Could be. These things are decided by the City Council behind closed doors in what is called “Closed Session.”
It would be a pretty neat and convenient trick to be able to sweep a whole lot of nasty crap under the carpet that might otherwise be more closely scrutinized during a public trial. And when that nasty crap reflects directly on your own incompetence, ignorance, and misfeasance, so much the better.
So it is with Fullerton City Council recall target and former Chief of Police, Pat McKinley. See, Pat is the guy who personally hired all the FPD goons, thieves, pickpockets, druggies, perjurers and killers who have been in the news lately. He says he is proud of all of them (but two – presumably the “aliens” Cicinelli and Ramos). And he apologizes for nothing
Consider this: as a City Councilman McKinley can get to decide how much money is paid out to the victims of those low-life hires he is so proud of. The conclusion that some of these payouts give off the stink of hush money is inescapable. A $350,000 payout was made just recently in the Albert Rincon sexual assault cases; and new plaintiffs are already forming a considerable conga line. What was McKinley’s role in this settlement? What will his role be in future FPD-caused civil suit settlements?
The most embarrassing issue of all (and potentially the most costly), will be the fact that then Chief McKinley knowingly hired and happily deployed to the streets of Fullerton a one-eyed cop whom the Chief of the LAPD wisely rejected as unfit for duty; and McKinley did it knowingly and happily as a favor to an old crony. Obviously no thought was given to the safety of the very public McKinley had sworn to protect.
This appears to me as a blatant conflict of interest and so, one hopes, it would also appear to McKinley. But unfortunately McKinley’s sense of ethics and sense of self-entitlement are a lot different than mine and yours.
Are you comfortable with McKinley having anything to do with settling a case that would shine a spotlight on his own corrupt misfeasance? The embarrassing details of the sexual predator Albert Rincon will never receive the public scrutiny of a public trial; nor will the fact that this was just another of the many miscreants hired and let loose on the public by McKinley.
Will McKinley recuse himself on the Quinonez and Veth Mam cases? Or the Kelly Thomas case? What about possible employee decisions with regard to Hampton, Wolfe, Blatney, Klein, Mejia, et al? If not, he is putting his lack of ethics on display; if he does it begs the question of how he can serve on the Council at all. See where I’m going with this?
Maybe you would just feel more comfortable if he weren’t in office anymore, at all.