall moguls and RPOA President in order to drastically change the perception?
Brian you have nothing to apologize for, the city was throwing one of your officers under the bus and responded as you should have. We are not even sure if Priamos is telling us the truth about you apologizing, since he never really tells the truth to begin with. From our perspective he was only “advising” you. With that said, I’ll leave it at that.
First, when Priamos calls the police report “inaccurate”, he is calling that officer a liar. Brian Smith, RPOA President states, “we call that a lie in the profession and the State of California calls it lying in a police report a crime.” So if it is in fact a lie will Priamos prosecute for Officer Sahagun falsifying a police report? To this day it remains unclear what Priamos meant by referring to the report as “inaccurate.” In addition, has yet to give an explanation of what was actually said between himself and Officer Sahagun.
Secondly, Smith calls Priamos on his reckless use of invoking “attorney-client” privilege, when the press asked for a response. Smith also assumes by Priamos hiding under “attorney-client” privilege, the client must be Officer Sahagun or one if not all of the elected on the dais. Each time Priamos opens his mouth or doesn’t open his mouth, the questions of his “inaccuracies” become evident.
Thirdly, as Smith states, “the new protocol established empowering the official holding the gavel (mayor or mayor pro temp) being the determinate factor in where there will be police involvement is not good business.” But Chief Sergio Diaz will be at the next City Council November 13 presenting and explaining the new protocol in decorum, and after all that has happened , Diaz appears not to find what he will present odd..
Now, I’ll tell you, how Priamos and Smith became buddies after these choice words is quite remarkable, after all the letter was quite to the point, and gave some insight to past City Hall antics. A damaging letter? Of course, we must mitigate a public relations nightmare by a surgical dose of damage control. Did Priamos decide it would be in the best interest of his clients, the council and mayor, that he’d take care of this issue before it reaches an uncontrollable level? Or did the mayor and some council members just simply told him to take care of it?
If Priamos took it personally upon himself to tell the officer to take care of it. Shouldn’t Priamos be fired? But on the other hand, it’s quite possible that the mayor may have had something do with this, because the mayor is solely responsible, and always have been, for directives regarding the control of city council meetings. The chief of police bringing in new rules now appears to be ludicrous. Rules have always been in place. Another diversion tactic by the mayor to spin blame and deviate from responsibility?
Questions arise and continue to arise because of the City’s problematic acceptance of transparency, creating an inundation of possible scenarios of what actually happened. But for most of us who have simply read the writing on the wall, the chain of events appear quite evident. But for now, I guess we should just say thank-you Priamos for that sort of heart felt apology, but again, if this was some sort of great misunderstanding, shouldn’t you have included in your apology, an apology to Ms. Karen Wright and then drop the charges?
Dan Berstein of the Press Enterprise makes this whole debacle a game show, “To tell the truth!” We now ask, “Will the real mayor please stand up!”
UPDATE: 11/13/2012: THE CROSS WAS BOSS AT TONIGHTS CITY COUNCIL With over 300 people in attendance, council doors were closed early. The City made room outside the council chambers with chairs and a flat screen television, even the cafeteria area of City Hall was utilized with more flat screen t.v.’s to accomadate the issue of the cross on Mt. Rubidoux.
It appears a group from Washington D.C. questioned Riverside’s cross on Mt. Rubidoux as a religious symbol, and states that it violates the first ammendment by crossing the line between the issue of seperation of church and state. The question is should we litigate it in court, donate it to a foundation or sell it to a private entity who will maintain the property. The issue is not over, the council Voted to discuss this issue more in depth with community imput. Litigation would be a costly choice. The question of what benefit does this group filing this law suit get if won, is unknown.
UPDATE: 11/14/2012: WHAT! MAYOR LUV AND YOUNG UCR CAMPUS GIRLS? STAY TUNED..
UPDATE: 11/19/2012: WHAT! CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS CONFERS WITH THE ETHICS BOARD MEMBERS FOR A FAVORABLE OUTCOME?
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND
MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM