When the Gruber appointed Guerra, he did so without opening the position up for candidates outside the City to apply. Worse, Gruber didn't give the Mayor and City Council the courtesy of notifying them of his decision beforehand.

What was of significant concern to the City Council was Guerra's inexperience in the management ranks. He had only held the position of lieutenant for a year.

The City Council has always resented Gruber's hasty and, in retrospect, ill advised move.

This explains why the City Council has greenlighted Guerra's investigation. It's now a question of time as to when Guerra will leave and whether or not his decision to leave is his own.

They never should have made Guerra Chief. With his lack of experience and with skeletons in his own closet he was totally incapable of cleaning up the Department.

It has obviously not worked out with Chief Guerra as hoped.

The Town Council must face the reality that something has gone wrong with their police department and make a change. Never easy. Never fun. But necessary.

With that ex finance director on the warpath, Guerra is starting to look like General Custer.

In the spirit of being helpful, I would like to share my perspective on this situation in the hopes of influencing those who read this to view this situation from a broader perspective.

It is my understanding that broader views produce more efficacious choices.

I observed first-hand the situation in the Town of Atherton with considerable intimacy as a member of the staff of the Building Department and the Building Department Audit, and from this perspective, I have been able to put together many pieces of the puzzle, especially regarding relationships to County entities.

My view is that it is important to not personalize one's response to these situations. Fundamentally, these troubles are not about personalities, circumstances and events. They are produced by unchecked power resulting from flawed governmental design.

Control of the design of government resides in the hands of the electorate, and ultimately the electorate holds also the responsibility for malfunctions of government.

Indifference and ignorance do not ameliorate the consequences of their own effect in this regard, and this point has not been lost on those who have taken advantage of these attitudes of the electorate over many decades.

The problem, as with almost every other governmental malfunction, is one of unchecked power. There is no mandated, institutionalized oversight of police departments in our country generally, and, I fear, this is a conscious design of those who would protect the power of the police as a primary value above that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of the citizenry. This is not a trivial observation. (See New Orleans FBI investigation)

Unchecked power will always lead to corruption, abuse of power and injury. It creates a process of degradation of ethical values quite naturally, and then what follows is the development a climate or culture of suppression of individual ethical values forced into subordination to the governmental group through the incentives of greed and intimidation. I see this process as being natural and inevitable, an effect of the process dynamics at work, and I clearly see this as the condition of the culture of government in the County of San Mateo.

Given the reality of these process dynamics, some form of opposition to these forces must be institutionalized, or the degradation we observe having now developed will always, eventually occur.

The idea that District Attorney's Offices generally should be responsible for oversight of Police Departments is so specious it makes me laugh. I leave it to others to make the obvious case of the inherent conflict of interest of any DA's office in such a position. What DA can function or even get elected without the support and cooperation of its' police departments? The police can screw up the DA's office so many ways its not funny. This is a horrible and completely dysfunctional concept for governmental design, and the idea that this has been institutionalized and is fiercely defended is outrageous.

This is the true source of the problem.

If there were a statewide proposition to require citizen oversight committees for every police department, empowered with the ability to make public recommendations for investigation, do you really think for a moment that the populace would not overwhelmingly endorse it? I see it as a slam dunk. The people know the truth here. It's the institutionalized, government embedded pros who will scream bloody murder should such an effort be made. In fact, I'm sure there would be an powerful effort to prevent such a placement before the electorate.

Expecting your DA to conduct an aggressive, honest investigation of the police is utterly unrealistic. Having a governmental structure where you are relying on this to occur with your civil rights hanging in the balance is a self-destructive posture for the citizen, but advantageous for a strategy of ultimately achieving totalitarian governmental control in what was created to be a society committed to individual freedom.

Look at all the hocus-pocus going on in this situation.

It means there's an absence of a mandated, institutionalized check to existing power.

That's all it means.

All of the sense of helplessness devolves to this analysis.

The people can change this. But they would have to be willing to fight a political war, and time is running out.

There is a great catastophe about to occur as a result of the collapse of the international currency systems and there will be a substantial period of overwhelming social chaos and real suffering as a result. This is going to occur in a very short time frame and these troubles of the Town will be pale by comparison. The issue of the unconstrained powers of government will be brought to the fore in this time of crisis which is about to occur.

Only the electorate can avert these events or alter their severity, and it is sleeping, convinced of its impotence to effect change.

To Tim Wulff:

Actually, I think there should be citizen oversight committees for every DISTRICT ATTORNEY's office as well - especially in the light of last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision, Connick v. Thompson. The Supreme Court overturned the award given to a man who had been wrongfully convicted for murder because of shocking prosecutorial misconduct. As a result, prosecutors from around the country will continue to abuse their power and get away with it.

In San Mateo County, I know that citizens' requests to have an audit done on Wagstaffe's office have been turned down by the Board of Supervisors. God knows Wagstaffe and his office need to be audited, but who's gonna do it ? Not a civil grand jury, either.

In Stanislaus County, ten years ago, District Attorney James Brazelden threatened to shoot a reporter who was investigating him for misusing office funds for personal use.(This was reported by the press.) Citing this incident and Brazelden's habit of waving a gun around in his office at people, the civil grand jury asked that actions be taken against him. Nothing happened.

Mr. Wulff -

Given your previous work history, with the exception of your warnings about the coming international currency collapse (which have no place on this forum), I value your comments and perspective.

You are correct, it is up to the people to make changes and hold their elected official accountable. But I think you are focusing on the wrong target - the DA's office. Yes, it would be nice if our DA was more aggressive pursuing local corruption. It is clear that our DA views falsifying police reports and false arrests by our local police (and apparently repeated Brown Act violations by City Councils), as nuisances to be overlooked. I agree with you that there is an obvious conflict of interest which our current DA is apparently unable to overcome.

You did say "...the people can change this" and I believe they can. But instead of focusing on our DA, I think the people's target should be their Town Council. They are the ones who citizens elected to govern their Town and every employee - including the Police Chief - of ultimately answers to the Town Council. I still believe that Town Council Members ultimately want to be responsive to their friends, neighbors and associates if for no other reason than to be re-elected. They answer directly to citizens and they should be the target.

If enough citizens voiced their concerns about Atherton's Police Department, then the Town Council would have no alternative but to launch their own investigation. The Town Council does not have to wait for the Police Chief. They do not have to wait for the DA. They do not have to wait for anyone. They can retain the services of a retired judge and they can initiate their own investigation. The management of the town is ultimately THEIR responsibility, period.

But as long as just a few citizens are willing to take 5 minutes and walk up to the microphone during the Council's public comment session to air their concerns, the Council will assume that no one really cares. And they will be correct.

It really takes so little effort to put the next Town Council meeting on your calendar and show up. Walk up to the microphone and speak. No one expects you to be fluent in the issues and everyone expects you to be nervous. But you have to speak if you want to be heard.

Pogo:

The San Mateo District Attorney's office is too entwined with ALL of the town police departments and ESPECIALLY the sheriff's office. Wagstaffe's overarching instinct is to protect the police, no matter how severe the crime.There's no firewal between the DA and law enforcement. If you look at the list of police and deputies in the sheriff's office who have committed felonies who have not been charged, then you would see that this is a problem that is only getting worse. It is now out of control.


At this point believe it's a job for the Attorney General's office. I know it's been a topic of interest for the FBI.

Pogo:

I apologize for the broader stroke at the end, and also for what is apparently my lack of clarity. I had no thought of focusing on the local situation, or the local DA. You will note my topic sentence raises the issue of a broader perspective.

The focus I intended to present was the need for a mandated, institution which places a check on existing powers of police departments. The idea of monitoring DA's Offices and producing public reports is excellent, too.

The main point is that unchecked power will produce abuse of power, and that mandated, institutionalized checks on power is the 'elephant in the room' topic that no one, perhaps you as well, appears interested in discussing.

This concept applies in many instances of governmental malfunction, and considering it seems to be abhorrent to most entrenched government professionals.

I hope that helps clarify.

To add to Tim's comment.

The Atherton Police Department can't have it both ways.

I have raised serious and legitimate questions over the investigation Peterson is purported to have conducted in response to my citizen's complaint.

The Atherton Police Chief has refused to answer me citing laws intended to protect the privacy of those who were investigated.

In refusing to reveal information regarding the scope of the investigation and the manner in which it was conducted, the Chief fails to see the irony and untenability of his position.

It appears lost on the Chief that one of the things I complained about was the unlawful invasion of my privacy to wit: a raid on my office under false pretenses and the search and seizure of property belonging to me without a warrant.

This is why the Chief and his second in command, Joe wade find their conduct to be under investigation.

What Guerra and Wade should have known already and what they will soon learn is that occasinoally, the cover up is worse than the crime.

[Post removed. Same IP address posting under multiple pseudonyms. Also, incomprehensible.]

My point is that citizens should voice their concerns to their own Town Council members and then hold them accountable if there is subsequent inaction.

Town Council Members hold primary responsibility for managing the affairs of their town, not the DA, not the AG, not The Almanac.

Voter = another non-sequiter from R Gordon. Editor - please.

Pogo.......I promise you.........I was not the person who gave out any information regarding the most loyal citizens to the people who were interviewers.
My pseudonyms were only used when I was prevented from posting and for no other reason.
And those who wanted some truths, it was necessary to be obscure enough to get the point made and, unfortunately, they served to infuriate the guilty and the editor.
He certainly is generous with you and a few favored gentlemen of quality.
It was annoying to have to verify the entry when made by an aide, but worth it when the message was not allowed. Too much too early.
This is sort of a lingering goodbye until you catch up.