Rivero for Lake County Sheriff

Lake county residents were angered to learn that LCSO lieutenant David Garzoli was taking helicopter flying lessons, training for his commercial pilot's license while flying helicopters leased by the county. The Board Of Supervisors had not approved the flight training and the matter came to their attention only after Garzoli made a forced landing in which the aircraft was damaged. The Board of Supervisors is now looking into the matter, with Supervisor Anthony Farrington calling for an independent forensic accounting to determine if grant money from the DEA was misallocated by the Sheriff's Department.

Rod Mitchell claims that he was not aware of the expenditure by his department, though he produced a "Public Service" video in which he tries to justify the use of the helicopter. Are we to believe that the County Sheriff Honestly had no knowledge of this?

If so, what does this say about his management ability and his handling of the responsibilities with which the voters entrusted him? Garzoli wore a flight suite (purchased at your expense) to the office on a daily basis, a flight suit that says "Pilot" over the breast pocket.

The incumbent, Rod Mitchell, has sought to spin the truth about Deputy Sheriff Rivero's heroic campaign to expose corruption in the San Francisco Coroner's office; to find some negative take on a man who placed his career on the line to fight for the taxpayers and the indigent. Only Francisco Rivero had the courage to stand up and fight corruption regardless of the personal cost. Find out the truth by reading this coverage from the December 15^th, 1993 issue of the San Francisco Guardian, complete and unedited.

At the same time, the incumbent seeks to put a positive spin on the trial of Bismarck Dinius, an embarrassment to Lake County law enforcement, by retrying the case on the internet after it was lost in court.

On the night of April 29^th, 2006, Captain Perdock, second in command at the Lake County Sheriff's Department, ran his 385 hp Baja Outlaw speedboat into a sailboat on Clear Lake, fatally wounding Lynn Thornton. Though it was a moonless night, the Captain's speed boat was traveling at a speed estimated between 40 and 56 miles per hour. Bismark Dinius, who was at the helm of the sailboat, was charged with manslaughter while Captain Russell Perdock was not charged with any wrongdoing.

If you're not familiar with the Trial of Bismarck Dinius, view the I-Team's investigation Fatal boat crash: Wrong man charged? by Dan Noyes of KGO-TV, San Francisco.

Bisarck Dinius was acquitted on all charges and the driver of the speed boat, a Lake County Sheriffs Office Captain, was never charged. Court testimony contends that Captain Russell Perdock's blood sample, which tested negative for drugs and alcohol, was left in a storage locker to which Perdock had access for sixteen hours. Perdock testified that he'd had no more than "Half a Coors light" and had spent the evening at home before taking his boat out that night, though five witnesses have offered testimony that they saw him at the bars at Konocti Harbor between 6:00 and 9:00 PM. Perdock's then wife offered testimony that he left the house at 6:00 PM.

James Beland of the Lake County Sheriff's department was told not to administer a breathalyzer test to Russell Perdock because the equipment had not been calibrated, though Bismarck Dinius was given a breathalyzer test at the scene. All deputies who offered testimnony which contradicted that of Captain Perdock have since seen their employment with LCSO terminated.

The sailboat was left unattended and unsecured for several hours after the crash, leaving open the possibility that someone could have tampered with the light switches which were the basis of the District Attorney's case; a photograph taken later of the switch panel shows the switch in the "Off" position. Court evidence shows that Captain Purdock was granted access to his boat while it was in evidence.

Dan Noyes, a television reporter who investigated the story for ABC news in San Francisco, identified nine people on the sailboat or on shore who said they had seen the sailboat's running lights, cabin lights, or both shortly before the collision. But when he told the Lake County District Attorney there were witnesses who had seen the lights on, Noyes was told, "No, they were not." One potential witnesses, Doug Jones, told Noyes that when he tried to tell a deputy sheriff that he'd seen the sailboat's lights on, he was told they had already proven there were no lights on. This was at 8:00 a.m. on the morning after the accident. He told Noyes that the deputy refused to take his statement.

According to the label placed on Captain Russell Perdock's blood sample at the hospital, the blood sample was taken 24 hours after the accident. A Lake County Deputy later filed an addendum saying that someone at the hospital must have made a

mistake. Captain Perock's blood sample showed no alcohol even though several witnesses offered testimony that they saw him drinking that night and Captain Perdock himself testified that he had no memory of how he got home after the accident.

The incumbent, Rod Mitchell, then took the unusual step of posting the entire case file on the web, of his own accord. The stated reason was to "assure that the public has accurate answers to their questions about this department’s involvement in the investigation." Why was this case file published post-trial in such a unique way? The answer, simply, is that voters are outraged at a Sheriffs department that, if not guided by gross impropriety and abuse of authority, has at a minimum failed to act with reasonable transparency to avoid the appearance of impropriety and failed to secure the public trust. The courts have spoken and it's time for the incumbent to evaluate what mistakes were made rather than continue to seek vindication.

In a June 22nd, 2009 email to his staff, the incumbent instructed all staff members
to direct any questions to him and admonished them to "Be careful".

From: Rodney Mitchell
Monday - June 22, 2009 4:55 PM
To: All SO users (everyone)
Subject: Mandatory Reading re: Logistics Section

Ladies and gentlemen,

Effective today, (June 22, 2009) and until further notice, Captain Russ Perdock will be on approved leave. Captain Crystal Esberg will assume command of the department's Logistic's Section in Captain Perdock's absence. Any messages or other inquiries taken by reception or dispatch concerning Captain Perdock and the business of the department shall be referred to me.

Be careful.

Rodney K. Mitchell
Sheriff/Coroner/OES Director
County of Lake, CA

Mitchell finally relents to signing code of Ethics

	In 2007 Mitchell and Hopkins refused to sign the Code Of Ethics. The space for their names was eventually whited out Click here to view the 2007 document
	In 2010, an election year, both Mitchell and Hopkins are quick to sign the document. Click here to view the 2010 document

When the Lake County Board Of Supervisors adopted a Code Of Ethics in February 2007, twenty two department heads signed the document. The names of two department heads were notably absent from the list; they refused to sign the document and thereby pledge to adhere to some very basic ethical standards. These two department heads were, of course, Sheriff Rodney Mitchell and District Attorney John Hopkins.

When Mitchell and Hopkins refused to sign, their names were eventually removed from the document; they would not commit to the most basic of ethical standards. Three years later, in January of 2010, the Board reaffirmed the Code Of Ethics. Being an election year in which both department heads were facing strong challengers, they apparently decided to sign the Code Of Ethics.

This naturally raises a question; what in this Code Of Ethics did Mitchell and Hopkins find objectionable? What ethic did they not want to get pinned down by? Perhaps a better question, as you review the list, is; which of these ethics did these two candidates not violate during their last term?

Could you repeat the question again?
Sherriff Mitchell avoids awkward answers by substituting his own questions.

After Dan Noyes' segment on racial profiling aired on KGO-TV San Francisco and CNN, Sheriff Mitchell posted on the County's web site a "Timeline" which aims to dismiss the three officers who appeared in the segment. Using select segments of conversations and irrelevant documentation Sheriff Mitchell, in typical fashion, presents a false sense of transparency without addressing the issues.

Using county employees, county equipment and county funds, Sheriff Mitchell has created this timeline which distorts the truth for his own political gain. Throughout the Dinius trial and throughout the Garzoli investigation Sheriff Mitchell refused to release information related to internal investigations or personnel, enabling him to avoid any questions he wished. Yet, when three officers appeared in the I-Team segment he released their personnel records and emails without authorization. This is in direct violation of section 3300 of the Government Code, the Policeman's Bill of Rights. Sheriff Mitchell safeguards the records of the good-old-boys while thrashing the rights of anyone who gets in his way. A Captain who's reckless boat driving results in a woman's death and then allegedly perjures himself sees his rights respected while deputies who blow the whistle on racial profiling by the LCSD are not afforded the same rights.

If Sheriff Mitchell is so confident that there is not racial profiling or discrimination then he should release private investigator Dave Brown's report commissioned by the Lake County Board of Supervisors and County Attorney Anita Grant.

Five and a half hours after the I-Team investigation aired on CNN, Deputy Rivero was given an employee evaluation which stated that he was not meeting department standards. This, the only such review in his distinguished career, was due five months earlier. This politically motivated abuse of authority usurps the trust of Lake County residents and exemplifies the kind of behavior that we can expect from our current sheriff.

You won't find in Mitchell's timeline any mention of any of the issues brought fourth in the I-Team investigation. You wont find any mention that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the LCSD. What you'll find is selected audio segments wherein Deputy Rivero wisely chooses to overlook possible personal insults in order to avoid creating friction within the department. You'll find links to irrelevant legal definitions. You find a slight-of-hand response that crosses the line of deception and exudes deceit.

Let's look at a specific example of this deceit...

In an email response following an I-Team investigation, Sheriff Mitchell excused the use of the term "Jose Doe" by saying that it wasn't racist. Whether that's true or not, it has nothing to do with the question that he was asked. Though Sheriff Mitchell supposedly oversaw an internal investigation, he responds to questions as if he were completely unfamiliar with the situation.

On May 14th, Deputy Sheriff Rivero sent an email to Sheriff Mitchell apprising him of what had transpired at the monthly meeting...

From: Francisco Rivero

To: Rodney Mitchell, Anita Grant

Date: Thursday - May 14, 2009 6:40 PM

Subject: Incident at Today's Sergeant Meeting

Sheriff Mitchell,

Today, 05/14/2009, I attended the monthly Sergeants meeting at the Main Office. The majority of LCSO sergeants were present. A flight nurse from Reach Air Ambulance was making a presentation. At approximately 1423 hours, Captain Perdock introduced Sgt. as the SWAT Sergeant and director of the Marijuana Interdiction Program.

Captain Perdock raised the issue of landing in a Hot zone. Captain Perdock asked the nurse under what circumstances she felt safe to land in a hot zone. Sgt. responded that all circumstances were safe to land if he needed them. The nurse said, if you think it is safe then we will land. Sgt replied, What if Jose is down.

Sgt. is saying that Jose, i.e., Hispanics, should be treated differently or are somehow not worthy of the same life saving measures afforded others. It further implies that Sgt. would allow racial prejudice to influence his decision to allow the helicopter to land for a Hispanic victim.

Immediately after the meeting, I spoke to Captain Perdock. He acknowledged hearing Sgt. 's Jose statement. I requested he open an Internal Affairs investigation.

Sgt. 's spontaneous statement is indicative of his visceral hatred of Hispanics. That, in turn, spills over into his treatment of your Hispanic constituents. Be assured that this is not an isolated incident and that other and I have heard derogatory and anti Hispanic statements from Sgt. . His point of view, as demonstrated by todays comment, is despicable and immoral. I too am Hispanic; Should I expect a lesser effort on Sgt. 's part if I am injured? Is this mindset by a supervisor under your command acceptable to you?

The irony of you being recently notified of a Lake County Board Of Supervisor investigation into endemic racism in the department was not lost on this incident.

With all due respect,

Francisco Jose Rivero

In other words, after it was established that the Reach helicopter would land in all circumstances where someone's life was in jeopardy, a sergeant was asking basically what the criteria for landing would be if it was an Hispanic person who's life was in jeopardy, suggesting that there should be some lesser standard for saving that person's life.

When Dan Noyes of KGO-TV asked Sheriff Mitchell about the status of that internal investigation, he received this reply...

You asked about the status of the investigation into an allegation that a discriminatory remark was made by a member of the department during an official meeting. This investigation was completed and the witnesses interviewed included a citizen who was present at the time the statement was made. Based upon the statements of all in attendance at that meeting, we determined that the statement "Jose Doe" was not pejorative or discriminatory. The investigation revealed that this term is common parlance for describing an unknown Hispanic male and it can be found even as a reference in legal documents wherein unknown persons of Hispanic decent are being represented in class action lawsuits. Nonetheless, I have directed my staff to avoid such colloquial terminology. Typically we do not release this kind of detail even about a completed Internal Affairs investigation. However, I have obtained permission from the employee to provide you with this information.

Sheriff Mitchell is fully aware that the offending comment was not the term "Jose Doe"; his response has no relevance to the incident on which he was commenting. Though someone may have at sometime complained about the term "Jose Doe", it was not the focus of this internal investigation and could not be confused as such. The answer that Sheriff Mitchell gave to Dan Noyes' inquiry can only be construed as an evasion and an attempt to give an appearance of transparency where none indeed exists.

Let's look at another example...

The following block is from Sheriff Mitchell's timeline:

11/03/08 – Lande learned that the deputy he complained about had been promoted to sergeant. He sent a memorandum to the enforcement commander, explaining his complaint and Ringen’s response to it. The link below is to Lande’s complaint.

The deputy who Lande said was ridiculed because of his gait has asked that it be noted that he was not harassed, and he did not wish to be included in Lande's complaint.

Link to Lande’s memorandum

If you follow the link to Lande's memorandum, you'll see that he makes no mention of a deputy being "ridiculed because of his gait". Sheriff Mitchell has added extraneous nonsense to make it appear as if Deputy Lande should not have complained about that officer's mocking of a disabled person.

With so many "internal investigations" does Sheriff Mitchell know what is happening in his department?

In his timeline Sheriff Mitchell makes the following assertion...

During a casual conversation Ringen told the patrol commander that the department had better promote Rivero, because Rivero had already been subjected to discrimination and the department could be sued. The patrol commander repeated this to Brown.

So, Ringen supposedly said something about Rivero to the patrol commander who passed it on to Brown and it eventually made it's way to Sheriff Mitchell? This, Sheriff Mitchell accepts as a fact; he quotes Ringen as if he'd personally heard him say this. Yet, a crowded room full of law enforcement personnel hear a deputy ask about what standards should apply to life saving efforts for a Latino and Sheriff Mitchell appears to have no knowledge of what was said even after a lengthy internal investigation and having received a memorandum from Rivero.

Mitchell's audio recording is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal and it's "missing tape"

Why is the audio recording in Mitchell's timeline broken into three parts? They're three parts from a single conversation, so why would Sheriff Mitchell choose to provide three separate audio snippets? The answer is that Sheriff Mitchell has cherry picked from that recording three snippets which, when removed from conversation, convey a false perception about what was discussed. Sheriff Mitchell could have just included the entire recording but voters would then see that Deputy Rivero was simply toning down the conflict to protect fellow officers from Sheriff Mitchell's vengeance against whistle blowers. That was not the message that Sheriff Mitchell wanted to craft when he edited the tapes.

Sheriff Mitchell's timeline ends with the filing of three complaints to the County Administrative Officer. This clever literary device is intended to mislead the reader into thinking that nobody filed a complaint or indicated any issues until after Deputy Rivero was turned down for promotion. This is a nonsensical assertion given that the whole timeline and documents that Mitchell included in that timeline, indeed the very existence of such a timeline, clearly indicate that this is a systemic problem.

Lights, Camera, Inaction...

On November 19^th 2009 Rodney Mitchell posted a video (92MB) on the County’s web site in which he attacks each of the officers who were interviewed by Dan Noyes in his I-Team investigation of racial profiling by the LCSO. This video, produced at county expense, presents both blatant misrepresentations and misrepresentation by omission intended to obfuscate the issues and position Rod Mitchell in a more favorable light in the upcoming election.

Rod Mitchell begins by suggesting that the officers that appeared in the I-Team investigation maligned the entire staff of the LCSO and all the people of Lake County. This is certainly not the case; the vast majority of LCSO staff are honorable public servants who perform their duties with professionalism and distinction. The supporters of Rivero for Sheriff are members of the Lake County population and are proud to be so. They do, however, call to task a select few officers and, particularly, they call to task Rodney Mitchell for failing to provide proper leadership and for failure to address issues made known to him. The “They” that Rodney Mitchell refers to in the video is Rodney Mitchell, not the department as a whole.

The video then shows a clip from the I-Team investigation in which Solano County Deputy Public Defender Nick Filloy appears. Again, Sheriff Mitchell has done some fancy editing, clipping the tape so short, cutting it off in the middle of a word in fact, that its true meaning is lost. Mitchell tells us that this is a slander against the entire staff of the LCSO and all residents of Lake County. If you view the original I-Team investigation, you’ll see that Nick Filloy was referring specifically to two officers which he observed during a ride along.

Throughout the video Sheriff Mitchell uses the term “They”, remarking that the staff of the LCSO is “made up of real people with Real families”; suggesting perhaps that Rivero doesn’t see these people as “Real”. Rivero has the utmost respect for the men and women of the LCSO and the people of Lake County. That is exactly why he’s chosen to run for sheriff, to provide the department with the leadership that they, and the people of Lake County deserve. It’s unbearably hypocritical for Rodney Mitchell to make such remarks. After all, Bismark Dinius and Lynn Thornton were real people with real families too.

Rodney Mitchell describes a rather obscure timeline in an attempt to suggest that Deputy Lande didn’t report the issues described in his declaration until March of 2009 when other officers filed complaints. In fact, Lande first voiced his complaint in June of 2008. The officer who Lande complained about harassing him and others was not reprimanded. Instead, within a couple months he was promoted and became Deputy Lande’s immediate supervisor. Lande filed a written complaint to Captain Perdock on November 3^rd, 2008. Deputy Lande filed a written declaration on March 31^st of 2009 but this was by no means his first mention of the matter as Sheriff Mitchell suggests. These situations went unresolved so Deputy Lande tendered his resignation in April 2009.

Rodney Mitchell then asks the question “What is a good-old-boys network” and actually suggests that the officers that appeared in the I-Team segment are a good-old-boys network. Come now Sheriff Mitchell, you started your video by saying that Lake County residents were not stupid, why then do you make this assertion? A good-old-boys network is a group of people with power or authority who abuse that power to, for example, protect one of their own from the consequences of misconduct.

The officer that Sheriff Mitchell praises extensively is the subject of the ongoing internal affairs investigation into assault under color of authority; an investigation in which Sheriff Mitchell is supposed to take an unbiased look at the facts and make an impartial decision. How unbiased can Sheriff Mitchell be if, during the investigation, he creates a video glorifying that officer for his arrest statistics while berating the whistle blowers?

Sheriff Mitchell then states unequivocally “Rivero never approached me to solve any problem, never even approached me to let me know that a problem existed. The first time that he raised any complaint was on March 27 2009”. After a bit of a campaign stump speech he repeats this accusation. This is not a mistake, it’s not an oversight; this is an inexcusable misrepresentation of the facts from the Sheriff to the people of Lake County.

Let’s look at the real world chronology..

On June 23, 2008, Rivero reported serious misconduct on the part of a deputy sheriff directly to Rodney Mitchell. In November of 2008, Rodney Mitchell promoted to segeant the same deputy whom Rivero had complained about. In an embarrassing about face, Sheriff Mitchell has to demote him back to deputy for the misconduct Rivero warned Mitchell about.

Rivero learned of racial profiling at DUI checkpoints and the allegation that an LCSO sergeant had slapped a Mexican prisoner in the back of the head in March of 2009. He confirmed the allegation with Solano County Deputy Public Defender Nick Filloy who had witnessed the events. He asked Lande for a declaration which Lande provided under oath. Rivero immediately took the declaration along with a declaration from then LCSO Sgt. Kip Ringen to Kelly Cox, the County Manager of Lake County. Rivero filed a complaint with Kelly Cox. He also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Kelly Cox took the Complaint to Denise Rushings, President of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Rushings alerted the County Attorney, Anita Grant. Ms Grant hired private detective Dave Brown to conduct an investigation. Dave Brown’s report has been completed for months and available to Rodney Mitchell. Channel 7 News’ Dan Noyes, lakeconews.com Editor Elizabeth Larson and a host of others have joined Rivero in asking Sheriff Mitchell and the county to release the report. So far, they have refused to do so.

This is not about timelines or campaign videos, it’s about treating people with respect, regardless of their differences. As County Sheriff, Rodney Mitchell was entrusted by the people of Lake County with a responsibility to uphold that standard, not to excuse or rationalize misconduct.

On December 4, 2008, before Rivero announced his candidacy, Sheriff Mitchell said "Frank is a good deputy sheriff and a valued member of the department." Now he vilifies him for demanding accountability.