Inspector General Sheriff Alex Villanueva

After Rancor & Accusations Supervisors Vote For Subpoena Power to Compel LA County Sheriff Villanueva to Share Information

Celeste Fremon
Written by Celeste Fremon

At just around 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, the LA County Supervisors voted to give subpoena power to the Civilian Oversight Commission for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, via the county’s Inspector General, which is the COC’s investigative arm.

Since this greater authority requires the amendment of a county ordinance, the decision will be voted on one more time, most likely at next week’s board meeting. Then,  30 days after vote two, subpoena power for the OIG will go live.

For a number of years, the board was against giving this authority to any of the various oversight bodies it has created.

But given the power struggles that have occurred this year between the sheriff and the board—and also between the LASD and the combined oversight entities of the COC and Inspector General Max Huntsman—on Tuesday afternoon, all five board members appeared to feel the time had arrived for a new tool to be added to the oversight toolbox.

“The county has made great strides in attempting to reform the sheriff’s department over the years,” said Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas who together with Supervisor Sheila Kuehl co-authored the motion to create the needed amendment to the county ordinance governing the COC.  But the oversight bodies “need access to relevant information,” he said, “and the recent lack of access to sheriff’s department documents has impeded their ability to perform their core function.”

A series of tense exchanges between sheriff’s department representatives and Inspector General Huntsman at last Thursday’s COC meeting – followed by an angry post-meeting letter from Sheriff Villanueva – seemed to make the case that the time for subpoena power had indeed arrived.

Also, since the board already voted to give this same power to the soon-to-be-launched Probation Oversight Commission, giving the power to compel the COC was expected.


Historic shadows

In making the decision,  the department’s past relationships with oversight have cast a shadow.

When on September 28, 2012, the Citizen’s Commission for Jail Violence presented their lengthy and meticulously researched report on problems in the LASD that had resulted in violence and corruption in the nation’s largest jail system, the CCJV’s most prominent suggestion for reform was the creation of an independent “oversight entity,” with “unfettered access” to “department records, witness interviews, video footage, data, personnel, and facilities.”

At the time, there were already a number of oversight bodies monitoring the LA sheriffs, but they had no real power to affect wrongdoing in the department, which had metastasized to the point that over the next five years, more than 21 LASD members, including the sheriff and undersheriff, would be indicted by a federal grand jury, convicted, then sentenced to federal prison.

In response to the CCJV’s report, the LA County Board of Supervisors approved the necessary county ordinances to create a new oversight system in the form of the Office of the Inspector General in 2014.  Two years later, the board further approved the county code necessary for the creation of a Civilian Oversight Commission (COC).

Yet, the board stopped short of giving the new commission subpoena power.

Instead, in December 2015, the board approved a Memorandum of Agreement that outlined exactly what kind of information from the LA County Sheriff’s Department that the new commission and the inspector general as its investigative arm, would be entitled to have.

Sheriff Jim McDonnell, whose representatives had participated in the creation of the MOA, signed the document without a problem.

During McDonnell’s years in office,  compliance with the MOA was not perfect, according to IG Huntsman, but it improved over time.

Yet, when Sheriff Alex Villanueva was sworn in early December 2018, for whatever reason, a new memorandum of understanding was never signed.

Of course, Villanueva could have simply followed the existing MOA.

But, according to the OIG, that’s not what happened—although the sheriff’s department claims otherwise.


Silence and stonewalling

At last Thursday’s meeting of the COC, IG Huntsman gave commission members a detailed description of how the past year has gone when it came to an exchange of information and cooperation between the sheriff and the LASD’s two oversight bodies.

Huntsman’s presentation – which included a visual show-and-tell that featured photos of various email exchanges throughout the year – was unsettling.

“When the sheriff was elected, I sent a letter making some requests,” he told the COC.

That first letter (pictured above) was nothing out of the ordinary, according to Huntsman. In it, the IG congratulated the new sheriff and requested information that pertained to some policy changes Villanueva had suggested he intended to enact.  This shouldn’t have been a big deal in that it was the kind of thing that the IG had been hired to examine and track, and that his office had already been doing with McDonnell, said the IG.

Huntsman also asked briefly about Villanueva’s proposed Truth and Reconciliation Committee, which the new sheriff had announced would be formed to review cases of unfairly terminated deputies.

Again, the idea of wrongly-fired department members was something that appropriately fell into the IG’s oversight basket.  Thus, Huntsman wanted to know who was on the committee that would be examining these bad firings. And could he have a schedule of meetings, he asked, so that someone from the OIG might attend?

“It was completely ignored,” Huntsman told the COC.  “That was an abrogation of the [previous] MOA.”

The alleged repeated lack of response also appeared to be out of compliance with the county code creating the oversight bodies, which stipulates that all employees of the county were to “cooperate with the Commission and, to the extent permitted by law, promptly supply copies of requested documents and records, so that other public officer and the Commission can full and properly perform their respective duties.”

According to Huntsman’s report, the pattern of stonewalling by the sheriff and the LASD continued throughout Villanueva’s first calendar year.

In May, for example, said Huntsman, he asked for information about changes in hiring standards – namely hiring packets – explaining that he’d been monitoring hiring since 2015, and would like to continue. After that, he requested information about the new June class of deputies.

In each case, he was reportedly either turned down for perplexing reasons or just ignored, according to the IG.

In March, when the OIG sent a list of fact-finding questions pertaining to the rehiring of Caren (Carl) Mandoyan, there was reportedly no response at all.

Nevertheless, in July of last year, the OIG released its own extensively researched report on Mandoyan and the Truth and Reconciliation process, although the sheriff had reportedly warned him not to.

Shortly thereafter, the undersheriff announced that the department had launched a criminal investigation into the actions of Huntsman, claiming he and his office had wrongly accessed LASD personnel files, nevermind that the OIG  had been given the files in question by the previous sheriff.

According to Huntsman’s report last Thursday, the criminal investigation has thus far not been withdrawn, nor has it been handed off to another agency, as would be proper due to the department’s obvious conflict of interest in criminally investigating one of their two oversight entities.

The inspector general told of additional investigative requests and refusals in the course of his presentation, concluding that “the change from two years ago [during McDonnell’s term] to now, in terms of communication, is drastic.”


The LASD speaks

Initially, Sheriff Villanueva was reportedly going to attend the portion of Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting during the segment pertaining to subpoena power. As it turned out, however, Assistant Sheriff Steve Gross came in his place and told the board why he and the sheriff didn’t really think this potential new legal tool was necessary.

“We feel we have been overwhelmingly in compliance with the county code,” said Gross. As for the Memorandum of Agreement, as of a week ago, the department had been “trying to comply with the existing MOA up to this point.”

If subpoena power was granted, Gross suggested, in would only lead to problems.  “We feel that increased OIG power and influence can lead to harm and additional legal actions.”   Instead, he said, they believed that “voluntary compliance was “best for both the sheriff’s department and the county.”

Late last week, Sheriff Villanueva presented his point of view more directly  in the form of a letter, dated January 17, the day after the COC meeting.

In the 3-plus page letter addressed to Brian K. Williams, the COC’s executive director, the sheriff expressed great distress because of what he described as the COC’s failure to “admonish the OIG in any way during its presentations in which the only goal appears to be to make the COC a forum to slander the LASD and its personnel.”

(You can read the letter here.)

The OIG, he continued, “consistently misstates facts…exaggerates,” and “presents untruths as facts.”

As for subpoena power, Villanueva wrote, the OIG “threatens to use it at every corner, despite the LASD offer to work together…”

Overall, according to Sheriff Villanueva, “the atmosphere at the COC has deteriorated to the point that an LASD panel member becomes an object of ridicule and attack from the OIG,” the “COC,” and  a “small group of community activists.”

Thus, from now, concluded the sheriff,  he will be sending none of his command staff to the meetings— unless for a specific presentation that has been agreed upon well in an advance.

Instead, he intends to have County Counsel represent the department at future meetings “to respond to the OIG’s legal commentary…”

More as we know it.

51 Comments

  • Looks like that transparency AV wanted and preached about is gonna happen. Just not the way he intended maybe???
    “Local” oversight that leads to a Fed consent decree for the Department after “they find out bad things really are” lies are put out there.
    C’mon man, please get smarter about dealing with the BOS and COC before it’s too late.

    • It’s too late. The damage is already done. Don’t think any abrupt and positive attitude change towards BOS, COC, OIG will change the perception the public has for Sheriff Villanueva. He lost that with Mandoyan. The continued fight with BOS, COC, OIG is just adding fuel to the fire he started.

      I will say it here first. Screenshot this and see how this ages.

      Sheriff Villanueva is the first sheriff to unseat an incumbent.

      Sheriff Villanueva will also to be the first incumbent who doesn’t get past the primary election in 2022 for re-election.

      • Funny how Huntsman didn’t become the bad guy until the most recent administration in LASD.

        Sworn personnel that supposedly matter, get fickle and inside of their feelings when discrepancies are pointed out.

        Initially, Huntsman was welcomed when he first came on board and very much needed but now that he’s pointing out the cracks in the foundation, he’s considered the bad guy.

        The Sheriff position in Los Angeles County is a business and a somewhat complex job, so with that being so, Villanueva has to roll with the punches.

        Look at the qualified people who trump actually picked but didn’t listen to, they were smart enough to leave on their own terms.

        We all know that the Captain of any ship is useless without a crew. More to come I’m sure.

  • Wow, way to go Celeste in taking the word of a felony suspect (Max Huntsman) over that of career cops just doing their job. Too bad Celeste didn’t think it was worth her time to go through the hours of audio, still available online, that shows how unhinged the madman has become. He even declared that his job was to help the BOS supervise the sheriff, a new one. He also said he was going to subpoena the entire Sheriff’s Department and therefor didn’t need an MOA. Somehow that slipped Celeste’s reporting, and she also forgot to ask the critical question of what has the OIG received from the department. Turns out they’ve been getting everything they’re legally entitled to, and nothing more. Oh the horrors!

    Celeste got one thing right, this is a power struggle, driven by a power thirsty BOS that is not content with running almost all of county government, they want the LASD under their thumb. McDonnell was too busy shining his stars to care about the fate of the LASD, but Villanueva understands what is at stake. He’s not about to surrender his authority or the autonomy of the LASD to the five little kings, which is exactly what Celeste wants.

    Hey Celeste, since you spend so much time obsessing about the LASD, why don’t you educate yourself on the state constitution and all the statutory law that governs how boards of supervisors are supposed to operate? You might learn a thing or to, but you’d have to get out of your own way first. BTW, your reporting is way off. I believe Huntsman and his co-conspirators were under investigation way before he released his laughable hit piece on Mandoyan, so there goes your entire theory.

  • The last time I checked the BOS wrote the checks ( remember Sup Hahn’s words ). They have absolute right to check the Sheriff – no matter who sits in that chair as Sheriff.
    I do not blame the BOS – look at the mess created at LASD by Baca and Tanaka. The County paid millions in settlements and, the residents of LA County want the BOS to check on the Sheriff. Villanueva may not like it – and may play victim of harassment by BOS. I have a recommendation for him.
    If you do not like it RESIGN. This job may be too much for you to handle.

  • I do not know the particulars and or behind the scenes shenanigans, which are transpiring. However, based on this article, as well as previous articles (which have a slight slant to them) for the BOS and the IG, it does appear that there is definitely a power struggle going on.

    This power struggle reared its ugly head at AV’s swearing in. First of all, the BOS that did show up did so grudgingly. Secondly, Ms. Hahn made a veiled threat to AV (re: $$). Further, Ms. Sour Puss (aka Solis) was counting the minutes to depart ASAP.

    The other curmudgeon (Kuehle) could not stand that AV had to correct her during the Mandoyan side show and since then, she has had a hard on for AV.

    This BOS is not about being transparent and or looking out for the best interest of the LASD or its citizens. This BOS is all about retaining and gathering power. When McD was Sheriff, he was their water boy and he let them do anything they wanted. This included Teran and others to run rough shod over line personnel.

    I am all about responsibility and accountability, however, this should be practiced across the board with EVERYONE, not just the worker bee(s).

    As I stated previously, AV and the BOS is reminiscent of Trump and Congress.

    • “…is reminiscent of Trump and Congress.”

      Somewhat.

      Every level of government has

      1. An Executive Branch. Mayors, Governors, the President.
      2. A Legislative Branch. City council, state legislature, U.S. Congress.
      3. A Judicial Branch. The Courts

      except the County Level: there, the executive & legislative branches are combined into the Board of Supervisors–key word here is “Supervise.”

      The power struggle between the LASD & the BOS originated when the BOS, back in the early ’90s, convened the Kolts Commission because legal judgements against the LASD for acts of wrongdoing exceeded all other County expenditures for things like roads, schools, parks, and hospitals.

      The Kolts Commission Report can be Googled for perusal, and ever since its release the BOS has been in a quandary about how to control the LASD.

      Not much has changed since the release of the Kolts Commission Report, as evidenced by Sheriff Baca’s upcoming change of status into federal prison inmate.

      Best option is to let the BOS do its job & supervise County governance.

      • You make some good points. The problem here is that the board has an agenda to harm the sheriff, not promoting good governance. When the department is being run ethically there is no need for “control,” it’s just another power grab, nothing more. Just notice how much or little energy the board spends on probation or DCFS, and they have absolute control and responsibility over those departments. They do love to create distance and fall guys to blame when things go bad, so they are never held accountable for their horrific mismanagement.

        • “The problem here is that the board has an agenda to harm the sheriff, not promoting good governance.”

          The public has yet to see that; instead, the developing public perception is

          https://theappeal.org/are-sheriffs-necessary/

          Personally, I think AV has a lot going for him: he has advanced degrees, and he served in two different branches of the military–he was an enlisted man in the USAF and a commissioned officer in the Army National Guard’s 40th Infantry Division.

          How many other Los Angeles County leaders have ever served in the military, let alone successfully completed Army Officer Candidate School?

          I fervently hope that he can change the negative public perception that is enveloping him.

          Fingers crossed.

        • “When the department is being run ethically there is no need for control”. I submit, therein lies the problem. If Villanueva is running the department ethically, why not be transparent with the BOS ( from his hiring to use of force issues related to Deputies ). After all the BOS signs the checks and approves all lawsuits related to LASD.

          What Villanueva wants is for the BOS to give him a blanket check and not question him. Without this fundamental willingness to recognize this fact, the BOS will not even begin to discuss affairs with a serious purpose. It’s called Public- interest attitude.

          • What makes you think Villanueva hasn’t been transparent with the public or the BOS? The OIG told you so therefor it must be true? LOL. Sheriff Villanueva laid all his cards out for the board to see, only to be served with a lawsuit as a thank you for his transparency. Active use of force investigations are not made public or shared with anyone until they are completed, to do otherwise would be an illegal interference with the investigation. If and when the DA gets off her ass and starts completing her review of OIS’s, the force issue will remain undecided, but not for lack of effort on the part of the LASD.

            In summary, your entire hypothesis is null and void because the sheriff has been as transparent as he legally can be. It turns out it doesn’t take much to fool readers, however, including you.

    • Great comments. It does appear that there is much biased reporting as it is related to AV which occurred even early in his campaign when news outlets refused to run stories about him stating, ” he’s not going to win so why bother” “McDonnell has it in the bag” etc.. Now that he won the election there appears to be an effort on the part of many news outlets, the BOS and Huntsman to ensure he is not re-elected. Such a disservice to the community. I am not saying AV has not made mistakes, but he is attempting to make change. I wish the news outlets would have made as much a case of JMcD promoting a captain who was accused of rape and other acts of malfeasance as they are of the Mandoyian situation.

      • Ronda Hampton – Did AV solve the Mitrice Richardson case for you – or are you promised a special assignment at the office of the Sheriff

      • How can you stand behind him after he reneged on his promise to you that he would re-investigate the Mitrice Richardson case. We knew that was coming as it’s long been known within the department that he is dishonest. The look on everyone’s faces at the press conference at LH says it all. What we have known for decades only took the Democratic Party of LA months to figure out with the moniker Sheriff Flip Flop and Sheriff Bait and Switch.

      • Ronda Hampton:

        The great fear of the “many news outlets, the BOS and Huntsman” is that AV is taking the LASD back to the days when legal settlements against LASD wrongdoing exceeded any other County expenditure for things like schools, roads, parks, and hospitals.

        That was what ignited the Kolts Commission Report in 1992, and that report can be Googled & read in its entirety–if you haven’t done that yet, please do.

        One outcome of that Report is that the Chief Counsel for the Kolts Commission Merrick Bobb became Special Counsel to Los Angeles County and reported twice-a-year (Semi-Annually) to the Board of Supervisors on conditions in the LASD. These reports, like the original Kolts Commission Report, can be retrieved via Google (e.g., the 10th LASD Semi-Annual Report).

        Sheriff McDonnell is on the public record as believing that had the recommendations in these Semi-Annual Reports been implemented nobody from the LASD would now be in a Federal lock-up.

        It is my firm belief that if AV can allay fears that he is taking LASD back to the awful days when legal settlements against LASD wrongdoing exceeded any other County expenditure than everything will be hunky-dory.

  • I’ll never understand the reasoning of protecting questionable acts by the Sheriff’s Department by withholding critical information affecting a righteous outcome.

    • I’m curious what “righteous outcome” you believe will result from scrutiny by political appointees who have no authority to take action? OIG Huntsman clearly believes he is some sort of savior acting on behalf of the BOS, but all he can do is issue reports and stamp his feet. LASD has its own discipline process that conforms to the Civil Service rules and is subject to appeal, which includes court review.

      The BOS authority to grant subpoena power to their political hack group is dubious at best. My hope is that ALADS and PPOA fight each and every “subpoena” to the extent possible via the Pitchess process, which requires a judge to decide what, if any, material is turned over.

      • Dose of Reality – I do get your point – however, say there is a payout to a lawsuit, which holds a Deputy at fault for wrong doing ( would you want the BOS to write a blanket check ) without questioning the Sheriff ( again no matter who the Sheriff is ) without questioning whether it is a systemic issue at the Sheriffs Department,or if it is a one off outlier. After all it does say Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It does not say Sheriff’s Department Los Angles County.

        The Sheriff is elected – so is the BOS. However, the BOS is entrusted with the check book.

        • Constitutionalist, you may not be familiar with the lawsuit process. Go peruse the BOS transcripts and follow the links to the Board letters. Attached to lawsuit settlement entries, you will find analysis documents that lay out the circumstances of the incident(s), identify root causes (accident, mistake, malfeasance, policy/procedure, etc.), and identify ways to avoid future recurrences of similar results (if possible). These letters are called Corrective Action Plans (CAP), and they are drafted by the affected department (LASD in this case) with the assistance and oversight of County Counsel.

          I know it will come as a shock to the average reader here, but LASD has been functioning at a very high level without the oversight of outside groups for many moons. Yes, we can all point to particular failings, but all-in-all, LASD does amazing work.

          To directly address your question, if a deputy is found to be criminally or administratively culpable for an action, and that action is the subject of a lawsuit settlement, it’s spelled out that way plain as day in the CAP. And because of the system I outlined above, it’s actually LASD that points the finger at itself in the reporting process.

          As others have pointed out in other threads here on WLA, the BOS has been establishing layers of commissions below them for years to have somewhere to point their fingers when stuff goes sideways. But as I’ve mentioned before, the field investigators for OIG have been great to work with.

      • “LASD has it’s own discipline process”… Are you referring to the process that terminated Mondayan only to be resurrected from the dead by Villanueva?

        Newsflash: LASD has proven time over time that they cannot police themselves.

        How many deputies do you know that were pursued, pressured and pounced upon by IAB, then ultimately and fired.

        • Short Timer, the Mandoyan case is not representative of the LASD discipline system at all. That’s the entire problem with the way AV handled it. Until his intervention, it had been handled exactly the right way: an investigation resulted in management’s decision to take action, a Skelly hearing was internally conducted to review the decision, a formal appeal was conducted by the Civil Service Commission, and finally Mandoyan sought a writ of mandate to return him to work in Superior Court.

          Whether one agrees or not with the ultimate disciplinary decision, it couldn’t have been handled better – that’s is right up until AV decided he had more authority that CSC, which he does not. However, a department head has always had the right to settle with an employee right up until the CSC renders a final decision. This was well after that point.

          My opinion is that if he had gone the route he claimed to be on (Truth and Reconciliation Committee) he may have been on more solid ground to try to reverse adverse CSC actions.

          • @ D.O.R.
            Please don’t put ALADS in the equation of fighting subpoenas, as their record of representation is selective at best and not in the best interest of/for all deputies.

          • Dose of Reality – Does the Truth and Reconciliation Committee even exist. It sounds like some garbage conspiracy theory.

  • Lets get something very clear. Authority Hierarchy is the primary means by which the BOS will monitor LASD. Both Villanueva, and the BOS are trying to compete for political, social and economic equity & leverage. The relationship could have been both distributive and integrative with certain boundaries drawn to solve problems, which are viewed as immediate and pressing ( homelessness & issues with inmates with mental issues ). However, I think Villanueva burned his opportunity to build a bridge a long time ago. His objectives did not chime in with those of the BOS.

    • Well said Mr. constitutionalist. And I would like to add, regarding the distributive and integrative relationship, that I, in no way, do not disagree.

  • Just as former Sheriff McDonell was voted out of office by the vote of LA County taxpayers due to the successful efforts of Sheriff Villanueva, hopefully the same will happen with the LA County BOS. People on this site, media and members of the LA political mafia act as if the elected members of the BOS are untouchable, like some Mafioso Don. The LA Mayor understands this and is trying to lay low and stay out of the public spotlight due to the many leadership failures (homeless, rents, infrastructure, Etc.) he has cultivated over his term.

    When election time comes for the LA County BOS, hopefully opponents will come out and make strong cases against the incumbents for their failed leadership (Probation, homeless, rents, mental health, infrastructure, fraud and waste (jail project to nowhere), etc.).

    They (BOS) are not untouchable elected officials and incumbency shouldn’t be taken for granted, Sheriff AV proved that. Vote them out.

  • ….Oh Great Carnac the Magnificent…tell us more? Who will be the new Sheriff of LA County in 2022…..Stephen Dorff? Who’s being groomed to take him on? This sounds like the Democrats, media and others “predicting” who would win the 2016 Presidential election.

  • Gridley-Thomas said that the BOS has made great strides in cleaning up LASD? When Baca was in office? If the BOS did such a great job why did McDonnell get voted out? Yes (Celeste) the investigation into jail abuse was extensive. But, may I ask; who was prosecuted, for jail violence, due to that report? No one! Just like there was nothing on the FBI cell phone. How tragically, ironically, oddly hilarious, that all this was caused by nothing! Had the FBI been given back their phone and inmate; Mr. Baca would sill be sheriff. Weird.
    The question arises as to who should run the LASD? Obviously, both sides disagree as to how to move away from this conflict. May I suggest closed door confidential meetings with individual supervisors and then meet as a group. Try to resolve this and use your lawyers to help. Don’t do this all by yourself. Of course, as a last resort, more litigation is an option.
    The overwhelming number of average voters don’t know anything about this brouhaha.

    • Um- supes can’t meet with AV one on one, especially confidentially. If you google “Brown Act” it lays it all out as to why.

    • Um – McDonnell got voted out of office because he did not campaign hard enough. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. He took things for granted. In his infinite wisdom he thought being the incumbent and having name recognition was enough. He did not understand there was a BLUE wave across America and it was anti Trump not anti McDonnell – even with all the negative publicity he lost by only 134,000 votes which is nothing.

      Villanueva is not some peoples choice wonder campaigner who is loved by the masses. He got lucky. Furthermore, the Villanueva camp with the financial backing of ALADS in the amount of million plus dollars ( yes the same ALADS who are getting their return for investment ) sent placards in the mail to making McDonnell look like some anti immigrant Trump supporter.

      And yes the VOTERS have gotten a lot smarter and know they were fooled – They now have buyers remorse. Hence the name Alex Villanueva – the TRUMP of LA COUNTY. The County will not cede power to Villanueva – no matter what you want to happen.

      • “The TRUMP of LA COUNTY.”

        I watched the President’s State of the Union speech on CBS.

        Immediately afterwards a message flashed across my T.V. screen: 76% of CBS viewers approved of what the President said.

        That, it turned out, was also a nationwide figure, not just a CBS viewership phenomenom.

        A.V., like Trump, can turn things around.

        He just has to get his shit together.

      • To quote UM, “The overwhelming number of average voters don’t know anything about this brouhaha” and to add, as long as the voters feel safe and the sky is not falling will vote for the incumbent. In former Sheriff’s Clueless’s case he was not only “high on incumbency” but was ignorant of and didn’t care about his personnel. Instead of building bridges with his line staff he went on a mission to punish and rule by intimidation and fear instead. Initiating bogus investigations on employees and firings which often were overturned by the Civil Service Commission is no way to motivate your troops to do their job.

        These reasons why Sheriff AV won and will win again…he took an approach which has bern the exact opposite. He may not be perfect and has and will continue to make mistakes but the Department is in a much better state going about the business of providing law enforcement services to all the people of LA County.

        The BOS and local media machine will team up (collude) and try to destroy Sheriff AV now and up until 2022 by sewing propaganda and disinformation in the hopes something will stick in the minds of the voters in order to sway their decision. Just because you say it’s so doesn’t mean it is in fact so.

  • Burrito#1: Hey homie. Thought you quit or got fired by now. You tough guys still rat packing trainees? Hey maybe they will make you head trustee at ELA station. Bottom line don’t know how idiots got away with some much bs without getting tuned up in the parking lot. My have thing changed.

    • Well said “Bandwagon” these Pansies don’t know what it’s like to stand alone!! And they definitely don’t know what a tune up is!! Fucking clowns

  • @ D.O.R.
    Please don’t put ALADS in the equation of fighting subpoenas, as their record of representation is selective at best and not in the best interest of/for all deputies.

    • “Truth Be Told” I was going to ignore your statement, but since you posted it twice, I’ll bite.

      Can you give a recent example to back your statement or are you angry about something from the past of which this current board had no control.

      Our current win streak at ERCOM kind of speaks for itself and our granting coverage, more than ever, would make you look foolish.

      Oh, and by the way, I/ we ALADS already sent the “powers that be” notice that they can not grant this power with a simple flick of a pen.

      If you have a legit complaint of the current ALADS give me a call or send me an email, so I can deal with it. Yes, I know it’s scary to reveal yourself, but if your comments are true, it shouldn’t be a problem.

      By the way a screen name of “Truth be Told” screams you will be telling anything but the truth.

      That would be like me using a screen/nickname of “flaco!”

  • Henry Wissinger, I hope the Truth and Reconciliation Committee exists. If AV believes that McBuckles and Teran railroaded deputies (and who doesn’t?), then he has to formally look into it. But it can’t enter into case reviews and deliberations with a predetermined goal in mind like the Mandoyan matter apparently did.

    Every adversely affected deputy deserves their case being reviewed. Certainly the cases that were decided under the now-reversed Guidelines for Discipline should be looked at. I’m pretty sure ALADS has already identified those cases and probably had the discipline reversed or reduced.

    • “Dose of Reality,” thank you. We are still meeting on this, but the reason the Discipline Guidlines have to be reversed is because ALADS prevailed, in court.

      You’re welcome “Truth be Told,” and before you sarcastically respond, we know that’s our job, and we’re doing it!

  • Celeste, the BOS did NOT vote for subpoena power. As a matter of fact, although the measure was an agendized item (#52 on Tuesday, 1/21/2020), the measure was STAYED. There was NO DISCUSSION AT ALL ON THAT ITEM, AND THEREFORE.. N O V O T E.

    AND.. The Sheriff held a press conference THE FOLLOWING DAY, Wednesday, 01/22/2020, and stated this fact VERY CLEARLY .

    WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR SOURCES?? Do you or does your organization care about the veracity of your stories?? If so, I would recommend that you run a correction or retract this errant story ASAP.

    Not being a Trump fan, I am appalled at how much credibility you people give him, in his assertions about the media.

    • Dear FUMcd,

      Please read the first two paragraphs of the story, in particular, the second paragraph. And, FYI, indeed, the second round of voting will be on Tuesday, January 28.

      Furthermore, there was some discussion last Tuesday before the vote, both public, and from three of the board members (although we only quoted Ridley-Thomas). There will likely be far more discussion this coming Tuesday.

      Presuming the supervisors vote unanimously on Tuesday 1/28, as they did last Tuesday, 1/21, when the ordinance in question (plus two other related ordinances) was introduced and the introduction was approved, then subpoena power will be operative 30 days later.

      I don’t know what the sheriff said on Wednesday, but if he was suggesting it was not a done deal yet, he was correct. Although the vote to approve the introduction of the ordinance for subpoena power was unanimous, this is a multi-step process.

      I realize this is a little confusing. But if you read the story again, I think you’ll see it’s all there.

      C.

        • Reading comprehension, not proofreading, is the problem here but, I think, the real problem is the peddling of purposeful disinformation.

          • @ Cognistator – True words. This is purposeful disinformation at its best, spread by malicious individuals.

          • Time now to go to the dictionary for the definition of “disinformation”:

            “False information intended to deceive….”

            From the New American Oxford Dictionary, which is the dictionary found in most computers.

Leave a Reply to Celeste Fremon X