Real Leaders Lead


Enjoy the rare sight and sound of an elected Fullerton leader actually leading.

Please note the not so subtle threat: the tyranny of the Three Dead Batteries, Bankhead, Jones, and McKinley is exercised to deny an elected official – Whitaker – access to public records and public property; and their own stupid intransigence is forcing their dereliction directly into the political arena.

Not surprisingly, the Three Stagnant Ponds are backed up by Attorney Richard Jones who, incredibly, wants the people of Fullerton to believe the authority of the Council derives from – the Council itself!!

That’s the kind of Divine Right bullshit that inspired the American Revolution. The Three Hollow Logs no doubt find comfort in that sort of tyranny. And that’s exactly why we are having a recall.

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by Erin on February 23, 2012

    Bruce is in tune with the residents of Fullerton the majority of the time. He asks the questions we want answered.

  2. #2 by Curious on February 23, 2012

    Bruce demonstrates both courage and intelligence. The qualities needed to lead.

  3. #3 by Wrong Guy on February 23, 2012

    The rest display arrogance, stupidity and uselessness.

  4. #4 by Barry Levinson on February 23, 2012

    REELECT BRUCE WHITAKER 2012 FULLERTON COUNCIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS!!

    • #5 by Erin on February 23, 2012

      Barry, I want to thank you for the conversation and your insight after the meeting on Tuesday.

    • #6 by Snowhume on February 23, 2012

      But perhaps elect Barry Levinson to one of the recall-replacement seats this June. He has already stuck his neck out.. and that is the test for the right candidate.

      • #7 by john doe on February 23, 2012

        Hell no!!

        • #8 by Erin on February 23, 2012

          We really could care less what you say john doe. One thing is for sure, you WILL NEVER have any say in this city. Can you tell I have already figured you out?

  5. #9 by We The People on February 23, 2012

    Thanks, Joe, and thanks Bruce.

    Yes indeed, the issue of where sovereignty resides is key. Whitaker understands that in a democracy it inheres in the people.

    Bankhead, Jones, and McKinley think it resides in themselves. Big problem.

    And yes. Recall is the key. Thank you Attorney Jones for the inadvertent legal and intellectual justification for the recall. McClanahan, Flory and Ackerman take note.

    • #10 by admin on February 23, 2012

      WTP, I like how you think. How would you like to write some posts for us?

    • #11 by salty dog on February 23, 2012

      Do we live in a democracy or a democratic republic? Answer: Democratic Republic. I think there is a big difference. Unfortunately that distinction sometimes gets lost on people.

      It occurs to me that Bruce is introducing a new concept that deserves significant attention, that is the duty/authority of individual council members and the role of the entire City council body.

      My read of that interaction is that there was confusion as to what Bruce was refering to. WRT the tape viewing I think council got it right. The broader issue, however, is relevant and worth additional discussion.

      • #12 by Incorrect on February 23, 2012

        No, Bruce is introducing an old concept that deserves significant attention.

        Bruce is trying to help you out by differentiating between the practical “majority rule” that regulates council action and the indivisible right he has, as an elected official to access City documents and City property.

        Whitaker has an inalienable right to watch that video regardless of what the Three Chimps or the City Attorney or the City manager have to say on the subject. What he does with that knowledge is his business.

        I don’t know what Ron Thomas has to say on the subject and couldn’t care less.

        There was no confusion. Bruce knew what he was talking about and used very clear language.

  6. #13 by The Fullerton Savage on February 23, 2012

    It couldn’t be laid more bare. The council majority does not trust itself to keep sensitive information from leaking, and so would not even consider viewing the tape in executive session. Bankhead’s motion to “receive and file” Whitaker’s attempt to resolve the issue of viewing the tape was a perfect example of why the recall is necessary. Instead of dealing with a difficult and uncomfortable situation Bankhead, McKinley, and Jones voted to shove it into a drawer and forget about it. That’s what we mean by “Failure to Lead.”

  7. #14 by info warrior on February 23, 2012

    Bravo Council member Whitaker. BRAVO!!!! You have made friends in places that will later come to light. For now suffice it to say. We Got Ur Back.

  8. #15 by jeffy on February 23, 2012

    I would argue that Quirk-Silva has run her course as well….something about her I just don’t trust. If anyone has anything to say to the contrary I welcome the feedback.

  9. #16 by Jane H on February 23, 2012

    What a Mensch!

  10. #17 by Woodward and Bernstein are gone, gone, gone on February 23, 2012

    I found this link very interesting. This not only applies nationally, but at home as well, obviously.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/wake-reporter-deaths-syria-white-house-grilled-aggressive-154806577.html

  11. #18 by truthseeker on February 23, 2012

    Mr Whitaker is a statesman. As for the rest of the council, they will be replaced by other statesmen and/or stateswomen who will represent and STAND for the rights and the best interests of the citizens of Fullerton. The protective shield around the cabal that has maintained a stranglehold on local politics and the purse strings in this city is finally succumbing to the UV degradation that all plastic veneers are vulnerable to. Don’t ever underestimate the power of “the light of day” as it possesses wavelengths that may not be visible but are very powerful indeed.

  12. #19 by Oscar on February 23, 2012

    Horay, for Captain Kangaroo!

  13. #20 by Proctor on February 23, 2012

    I wouldn’t let that twitching, career trough feeder was my cats balls.

    • #21 by Anonymous on February 23, 2012

      barry coffman for the loss!

    • #22 by Anonymous on February 23, 2012

      Types ‘cats balls’ on the internet
      cool face.jpg
      Lives with a cat in real life cause battered woman moved out
      foreveralone.jpg

      • #23 by Concerned Texan on February 23, 2012

        Councilman Jones, you need to stay off the internet. Or better yet, search for “steppin’ on your own weenie” on youtube.

  14. #24 by Evrything's just Shell on February 23, 2012

    barry coffman…is a human walrus…

  15. #25 by Kelly Thomas Beating Video Shown to his Father but not Mother Due to Court Battle on February 23, 2012

    • #26 by Erin on February 23, 2012

      T-Rac is playing games with Mr. Gurwitz.

  16. #27 by Erin on February 23, 2012

    McKinley tried to dispel my comment regarding seeing the video on March 28th. Well guess what he is wrong AGAIN!

    Susan Kang Schroeder states,
    “Everybody will see the video,” she said. “It’s just a matter of time when it’s shown at the upcoming preliminary hearing.”

    • #28 by john doe on February 23, 2012

      What did he say? I didnt hear telling you anything to the contrary.

  17. #29 by salty dog on February 23, 2012

    seems to me that the issues are getting confused.

    WRT the issue of viewing ‘the tape’. I think the right decision was made. Mr. Thomas agrees and I agree with his rationale.

    That issue notwithstanding, the question of what a city council member both individually and collectively have the duty/authority for is a larger question that could benefit from discussion.

  18. #30 by friend on February 23, 2012

    Here is one exemplary paragraph from Michael Gennaco’s silly report. (My comments are those in ALL CAPS.)

    “OIR Group has reviewed some of the medical records

    DIDN’T YOU SEE ALL THE MEDICAL RECORDS? WHY NOT?

    relating to the initial treatment

    WHAT KIND OF INITIAL TREATMENT DID THEY RECEIVE? DID THEY GO TO THE HOSPITAL? DID THEY TELL JOKES IN THE LOCKER ROOM?

    of two officers who were involved in the incident.

    WHICH TWO OFFICERS? WHY NOT NAME THEM?

    In both cases, initial documentation and triage indicated

    WHAT IS “INITIAL DOCUMENTATION AND TRIAGE”? YOU SHOULD DESCRIBE WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTS THESE ARE AND WHO AUTHORED THEM. BY “DOCUMENTATION” DO YOU MEAN THE BOGUS POLICE REPORTS THAT THE OFFICERS FILLED OUT AFTER REVIEWING THE VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS? HOW EXACTLY DOES TRIAGE INDICATE ANYTHING? OR DO YOU MEAN THE RECORDS OF THE TRIAGE THAT WAS PERFORMED? (MICHAEL, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT US TO THINK THIS SEEMED PRETTY SERIOUS.)

    an early possibility that each may have suffered a fracture of the ribs or elbow respectively.

    CAUSED BY WHAT?!

    In one case, x-rays eventually determined that there was no fracture to the ribs.

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN “EVENTUALLY”? DO YOU MEAN AN X-RAY WAS EVENTUALLY PERFORMED? DO YOU MEAN THE RESULTS OF THE X-RAY EVENTUALLY DETERMINED NO FRACTURE?

    In the second case, the officer was required to undergo surgery for a shoulder injury

    WHAT KIND OF SHOULDER INJURY? HOW WAS IT INCURRED?

    but it is unclear whether his elbow was ever actually fractured.”

    DID YOU EVER THINK TO JUST ASK THE OFFICER IF HIS ELBOW WAS EVER ACTUALLY FRACTURED?

    • #31 by Peaches on February 23, 2012

      Presumably, these “injuries” were identified as on the job injuries and the treating physician (either in the ER, Occupational Health Clinic, or a personal physician previously identified to treat on the job injuries) would complete a 5021 Form (unless the number has changed). The officer(s) would provide information to be included on the form. They would also complete a DWC-1 form which is their claim.

      NOTE: an on-the-job injury is not always deemed work-related.

      AND – of interest – found on the State’s Workers’ Comp website:

      Q: What personal information can be found in a public information search?

      A: The search tool shows limited case data, such as an injured worker’s name, case number, case status, court location, employer name, a description of events in the case, and associated dates. It may list the parts of the body that were injured, but it does not include medical records or any case documents. The information provided in this search tool relates solely to cases in DWC’s adjudication unit and is intended to help move cases through the court system efficiently. Any person requesting access to this information is required to identify themselves, state the reason for making the request, and instructed not to disclose the information to any person who is not entitled to it under Labor Code section 138.7.

      Injured workers should be aware that, once an “Application for Adjudication of Claim” is filed, case file information, including case documents, may be disclosed under the California Public Records Act. Even in this circumstance, an injured worker’s address and Social Security number are not revealed to the requestor by the DWC.

  19. #32 by DARRELL on February 23, 2012

    I smell a cover up! Its time to file a 50 million dollar lawsuit & get the feds involved!

    • #33 by john doe on February 23, 2012

      The feds are involoved..where have you been?

      • #34 by I SPY on February 24, 2012

        To #33
        If you are relying on the Feds, where have you been?

  20. #35 by streets of fullerton on February 23, 2012

    Whitaker seemed to be the only one up there that wasn’t comfortable with what Gennaco was dishing out. He like many of us realized that Gennaco was sort of powder coating his “investigations” to make it more palatable.Whitaker seemed to be picking up crutial points that where being left out. He doesn’t have to stick his neck out but he chooses to because its the right thing to do event though it puts him in a sort of fish bowl. Thanks Whitaker for sticking up for Kelly and for your efforts to view the tape & hold the “investigators” accountable.

    • #36 by Paul Bunyan on February 23, 2012

      Yes, thanks councilman Whitaker
      .
      Way last August, Gennaco was contracted to review police policies and investigate the July 5, 2011 use of force incident. He was to perform a very detailed and explicit examination into the actions of officers and senior personnel in the aftermath of the Kelly Thomas death. Both pieces were to be reported to the council as part of a public report. Fullerton residents didn’t want a skimpy, sanitized report that only served to rehabilitate the police department. The people wanted to know what happened. They wanted to know the good, the bad and the ugly account of the affair.

      Here is a discussion between Councilman Whitaker and Gennaco before approving the contract:

      Whitaker: “The public, we’ve heard from them extensively on this, and they are interested in an investigation, something that would get to the bottom of it. I certainly understand the consulting side, the types of recommendations for improvement going forward that you would be making, but the only way I could be supportive of this is if it did indeed contain both those elements and that one was a very serious and considerable investigation into this particular incident.

      Gennaco: “That is exactly what is anticipated council member.”

      Has Gennaco fulfilled his contractual obligation so far? In the opening paragraph of Gennaco’s report, he says, “…OIR Group found no evidence of intent by the police department to deceive or falsify…” That line was crafted to be the media headline grabber, and it ended up being the headlines even though the evidence to support that conclusion was so limited and one-sided.

      As one example among many, Gennaco says that FPD contacted the attorney about that letter in Kelly’s backpack and learned that the attorney had discarded it. Gennaco failed to mention that the attorney felt so disturbed by that exchange that he personally sought out Ron Thomas to alert him that he felt detectives had prodded him to pin wrongdoing on his son. That part was left out of his report along with many other facts that didn’t support his headline conclusion. Did the guy who forgot his backpack at the train depot feel the same way as the attorney?

      When Kelly was being affronted on July 5th, those officers were determined to detain him as long as it took to find something for which to charge him. Gennaco asserts in his report that the goofy letter gave them sufficient reason to continue badgering Kelly. As to that letter, did it look like it had been freshly stolen with the other “mail stolen from multiple mailboxes’ as relayed to Whitaker by Felz? Or did it look like dirty, weathered trash that had been toted around in a backpack for awhile? Also, when Whitaker asked if any of the more than 200 other witnesses corroborated the female caller’s assertions, Gennaco answered in the affirmative, but when pressed further, admitted he didn’t really know much about that at all.

      There are so many other problems with this report. Gennaco was told to make an investigation independent of the city’s interests. He must not have taken that admonition seriously, or he was thinking about future employment opportunities. Frankly, it just seems he walked over to the station and told them to make a list of a few issues most damaging the department’s reputation and provide him with any self-serving evidence related to those issues and not to worry. He would fix things. Thanks Mr. Gennaco too, for nothing!

  21. #37 by longtimefullertongirl on February 23, 2012

    Thanks Mr. Gennaco too, for nothing! AGREED!!!
    The public wanted to hear a REAL Investigation into events that occurred and into the actions or lack of thereof for the incident happening on July 5, 2011 and continues for several weeks after.

    And, all I heard as a public citizen of Fullerton last February 21, 2012 was a report from Investigator Gennaco that was formulated as a lukewarm speech that did not have a lot of substance or REAL findings to the crux of the problems. He did say that information should be known before communicating and if found out to be untrue should be communicated as well. WELL, what about that statement he is in reference to regarding “broken bones”…it most likely was a fabricated lie to begin with, and going to the doctor to try and prove something that wasn’t is just SICK!!

    So, Thanks Mr. Gennaco, for nothing!!! If you are going to continue to try and walk on eggshells in trying to figure out what went wrong and make the ones you are hired by to sound like everything is pretty ok…THEN THAT IS JUST PATHETIC, and now is even harder to rebuild that Trust!

  22. #38 by Dr. Zillman on February 23, 2012

    friend :
    Here is one exemplary paragraph from Michael Gennaco’s silly report. (My comments are those in ALL CAPS.)
    “OIR Group has reviewed some of the medical records
    DIDN’T YOU SEE ALL THE MEDICAL RECORDS? WHY NOT?
    relating to the initial treatment
    WHAT KIND OF INITIAL TREATMENT DID THEY RECEIVE? DID THEY GO TO THE HOSPITAL? DID THEY TELL JOKES IN THE LOCKER ROOM?
    of two officers who were involved in the incident.
    WHICH TWO OFFICERS? WHY NOT NAME THEM?
    In both cases, initial documentation and triage indicated
    WHAT IS “INITIAL DOCUMENTATION AND TRIAGE”? YOU SHOULD DESCRIBE WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTS THESE ARE AND WHO AUTHORED THEM. BY “DOCUMENTATION” DO YOU MEAN THE BOGUS POLICE REPORTS THAT THE OFFICERS FILLED OUT AFTER REVIEWING THE VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS? HOW EXACTLY DOES TRIAGE INDICATE ANYTHING? OR DO YOU MEAN THE RECORDS OF THE TRIAGE THAT WAS PERFORMED? (MICHAEL, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT US TO THINK THIS SEEMED PRETTY SERIOUS.)
    an early possibility that each may have suffered a fracture of the ribs or elbow respectively.
    CAUSED BY WHAT?!
    In one case, x-rays eventually determined that there was no fracture to the ribs.
    WHAT DO YOU MEAN “EVENTUALLY”? DO YOU MEAN AN X-RAY WAS EVENTUALLY PERFORMED? DO YOU MEAN THE RESULTS OF THE X-RAY EVENTUALLY DETERMINED NO FRACTURE?
    In the second case, the officer was required to undergo surgery for a shoulder injury
    WHAT KIND OF SHOULDER INJURY? HOW WAS IT INCURRED?
    but it is unclear whether his elbow was ever actually fractured.”
    DID YOU EVER THINK TO JUST ASK THE OFFICER IF HIS ELBOW WAS EVER ACTUALLY FRACTURED?

    Excellent comment. I noticed the same self-placating verbage.
    The costly report contained just enough “conciliatory” language to blow a smokescreen over the obvious unanswered and PERTINENT questions.

    -To those not paying attention.

  23. #39 by Greg Diamond on February 23, 2012

    I can probably guess why they actually don’t want Whitaker to see some secret public files, but why do they assert that they don’t want Whitaker to see the secret public files?

  24. #40 by Dr. Zillman on February 23, 2012

    Paul Bunyan :
    Yes, thanks councilman Whitaker
    .
    Way last August, Gennaco was contracted to review police policies and investigate the July 5, 2011 use of force incident. He was to perform a very detailed and explicit examination into the actions of officers and senior personnel in the aftermath of the Kelly Thomas death. Both pieces were to be reported to the council as part of a public report. Fullerton residents didn’t want a skimpy, sanitized report that only served to rehabilitate the police department. The people wanted to know what happened. They wanted to know the good, the bad and the ugly account of the affair.
    Here is a discussion between Councilman Whitaker and Gennaco before approving the contract:
    Whitaker: “The public, we’ve heard from them extensively on this, and they are interested in an investigation, something that would get to the bottom of it. I certainly understand the consulting side, the types of recommendations for improvement going forward that you would be making, but the only way I could be supportive of this is if it did indeed contain both those elements and that one was a very serious and considerable investigation into this particular incident.
    Gennaco: “That is exactly what is anticipated council member.”
    Has Gennaco fulfilled his contractual obligation so far? In the opening paragraph of Gennaco’s report, he says, “…OIR Group found no evidence of intent by the police department to deceive or falsify…” That line was crafted to be the media headline grabber, and it ended up being the headlines even though the evidence to support that conclusion was so limited and one-sided.
    As one example among many, Gennaco says that FPD contacted the attorney about that letter in Kelly’s backpack and learned that the attorney had discarded it. Gennaco failed to mention that the attorney felt so disturbed by that exchange that he personally sought out Ron Thomas to alert him that he felt detectives had prodded him to pin wrongdoing on his son. That part was left out of his report along with many other facts that didn’t support his headline conclusion. Did the guy who forgot his backpack at the train depot feel the same way as the attorney?
    When Kelly was being affronted on July 5th, those officers were determined to detain him as long as it took to find something for which to charge him. Gennaco asserts in his report that the goofy letter gave them sufficient reason to continue badgering Kelly. As to that letter, did it look like it had been freshly stolen with the other “mail stolen from multiple mailboxes’ as relayed to Whitaker by Felz? Or did it look like dirty, weathered trash that had been toted around in a backpack for awhile? Also, when Whitaker asked if any of the more than 200 other witnesses corroborated the female caller’s assertions, Gennaco answered in the affirmative, but when pressed further, admitted he didn’t really know much about that at all.
    There are so many other problems with this report. Gennaco was told to make an investigation independent of the city’s interests. He must not have taken that admonition seriously, or he was thinking about future employment opportunities. Frankly, it just seems he walked over to the station and told them to make a list of a few issues most damaging the department’s reputation and provide him with any self-serving evidence related to those issues and not to worry. He would fix things. Thanks Mr. Gennaco too, for nothing!

    “or he was thinking about future employment opportunities.”

    BINGO! That’s all any of them do. How can you trust this “Office of Independent Review ?” Look at their members and staff.
    Absurd.

  25. #41 by Unindicted co-conspirator on February 24, 2012

    Blah, Blah, Blah. Whitaker can position himself however he wants. That doesn’t lead. Electing a whole new Council will do little. We need the Feds to ride into town with the big guns and bigger brooms.

  26. #42 by Sean Mill on February 24, 2012

    Way to go Bruce!!!!

  27. #43 by larry gilbert on March 3, 2012

    Bruce. As I do not visit this site I had not seen this council video until now. You join a long list of patriots fighting to support those people who lack the time, talent and courage to speak out.
    Some of us will see you in Sacramento next week where we can all say thanks in person.
    Your activist colleague Larry Gilbert.

Comments are closed.