Chico’s Mayor and Police Staffing: Is he still stoned?

I’m really getting tired of Chico’s Mayor blabbing his chops about our “fully staffed” Police Department! Recently, he hasn’t stopped there with such claims, but he instead continues and pontificates about National police staffing standards as if he’s some sort of expert. As per his usual, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and so he has again relied on MSU (Making Shit Up) when talking to citizens or the media about this important community issue.

This is not the first time I have felt compelled to offer factual perspective on police staffing in Chico (since the public narrative on this issue seems to be routinely devoid of such factual information). If you want to know more, take a look at the Mike Maloney Musings post from May 7, 2015.

Here’s what has prompted my latest:

In a January 28, 2019 Facebook exchange related to a March 2018 USA Today article about 25 cities where crime is soaring (Chico was ranked #19 in the article), the Mayor said to a local realtor and other commenters, “Back of the napkin National figures show one police officer per 15,000 residents… our sworn staff is full staffed as of two weeks ago (which would have been approximately January 14, 2019) but using population figures from before the Camp Fire… under the presumption that Chico has increased by 20,000… that’s two officers, back of the napkin. One has been fully funded for the next three years (apparently the one funded at the request of a North Valley Community Foundation donor), allowing us the flexibility to hire another.” He continued, “Regardless, I proposed and passed a doubling of police officer hiring and training rate to ensure we had a solid pipeline of recruits… Officer numbers are within reasonable ranges, the Camp Fire notwithstanding. And, that is moving forward, thankful for the bandwidth jumpstart I gave the hiring process last year.”

What exactly did he do – I mean very specifically? What "doubling" of hiring and training did he make happen? I ask because the CPD still has less sworn officers then in 06-07!

Then, in media reports on his State of the City address on Friday, February 15, 2019, we read: “With regard to addressing crime, the Mayor suggested getting creative and possibly funding more Downtown Ambassadors and Social Workers. He noted that Chico has adequate policing levels relative to its population size.”

Who, that knows anything about professional policing, says so? Is it according to population size, or population served?

Stone next shares on his Facebook page, a Chico ER article from March 1, wherein City Manager Mark Orme is reflecting on the impacts from the Camp Fire on Chico. Stone specifically highlighted: “While Chico was ready to celebrate having a fully staffed police force for the pre-Nov. 8 population, that’s no longer the case.”

What exactly is “fully staffed?” Does it mean that all authorized positions are filled? I ask because a couple years ago when the Council turned their backs on the PD and let it dwindle to 82 authorized, it could be said that they were fully staffed then too. Or, does “fully staffed” mean restoration of what was taken away starting 12 years ago? That still has not happened.

And finally, in comment to one of his own Facebook posts on March 2, 2019, Stone speaks to only being “in control” for 12 weeks, and he mentions that the previous Council was “dithering” for 4-6 years in a Federal Disaster Zone, and some “didn’t even bother to show up for work months and years at a time.” He said it will take more than 12 weeks to right 4+ years of ineptitude. Then, after ridiculing the commenter he responded to, he finished by saying, “… PS, I moved the Police Staffing Plan that brought these officers here. I moved the *doubling* of police staffing. Both of those have had the single greatest impact on police staffing and *I* proposed both.”

Wow….the Mayor thinks it is about him “being in control?!” Dithering, ineptitude and not showing up for work (at Council?) for years? This guy has an out of control ego/sense of self importance, and to use such terms to blanketly describe all his past colleagues on Council? Just wow!!! And then we have the big misrepresentation: “I moved the Police Staffing Plan and doubling of police staffing!” Do tell Mr. Mayor….please provide the details of exactly what you did. And while you are at it, please let us all know specifically what you did to support/enhance/increase police staffing while the other Council ineptly dithered?!? What did YOU double from/to?

Let’s be very clear about a few things:

1.         The Mayor has no idea what he is talking about when he speaks of National police staffing standards (his “back of the napkin” reference). How do I know? Because no such thing exists! It appears his perspective is that only two additional officers would be needed to service what is believed to be an additional 20,000 people in Chico. Even if his numbers did constitute a standard (one officer per 15,000 population), Chico with its current population of about 92,000 would only need 6 officers, or only 8 TOTAL if we assume 20,000 more people in Chico after the Camp Fire……REALLY? I think not!

2.         Chico DOES NOT have adequate staffing levels relative to its population size. Off the record conversations with any line level CPD employee will confirm this anecdotally, but there other facts which will also help to illustrate why. Unsolved crimes, delayed officer responses, non-responses, deprioritization and non response to quality of life calls, increases in traffic accidents are all functions of not having enough people to do the job. The shuffling of people around to new units and assignments (like the announcement of 4 new people going to the Street Crimes Unit within the last couple weeks) is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or moving walls around in a house of cards. This is what has been going on for years as CPD has struggled to get by. Its very simple: CPD does not have enough people to do the job that; 1) Needs to be done, and 2) The citizens of Chico want them to do

3.         Chico DOES NOT have a “fully staffed’ police force! In fact, Chico still does not even have as many police officers as it did in 2007. If we are going to call CPD “fully staffed,” it would seem that the starting point would at least be restoration of the previous (yet inadequate even then!) staffing levels. If not, I would opine as a 37 year veteran of law enforcement, the last 20+ of which were as an administrator in CPD, that “fully staffed” would at the very least be to be consistent with “average.” Currently, Chico can claim neither. By the way, the addition or deletion of even one of two sworn officers or non-sworn support staff can have a profound impact on CPD when they have been struggling for so long to keep their heads above water.

4.         Randall Stone may have been the person to make a Council motion when presented with a no-brainer proposal by City staff to increase police staffing….. but….be very clear: Randal Stone is in no way responsible for “doubling” or having “had the greatest single impact” on police staffing. His delusion, misrepresentation, self-aggrandizing and outright lies continue. 

Lets take a moment to talk FACTS about police staffing levels from a National perspective – the REAL facts – not the Mayor Stone “facts.”. The first, and perhaps most important thing, to know is that unlike the fire service, there are no staffing level standards in the USA for policing.  Generally (per US DOJ COPS Office Newsletter, Volume 5, Issue 11, November 2012), agencies and communities take one of four approaches to determining staffing needs: per capita (generally, # of sworn officers per 1000 population), minimum-staffing, authorized level, or workload. There is however a singular, universalized annual assessment that can serve as a point of comparison of police staffing levels between communities based up their size and geographic location in the country. That assessment takes place every year and is reported as a component of the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR).  Specifically, Table 71 of the UCR reports the average number of officers in various communities based on how big the communities are or where in the country they are located.

Typically, UCR reports are about a year behind when it comes to publication of nation crime and police staffing stats. As an example, when the previously referenced USA Today article was written in March 2018, the most recent complete UCR stats available were from 2016. Currently, the most recent full UCR report available is from 2017. The FBI only recently released the preliminary 2018 crimes stats (not yet the complete report). 

For perspective on how cities throughout the nation compare in relation to police staffing, consider the following excerpts (with analysis related to Chico) from the 2017 UCR, Table 71:

Now, lets take a look at the history and actual staffing levels of the Chico Police Department, and one will then be able to make a comparison between them and the points of comparison reported in UCR Table 71.

SIDENOTE PEEVES

Before suggesting some conclusions about police staffing in Chico, there are a couple other things I feel compelled to get off my chest and share:

1.         The City’s senior appointed leadership and the elected Council in Chico have a long history of selectively disregarding the opinions, assertions and professional recommendations of their professional police leaders when it comes to addressing issues related to policing. This historical circumstance, which I personally experienced for at least two decades, is exacerbated by the fact that people in key positions of leadership in the City and in the Police Department actually change quite often. The unfortunate result of this change is that history is either disregarded or forgotten. It is absolutely maddening to me that as a police administrator, I had a personal hand in FY 04-05 in making recommendations for what ultimately became reductions in police service, and here we are 14-15 years later. There seems to be no understanding or regard for what has happened historically, and as a now outsider it feels like the current leadership is only able to speak to what has happened in the last 2-4 years. The indisputable truth is that Chico has been struggling with providing adequate policing services since 04-05, and NOBODY in a leadership position has had the balls to assertively propose a strategic solution to the problem. I’m tired and disgusted with the handwringing….true leadership is sometimes uncomfortable….it would sure be nice to see some – anywhere – in Chico.

2.         One of the most essential jobs of senior leadership in a police (or any other) organization is to plan for the meeting of future needs. Prior to my retirement from CPD in 2012, we had compiled several different iterations of a future staffing plan (based at the time on the assumption that the City would grow, and City deficits would not be eliminated on the back of the PD). Its all well and good that after the Council and the appointed leadership of the City gutted the Police Department a group of citizens came together in June 2014 under the name “Clean and Safe Chico” to present a “Police Staffing Strategic Plan,” but truthfully, it kinda rubbed me wrong for two reasons; 1) The basic plan at that point should have been to simply replace the 20 plus positions that had been eliminated – to restore what had been taken away (this STILL HAS NOT happened); and 2) Beyond the 20+ reduced positions, the PD should have already had their own plan, which they should have asserted/presented. Then now, five years later, reeling from the impact of the Camp Fire, we have the Chamber of Commerce presenting the public recommendation for additional police officers. Don’t get me wrong, I love it that we (finally) have businesses and citizens that are interested in policing in Chico – it just frustrates me that with an entire staff of professionals in the police department, we don’t seem to get a whole lot of public discourse on the issue of police staffing until people from outside of the police department speak to it.

3.         The sad, sad truth for Chico is that we have a well documented history of steady decline in police staffing, and steady incline in crime, calls for service and population served. The PD apparently elected not to continue keeping this data after 2012, but the graph below illustrates the trend. Based on my knowledge of the related measures, I would assume these trends have continued since then.

 4.         For years, I have debated with people about how many citizens are actually served by the Chico Police Department. My experience is that Council members and the senior City leadership prefer to hang their hats on the Department of Finance (DoF) annual population figures. Others want to assume that the 17,000ish FTE students at the University should be added to the base population number. Most forget that most of the students from Butte College also live in Chico. The bottom line is that it is actually impossible for anyone to determine what the actual service population of the City is. Between CSUC and Butte alone, there could easily be 20,000 people above and beyond the DoF numbers who the PD serves – some are permanent Chico residents, some are not, some are counted in the census, some are not, some are registered to vote in Chico, some are not – there is simply no way to know for sure how many Butte or CSUC students are counted in the DoF number. On top of that discussion, there are an untold number of people who come to Chico 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for work, to attend school, to engage in commerce, to avail themselves of recreational opportunities and to seek medical care. Since Chico is a regional hub in the State, this number has to be big, but it simply cannot be determined. The bottom line is this: in Chico, discussion about police staffing has always been based on the reported DoF population (now with an estimated addition of 20,000 people displaced from the Camp Fire). The truth is that the CPD has for decades and decades provided services for 10s of thousand more each day than are reported on the population sign at the entrance to town.

5.         I was once asked by a Council Member in a Council Meeting how Chico compares to other communities when it comes to police staffing. I bring this up now because if it has not yet been asked in the current discussion police staffing, it very probably will be. The short answer is: Chico does not compare with any other community – in or out of California. Our nature as an urban hub, our position as a large city between Redding and Sacramento, the existence of the community college and the university, and all the other reasons described in #4 above make Chico quite a unique place. This means that long-term plans for police staffing will have to be similarly unique. If resources can’t be provided to do all that Council members and citizens want done, there have to be honest conversations between City and Police leadership, and then Council must support the PD. When the PD cannot do what somebody thinks they should because they have no resources, and Council remains silent and/or turns their backs on them….or worst yet, criticizes them publicly (all of these things have happened consistently with the Chico City Council and the PD, regardless of who was “in control,” as the current Mayor says).

OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS       

Based on the foregoing facts and historical tid-bits, it is now appropriate to suggest some conclusions and/or informed opinions regarding police staffing in Chico:

1.         In order to be considered “fully staffed,” the Chico Police Department should, at a minimum, have as many officers as it has before staff reductions started taking place in FY 06-07 – That number is 102. They are currently authorized for 98 officers + one “overhire” who will fill one of the 98 that is anticipated to become vacant.

2.         Ideally, to be considered “fully staffed,” CPD should at least have enough officers to be considered average when compared to cities its size. Currently, that ratio/level for cities the size of Chico in the Western/Pacific states is 1.1 sworn officers/1000 population. At the current DoF population of 92,348, in order to rise to the level of average, would need to have an authorized strength of 101, which is only one less than the peak level of 102 in FY 06-07. If Chico wants to be average with an assumed population of 20,000 more than the current DoF population of 92,348, they would need to have 123 sworn officers, or 25 more than are currently authorized. This is generally consistent with the Chamber of Commerce Camp Fire report and recommendation. Even better would be "average" level staffing based on a reasonable estimate of the actual 24/7 service population in Chico.

3.         Chico has a well documented history/trend of decreased police resources at the same time as all typical measures of police activity have trended an increase. Its time for leadership in the City to get some nads, take a strategic look at what is desired for the culture of safety in Chico, and take some action – assert a vision and philosophy, and then develop and implement a real strategic plan to get the City to that point. Chico needs to quit treating policing as an afterthought or a means to balance the budget during difficult times.

4.         Finally, it is well established that the Mayor likes to hear himself talk, and that there is no greater fan of the Mayor than the Mayor. My suggestion to and for him is that when he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about (like police staffing standards) or he’s trying to get people to believe he’s a champion for policing and public safety (his extensive record indicates otherwise), it would behoove him to call on his subordinate professional leaders to speak to the issues. That sir, is the sign of a true leader……instead, your perpetual “I’m the one who took care of this,” and “thank God for me (and all my accomplishments as evidenced by the posting or my resume front and center on  my FB page)” is absolutely nauseating and wearing thin on many of Chico’s citizens.

AB109, Prop 47, Prop 57 and the Rest of the Story

A number of recent editorials in various publications and news stories, postings from law enforcement and community leaders, and postings of anecdotes from real California citizens have lamented the idea that California’s AB109, Prop 47 and Prop 57 “have not worked.” As a result, crime in California has increased, and the overall quality of life and culture of safety in our State has decreased. Well folks…..hold onto your britches….. I’ve got some news for you: The fact is that all three of these pieces of legislation HAVE worked. In fact, they have done exactly what they were intended to do. Anybody know what that is? Honestly (and with respect), I believe many of our community leaders either simply don’t know (because they never did), or they have forgotten what they were supposed to do. One more thing: Pundits on various sides of this whole issue/discussion speak to the presence or absence of responsibility of the current Jerry Brown Administration in allowing California to fall into this condition. The truth? The circumstances that precipitated this whole mess actually began in 1990 when George Deukmajian (R) was the Governor of California.

Here’s the rest of the story:

April 23, 1990 a class action lawsuit was filed by representatives of a number of California State Prison inmates. The suit alleged that mental health treatment in the California prisons was so poor that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit began to wind its way through court, and in June 1994 a judge found that the mental health treatment in California prisons was just as alleged, and that it did in fact violate the 8^th Amendment. This lawsuit became known as the Coleman lawsuit.

A few years after Coleman was filed, on April 5, 2001 another class action lawsuit from within the California prison system was filed. Re-filed on August 20, 2001 with an amended complaint, this lawsuit, which became known as the Plata case, alleged that medical treatment in the California prisons was inadequate, also in violation of the 8^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Gray Davis (D) was the Governor at the time this lawsuit was filed.

As the Coleman and Plata lawsuits wound their separate ways through the California court system, there became a sense by the respective courts that the inadequate medical treatment and the inadequate mental health treatment alleged in the two cases was as a direct result of prison overcrowding. At the time, the California Prison system was operating at almost 190+% of its maximum capacity.

July 26, 2007, the courts combined the Coleman and Plata cases, and they became known thereafter as the “Coleman-Plata” case.

August 4, 2009, while Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) was Governor, the court issued an order for California to come up with a plan within 45 days to reduce the California prison population to 137.5% of its capacity. This meant that the State would have to figure out how to get 40,000 inmates out! A plan was submitted to the court on September 18, 2009, and on October 21, 2009 the court rejected the plan. The court then gave California until November 12, 2009 to come up with a new plan. The plan was submitted on November 12, the court eventually approved and accepted it, and it was entered into the court record as an order of the court on January 12, 2010. California had now been given a firm and clear order to get rid of 40,000 state prison inmates!

With the finalization of the order to reduce the prison population, the Schwarzenegger administration decided to appeal the court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the court’s order was unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court looked at the case, they, on May 23, 2011, essentially said that California needed to go do what the lower court had told them to do in January 2010. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court. It is important to note that by this time, Jerry Brown was now the Governor, and was only 5 months into his administration.

With the Coleman-Plata lawsuit having been in the courts in various forms for as long as 12 years (through the administrations of four previous Democrat and Republican Governors), and with the U.S. Supreme Court having issued a ruling on the case, the Jerry Brown administration was now left with the task of developing and implementing a plan to satisfy the court.

October 1, 2011, AB109 was passed into law after winding the legislative process and being signed by the Governor. Although the bill was called the “Public Safety Realignment Act,” its very specific intent was to significantly reduce the California prison population in order to meet the requirements of the court order…..PERIOD! It’s interesting to note the basic meaning of “realignment” in this legislation. In short, realignment essentially meant that responsibilities for prison inmates and parolees that had previously been the State’s would now be “realigned” and become the responsibility of the individual counties instead of the State. This meant that the counties, which were not equipped to keep long-term inmates like the prisons were, would have to come up with their own plans on how to deal with an increased jail population and how to deal with higher level criminals who would previously have gone to State prison. It was hoped that by 2014, it would result in the release of 25,000 inmates, and put California well on its way to compliance with the court order it was now operating under. Unfortunately, AB109 not only fell short of its goals by almost 10,000 inmates, the California prison population actually increased while the Coleman-Plata reduction of 40,000 inmates was being pursued. The court gave California an extension of two more years to reach the goal.

The impacts of AB109 have been widely and fairly accurately reported. It is in this reporting that we have seen the first round of failing to understand the real purpose of this piece of legislation. This had absolutely nothing to do with the efficiency of the State, saving money, efficient operations for counties, or anything else. This law was about nothing more then reducing the prison population to comply with a court order in a lawsuit that California lost!

As noted, AB109 did not do what California, which was currently operating under the Brown administration, needed it to do. There had to be another plan, and this awareness provided the genesis for the next step in the trifecta of debacle, Prop 47.

Prop 47 was pulled over as a con on the California voter. Entitled the “Safe Schools and Neighborhoods Act,” it really had no provisions whatsoever to make schools or neighborhoods safer. Relying on the fact that most voters won’t take the time to learn about all the propositions, and knowing that everybody has to want safe schools and neighborhoods, the authors (who represented the Governor) knew they simply had to get this passed in order to further reduce the prison population to be in compliance with the court order. All Prop 47 really did was to make the sentences for crimes that were previously felonies into misdemeanors. Again, the real purpose of this law: get more inmates out of State prison….PERIOD!! The voters passed Prop 47, and it became effective November 4, 2014. One of the noteworthy pieces of this new law was that it was retrospective (unlike AB109) in that it allowed for people who had already been sentenced for certain crimes to petition the court for resentencing based upon the new rules. Many in the law enforcement community viewed Prop 47 as nothing more than a “decriminalization of crime act” proposed for the sole purpose of reducing the prison population. Prop 47 would have expired November 4, 2017, but Governor Brown signed a different law that made it continue to be in effect until November 4, 2022.

Although a November 2105 study found that Prop 47 had reduced the California prison population by 13,000 inmates, with the ongoing ebb and flow of criminals going in and out of prison, there were still more that needed to be released, and the court-ordered 137.5% capacity of the prisons had to be able to be sustained. This circumstance then provided the basis for the final piece of the trifecta of debacle in the California criminal justice system; Prop 57.

Prop 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act, is just like AB109 and Prop 47 in that its primary purpose is to further reduce the California prison population, and to help sustain it at the lower level. Prop 57 was also sold to the voters with a complex campaign of misinformation. It did two significant things when it became effective November 8, 2016; 1) Allowed for early release of all State prison inmates; and 2) Allowed for “non-violent” offenders in State prison to be eligible for release earlier. Conspicuously absent from the public information about this proposition during the campaign was specific info about what constitutes a “violent crime” in California. If the voter’s knew the real answer to this question, there is a good chance they may not have passed it…… but, they did. In doing both of these things, again, the ultimate goal was to reduce the California prison population.

Soooooooo……we can banter about and back and forth about all of these pieces of law, and their impacts. But as we moan and groan (with appropriate legitimacy), its important to understand there is a “rest of the story.” Unfortunately, when it comes to issues like this the attention span of the typical citizen is very short. In this case, that short attention span leads to an absence of awareness of what has happened and why it has happened and resulted in us being faced with what we are as Californians.

I have tried to be as factual as possible in this, but I can’t help adding a bit of editorial spin here and there. Regardless, I hope y’all now have a greater sense of…the rest of the story.

Chico Has Been Stoned Long Enough and Needs ABS

            stoned – (stohnd)

1.              To be put to death by pelting with stones

2.              Not behaving or thinking normally because of effects of a drug or mind altering substance

3.              Subjected for long periods of time to the nonsensical, self-aggrandizing, egocentric, “I” and “me” oriented delusions of Chico City Council Member Randall Stone

ABS – (ay be es)

1.              Anti-lock braking system

a.     An automotive system which helps to prevent vehicles from skidding out of control and resulting in a costly accident with both financial and bodily harm

b.     Allows for the ability to maintain directional stability and reduces or eliminates the absence of control

2.              Anybody But Stone (Randall)

It has been said that we learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately, we have had to suffer for the last four years as we have worked through the mistake of electing Randall Stone to the Chico City Council. Fortunately, with this election we now have the ability to correct the mistake (by voting him out) and to reflect on what we have learned. Soooooooo, what exactly have we learned?

1.              Randall Stone is all about Randall Stone. To review his list of “accomplishments” one could quickly begin to wonder if he is in fact by himself on the City Council (it would take pages and pages of detailed facts to present the complete truth about Randall’s stated accoumplishments). I mean, it appears that he has taken credit for pretty much everything that has occurred in Chico during the last four years. Are there any other Council members who do anything? Well of course there are, but you wouldn’t know it from Randall’s representations. The truth is that Randall, with an absolute absence of humility, has a perpetual propensity to claim responsibility for things that others do all the time. Even fellow City Council members who are of his own political persuasion will quietly and privately lament about his rude habit of taking credit for everybody else’s work! It is especially noteworthy that in the 10^th and 11^th hours of this campaign cycle others besides Randall’s foes in City government have spoken out denouncing Randall’s absence of leadership in the Special Olympics and other areas. As the editorial staff of the Chico News and Review has pointed out: “There’s a fine line between noting your accomplishments, and sounding self-congratulatory. Stone crosses the line too often.” Not only has he crossed the line in sounding too self-congratulatory, he has also crossed the line (lied) about taking too much credit for everyone else’s work. A real leader give’s credit to those who got their hands dirty making things happen. Randall is clearly incapable of this!

2.              You know how every Fall you and the neighbors all around you begin to notice the aroma of herbal medicine in your neighborhoods? You know how worrisome it is when you think about calling the cops because you have a sense that nothing can be done, and you fear that your call may prompt an awareness among the dope growers that it was you that called? You fear retaliation? You know how when you did call the cops, they essentially told you there was nothing that could be done about the dope growers in your neighborhood that are affecting your quality of life? Well get this, Randall Stone is fully connected with that pro-dope community. He is the only Council member who has taken money from widely/publicly recognized members of the pro-marijuana/anti-marijuana-regulation community, and he even shared an office with the former president of what publications in the public domain have called “ the Butte Marijuana Grower’s PAC (political action committee).” Some would say this is an old connection before Randall knew better, but check out his Facebook page and his advertising….this marijuana guy, Andrew Merkel, is the author of a recent letter that Randall has been sharing which touts Randall’s alleged accomplishments. Honestly, I don’t believe for a minute that Randall is a stoner, pothead, doper, but he is absolutely connected to and taking money from the pro-marijuana community – the same community that is ruining the quality of life for many Butte County residents. BTW, all of the foregoing regarding Randall’s connection to the marijuana community is not speculation, rumor, or ugly innuendo. Rather, every bit of it is gleaned from public records or documents available in the public domain.

3.              I have spoken again and again about what a liar Randall Stone is. Let me elaborate: Like the Chico News and Review, he lies, misrepresents the truth, fails to present the complete picture or the rest of the story, and he loves to lob partially true kernels of info without fully providing context. Consider these most recent examples:

a.     At a recent candidate forum, Randall was asked about Laura’s Law, a law that allows for compelled medication and treatment of those who are seriously mentally ill (there’s more to it than that, but suffice it to say those who are aware of mental health treatment problems in communities are aware of it and how controversial it is). He did not know anything about it, and the emcee of the event briefly explained what it is. Upon hearing the explanation, Randall volunteered aloud, “ Oh ya…we’ve got that…we do that already….we do that at the place down on Rio Lindo.” The only problem is that we don’t have Laura’s Law in Butte County. Randall lied. But interestingly, as per his track record, he did so quite confidently. Therein lies the problem with this guy….because he is so confident in the lies he tells, the sheeple believe him.

b.     A video recently emerged of Randal misrepresenting the salaries of Fire Department employees at another candidate forum. In response, and in an apparent effort to defend himself, Randall posted another video on his Facebook page. I’m not sure what the point was because in both the old video and the new video, he blatantly misrepresented what Chico Fire employees make in pay. Again, he lied. Apparently, it’s his nature….and considering he uses one of his lies to justify another lie is terrifying!

c.      In a recent post, Randall claims that “80% of Chico police officers” have personal cameras “installed,” and then he goes on in his post to make it sound like he has been an active participant in making this happen and in developing the related policies. The truth is, nobody at the Chico Police Department has camera’s “installed,” nor is anyone equipped with them. Additionally, Randall has not been any part of any discussions that have taken place regarding the development of related policy. Again, he very confidently lied to give the impression that he is large and in charge!

d.   Interestingly, the linked article about everyone's favorite entertainer Kanye West kind of elucidates what kind of liar Randall is:

                        http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/kanye-west-success/

4.              Public safety – obviously, it is now popular for elected leaders in Chico to say they support public safety because our citizens have clearly made it a concern. Randall will tell you he supports public safety, but I would argue that he does not – at least in Chico. Here is what he will cite as evidence of his support: 1) He went to a conference on human trafficking within the last couple years, and then proposed a local ordinance that would impact some aspect of the issue. He neglects to tell everyone that human trafficking is and has been a crime, but he makes it sound like human trafficking will continue to occur in Chico because the Council majority shot down his proposed ordinance; 2) he went to an event where Butte County Probation officers were doing some really cool community service thing (which they really were), but he has yet to attend, participate or even regard in any way anything that the Chico PD or CPOA does in the community; 3) He claims responsibility for some sort of an ordinance related to banning butane honey oil (BHO) in Chico….and in doing so, he again disregarded the collaborative work his police chief was already participating in to insure uniform bans county wide on certain BHO precursors. Essentially, he claimed credit for the work of the police, but, by the way, the way he represents it you could easily believe that BHO was legal in Chico until he saved the day; 4) This one just galls me….did you see the random picture he posted a few weeks back of himself standing in front of a podium with a Chico PD logo on it? There is no question this was intended to create an impression that he is all about public safety. BTW, the picture is from a CPOA event for Special Olympics where he actually called the Chief and demanded to be involved – this guy is consumed by his ego! 5) In all his years on the Council Randall has done nothing but bag on public safety (specifically, Chico Police and Fire). He has made no effort to establish relationships in either department; he has made no effort to learn from anyone in either department about the inner workings, issues or how the respective industries work. Randall appears to have actually taken pride in bagging on both departments, making sure they maintain a standard of being sub-standard, and never giving anyone in either department credit for the good things they do. Be very clear, Randall Stone is not a friend of, nor does he support, public safety!

Here’s the bottom line: The things I have written about this guy in the past remain true (check out previous blogs),  he is a self-aggrandizing ego-centric narcissist, he is a liar and blatant misrepresenter of truth, he is in the pocket of the pro-marijuana movement in Chico (which continues to diminish our quality of life) and he does not support public safety. We need somebody on Council who can work collegially with the other Council members, who can work with public safety and who can be a credible leader and representative for the City. We’ve been Stoned long enough. Time for ABS (anybody but Stone).

Thoughts on Election 2016

I was hoping to present some profound analysis of the issues and candidates in this year’s election, but alas, time has escaped me so I’m just gonna share some very direct thoughts on what I think about those issues and candidates which are believe are the most significant or relate to public safety:

President of the U.S. – I can’t in good conscience advocate voting for Clinton or Trump. I could go on and on about the issues with each, but that would start its own debate. The bottom line is this: We have a current vacancy on the Supreme Court (the swing vote), and are likely to have others in the next 2-4 years. Vote for what you want the complexion of the Supreme Court to be. Are you a flaming liberal? Vote Clinton because she will pick a liberal for the current vacancy in the Court, and the next ones as well. Are you a staunch conservative? Pick Trump, and he will insure that the court is conservative, now and for the next couple of likely selections. Selecting a POTUS based on the character of the current top contenders? I can’t even think about it without getting a little bit of vomit in my mouth! Vote for what you want the complexion of the Supreme Court to be beyond the tenure of the next President.

U.S. Senator from California – Vote for Loretta Sanchez. Kamala Harris is of the Jerry  Brown, Gavin Newsome, Clinton, Obama ilk. I cannot let go of the fact that Harris refused to seek the death penalty on a guy who shot two cops (killing one of them) in San Francisco a dozen years ago. Also, she is the one that approved the deceptive title of California’s Prop 57, which will release thousands from prison if passed. Sanchez is a Dem too, but she only converted after she could not get elected to office as a Republican. This makes me want to believe she is at least a bit more toward the middle of the road.

U. S. House of Representatives – YES, re-elect Doug LaMalfa

California Assembly – YES, re-elect James Gallagher

Proposition 57 – This is bad, bad, bad for California and it is opposed by every major law enforcement organization in the State. The sole purpose of this proposition is to reduce the California State Prison population. It is not about public safety and it is not about rehabilitation of prisoners as the proponents have indicated. AB 109 and Prop 47 did not do enough to reduce the prison population to a level that is satisfactory to the Appellate Court after California lost the Coleman-Plata class action lawsuit from inmates, so this is next in the Governor’s effort to comply with the order of the court.

Do you even know the history? Well, to make a long story short, two lawsuits by prisoners were combined years ago – one related to overcrowding and the other related to poor medical care in the prisons. After years of going through the courts and being appealed multiple times, California lost. The Governor needed to reduce the prison population very quickly, and he decided AB 109 was the answer. In short, this bill simply took a bunch of crimes that were previously punishable by imprisonment in State prison and “realigned” them to make them the responsibility of the counties (which reduced State costs, but increased county costs and provided no extra money). Essentially, the State said, “We are no longer responsible for these people.” It was a promise of AB 109 that serious, violent or sexual offenders would not be released. Thousands were subsequently released from State prison, including serious, violent and sexual offenders, but it wasn’t enough. Then came Prop 47. Prop 47 essentially redefined a whole bunch of crimes in such a way that they were no longer felonies or State prison eligible. It was sort of a “decriminalization of crime” proposition. This one was a gut puncher because it was blatantly misrepresented to the public as the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” The problem is that there were no provisions for either in the proposition. Hoodwinked, the California voters, who of course wanted safer neighborhoods and schools, passed it. Thousands more were released from prison, but it still was not enough.

Then came Prop 57. This Prop indicates that it will change the rules for whether or not juveniles will be prosecuted as adults, and it will change the rules related to sentence credits and parole for “non-violent felonies.” What the Proposition (and its proponents) don’t tell the voter is that, by law (Penal Code 667.5) there are only 15 categories of crimes that are considered violent crimes in California. By virtue of being excluded from the list, all other felonies are considered “non-violent.” Check out just a few of California’s “non-violent” felonies for which Prop 57 will allow early release from prison:

-                Assault with a deadly weapon (245 PC)

-                Corporal injury of a spouse – domestic violence (273.5 PC)

-                Solicitation to commit murder (653(f)b PC)

-                Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (245c PC)

-                Rape, sodomy, oral copulation of an unconscious person or by use of date rape drugs (various PC sections)

-                Many other violations that are inherently, but not legally defined as violent

The proponents also say this will save millions of tax dollars at the State level. This is because the State will again be saying they are no longer responsible for certain crooks – these people are likely to become the responsibility of counties. The problem is that its impossible to determine the anticipated millions of additional tax dollars it will cost counties. In truth, this will not save any money for taxpayers.

The bottom line? This proposition will release more very bad people from prison, and contribute significantly to the already increasing crime rate. VOTE NO ON PROP 57!!!!

Proposition 62 – This is all about the death penalty. Do you want to keep it like I do? If so, VOTE NO!

Proposition 63 – There is no state in the nation that has tougher gun laws than California. The additional laws proposed in this measure do nothing but target the law abiding citizen and diminish 2^nd Amendment rights. Most importantly, this Proposition does nothing to enhance public safety or keep weapons and ammo out of the hands of crooks. As a sidenote, as written this bill will even make it so a young person who decides they want to put themselves through a police academy as an unsponsored recruit cannot buy ammunition in the volume needed to complete the program or train with the weapons they would utilize as a peace officer…..ridiculous!!! My thought? VOTE NO ON 63!

Proposition 64 – If passed, this Proposition will legalize recreational marijuana use in California. The problem with it is that when Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome and his dope smoking buddies promised 4 years ago that they would bring forward a legalization proposition that was comprehensive and addressed all of the associated legal and social issues, they actually failed to do so. I, like many, believe in the inevitability of the legalization of marijuana in California eventually (which I also predict we will ultimately regret)…..but…..this Proposition still leaves too many unanswered questions. Additionally, by the way, all this crap about the sick people needing their medicine is absolute BS. The sick people that really need marijuana can get it now. The truth is that all the chatter about increasing access by way of legalization is about money. Most of the illicit growers are making unreported, undocumented, untaxed money hand over fist. This Proposition will do nothing to reign that in. Also, the suggestion that legalization is going to result in lots of revenue for the State is also BS. This is a sham. I say VOTE NO ON 64!

Proposition 66 – This is another death penalty initiative. This one is intended to reform the currently screwed up death penalty process in California. It is supported by law enforcement, prosecutors and crime victims. My opinion: VOTE YES ON 66!

CHICO CITY COUNCIL

            Karl Ory - Nice older gentleman. Uhhhhh…..NO!

Sean Morgan - Part of the team that dug Chico out of the hole the last liberal majority left. RE-ELECT SEAN MORGAN!!

Tami Ritter - Tami has been an occupier of space at the front of the Council Chambers, and nothing more. Time for her to move on. NO!

Jeffrey Glatz - A newcomer to Chico’s political scene, not beholding to the nasty partisanship of Chico politics, sincerely passionate about doing what is necessary to support public safety…..I like this guy, and I think he would be great for Chico! VOTE FOR JEFF GLATZ!

Ann Schwab - I have not always agreed with Ann, and truthfully she disappointed me greatly when she was Mayor and did not assert herself more to support public safety……but……in her 12 years on the Council she has remained singularly focused on serving Chico in a very passionate way. She has not engaged the bitter politics or mudslinging, she conducts herself with dignity and she is in my estimation one of the most appropriate to be on the Council to insure that there are diverse political perspectives. I say VOTE YES FOR ANN SCHWAB!

Mercedes Macias - Seems to be a very nice, albeit unrealistically idealistic, young lady. Maybe in a few more years once she figures out how things really work in life and the world. NO for now!

Randall Stone - A well established narcissistic liar……more on him in a couple days….but in the meantime: NO, NO, NO….HE HAS GOT TO GO!!!

Lisa Duarte - I’m sure that she too is a very nice lady. Unfortunately, she is clueless. NO!

Loretta Torres - I am mindblown at all of those, including the Chico ER, who have endorsed her. Again, appears to be a very nice lady, but I just have a hard time taking her seriously. NO!

Jon Scott - Seriously? NO!

Jovanni Tricerri  - What a breath of fresh air to Chico politics….a demonstrated and respected community leader, not a puppet of partisanship, an experiential history that suits him well to represent and serve as a Chico City Council member!! VOTE YES FOR JOVANNI!

Measure J - Butte College Bond Initiative. Passage of this measure will support critical infrastructure repair, new facilities for welding, public safety and the sciences, and will help the college in their support of vets and the regional job market. This is a definite YES!

Measure L – This is brought to you by marijuana growers with illicit marijuana money, and it is all about them having more freedom to grow more weed to make more illicit money. The rules Butte County has work, and they work well. No changes needed. VOTE NO!

I have only shared my thoughts and opinions about measures or campaigns I have strong feelings about. You’re gonna have to figure out on your own which direction to go on condoms in porno videos, Chico Unified’s request for a bond and all the others. Good luck!

PS - Stay tuned for more on why Randall Stone needs to go……