Claycord – Talk About Local Politics

June 8, 2018 19:00 pm · 27 comments

voted1

This special post is “Talk About LOCAL Politics”.

Please use this post to talk about LOCAL politics, and keep state and national politics out of this thread.

Thank you, and be kind to each other.

Please Note: Users who use multiple names will be deleted. Please choose a name so others can easily chat with you. Users must provide a name in the ‘name field’, please do not use the ‘@’ symbol in the name field.

Lena June 9, 2018 at 7:04 PM

A local publication is reporting that both CVCHS Director David Linzey and his wife have been placed on administrative leave until the end of their contracts in August 2919. This according to Interim Director Bob Hampton.
That is over a year from now. Wonder if that is administrative leave with pay? Linzey was hired in 2015 at $241,426 and his wife in 2017 at $169,000.

Lars Anderson June 11, 2018 at 9:05 AM

I think $241, 426 a is an obscene amount of money to pay a person who pushes papers around an office at a high school and holds make-work meetings. Are you sure you are correct? Together these two paid paper pushers make over 400K per year, shocking. Pardon me. I have to go barf.

AlwaysBePositive June 11, 2018 at 10:01 AM

All charter school supporters should understand that every student in the MDUSD contributed to that salary at the expense of that students educational funding.

Lena June 15, 2018 at 1:03 PM

I’ll bet those students didn’t contribute a fraction of what the taxpayers in this District contributed. How can I get a job like that? I’d like to get some of my money back on this ridiculous excuse to fleece the taxpayers in our area.

Lena June 9, 2018 at 10:05 PM

Make that “placed on administrative leave until the end of their contracts in August 2019,” not 2919.

Former CVHS parent June 9, 2018 at 10:56 PM

My understanding is that it is PAID administrative for David Linzey. His contract guarantees him a 3% raise every year, so his pay is higher than the 2015 figure. I don’t know if his wife is also on paid leave.

Lena June 10, 2018 at 10:01 PM

Right. It is reported that they are both on “paid administrative leave.”

KAD June 9, 2018 at 11:05 PM

Yes, that is “with” pay.

annie2u June 10, 2018 at 6:42 AM

The Concord Community Pool in Cowell Park is supposed to finally open for swimming on June 11. I haven’t seen any updates on the city’s website about it. Does anyone have any news?
Thanks

Denise Pursche June 10, 2018 at 8:29 AM

Cheryl Hansen is in a run off election for November against Lynn Mackey for Contra Costa Superintendent of Schools.

My vote went to Mackey as it will in November election. Though I’ve voted for Hansen in the past, I have not given her my vote for this upcoming position due to a lack of oversight on the part of the MDUSD Board and concerning “sexuality education” for 5th grade students. Hansen is VP of the MDUSD Board this year.

Some how, some way, the MDUSD Board never reviewed this new sexuality education curriculum from Advocacy for Youth/3Rs. Moving from 2 lessons, 40 minutes each lesson to 11 lessons, 40 minutes each for this school year.

Again, the MDUSD Board never reviewed this curriculum prior to its implementation. The board never discussed this new curriculum. Never asked for parent input (though that is customary). Never voted on the new curriculum either.

True, after my first public comment, when it seems the board became aware of the curriculum for the first time as I was told (in a brief meeting with Superintendent and President of Board), that “the first time they heard about the new curriculum was during my 1st public comment” (stated by Mason, President MDUSD Board). And, later the superintendent stated during a board meeting, “it was an oversight”. And then recently, Brian Lawrence mentioned at the last board meeting in May, apologizing that the board had never review this curriculum, saying “it should never happen ever again in the future”.

The MDUSD Board could vote on the curriculum and vote it up or down, but they have chosen instead to do nothing. They say they are going to put together a parent committee along with teachers from the district to discuss the curriculum sometime this summer and come up with a recommendation. However, this committee would be overseen by the two admins/staffers who implemented this program without board oversight. Yes, these are the same staffers who didn’t bring this curriculum to the Superintendents/Boards attention. So, not sure that’s really going to help and I ask, might they stack the committee with “yes” people?

Though teachers had given input about the curriculum prior to implementation (I guess), some have stated to me that they didn’t want to teach it, and that it was not age appropriate material for 5th grade, 10 year old/11 year old students.

In addition, the state laws do not require that this curriculum be taught in elementary school TK-6th. The law only requires that these 11 lessons be taught once in middle school and once in high school. So, don’t be mislead because these staffers are stating that they were “forced” to teach this material (on parent night), because the laws forced them to do it. They have also stated the “standards” forced them to teach it. Hogwash! The laws do not say any such thing. Standards are standards and that’s all they are and standards do not force a district to do anything. We are a “local control district” therefore what is taught is left up to the district.

Additionally, I’ve also read the laws regarding sexuality education, as well as the standards, and have spoken to the 1) State DOE, 2) the Curriculum Committee, and the 3) Education Committee (all of the representatives on this committee). In fact, I’ve spoken to so many people from throughout our state goverment, DOE, curriculum committee, education committee, there are too many people to even count them all. All of these committees and representatives, including the STATE DOE staffers state the laws do not require the district to do anything of this sort.

I have also spoken to many parents who have also voiced their concerns to me across several schools stating that the material was not age appropriate. And, I agree and disagree. The information contained in the 11 lessons, is perhaps half of it, age appropriate. The other half is not.

BTW, If you get a chance to review the lesson plans, I would do so parents. Make sure you especially review any of the videos, including reviewing homework, and power point presentations that are in each of the lessons.

You can review all of the lessons in a petition our group has started. As of today there are 318 individuals who have signed our petition asking questions of this board and demanding answers and a vote. You can find the lesson plans at the end of the petition linked for your review. Here is the link.

https://www.change.org/p/mdusd-superintendent-dr-nellie-meyer-stop-teaching-inappropriate-sexuality-education-to-5th-graders-3rs-curriculum-most-go

Credentials for both of these individuals are stellar. Again, my vote goes to Mackey, not Hansen for not being brave enough to put her vote on the line for or against this sexuality education material. I believe due to an upcoming election. Afraid? Maybe? Voting yes or no, may tick off certain groups, possibly making it difficult to win in a run off election?

Mackey is a seasoned teacher and administrator with a Master’s degree from Cal State East Bay in Educational Leadership and has over twenty years of experience working directly with the County Superintendent at the Contra Costa County Office of Education. Hansen

A Walnut Creek native, Hansen holds a bachelor’s degree in English and French from Cal State Hayward, professional clear teaching and administrative services credentials, and a master’s degree in Educational Leadership.

Why is our board so hesitant to bring up this curriculum and vote on it as Fremont Unified did and vote it in/out? Too many questions remain for me to provide my support to Hansen.

Again, my vote goes to Mackey. I hope you will do the same. Vote Mackey for November, Contra Costa County, Superintendent of Schools.

Claycord was made aware of this story several months ago as was The East Bay Times. Not one reporter/editor returned my call concerning these issues…odd? Or, perhaps convenient due to an upcoming election. In the end, The East Bay Times placed their support behind Mackey for CCC Superintendent of Schools. I hope you will do the same and place your support behind Mackey for Superintendent of Schools.

Thank you,

tlaw June 10, 2018 at 12:53 PM

Thankful leone won’t be on the ballot! Shame on city council for lack of morals / ethics, to allow such an individual to sit on the council.

Concord politics: no different than those in D.C., just a smaller scale, closer to home.

KAD June 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM

I am also thankful that Leone will not be on the ballot. The City Council did appoint him to the council but the voters put him back on the Council. It is almost impossible to replace incumbents. I was disappointed in the current City Council members that endorsed him.

Well Folks June 11, 2018 at 8:22 AM

tlaw – why blame the council for Leone when it is the voters that keep putting him back on. It is your fellow Concord resident that should be shamed

Lars Anderson June 10, 2018 at 10:06 PM

I too am thrilled Leone finished a weak third in a three person race for the School Superintendent race. Leone lied about his job status, and his campaign was mostly funded by these charter schools, who wanted a “stooge” in the Superintendent job, rather than a fighter for kids. I’m also thrilled Leone is “retiring” from the Concord City Council. The guy never did one thing the entire time he was on the council – other than to work behind the scenes to get members of the Concord Police Officers Association raises and enhanced benefits. He also helped the Concord POA feather bed the police department with all these surplus management jobs at the PD, jobs that do not make Concord residents any safer. Thanks to this do-nothing gas bag political hack Leone – and these other POA stooges on the council, Hoffmiester and McGallian , we can’t get a new library built in Concord, recreation programs have been gutted, and there is no money for youth services either, or the arts, Nor is there money to fix roads or infrastructure. All we get in Concord for our tax dollars is a ludicrously over-funded PD – a PD that fights a perennial war on a “pretend crime wave” in our city. We get that – and “promises” from the council on big things to come in our city down the line, which never materialize – mostly because there is no money left for anything – after the city pays the bloated city salaries of city workers. I urge all city residents to vote McGallian and Hoffmiester off the council, we got rid of Leone – let’s also get rid of McGallian and Hoffmiester too, you get these two off the council things will start happening in our city.

Chief Guy Hienemann June 11, 2018 at 8:18 AM

Lars Anderson you are on point with Mr. Leone. Mr. Leone also pulled some shenanigans out of public view. He tried to get his son hired as a cop with Concord by using his POA connections. He had the Chief of Police do an illegal records check on a young man dating his daughter. There is more Lars but you get the point,he is not the friendly old councilman he portrays.
Every Student Counts,what bull£¥~t!

Concord Mike June 11, 2018 at 6:52 PM

Sorry to read so many nasty personal attacks against basically good people.

I may not agree with council members Leone, Hoffmeister, or McGalllian on every issue, but I won’t question their morals or intentions without solid evidence…not hearsay and inuendo.

Same goes for Mayor Birsan and Vice Mayor Obringer. These are good people, people!

Hope Johnson June 11, 2018 at 7:50 PM

On the contrary – a big round of applause to the Claycordians who are paying attention and holding their elected officials accountable.

Thank you to everyone who prefers not to live with their head stuck in the sand just so they can pretend to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

Lars Anderson June 12, 2018 at 12:49 PM

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2014cv00535/274215/67/

Concord Mike, The City of Concord settled three police brutality- civil rights suits in 2017 for 550,000, and another in 2018 for 1.2 million. These suits are a by-product of Concord’s “out of control” police department, the city council, council people like Hoffmiester, Leone and McGallian, who have been placed on the council by the police labor union, have allowed the PD to take complete control of the entire city budget – Concord today is just a giant police department that poses as a “city”. Most city employees work for the PD now – the PD is so costly there is no money for other city employees, or any other city programs either. These cops working for the city – who make astronomical amounts of money – are heavily into “over policing” the city, the cops are roughing people up, in some cases killing them, such as what happened in the Charles Burns case which cost the city 1.2 million dollars (see above law suit). There are two videos on You Tube where Concord Police officers attack people that are filming the officers on cell phones – not that big of deal – but apparently it was to these Concord PD officers.(Concord PD refused to allow shoulder cameras for years,) One of the You Tube videos is a “driving while black” case, the officer jacked up these guys because they were black and supposedly because they were in a “gang neighborhood”.. What’s going on in Concord is the PD is ludicrously over-funded, so these people at the PD have created these special “gang enforcement teams” and other specialized units – it’s all just a lot of nonsense – these people at the PD want to get it on their resume they headed up the “gang enforcement unit”. There is little, if any, real evidence we have a gang problem in Concord, we don’t have drive by shootings, we have almost no murders in Concord – we never have, Concord has no ghettos, no outdoor drug dealing either. Concord is a moderate to low crime suburban city, it has a little more crime that it used to have – but not much. This over-funding of the PD is leading to cases like the Charles Burns case, where a low level 24 year old drug dealer – who lived in Antioch – was murdered by a bunch of dumb poorly trained Concord PD officers, officers that were part of some phony “special enforcement team”, which was only created to justify the gargantuan Concord PD budget. I invite you to read this law suit filed by the Charles Burns family – which cost the city 1.2 million. It’s very sobering, I don’t believe all of what is in the complaint, but I believe most of it. This incident is a by-product of the way Concord has evolved during the Hoffmiester, Leone and, Grayson years – we’ve gone from being a real city to being just a big giant police department that pretends to be a city. The reason this has happened, I might add, is because that ‘s what the Concord Police Officers Association wants, and they run the city behind the scenes, the council is just a ceremonial body. What Concord PD officers want – and have gotten from Hoffmeister and her cronies – is the highest possible wages they can get – which they have gotten, more manager jobs, so they can get promoted, and all these special units, so they can pad their resumes. None of this has anything to do with crime in our city, this is about an out of control police labor union that has taken over our city, thanks to these losers on the city council, like Hoffmiester, Leone, and McGallian.
I recall several years ago some idealistic teens in Concord wanted to build a teen center in Concord. I recall vividly city officials claiming there was no money for that – that it would cost 700,000 annually to operate the teen center – and they also said there would be liability issues, so these bright young idealistic teens were told to get lost. In fact, the money that might have been earmarked for that teen center has gone instead to the PD in Concord, and they have used the money to fund these phony un-needed Concord PD “enforcement teams” , which are leading to all these law suits.
If the city was being run correctly they would only fund the PD as needed – thats what they do in WC and PH, you pay as much as you need to police the city – and not penny more, you don’t pay what the PD labor union is telling you they need. That’s just common sense. But the Concord POA has placed these stooges on the council – and now we have a city where the central focus of the city – the only focus of the city – is to arrest and jail people, and to arrest people in the most costly way that you can. Is that your idea of a good city Concord Mike? It’s not mine. A good city is about great libraries, great recreation programs, it’s about quality youth services, quality senior programs, it’s about culture and art, and it’s about parks.

Concord Mike June 12, 2018 at 9:49 PM

@Lars, you and I agree on the problem of high compensation and top heavy management in city government and especially CPD.

I disagree with your characterization of CPD as overly aggressive. I think they aren’t aggressive enough – especially in the enforcement of “small” infractions like vehicle equipment violations, public intoxication, truancy, etc. when a violent crime happens CPD seems to do a good job.

Hope Johnson June 12, 2018 at 3:51 PM

Text of correspondence sent to Concord City Council re violation of Brown Act on 6/5/18:

Dear Concord City Council and City Attorney:

Pursuant to Section 54960.2 of California’s Brown Act, this email is a request for the Concord City Council to cease and desist from violating the Brown Act during public meetings. A copy of this email will be faxed to the city clerk to meet the service requirement of the code.

Specifically, this request refers to the Council’s lengthy discussion toward the end of its regularly scheduled meeting on June 5, 2018, regarding Vice Mayor Obringer’s request to place on a future agenda an item to consider forming an ad hoc committee to monitor PLA discussions between Lennar and labor unions on the CNWS project. The introduction of the request and the following discussion continued for approximately 28 minutes and covered at length items of business under the jurisdiction of the Council that were not listed on the agenda for the meeting in violation of Section 54954.2(a) of the Brown Act. In addition, the City Attorney advised Mayor Birsan that he did not need to call for public comment because the item was not on the agenda without also advising that Section 54954.3 does allow the public to speak to topics Council addresses during the regularly included “Reports and Announcements” agenda item.

During Agenda Item 12c (“Council Reports”) of the June 5 meeting, Vice Mayor Obringer requested that an item be included on a future agenda to consider forming an ad hoc committee regarding PLA negotiations between labor unions and potential Phase 1 master developer Lennar for the CNWS project. The Vice Mayor began with the reason for her request that then became a lengthy speech on project goals, the timing of a PLA, a PLA effect on the development agreement, and commentary on Lennar’s failure to adhere to its term sheet. These are arguments that support the need for a committee, not the request to consider one, and should have been kept brief or held for when the potential committee was a consideration item on agenda. Mayor Birsan advised that City Staff requested the Vice Mayor keep her request short to adhere to the Brown Act.

A lengthy and sometimes heated discussion involving all members of the council, except Councilmember Leone who recused himself, then took place which included discussion of the merits of an ad hoc committee, developer reactions to such a committee, the scope of topics a committee should discuss, which topics different Councilmembers would support, and the legality of forming a committee. Councilmembers discussed including community benefits in the scope of the committee and the Mayor insisted such a committee would be allowed to consider the totality of the CNWS project and not just the PLA. This discussion continued for 28 minutes despite the majority of it being related to support for forming a committee and development of its scope rather than support for placing consideration of such a committee on a future agenda and despite staff advising that the issues discussed should be included in a staff memo for consideration when the item was on agenda.

Very little of the discussion focused on whether there was support for the item to be on agenda so the discussion could be made with proper public notice under the Brown Act.

By engaging in the discussion described, the council is in violation of Section 54954.2(a)(2) of the Brown Act. Section 54954.2(a)(2) provides that “[n]o action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.” The section allows only the following exceptions for council to speak on an item not on the agenda: “briefly respond” to public comment, “ask a question for clarification,” “make a brief announcement,” “make a brief report on his or her own activities,” “provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information,” “request staff to report back,” and “direct staff to place a natter of business on a future agenda.”
.
The Council’s discussion of the subject matter to be considered by the proposed ad hoc committee, the merits of the committee, and developer-related issues was not posted on the agenda, as was noted by the City Attorney during the meeting. These topics cannot reasonably be considered to have been adequately noticed under the very general description of Item 12c, “Council Reports.” By discussing these items without notice, the council is in violation of Section 54954.2(a)(2) and has deprived the public of its right to notice of a topic of potential interest.

The violation is particularly troublesome because it involves the already controversial CNWS project and the ongoing transparency issues associated with it. This was an unnoticed discussion on the topic of potentially forming a committee that will meet outside the view of the public without notice, further adding to the lack of public transparency. It also was done after Council and staff attended the Brown Act training conducted by Michael Jenkins during which Mr. Jenkins confirmed that a 20 minute discussion is too long for such a general agenda heading. This is the second time I have requested the Council refrain from using the Reports heading as a catch all for discussion (the first being the elected mayor discussion held under the same Reports item in Jan. 2016). This procedural matter is important to follow to allow interested members of the public to participate and to prevent future controversial topics from being slipped into meetings unnoticed.

In addition, Council and staff allowed Councilmember Leone, who had recused himself for conflict of interest, to then weigh in on the specific topic for which he had recused himself, PLAs related to the CNWS, demonstrating further disregard for rules of order that protect the rights of the public.

With this correspondence, I respectfully request the council cease and desist from discussing items at meetings that are not posted on the agenda and I preserve my right to take any further action allowed under the Brown Act.
Thank you,
Hope Johnson
Concord resident

Concord Mike June 14, 2018 at 12:28 PM

I finally got a chance to watch the discussion Hope Johnson was referring to.

What I found most disturbing was not the discussion to justify an agenda item, but the fact the city staff refused to even put the item on the next agenda!

Who is really running this city when our city council gets rebuffed from a simple request to add an agenda item to a future meeting?

Our city manager was not at the meeting. I hope she watches this video and calls her staff on the carpet for their lack of respect for the authority of the city council to add an agenda item to a future meeting.

Kentucky Derby June 12, 2018 at 4:33 PM

All city councils violate the Brown Act because it’s not enforced, and they know they can get away with it. And they do. Kudos to those who “stay on them.”

Lars Anderson June 13, 2018 at 10:23 AM

Thanks Concord Mike, thanks for agreeing with me that executive- managers at the City of Concord are being over paid in Concord. Police Chief Guy Swanger’s pay package is an excellent example of this. According to Transparent California, the web site that tracks public salaries at cities up and down the state, Chief Swanger’s salary was 257,000 in 2017. In 2011 Chief Swanger made 186,000, so Chief Swanger is making 71,000 more than he did just six years ago. His benefit package has soared as well. In 2011 Chief Swanger’s benefit package cost taxpayers 82,000. In 2017 his benefit package has ballooned to 138,00, so his benefits are costing taxpayers 56,000 more than in 2011.
Chief Swanger, I should mention, is a very good PD Chief, great guy on top of that. He actually has worked to try and keep expenses down at the PD, but that’s not easy with the Concord police labor union rolling the city council members like they do every time the Concord POA’s contract comes up. I am guessing city officials gave him the big whopper raise because he’s doing such a good job, and they want to keep him in Concord. Swanger could get a PD Chief job anywhere, of course, he has great skills.
While Chief Swanger has been working to keep expenses down at the PD – to a degree – he’s not doing too good a job at keeping his own salary down, or the salaries of his officers either. Veteran patrolman at Concord PD now make 139,000 plus they get this 10,000 to be on “call” when they are off, so veteran officers make 149,000. Over in Vallejo. which has like three times the crime Concord has – 30 murders a year sometimes – the officers are making 107,000 a year, not 149,000.
Chief Swanger’s PD Chief counterparts in surrounding cities are making quite a bit less in salary and benefits, according to Transparent California (2017 figures). The Pleasant Hill PD Chief makes, 187,000, the Walnut Creek PD Chief makes 217,000, and the Pittsburg PD Chief makes 209,000, so Chief Swanger is the Big Kahuna in terms of pay locally, and he’s got a fancy office too (see Concord’s grotesque Taj Mahal police facility,). Chief Swanger has been at Concord PD for a long time now, who could blame him for not leaving? For a PD Chief – or a patrolman – working at the City of Concord PD is nirvana. Great pay, a fancy police station, fabulous benefits – you get 10,000 a year “on call” pay, and you can work all the OT you want, most of the time.
It seem to me if the City of Concord was run properly – if we had good management – the city wouldn’t be paying these excessive wages to the people working at the PD. If you kept Chief Swanger pay lower, say 186,000, rather than hiking it to 257,000, like city officials did, he might leave and go get a better job, but so what. You can get somebody to replace Swanger with ease. Same with these officers at Concord PD who now make 149,000 rather than 107,000 – which is probably all the City of Concord can really afford. Having a little turnover at the PD, that’s not that big a deal, new incoming officers make less money, it would be good for the bottom line. This business of paying these huge wages to Concord PD officers is just ridiculous. Concord doesn’t have that much crime, it never has, the city is just throwing money away stupidly and needlessly.
As I have been reporting the excessive out of control spending going on at the PD in Concord is a direct result of politics, and politics only. The Concord POA – the police labor union, has placed these stooges on the council – like Hoffmiester and McGallian. Most, if not all, of the people sitting on the council for years have been in the pocket of the police labor union – Helen Allen, Mike Pastrick, Tim Grayson, Mark Peterson, Colleen Coll – we’ve had a parade of police labor union stooges serving on the council for generations. These people, in my view, have wrecked our city. Because of them we can’t get a new library built in our town, a new city hall, a teen center, we can’t get youth service funded, there is no money for the arts, all we have money for now – in 2018 – is money to arrest and jail people. The PD is just one service a city provides, cities do a lot of other things, but not in Concord, our city has morphed into a giant arrest and jail machine, a machine that’s going to bankrupt the city down the line, you watch.

Anonymous June 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM

Lars- we get it. You don’t like cops.

The problem is the attacks on the cops and assertions they are dumb, that we don’t have gangs, or drive by shootings is wrong, but if that is true, then one could attribute it to proactive policing .

Lawsuits- every police department has them , and some are paid out, for a variety of reasons, including cops being human and making mistakes. So what?

You distract from the question that’s most important. Why do we have such huge salaries for executives?I seem to recall we passed an increase in sales taxes to save the police department, not to pay the Chief just slightly less then the Chief of LA.

These lengthy diatribes you publish from time to time sound like a broken record .

Kentucky Derby June 14, 2018 at 12:12 PM

Attending a city council meeting (in any city) is a double edge sword. It keeps you informed, but it can have a very negative effect on you. It’s the reason most people don’t attend.

Lars Anderson June 14, 2018 at 12:23 PM

Annonymous, I am not anti-police, I am pro law enforcement. However, I
do believe the wages and benefits of Concord police Officers are excessive, spending at the PD is out of control. I am supporting that view with examples of this excessive spending.
Here is another example; According to Transparent California, Concord Police Captain Garret Voerge is making 225,000 – that’s more than Police Chief John Moore makes at Pittsburg (187,000), more than Walnut Creek Police Chief Tom Chaplin makes (217,000), and more than the Police Chief Will Addington makes at Pittsburg (209,000). (2017 Transparent California figures). So Captain’s in Concord make more than PD Chiefs in surrounding cities. Why is that? Well, the reason for that is Concord’s city budget has morphed into a big candy store for the people that work PD, even the dispatchers are getting in on his out of control spending.
We residents in Concord are told – continually by Laura Hoffmiester and her cronies – the city is broke, we were told we had to pass a special tax to fix roads and infrastructure, yet look at these salaries being paid at the PD, they are ludicrously excessive. As I reported previously, the head of the police officer labor union in Concord – Ronald Bruckert made 230,000 OT in just 36 months (15.16,17). These bloated salaries being paid at the Concord PD, and all this OT Bruckert earned – are linked to corruption, the police department controls the budget in Concord – behind the scenes, and they have ‘rigged” things so they get these whopper salaries, at the expense of we taxpayers. Also paying the price is all other services the city provides, which has been whittled down to nothing (see Rec. Dept.) To justify all this money being stupidly squandered on the PD – far more than needed – these people at the PD exaggerate crime levels – they keep waving the bloody shirt, claiming we got this big gang problem or saying that crime is some sort of big problem in Concord, it isn’t. Car shopping, done by bored teenagers – is the number 1 crime in Concord.
Yes, Anonymous, it’s true , I’m probably a broken record on the topic of wasteful spending at the PD, but somebody has got to start speaking up about it. What we have going on in Concord is corruption, plain and simple. This type of corruption – where a single pushy city labor union (the POA) has swallowed up the whole city budget – is not going on in surrounding cities. That’s why the City of Pleasant Hill is getting a new library, that’s why the City of Pittsburg funded a beautiful city hall, and a beautiful theater for dramatic plays, or why PH Park and Rec built a beautiful new teen center. These cities aren’t letting the PD swallow up the whole budget, these cities are being run right. Concord is a cesspool of corruption and the locus of the corruption is the police department.

Chief Guy Hienemann June 15, 2018 at 6:36 AM

Odd Lars,the POA doesn’t form and bless those units you think are a joke.The POA isn’t the top executive responsible for the conduct of officers. Guy Swanger is yet you call him a good chief making 248K? Just lost 5 times his salary in a shooting o an unarmed man.Dont forget Lars your good chief is collecting a rich captains pension from San Diego PD in addition to the 248K . The man is a snake oil salesman Lars…look closer and listen closer. They need an outside female chief to open the books and clean the decks!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: