CC SR 20160906 03 - Updates to Council ProtocolRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/06/2016
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
City Council policy on communication with other agencies in their personal vs. official
capacity.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. That Protocol 14 be clarified, expanded, and updated to include modern methods of
communication such as email. Should council members have to use disclaimers
when addressing staff? Is the use of city letterhead permissible with a disclaimer? A
social media policy is also recommended.
2. That current policy is vague and Mayor Pro Tem Campbell did not likely violate it in
his communication with the City's Chief of Police as a complaint was not filed and
the Sheriff made an internal decision to investigate.
3. That detailed censure procedures should be adopted, including possible penalties,
to ensure compliance with due process and First Amendment requirements.
4. That rules should be consolidated that deal with conduct by the City Council, by
public commenters, and by the audience during the meetings to ensure consistency,
as well as compliance with the First Amendment.
5. That a separate memorandum is attached outlining the process to have the matter
concerning Lt. Hummel expunged from his personnel folder.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: David J. Aleshire, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager.
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager.'A"Lli
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Recommendations for consolidation and clarification of existing rules,
policies, and procedures applicable to the Council, commissions, boards,
and committees. (A-1)
B. Memorandum dated August 18, 2016, concerning expunging complaint
from Lt. Hummel's personnel folder, and including various emails as
attachments. (B-1)
01203.0001/311018.2
1
I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At the City Council meeting of July 19, 2016, concurrent with questions raised
concerning potentially contaminated soils at a school site in the Ladera Linda
community and citizen complaints, a question was raised over councilmembers'
communication with other agencies in their personal vs. official capacity. The question
was raised as to whether the City currently has policies on the issue and how are these
policies enforced.
We were also asked about an investigation the L.A. County Sheriff's Department,
the City's law enforcement agency, had done over one of their employees who is also a
Ladera Linda resident. The question was raised as to whether a complaint had been
filed and if it could be expunged from the employee's personnel file. That subject is
addressed in a separate memo.'
The questions addressed in this memorandum are as follows:
A. A review of Council's current policy (Protocol 14) on the use of council
member titles in official (public) and non -official (private) communications.
B. Whether a council member making a comment to the chief of the city's law
enforcement agency would trigger application of the policy.
C. Whether the council should consider revisions to its protocol procedures.
D. Legislative body procedures are generally enforced through a censure
process, but the city has no process currently and enactment of a procedure
requires due process protections.
This memorandum addresses these questions, and also provides some
recommendations for consolidation and clarification of existing rules, policies, and
procedures applicable to the Council, commissions, boards, and committees (included
in Attachment A).
II. Summary
A. Protocol 14 of the City's Protocol for Elected Officials and Appointed Boards,
Commission and Committee Members addresses Councilmembers
expressing the views and opinions of the City, and does not appear to have
been violated by Mayor Pro Tem Campbell. The Policy is directed towards
when a councilmember is communicating with outside entities not aware of
the City's official position.
See memorandum dated August 18, 2016. That memorandum contains a more detailed description of
the "comment" made by the council member and how it triggered an investigation. The recital of facts
from that memorandum will not be repeated here.
01203.0001/311018.2
2
1. Protocol 14 addresses councilmembers speaking, testifying, or
communicating before administrative or legislative bodies or on letterhead
on behalf of the City but is incomplete and does not mention email
etiquette, and does not directly address use of titles.
2. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell does not appear to have violated Protocol 14 as
his communication with Captain Beringer about Lieutenant Hummel could
not reasonably have been understood by the Captain to be a directive on
behalf of the City Council.
B. City Council may censure a councilmember for conduct so long as the
censure provides due process and does not unconstitutionally infringe
upon First Amendment rights. Censure of councilmembers can include
certain limited sanctions.
C. Existing council protocol, rules, and policies do not include written censure
procedures; moreover, they are scattered across a number of documents
and should be consolidated and revised.
D. The City Attorney's Office recommends:
1. That Protocol 14 be clarified, expanded, and updated to include
modern methods of communication such as email. Should council
members have to use disclaimers when addressing staff? Is the use of
city letterhead permissible with a disclaimer? A social media policy is
also recommended.
2. That detailed censure procedures should be adopted, including
possible penalties, to ensure compliance with due process and First
Amendment requirements.
3. That rules should be consolidated that deal with conduct by the City
Council, by public commenters, and by the audience during the
meetings to ensure consistency, as well as compliance with the First
Amendment.
IV. Protocol 14 of the City's Protocol for Elected Officials and Appointed
Boards, Commission and Committee Members addresses councilmembers
expressing the views and opinions of the City, and does not appear to have
been violated by Mayor Pro Tem Campbell. The Policy is directed towards
when a councilmember is communicating with outside entities not aware of
the City's official position.
The City has a number of documents that articulate the protocols and rules of
procedure for the City Council, as well as a binder that collects City Council policies: the
Protocol for Elected Officials and Appointed Boards, Commission and Committee
Members ("Protocol"); the City Council Rules of Procedure ("Rules of Procedure"); and
the City Council Policy Manual ("Manual").
01203.0001/311018.2
3
A. Protocol 14 addresses councilmembers speaking, testifying, or
communicating before administrative or legislative bodies or on letterhead
on behalf of the City but is incomplete and does not mention email
etiquette, and does not directly address use of titles.
Of the City's protocols, Protocol 14 comes closest to addressing the issue of
using councilmember titles, and states that the Council shall:
Unless authorized to do so by the City Council, refrain from making
statements, either orally or in writing, that assert or would cause a
reasonable person to believe that you are acting on behalf of the City.
Accordingly, if a [sic] Official testifies, either orally or in writing, before an
administrative body of a governmental agency outside of the City, and
identifies himself or herself as a [sic] Official, that Official also must state
that he or she is not appearing or testifying in any official capacity and is
not representing the views or opinions of the City; rather, he or she is
representing his or her own views as a private citizen. Other than personal
thank you notes, City letterhead shall not be used without prior City
Council approval. (emphasis added)
Protocol 14, however, is problematic as applied to this situation for a number of
reasons, not the least of which is that it does not directly address the use of
councilmember titles.
The first provision states that councilmembers shall "[u]nless authorized to do so
by the City Council, refrain from making statements, either orally or in writing, that
assert or would cause a reasonable person to believe that [theyl are acting on behalf of
the City."
This provision is broadly worded, and could be read literally to require a
councilmember, in any communication to any person, including department heads and
staff, to clarify whether that communication is in the councilmember's individual capacity
or if the councilmember speaking for the City. Should a councilmember, when talking to
a staff member, have to state whether they are asking the question in their individual or
council capacity? We hardly think this could be intended. The "reasonable person"
standard here assists in interpreting the language. It is probably safe to assume that
department heads, for example, who communicate with councilmembers on a regular
basis and attend Council meetings, would be aware of whether a question was being
asked officially on behalf of the whole Council or not.
However, what is less obvious is how a reasonable member of the public who
does not attend council meetings would understand whether a council member was
representing him/herself or the whole Council. Is it reasonable to assume that a
member of the public clearly understands that a councilmember cannot act on behalf of
the City without Council action? Not necessarily. For this reason, it seems that Protocol
14 is likely intended to apply only to outside or external communications.
01203.0001/311018.2
4
This interpretation is reinforced by the next provision which states that:
"[a]ccordingly, if a [sic] Official testifies, either orally or in writing,
before an administrative body of a governmental agency outside of the
City, and identifies himself or herself as a [sic] Official, that Official also
must state that he or she is not appearing or testifying in any official
capacity and is not representing the views or opinions of the City; rather,
he or she is representing his or her own views as a private citizen."
This is fairly clear and specific. When a councilmember is testifying before a
governmental agency outside the City, he or she must specify they are testifying on
their own behalf, presumable implicit is the caveat "unless authorized to do so by the
Council." This is directed towards testimony given on behalf of the City in an official
matter.
There are some issues with this provision as well, however. First, this provision
on its face does not allow councilmembers to testify before other public agencies on
behalf of the City at all, even with Council approval — the provision is a blanket
prohibition against testifying before outside agencies and express the views or opinions
of the City. Again, this is not a reasonable reading of the language, especially because
of the word "accordingly" at the beginning which links it to the first clause of the rule. A
reasonable reading of this clause would be that unless a councilmember is authorized
by the Council to testify on the City's behalf before an outside government agency, he
or she is not permitted to do so. However, the provision makes no mention of testifying
before the Council itself when a councilmember recuses him or herself, testifying before
other City commissions and boards, and does not address testifying in court or other
administrative proceedings. It would be reasonable to extrapolate that the same
restrictions apply to all such testimony, but specific language ordinarily precludes what
is not mentioned2 therefore such a reading is somewhat contrary to how statutes and
regulations are interpreted.
The final provision, that "[o]ther than personal thank you notes, [councilmembers
will not use] City letterhead ... without prior City Council approval,"3 is also specific,
and clear in its limitations. There seem to be two problems here. First, would it be
permissible to use letterhead with a disclaimer that the letter is not the position of the
whole council, merely the council member? Secondly, it does not address how to deal
with email. A substantial amount of communications these days takes place over email.
This provision does not address how a councilmember who is communicating with staff,
a department head, or with a constituent can or should identify him or herself. Again,
communications with a department head are unlikely to be misunderstood as
communications coming from the entire Council. But a councilmember who
communicates with his or her constituents as a councilmember should at least be
allowed to identify him or herself as that constituent's councilmember, even if he or she
2 Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, a canon of construction holding that to express or include one
thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.
3 The City has a generic City of Rancho Palos Verdes letterhead, and a City Council letterhead.
Presumably the provision applies to both letterheads, but this is not expressly articulated.
01203.0001/311018.2
5
cannot speak or act on behalf of the City. Could permitting a communication with a
disclaimer be allowed?
Finally, as mentioned above, Protocol 14 does not really addresses the use of
councilmember titles, but rather that councilmembers need to clarify whether or not they
are speaking on behalf of the City or on their own behalf. Whether or not, and under
what circumstances, a councilmember may use their title is currently only part of the
analysis of whether the councilmember is speaking on behalf of the City.
B. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell does not appear to have violated Protocol 14 in
his communication with Captain Beringer about Lieutenant Hummel, as
Captain Beringer did not think he was receiving a directive from the City,
and confirmed this by speaking with Mr. Willmore.
The current inquiry into Mayor Pro Tem Campbell's communications with the
Captain Beringer of the LASD regarding Lt. Hummel is illustrative of some of the issues
raised above, and based on the wording and apparent intent of the rule, likely did not
violate the rule. Captain Beringer is the Chief of Police of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, which contracts with the LASD for law enforcement services.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell's communications regarding Ed Hummel arose in the
context of the Ladera Linda soccer fields dirt situation. More detail on the status of the
investigations into the soil deposit and the City's option are provided in a separate
memo. The relevant facts here are discussed in that separate memo.
Based on these facts, none of the three clauses in Protocol 14 seem to apply. As
to the first, which states that councilmembers shall "[u]nless authorized to do so by the
City Council, refrain from making statements, either orally or in writing, that assert or
would cause a reasonable person to believe that [they] are acting on behalf of the City,"
it is unlikely that a violation of the rule occurred.
Captain Beringer is the City's Chief of Police, i.e., he is a department head. As
such, he attends all the City Council meetings, and is familiar with the actions that the
Council has directed staff or individual councilmembers to take. Like other department
heads in the City, Captain Beringer is unlikely to assume that Mayor Pro Tem
Campbell's communications regarding Ed Hummel were intended as communications
on behalf of the City Council. In attending council meetings he would be aware that the
City Council acts only at council meetings, and no action had been taken by the Council
on the matter. Further, no directive was given by Mayor Pro Tem Campbell as Captain
Beringer confirmed. Finally, the Chief discussed the matter with the City Manager, to the
extent he needed clarification.
The second clause only applies to administrative hearings, and is inapplicable.
The third clause, which relates to the use of City letterhead, is also not
applicable. It prohibits councilmembers from using City letterhead without Council
permission except for thank you notes. Here, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell's
01203.0001/311018.2
6
communications with Captain Beringer were by phone and by email. The Protocol does
not address phone or email etiquette, or the use of titles therein.
In conclusion, based on the current version of Protocol 14, it does not appear
that Mayor Pro Tem Campbell's communications with Captain Beringer about Ed
Hummel, and his email signature identifying him as the Mayor Pro Tem for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, constituted a violation of the rule. In fact, the question is if a
council member contacted a department head and provided them with information
asking the department head if the information was "noteworthy," does the Council
believe that the councilmember would have to state whether this communication was
personal or on behalf of the City? We believe such communications are occurring daily,
without any such disclaimer.
V. City Council may censure a councilmember for conduct so long as the
censure provides due process and does not unconstitutionally infringe upon his
or her First Amendment. Censure of councilmembers can include certain limited
sanctions.
Councilmembers who violate City rules of conduct or ethics may be subject to
censure. Censure is subject to due process requirements, and the penalties that can be
imposed cannot violate the councilmember's First Amendment rights or interfere with
their duties as an elected official.
A city council may censure a councilmember by formal resolution reprimanding
the person for a specified conduct. (Braun v. Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332, 347-48.)
However, the censure must not unconstitutionally restrict or suppress one's speech in
violation of the First Amendment. (White v. City of Norwalk (9th Cir. 1990) 900 F.2d
1421, 1426 [city ordinance restricting speech that "disrupts, disturbs or otherwise
impedes the orderly conduct of the Council meeting" is not on its face substantially and
fatally overbroad]; but see Richard v. City of Pasadena (1995) 889 F. Supp. 384, 391
[finding that the plaintiff had a colorable claim that ordinance upon which the censure
was based was an unconstitutionally vague and overbroad regulation of speech];
Kucinich v. Forbes (ND 1977) 432 F. Supp. 1101 [councilmember may not be
suspended for the content of his or her speech absent showing that the statements
create a clear and present danger].)
Moreover, the person being censured is entitled to due process, with notice and
an opportunity to respond, if the person is deprived of a property or liberty interest due
to the censure. (Little v. City of North Miami (11th Cir 1986) 805 F.2d 962, 969-70)
[Eleventh Circuit found violation of due process of law when the city council, without
affording appellant notice or a hearing, passed a resolution censuring the appellant for
improper use of public funds to represent private citizens in a suit against the interest of
the city]; Rodriguez v. Jurupa Unified Sch. Dist. 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6352, 38
[a board member who was censured for unacceptable conduct was entitled to notice of
the censure resolution and an opportunity to refute the allegation and clear his name].)
01203.0001/311018.2
7
Removal of an elected official from a position for not sharing the political views of
the majority of the governing body does not violate the First Amendment so long as that
person retains the full range of rights that came with being publicly elected. In Blair v.
Bethel School Dist., the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that school
district board's removal of the board's vice president for not sharing the views of other
board members did not amount to retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (608
F.3d 540, 546.) In this case, the plaintiff, Blair, served on a five -member school district
board in which all the members were publicly elected. The members of the board
elected their own president, vice president, and legislative representative. Blair served
as the vice president before his fellow board members voted to remove him from that
position due to is persistent criticism of the school district's superintendent. (ld. at 543.)
In Westfall v. City of Crescent City, a California District Court granted the city's
motion to dismiss a councilmember's claim that the city council's censure resolution
violated her freedom speech and due process rights. (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101710,
4.) The council's resolution censured plaintiff for violation of the code of ethics;
prevented plaintiff from placing certain items on the agenda without the prior
authorization of the full Council taken at an open meeting; directed independent
contractors for the city not to expend billable time responding to plaintiff's inquiries or
data requests; and removed plaintiff as a representative or alternate on eight different
committees. (Id. at 5.) The censure was imposed for two years.
The court stated that the censure resolution did not prevent plaintiff from
performing her official duties or restrict her opportunities to attend meetings, vote, or
speak before the board. (ld. at 11-12.) With regard to the removal from the committees,
the court stated that the "[p]laintiff was not an elected office to these committees, but
rather was appointed ... the council was within its discretion to remove her from that
position and doing so did not limit [her] freedom of speech." (Id. at 11.)
Censure can also result in the removal of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem from
these positions. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are
appointed by the Council, (Gov't Code § 36801), and serve at the pleasure of the City
Council (Rules of Procedure 4.1 and 4.2). Removal of a councilmember from the
position of Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem would not affect their duties as an elected
councilmember.
VI. Existing council protocol, rules, and policies do not include written
censure procedures; moreover, they are scattered across a number of
documents and should be consolidated and revised.
The rules, protocols, and procedures that apply to the City Council (and the
appointed bodies) are found across 12 documents, as well as Rosenberg's Rules of
Order and Robert's Rules of Order. This may create confusion, and some overlap exists
among the various documents. (Please see Attachment A for a summary of the
Protocol, Rules of Procedure, and the relevant policies from the Manual.)
01203.0001/311018.2
8
Critically, none of these rules and protocols address censure at all. The only
reference to censure is in Robert's Rules of Order. However, Robert's Rules of Order
are sometimes in conflict with the Brown Act, and cannot easily be applied to elected
officials. Their utility is therefore limited. A detailed, written censure procedure that is
consistent with due process requirements and the First Amendment is an important part
of any city's rules and protocols.
VII. Conclusion and recommendations
A. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell's communications with Captain Beringer likely
did not violate Council protocols because we do not believe the Policy is
intended to require councilmembers to tell staff whether they are acting on
behalf of the full council when talking to staff.
B. The City Attorney's Office recommends:
1. That Protocol 14 be clarified, expanded, and updated to include
modern methods of communication such as email. Should council
members have to use disclaimers when addressing staff? Is the use of
city letterhead permissible with a disclaimer? A social media policy is
also recommended.
2. That detailed censure procedures should be adopted, including
possible penalties, to ensure compliance with due process and First
Amendment requirements.
3. That rules should be consolidated that deal with conduct by the City
Council, by public commenters, and by the audience during the
meetings to ensure consistency, as well as compliance with the First
Amendment.
[END OF MEMO]
01203.0001/311018.2
9
ATTACHMENT A
A. The Protocol for Elected Officials and Appointed Boards, Commission and
Committee Members
The Protocol's purpose is "to ensure the efficient, effective, and ethical operation
of [the City's] municipal government." The policy requires that all City officials "be
independent and impartial in their judgment and actions; that public office not be used for
personal gain; that the public have confidence in the integrity of its Officials; and that
public deliberations and actions be conducted in an atmosphere free from personal
animosity and hostility."
The Protocol articulates 17 rules for the Council to follow. The Protocol exhorts the
Council to adhere to their oath of office, treat all people fairly and represent all residents
in the City, refrain from discrimination, be prepared for agenda items, refrain from
disclosing confidential closed session information, refrain from abusive conduct and
personal attacks, listen carefully and attentively at all public discussions, attend all
sessions, refrain from asserting that an individual Council member is acting on behalf of
the City unless so authorized by the Council, refrain from using City equipment and
supplies except from official City business, disclose any corruption or fraud to the
authorities, and refrain from using his or her official position to influence any business
dealings or employment negotiations that would benefit the councilmember.
B. The City Council Rules of Procedure (and Rosenber_p's Rules of Order and
Robert's Rules of Order)
The Rules of Procedure address a number of procedures for City Council
meetings, and incorporate Rosenberg's Rules of Order and Robert's Rules of Order to
the extent they are applicable.
1. Authority. Articulates the statute that provides the Council with its authority for the
establishment of the rules.
2. General Rules. Include procedures relating to: the quorum; vacancies by
unexcused absences; minutes of proceedings; right to the floor; rules of order
(Rosenberg's Rules of Order); the roles of the city manager; city attorney; city
clerk; as well as the deputy city manager, department heads and employees at
council meetings.
3. Types of Meetings. Discusses regular and special meetings, closed sessions,
study sessions, media presence, presence of council members at civic events, and
successor agency and improvement authority business.
4. Duties of the Mayor. Addresses how the Mayor is elected, and the Mayor's duties
as the presiding officer.
5. Order and Preparation of Agenda. Articulates the procedures for the preparation
of the agenda and how items can be put on the agenda, as well as posting,
01203.0001/311018.2
A-1
distribution, order of business, minutes, public comment, public hearings, consent
calendar, council oral reports, and limits action on items on the agenda.
6. Citizens' Rights. Includes the right of the public to address the council, rules of
decorum for members of the public, and enforcement procedures for the rules of
decorum. Also addresses reading of protests and written communications.
7. Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts. This section addresses document
preparation and approval, introduction and passage of ordinances and resolutions,
and ordinance preservation.
8. Procedures Regarding Public Hearings. Presentation of oral and written materials,
public testimony, council deliberations, and council action.
9. Boards, Commissions, Committees and Subcommittees. This section addresses
how these additional bodies are created, how its members are appointed, duties,
dissolution, and council subcommittees.
10. Suspension and Amendment of These Rules. The Rules may be amended or
suspended by the City Council.
11. Miscellaneous Rules. These cover motions, roll call votes, silence during a
collective vote, continuance of an item, personal privilege, and motions to
reconsider.
12. Rules of Debate. Include that the Mayor is the presiding officer, appeal rulings, and
precedence of motions.
The Rules of Procedure also provide that any matter no covered by the Rules is
governed by Rosenberg's Rules of Order, and by Robert's Rules of Order for any issue
not covered by Rosenberg. Violations of these rules will not invalidate any ordinance,
resolution, or other Council action or proceeding. The City's Municipal Code and the
Rules of Procedure govern when conflict exists with Rosenberg or Robert.
Rosenberg's Rules of Order cover agenda item discussions, motions and voting,
and courtesy and decorum. Rosenberg does not address ethics and censure. Robert's
Rules of Order, does, as discussed above. However, not all of Robert's Rules of Order's
disciplinary measures apply in the context of a California public entity, and are therefore
of limited use.
C. The City Council Policy Manual
The Manual collects all the current Council policies for the City, currently 51 (plus
2 rescinded policies). Most of the policies do not relate to city council conduct and
procedures, but 10 of them do; moreover, some of the policies relate to commissions and
committees. To wit:
1. Policy 07 Preparation and Distribution of Agenda Press Packages
01203.0001/311018.2
A-2
2. Policy 17 Procedure for Audience to Address City Council
3. Policy 20 Voting in Elections Relating to the City's Membership in Area Chambers
of Commerce and Landslide Abatement Districts
4. Policy 21 Commission and Committee Members Use of City Attorney
5. Policy 23 City Council Agenda Reports on Outside Organizations and Council
Subcommittees
6. Policy 24 Commission and Committee Chair Attendance at City Council Meetings
7. Policy 26 Submittal of Certain Original Documents for Consideration by the City
Council or City Commission or Committees
8. Policy 29 Legislative Activities of the City Council
9. Policy 25 City Council Disclosure of Communications
10. Policy 48 City Council Member Requests to Review Attorney -Client Privileged
Communications
01203.0001/311018.2
A-3
ALESHIRE &
WYNDERLLP MEMORANDUM
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
TO: David J. Aleshire, City Attorney
Doug Willmore, City Manager
CC: Christina M. Burrows, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Elena Q. Gerli
DATE: August 18, 2016
RE: Expunging complaint from Lt. Hummel's personnel folder
I. INTRODUCTION
At the City Council meeting of July 19, 2016, a number of citizens, including Mr. Ed
Hummel, raised concerns as to whether the City Council or one of its members had
instigated an investigation of Mr. Hummel, who is also a Lieutenant with the City's police
agency, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Hummel and other members of the
public were concerned with whether soil being stored on a school site in the Ladera Linda
community was contaminated. The Council directed our office to see if the complaint
against Lt. Hummel could be expunged from Lt. Hummel's personnel file. Other issues
were raised concerning Council protocol which are addressed in a separate memo.
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District has a school and soccer
fields in the Ladera Linda community, and has licensed the fields to the
American Youth Soccer Organization ("AYSO") since 2004. AYSO operates
and maintains the fields, and periodically levels the fields with new soil.
B. In April of 2015, a contractor for AYSO deposited about 1,100 cubic feet of
soil adjacent to the soccer fields.
C. Following several months of complaints and inquiries by Ladera Linda and
Seaview residents, in April of 2016 DTSC served a warrant on PVPUSD and
AYSO regarding potential soil contamination issues.
D. The Ladera Linda HOA and various citizens have been conducting their own
investigation into the dirt deposited at the Ladera Linda Park.
01203.0019/309213.5
B-1
Expunging complaint from Lt. Hummel's MEMORANDUM
personnel folder
August 18, 2016
Page 2
E. Ed Hummel is a Ladera Linda resident and has assisted the HOA in the
investigation, as a private individual. Ed Hummel is also a Lieutenant with the
Sheriff's Department ("LASD").
F. On May 4, 2016, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell contracted LASD Captain
Beringer, the RPV Chief of Police, regarding what he considered an unusual
amount of "inside information" contained in an email allegedly drafted by Ed
Hummel and distributed to the Ladera Linda HOA. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell
stated that he was forwarding the information to Captain Beringer and stated
that he found it "noteworthy." The email did not state that it was a "complaint"
nor did it specifically request an investigation.
G. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell has stated, including to the LASD, that his
comment was not intended to be a complaint. Captain Beringer agrees with
this but has stated that due to the potentially serious issue of a lieutenant
using his influence as a peace officer to conduct a private investigation,
internally, LASD determined to treat the comment as a complaint. The
comment was thus investigated as a complaint, and was ultimately
determined to be unfounded.
H. Captain Beringer has informed us that the Sheriff has no written procedure to
expunge complaints from a personnel file, but a written request can be made
by the City Council. The request may result in the expungement of the
complaint.
III. BACKGROUND
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) owns the soccer
fields located on Portuguese Bend adjacent to the Ladera Linda Park. The soccer fields are
known as the Upper Ladera, Lower Ladera, and Back Ladera fields. Since 2004, PVPUSD
has exclusively licensed the Ladera fields to the American Soccer Youth Association
Region 10 (AYSO) for the use, maintenance, and improvements of the fields.
Periodically, the fields are leveled by adding dirt. In April 2015, approximately 1,100
cubic yards of dirt were deposited at the fields, near Upper Ladera, and later flattened. The
City began receiving complaints from the Ladera Linda and Seaview neighborhoods shortly
after the dirt was deposited. The residents expressed concerns regarding the origins of the
dirt, and that the soil might be contaminated. At that time, Staff referred anyone with
questions or concerns to the school district.
In October 2015, Staff was again contacted by Ladera Linda and Seaview residents
about the dumped soil. At that time, Staff was able to confirm with PVPUSD that they had
authorized AYSO to stockpile dirt on the property. AYSO claims that the dirt came from a
site in the City of Torrance, purportedly from residential lots on Sharynne Lane, although at
01203.0019/309213.5
B-2
Expunging complaint from Lt. Hummel's MEMORANDUM
personnel folder
August 18, 2016
Page 3
one point it was represented that the dirt came from a Trump residential site. Starting in
November of 2015, the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association also has been conducting
its own private investigation into the matter and attempting resolution with the school
district. One of the residents is Ed Hummel, a Lieutenant with the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department. Ed Hummel, as a private citizen,' has been taking part in the HOA unofficial
investigation.
On April 27, 2016, a search warrant was served on AYSO and PVPUSD by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), in conjunction with the Los Angeles
District Attorney's Office, SCAQMD, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department's
Certified Unified Program Agency.
On April 30, 2016, an email was distributed (purportedly on behalf of the Ladera
Linda HOA) by Herb Stark. The email contained information that Herb Stark stated was
provided by Ed Hummel regarding the service of the warrants at Ladera Linda fields,
including details about individuals in hazmat suits taking samples, and the soil reports by
Alta Environmental and Leymaster Environmental.
A few days later, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell had a telephone conversation with
Captain Beringer and also followed up with an email (maybe two emails, it is not clear).2 In
the conversation, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell stated that people in the community were
commenting on social media regarding the swiftness of the investigation and the number of
resources involved. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell thought it was unusual that Ed Hummel had
so much information regarding the service of the search warrant. Captain Beringer told
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell that he did not know if Ed Hummel, the RPV resident, was a
member of the Sheriff's Department. As it turns out, Ed Hummel is a lieutenant with the
LASD.
The following day Mayor Pro Tem Campbell sent Captain Beringer what appears to
be two follow-up emails. In one email Mayor Pro Tem Campbell noted that he was "passing
[the information on] as a matter of potential interest," and that the "connection between
Hummel and the subsequent criminal investigation seems noteworthy." The email was
signed "Brian ¶ RPV Mayor Pro Tem." The other email appears embedded in the first, and
includes Herb Stark's email regarding the search warrants served in April, and the Mayor
Pro Tem commenting that the Herb Stark email "struck me as having a lot of inside
information in it that a member of the public would be unlikely to be able to attain
immediately after this investigation was announced."
1 All information regarding Lt. Hummel's investigation and any information regarding
his personnel file come from Lt. Hummel's own comments at the July 19, 2016 City Council
meeting.
2 The emails are attached as Exhibit A.
01203.0019/309213.5
B-3
Expunging complaint from Lt. Hummel's MEMORANDUM
personnel folder
August 18, 2016
Page 4
As far as we can determine, at no point did Mayor Pro Tem Campbell state that his
communication was a complaint, nor did he ask Captain Beringer to conduct any kind of
investigation. Captain Beringer confirms this. At a later date, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell told
us that when he was contacted by an LASD investigator regarding his "complaint," he told
the investigator that he did not intend to file a complaint.
The LASD has a written policy to address "externally initiated input," which is defined
as "that which is received from any member of the public." Additionally, the Policy errs on
the side of taking any suggestion of misconduct seriously, whether or not labelled a
"complaint." In fact, the Policy requires response to "comments." LASD Policy No. 3-
04/010.05 Procedures for Department Service Reviews (the "Policy"). The Policy provides
that as soon as externally initiated input is received:
"[t]he Watch Commander of the Unit shall initiate a service review by
immediately interviewing any member of the public who, whether in person or
by telephone, offers a comment. It is the Watch Commander's or Supervising
Lieutenant's responsibility to hear every commendation or complaint, even if
another Unit's personnel are involved, and to immediately complete a Watch
Commander's Service Comment Report form. In cases of public input
received through the mail or electronic means, the Unit Commander shall
designate a Lieutenant to complete the Service Comment Report form. If a
commendation or complaint concerns an employee not under the supervision
of a Lieutenant, that person's designated supervisor shall complete the
Service Comment Report form.
"The Watch Commander completing the Service Comment Report form shall
fill in the information provided by the person offering the comment. [... ] The
Watch Commander shall place a mark in the appropriate box indicating the
nature of the comment, and shall mark the appropriate sub-category(s) as
accurately as possible."
The Policy repeatedly refers to commendations and complaints, and a few times to
comments and complaints. Normally, the watch commander would assess the comment
and decide whether it should be categorized as commendation or complaint. In this case,
Captain Beringer, after speaking with Mayor Pro Tem Campbell and receiving the email,
weighed the circumstances and discussed the email with his supervisors. Captain
Beringer's supervisors said because the email potentially implied Ed Hummel may have
used his influence or the Sheriff's Department to prompt an outside investigation, it was
decided to document the email and have it investigated. The sub -category entered was
"Other." Thus, the determination to treat Mayor Pro Tem Campbell's comment as a
complaint was an internal decision by the LASD.
01203.0019/309213.5
B-4
Expunging complaint from Lt. Hummel's MEMORANDUM
personnel folder
August 18, 2016
Page 5
According to Lt. Hummel, the complaint was determined to be unfounded.
IV. EXPUNGING A COMPLAINT FROM LASD'S PERSONNEL FILES
As articulated above, the LASD has a procedure regarding how to treat complaints
or commendations, as required by Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.3 However, no written
policy exists at LASD to expunge complaints from a personnel record.
However, we have been informed by Captain Beringer that a request by the City
Council to have the investigation expunged from Lt. Hummel's file will be considered. The
request cannot be made by the person who made the comment. The request should be
made in writing, reference Watch Commander Service Comment Report No. 243021, to:
Chief David L. Fender
Custody Operations Division Specialized Programs
450 Bauchet Street, E-835
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2907
The commander who investigated the report and Captain Beringer should be copied on the
request:
Commander Henry Romero
Custody Operations Division Specialized Programs
450 Bauchet Street, E-835
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2907
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
26123 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
The request may result in the expungement of the complaint, or may simply be added to
the personnel file, as Chief Fender deems appropriate.
[END OF MEMO]
3 LASD Policy No. 3-04/10.05 Procedure for Department Service Reviews.
01203.0019/309213.5
B-5
CITYOF RANCHO PALOSVERDES
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Via Electronic Mail
June 14, 2016
Mr. Ed Pilolla
ed.pilolla(a)pvnews.com
Re: Public Records Act Request Received via Email on June 3, 2016 — Regarding
Correspondence between Capt. Dan Beringer; Doug Willmore; and, Brian Campbell
related to Soil at Ladera Linda Park
Dear Mr. Pilolla:
I am writing regarding your public records request that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
received via email on June 3, 2016. You asked for certain records regarding correspondence
as noted below.
Your specific request and the City's response, is set forth below:
"Correspondence (email, text, letters, etc.) between Capt. Dan Beringer of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department and RPV city manager Doug Willmore related to soil at Ladera
Linda park or RPV city council member Brian Campbell."
City's Response:
The City has records responsive to your request, and will produce disclosable responsive
records in electronic format as an attachment to this response.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office at (310) 544-5208.
Sincerely,
Carla Morreale
City Clerk
cc: Doug Willmore, City Manager
David Aleshire, City Attorney
Christina Burrows, Assistant City Attorney
30940 HAWTI IORNE BLVD./ RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391/ (310) 544-5217/ FAX (310) 544-5291 / www.RPVCA.GOV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
B-6
From: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 8:42 AM
To: Doug Willmore;Gabriella Yap
Subject: Fw: Ladera Linda Dirt
Good morning,
Before the last council meeting, I talked with Brian Campbell regarding the Ladera Linda Soccer Field issue. He
informed me there was some feelings in the community that a resident, Ed Hummel, who he believed was an
LASD employee had a lot of inside information and may have used his position to see that a criminal
investigation was initiated. I told him there was an Ed Hummel assigned as a lieutenant in the jails, but I was
unsure if it was the same RPV resident.
Overnight, I received a couple of emails from Brian with more information. I have included my response
below. I don't know if you have been made aware of any social media chatter on the subject, but so far, I have
not found a lot. I would like to discuss further with you.
Dan
From: Beringer, Daniel P.
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 8:32 AM
To: brian campbell
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda Dirt
Thanks. Can you point me in the direction of the posts? Would it be the Seaview HOA Facebook or
Nextdoor? I have only come up with his name related to the Daily Breeze article. In the meantime, if anyone
has information he misused his position as an employee of the Sheriff's Department, the can call Internal
Affairs Bureau at 800-698-8255, or any Sheriff's Station / Facility Watch Commander, or the complaint link at
www.lasd.org.
I just received your updated email and will forward all of the information through the appropriate chain of
command.
Dan
Sent from my iPad
On May 4, 2016, at 8:54 PM, brian campbell <brian.campbell@cox.net> wrote:
Dan,
I am just passing this on to you as a matter of potential interest. I think the Ed Hummel listed in
this email is the Sheriff's department Lieutenant you and I spoke about that was threatening in
January to bring in outside agencies. I will forward you the original email from Mr. Stark and I
know Hummel's social media posts are public and available.
Perhaps I am reading too much into this but with a brother that spent decades as a law
enforcement investigator, this connection between Hummel and the subsequent criminal
investigation seems noteworthy.
Brian
RPV Mayor Pro Tem
Dan, this is the original email that was sent out to the public that struck me as having a lot of inside
information in it that a member of the public would be unlikely to be able to attain immediately
after this investigation was announced.
Herb indicated in the email string I sent you last night that it was Ed Hummel who I should contact if
I wanted additional information which seems to me to indicate that he was the author of the email
below that Herb Stark sent out on behalf of his homeowners association.
Brian
-----Original Message -----
From: Herb Stark <herbertstarkcDcox.net>
To: undisclosed -recipients:;
Sent: Sat, Apr 30, 2016 5:48 am
Subject: AYSO/PVPUSD Soccer Fields Update
On Wednesday, April 27th, four search warrants were served at four separate
locations including PVPUSD offices and AYSO Region 10 offices.
Agents and investigators with the California Department of Toxic
Substances, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles County Fire
Department's Certified Unified Program Agency (COPA) served the warrants.
While PVPUSD administrators were cooperative, they declined to be
interviewed without their attorneys present. AYSO's Brent Daniel was
reportedly questioned by investigators.
Also on Wednesday, officials wearing HazMat suits took soil samples from
the site at the upper Ladera Linda soccer fields where it's estimated AYSO
dumped between 70-100 truckloads of soil in early 2015.
Initial tests conducted by Alta Environmental in November of last year
revealed the presence of DDT and asbestos as well as sewer lines, roofing
and other construction material. There was also a question as to the
presence of radiation at the site.
At that time, Alta Environmental informed PVPUSD Deputy Superintendent
Lydia Cano that "the presence of building debris with asbestos triggers
requirements under SCAQMD Rule 1403 which includes completing a
contamination assessment, development of a clean-up plan and subsequently
executing the plan." Alta Environmental also informed Ms. Cano they
recommended RESTRICTING access to the site.
Instead, PVPUSD and AYSO chose to not release the test results as they had
promised and re -test the soil using a company (Leymaster Environmental)
AYSO (the people who dumped the toxic soil) recommended. THOSE results came
back squeaky clean. In a joint letter to the community, PVPUSD
Superintendent Don Austin and AYSO's Brent Daniel declared the matter over.
It's important to note that as many as 10 truckloads of the same soil was
taken to PVPUSD's facility yard for use at schools throughout the District.
THAT soil is no longer at the District yard.
The investigation is ongoing, however I, for one, am avoiding the area and
would recommend EVERYONE else do the same.
-------- Original message --------
From: Herb Stark <herbertsta�x.net>
Date: 5/4/16 5:30 PM (GMT -07:00)
To: brian campbell <brian.cam_pbpell,&« ox.net>
Subject: Re: Dirt
I was just passing it on as the HOA e-mail communicator.
You need to contact Ed Hummel at ecrlc?shum mail.r..om
He is the point man for the HOA on the issue.
Herb
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, brian campbell <brian.ca„mpbell a cox.net> wrote:
Herb, did you craft that email or were you just forwarding it? It seems like it contained a lot of
inside information as to what these different agencies were doing. Thanks, Brian
-------- Original message --------
From: Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net>
Date: 5/4/16 1:03 PM (GMT -07:00)
To: brian campbell <brian.ca_mp ell a cox.net>
Subject: Re: Dirt
No, I do not know when the investigation was started. I do know that our HOA has been
working the problem with the school district since November of last year.
Herb
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:22 PM, brian campbell <brian.campbeil cox.net> wrote:
Herb, do you know approximately when the decision was made to go forward with this
investigation?
Thanks.
Brian
S
From: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:30 AM
To: Doug Willmore;Gabriella Yap
Subject: EPA Soil Testing at Ladera Linda Soccer Field
We were advised the EPA is at Ladera Linda taking soil samples from the soccer field pursuant to a search
warrant. Apparently it is related to the PVUSD importing soil there last year which some say is contaminated.
Just in case you have not been notified.
Dan
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH — (310) 891-3223
FAX — (323) 415-1991
IS
Gabriella Yap
From: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:41 PM
To: Elena Gerli
Subject: RE: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hi Elena,
The information provided by the Councilmember was treated as a complaint. While there is not a written policy
describing a procedure to have the complaint expunged from Lieutenant Edmundo Hummel's personnel file. You could
make a request in writing to:
Chief David L. Fender
Custody Operations Division Specialized Programs
450 Bauchet Street, E-835
Los Angeles, California 90012-2907
Reference Watch Commander Service Comment Report #243021
It would also be helpful to CC myself and the Commander who investigated the issue:
Commander Henry Romero
Custody Operations Division Specialized Programs
450 Bauchet Street, E-835
Los Angeles, California 90012-2907
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
26123 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, California 90717
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH — (310) 891-3223
FAX — (323) 415-1991
From: Elena Gerli [mailto:egerli@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:01 AM
To: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Subject: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hi Captain Beringer, I looking into whether Councilmember's inquiry into Deputy Hummel's investigation into the Ladera
Heights dirt piles was treated as a complaint or not, and if so, is there a procedure to have the complaint expunged from
the deputy's personnel file.
Should I be talking to you directly, or if there is someone else who handles personnel matters to whom you can refer
me?
B-11
Thanks very much,
Elena Q. Gerli Associate
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 475, EI Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 527-6660 1 Dir: (424) 269-3345 1 Fax: (310) 532-7395 � egerli@awattorneys.com I awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
B-12
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:44 PM
Elena Gerli
RE: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
See below.
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH — (310) 891-3223
FAX — (323) 415-1991
From: Elena Gerli [mailto:egerli@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:36 PM
To: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Subject: RE: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hi Captain, I have some follow up questions:
Would a request from the City Council in fact result in the complaint being removed, or would it simply be
added to the file? I cannot answer, as the request would have to be reviewed by Lt. Hummel's chief, and he
would make a determination on the request.
2. Does the request to have the complaint removed from the personnel file have to come from the individual who
made the complaint in the first place? No. In fact, normally, a request by a complainant to withdraw the
allegation would not result in its removal. Due to the unique circumstances here, I would recommend the
request be made by CC.
3. Did Councilmember Campbell make the complaint in his official capacity? He did not specifically state, but used
his title in the email he sent which prompted the complaint.
Thanks very much.
Elena Q. Gerli Associate
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475, EI Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 527-6660 1 Dir: (424) 269-3345 1 Fax: (310) 532-7395 � egerli@awattorneys.com I awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
From: Beringer, Daniel P. [mai Ito: DPBering(�blasd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:41 PM
To: Elena Gerli
Subject: RE: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hi Elena,
B-13
The information provided by the Councilmember was treated as a complaint. While there is not a written policy
describing a procedure to have the complaint expunged from Lieutenant Edmundo Hummel's personnel file. You could
make a request in writing to:
Chief David L. Fender
Custody Operations Division Specialized Programs
450 Bauchet Street, E-835
Los Angeles, California 90012-2907
Reference Watch Commander Service Comment Report #243021
It would also be helpful to CC myself and the Commander who investigated the issue:
Commander Henry Romero
Custody Operations Division Specialized Programs
450 Bauchet Street, E-835
Los Angeles, California 90012-2907
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
26123 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, California 90717
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH - (310) 891-3223
FAX - (323) 415-1991
L ; RIT
{�E
From: Elena Gerli [mailto:egerli@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:01 AM
To: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Subject: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hi Captain Beringer, I looking into whether Councilmember's inquiry into Deputy Hummel's investigation into the Ladera
Heights dirt piles was treated as a complaint or not, and if so, is there a procedure to have the complaint expunged from
the deputy's personnel file.
Should I be talking to you directly, or if there is someone else who handles personnel matters to whom you can refer
me?
Thanks very much,
Elena Q. Gerli Associate
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 475, EI Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 527-6660 1 Dir: (424) 269-3345 1 Fax: (310) 532-7395 1 egerli@awattorneys.com I awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
AM
Gabriella Yap
From:
Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Sent:
Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:10 PM
To:
Elena Gerli
Cc:
Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap
Subject:
Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Attachments:
LASD Policy regarding complaints.docx
Hello Elena,
This issue is agendized for the September 6t" RPV City Council meeting. I know there may be questions by the council on
the specifics of the complaint. However, I am prohibited by Penal Code 832.7 from disclosing any personnel records or
information in those records, as the involved employee is a peace officer. On the other hand, I can speak generically
about Sheriff's Department policy regarding the complaint intake process and its requirements. I have attached our
policy in case you find it to be helpful.
Thanks,
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH — (310) 891-3223
FAX — (323) 415-1991
B-15
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
See below.
Dan
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH — (310) 891-3223
FAX — (323) 415-1991
iT
Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:02 AM
Elena Gerli
RE: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
From: Elena Gerli [mailto:egerli@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:47 AM
To: Beringer, Daniel P. <DPBering@lasd.org>
Subject: RE: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hi Captain. I have some more follow up questions if you don't mind.
(1) It appears that MPT Campbell's email made reference to Lt. Hummel's inside knowledge that he felt was
"noteworthy." Did MPT Campbell at any point request an investigation into Lt. Hummel's investigation of the Ladera
Linda situation, or make a formal complaint, or make a comment or observation that he actually called a complaint? I
understand you may not be able to respond, but if you can, please do. MPT Campbell did not request an investigation or
a formal complaint, nor did he call it a complaint. He was just commenting he thought Ed Hummel had a great deal of
insight into the service of the search warrant.
(2) From the PRA response that documents that the City forwarded me, it sounds like MPT Campbell had a conversation
with you, and then sent you an email. In the email, he stated he was forwarding information "as a matter of potential
interest." From the policy you forwarded me, it appears that external comments are treated as either commendations
or complaints. In the policy it says that the watch commander has to check the appropriate box indicating the nature of
the complaint, and then include the subcategory as accurately as possible. So here are the questions: for comments that
are not expressly complaints or commendations, who decides how they are treated, and why? Yes MPT Campbell had a
phone conversation with me the day prior. He commented that people in the community were commenting on social
media regarding the swiftness of the investigation and the number of resources involved. He thought it was unusual
that Ed Hummel had so much information regarding the service of the search warrant. I told him I did not know if Ed
Hummel, the RPV resident, was a member of the Sheriff's Department. The following day he sent me the email in
question. I weighed the circumstances and discussed the email with my supervisors. They said because the email
potentially implied Ed Hummel may have used his influence on the Sheriff's Department to prompt an outside
investigation, it was decided to document the email on a complaint and have it investigated. The sub -category was
"Other." Normally, the Watch Commander or supervisor receiving the information would assess the comment and
determine if it should be documented by way of a complaint or commendation. As always, much appreciated.
Elena Q. Gerli Associate
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475, EI Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 527-6660 1 Dir: (424) 269-3345 j Fax: (310) 532-7395 1 egerli@awattorneys.com j awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
From: Beringer, Daniel P. [mai Ito: DPBering@lasd.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:10 PM
To: Elena Gerli
Cc: Willmore, Doug; Gabriella Yap (g_yaD(&rpvca.gov)
Subject: Hummel/Ladera Heights dirt piles
Hello Elena,
This issue is agendized for the September 6th RPV City Council meeting. I know there may be questions by the council on
the specifics of the complaint. However, I am prohibited by Penal Code 832.7 from disclosing any personnel records or
information in those records, as the involved employee is a peace officer. On the other hand, I can speak generically
about Sheriff's Department policy regarding the complaint intake process and its requirements. I have attached our
policy in case you find it to be helpful.
Thanks,
Captain Dan Beringer
Lomita Station
PH - (310) 891-3223
FAX - (323) 415-1991
B-17