News, entertainment, opinion, and whatever sparks interest in Burbank the Media City

The Burbank City Council & a new legal claim against the city

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Photo:FLLewis/A Writer’s Groove

At Burbank City Council meetings most of the face time goes to the council members and the staff. They’re the ones who are supposed to be handling city business, therefore, they get to do a lot of the talking. Still, I get a kick out of the public comment segments where we get a chance to hear what’s bugging some of the citizens of Burbank.

At last Tuesday’s city council meeting, Mayor Gary Bric called up more than 15 people to the podium to speak for five minutes or less on city business during the first public comment period.  A young group of male BMX bike riders asked the council to allow them to take their favorite set of wheels to the city’s skate park. One skater spoke out against the arrangement saying BMX bikes would damage the park and might cause accidents with skaters. Later the city council (minus Vice- Mayor Anja Reinke who is on vacation) would vote four-zip in support of Option One, which would expand the the skate park by 1,400 square feet and allow for BMX bikes. The council members requested staff come back with some ways to fund the project.

Also, some business owners spoke out about how their street curb parking on South Victory Boulevard near West Alameda Avenue vanished with very little notification recently. The shop owners of GH Shower Doors, Burbank House of Hobbies, and Dav-Tech were among those complaining about being blindsided. The reason behind the red-lining of that section of Victory Boulevard was due to traffic lane changes at the intersection, which included a new left turn lane onto West Alameda.

Burbank City Traffic Engineer Ken Johnson admitted his department had “dropped the ball” by not giving the business owners adequate notice about the street parking change: “I do apologize to the property owners.” Also, the shop owners got quite a bit of sympathy and promises to try to help ease some of their parking headaches from councilmen Dave Golonski, David Gordon, and Mayor Gary Bric.  

A number of the regulars took to the mic as well Tuesday night, most notably Esther Espinoza and Mike Nolan. Mrs. Espinoza made a heartbreaking emotional plea for help from the city and surprisingly, got no response from the city council. Oh, a staff member did offer Mrs. Espinoza some tissues to wipe her tears. Sure, her family issues may not be city related, but someone on staff should be able to help this Burbank resident get the aid she needs through the right agency. The city should really forget past grudges, step up and show some compassion in the case of Espinoza family.

As for Mike Nolan, the Burbank City Attorney’s office provided him with a list of 10 law firms, which have billed the city for police-related matters since 2004. Nolan had been asking for this type of information for weeks. The bottom line cost, $524, 005.35. Yes, a cool half-million bucks. Copies of the list were available to the public at the city council meeting.

Nolan pressed the city to reveal to the public what the reasons are behind those legal costs.  Nolan said it’s  “…time to tell us what’s wrong…” in the police department. Many others agree with him, still we’ll have to wait and see if the City Attorney’s Office provides any background data on the list.

 Also, Nolan held up a document he said was from former Burbank Police Detective Chris Dunn’s personnel file and that it had been leaked to a local newspaper. Nolan asked, “How did that happen?” Nolan pushed even harder for answers during the second public comment section at the end of the city council meeting, but he didn’t get very far in his quest.

Now, Chris Dunn and his attorney, Solomon E. Gresen, have taken up the issue of those suspected leaked documents. Yesterday, Dunn filed a claim for damages against the city of Burbank. The claim alleges: “On or about July 16, 2009, Claimant Christopher Lee Dunn’s private personnel file and documents contained in that file were disclosed to Christopher Canelago of the Burbank Leader and other members of the press and general public.”

The claim goes on to say that “… the public employee or employees causing his injury, damage or loss include, without limitation, Dennis A. Barlow and Carol A. Humiston of the Burbank City Attorney’s Office, among others.”

You might remember that on July 16, Dunn became the sixth former or current Burbank Police Office to file a discrimination lawsuit against the city. On Jim Carlile’s blog there’s a press release from Dunn’s law firm with more on both legal actions.

Tags: , , , ,

137 Responses to The Burbank City Council & a new legal claim against the city

  1. Honda Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    There is something really wrong. There is no way anybody should hand personnel files to anybody without a court order for that to happen.

    Doesn’t this mean that now anybody can ask for any personnel file ?

    Sure they would say only some personnel files are public, like the ones of people they dobn’t like.

  2. Danny Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Hey watching Mrs Espinosa cry really touched me and I agree they showed no compassion for her at all.

    The Dunn issue has convinced me they are doing things not for legal reasons but as vindictive punishment against someone for going against them.

    This proves to me they are dirty, and so far they have proven nothing to me about Detective Dunn.

  3. Helen Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Very sad because the good officers in our Burbank Police Department must be in a living Hell with this terrible administration.

    If any of the good officers are reading this I hope you hang in there.

  4. Fronnie Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm #


    You asked earlier for a way to get in touch with Mrs. Espinoza. Please e-mail me by clicking on the e-mail link on my blog and I’ll send you the info.


    You are right. The good cops need to know we support them.

  5. Jake F Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    What sucks is we get to pay money whether we like it or agree with it or not to fight the cops and defend bad behavior. That’s what taxes are for. First they take our money to do things we don’t agree with and then they take more to defend what they did. It sucks.

    Does anyone know how the cops are paying to fight the city ? Is there like some police legal defense fund that helps them fight or what ?

  6. Elm Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    Forgetting past grudges is not something our council is ever very good at. They have it in for anybody who complains about anything in Burbank because it disturbs their picture of a perfect city.

    Things are far from perfect in Burbank but they like to tell everyone they are and they attack anyone who says anything different.

    I feel sorry for those businesses they took the parking away from. What do they care they more than likely don’t shop there. See if they did they would never do that. They are all about faoritism and everybody knows it.

  7. Stretch Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    There has never been this many officers suing the city at one time ever in the history of the department! At some point Mayor “Brick” has to say thus far and no farther!

    The city attorney has proven he is a crook…he got caught by Jim Carlile and the public witnessed it. Now what? Is there some kind of vote? Emergency election?

  8. BurbankWatchDog Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    I believe the City Attorney serves at the Council’s “pleasure”, as do all Executive Staff, and can be fired without notice by a simple majority vote. The Council is also suppose to conduct an annual public performance review which gives the public an opportunity to tell the Council what they think of the CA’s job performance. Can’t remember when the last public performance review occurred but it’s time! Someone has to stop this; the CA’s illegal retaliatory actions are going to cost Burbank Taxpayers millions of dollars during the worst economic crisis most of us have ever lived through. SOS!!!

  9. Johnny Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    The way I see this is that the city council members seem to want to act like they have no responsibility for any of what is happening. That is just plain bull for two reasons.

    First, they sure do not work for the city manager or the city attorney so they need to start to grab the reigns and show some leadership,

    Second, I honestly do not know how much we pay the Mayor but Bric is sure not worth it. Can citizens sue him for not doing his job or what ?

    We could start a recall of Bric but hey why can’t they just he just be removed from office for being incompetant ?

  10. Jay Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    It amazes me that this city attorney could just meet with the Leader people and strike a deal, so who paid what to who on that one ?

    The mayor, lol that’s a joke the guy hardly looks like a mayor and he makes the most ignorant comments all the time.

    I know everybody where I work is talking about all the corruption in Burbank. It’s like we have the worst possible people running things and the council is a joke. Other than Gordon who else even asks a question about anything ?

    It’s time we dump this city manager because he doesn’t know how to manage anything. It looks like all the city attorney does is get the city in trouble and what kind of need do we have for a guy like that ?

    I check out the news and think everything coming from everywhere sounds like Ester Espinossa now, they tried so hard to make her look crazy and she was maybe the opnly sane person in Burbank for all this time.

  11. Eddie Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Note to Leader cartoon guy. Draw cartoon of the mayor sitting on his thumbs singing happy days are here again with a raging fire in the background.

  12. Tim R Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Wanted to make sure everyone saw this, it was in the newspaper and it’s written by some Jason Wells guy.

    “Barlow on Wednesday defended the disclosure as an attempt to correct the public record in the wake of Dunn’s original discrimination lawsuit, saying state law “specifically allows the city to respond to public statements, published in the paper, where he knows they’re not true.”

    Ok so if Barlow is to be taken seriously in this statement think about it. He releases the personnel file of Dective Dunn because he claims Detective Dunn’s statements are not true. Ok so where are the personnel files of the other officers that decided to sue ? Does that mean Barlow believes that their claims are true ?

    If the paper had any brains at all they would ask these sort of questions but oh I forgot the rule is they don’t question their buddies, and Barlow looks more and more like a buddy to me.

  13. eileen Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    Build Golonski a tree house in the Ficus trees and let him stay up there and play!

  14. Stretch Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    Where’s lttle “s” when you need him? “s” tell your buddy the mayor…it has hit the fan and he needs to step up to the plate.

    If he doesn’t, Brick will go down in history as the worst mayor of all time.

    If he is in charge of the city attorney, who broke the law right in front of us, prove it!

  15. ERG Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 8:29 pm #

    Mayor Gary Bric will look so very bad when it comes time to cut everything because of a mix of bad economy and money spent defending the city attorney.

    When that happens just about everyone will be asking the mayor just what he was doing while all this happened.

    What you want to bet he will come off with some answer that just makes people even more angry.

  16. ERG Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    You know all the work they are doing around the police headquarters ?

    Is it true they are making thicker walls and taking out all the doors and windows so it is more easily fortified in case of riots ?

  17. Manny Ramirez Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    All you people need to take a deep breath and let things play out. I am sure there is more to all of this than you think. So have a little patience. Some of you have NO CLUE about anything especially Jim Carlile. I can’t wait to prove you all wrong. Also, you people are real stupid falling for Esther Espinosa’s game. You really need to get a clue people. Wake up!!

  18. Jim Carlile Friday, July 24, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    I’ve spent the last several days looking for an exception to the Cooley decision and 832.7, where cities are allowed to waive the cop confidentiality requirement and release P-file material to defend themselves in the public square. But I can’t find one.

    That’s because, such a claim is absurd. It’s a lie.

    Notice Barlow’s equivocation here. He talks about “respond.” That’s OK, but what they actually did is ‘disclose.’ Plus, Barlow is violating his own past-practice policy of “we don’t try our cases in public, we try them in court.”

    If the Leader were doing its job, they’d ask Barlow for the court or Code reference for his exceptional claim. But they are not. They are shills for the city- and have been since about ’94 or so, when the Times bought the paper from So Cal Community News.

    It should be remembered, too, that Cooley’s Brady letter and comments are NOT disciplinary or a vouching for a later disciplinary action from the BPD. They are being seriously misused to make it appear as if the DA is endorsing or promoting termination.

    In fact, that’s a problems with today’s article. The Leader is being disingenuous– what they earlier cited was NOT Cooley’s Brady Letter or even the BPD’s earlier Brady request, but references to the 21-page confidential BPD document. But now they are making it look like Cooley was behind the termination, and that’s what they said all along.

    But he was not, and they are changing the evidence behind their own story from last week.

    The Leader’s running for cover. They messed it up for the city, they slanted an article due to a purloined document, and now they are trying to change the subject.

    Notice how they brought WELLS in to write this story? It’s called damage control.

    The city has only one option in all of this. Immediately settle these lawsuits. All of them.

  19. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    Manny Ramirez,

    Where have you been? Jim Carlile is the only one nailing it right on the head. Wait and see what happens?

    Why don’t you pay for the lawsuits….Since your so confident everything is fine. The city just got caught breaking the law. That alone is a million bucks down the tubes.

  20. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    Oh and by the way, Glendale lost 3.5 million in thier last lawsuit to three officers. This is six so far and mabye more. You do the math.

  21. Tim R Friday, July 24, 2009 at 12:19 am #


    Great points however if the city is letting you in on the information I sure wish they would let the rest of us in on what is going on in our city.

    Seems to me the city attorney just threw out copies of Detective Dunn’s personnel file to a select few very fast yet how about all the employees under investigation and what about the ones that are already gone ?

    Funny how you think once the truth comes out people will be gathering flowers and singing the cities praises. The way it looks to me right now from one corner to the next people will be shouting WHO HAS BEEN IN CHARGE HERE !

  22. Danny Friday, July 24, 2009 at 12:26 am #

    That’s right Manny pick on the old lady who has struggled here longer than most of us have been alive. You know what ? I may not always agree with Mrs Espinossa but hey at least I respect her age and the fact she has struggled her whole life.

    Some people come to Burbank with money and get invited to the big time events and others, like Mrs Espinossa struggle and work and save to come to Burbank for a better life. I have some respect for that you get what I mean ?

  23. Helen Friday, July 24, 2009 at 12:48 am #

    I continue to be amazed how the ‘good’ people in Burbank who believe everything is ‘fine’ here are always filled with so much hate.

    Is it buying girl scout cookies or donating cans of food to the Temporary Aide center that makes some of these people feel good about themselves ?

    After reading that one person doesn’t watch council meetings due to the fact he won’t listen to Esther Espinosa and now this snide comment about here I am left to ask why is it that the self proclaimed ‘goood’ people in Burbank have so much hatred in their hearts ?

  24. Fronnie Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1:00 am #


    Good points.


    I agree, it seems pretty heartless of Manny Ramirez to slam Esther Espinoza.

  25. s Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Mr. Bric has been Mayor since I think May 1st, the allegations from the 5 or 6 officers goes back 8 years and the Mayor is responsible and should be recalled. We certainly have some brilliant minds on this blog. Then Mr. Carlile a former janitor from what I undersatnd says the sky is falling and the City Attorney shoud be terminated. I got my money on the bartender and a Attorney who knows the Law. Let’s see who has the last laugh. xoxo

  26. David Kim Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    I’ve listened to Mrs Espinosa at City Council for many many years, she has the same issues for all these years, why can’t the city help her. Why does this one citizen expect special treatment. Look back over the last 25 or 30 years, she has complained about her house, being where it’s at, years ago the city offered to buy it, but she asked for a price that no one in their right mind would pay for, the city realigned Vanowen so cars would not end up in her driveway, who was there first Mrs. Espinosa or the railroad tracks? It was her choice to move into that house, now let’s blame the city and all it’s residence because she made that BAD choice.
    Want to talk about all the extra police she has needed over the years, now I’ve been a resident of this fine city for over 50 years, I’ve only had to call Burbank Police maybe a couple of times, and yes I have kids too,and listening to her blame Burbank Police on most of her children’s problems isn’t really right. Every week she blames, blames and can’t understand that Los Angeles County Child Protective Services’ does NOT fall under Burbank Police or the City Council sights. People blame the council for feeling different, come on folk lets stop enabling Ester,she can go for help as recommended dozens of times, maybe she can find help at her church, cause God knows what’s going on and what she needs.

  27. Kyle Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1:59 am #

    Methinks the issue may go back 8 years, but unless you are prepared to show that they ended then I would not be so self assured of just who gets the last laugh. It may be all the additional lawsuits that are on the way and as for the city attorney, I sure would not want to lay my life on the line using his legal expertise. Actually watching council meetings many weeks Espinosa makes lots more sense than the attorney does, that is scary.

  28. Toni Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    Miss Espinosa has not talked about her grandkids for 30 years infact I doubt she has grandkids that are anywhere near 30 years old. She has brought up a variety of issues as I watched council meetings.

    Los Angeles County Services I believe get involved when Burbank calls them to come in so maybe you only called the police a few times in 50 years but the police seem to call the county on Miss Espinosa an awfull lot so the question is why.

  29. Danny Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:09 am #

    David Kim could this be you looking to buy a home in Burbank so you can look at Bambi every morning ? If it is where have you been living these 50 years ? Bambi would be hit by a train trying to visit Mrs Espinossa.

  30. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 3:12 am #

    “s” is back. How do you know the allegations go back eight years? I heard many of them are recent allegations. In fact, your wrong again genius, 5 of the six officers suing have been in the department less than eight years!

    Sssss it ssseeems that you always try some non factual disss information. Why? So far Carlile has been on the money and your still at the Ramp parking your car.

    And why make fun of a man’s honest job…”janitor” A bartender is better, especially one serving the drug he has become addicted to?

    By the way, we all have our money (taxes) on the bartender and the attorney…that’s the problem.

  31. Jim Carlile Friday, July 24, 2009 at 3:37 am #

    For the record, 20 years ago I was a night “custodian” at the Burbank Adult School, which was mostly P.R. Great job, made lots of friends there, and I still run into people all the time from that place. I knew thousands of students from there, of every color. Cops too. Oldtimers like Don Sanders and Jay Farrand. Had a ball.

    Esther has been going to council meetings religiously for over 15 years. She is the only person to have spoken out about minority hiring– or lack of it– within the city. Her house on Vanowen was originally in great danger because of bad street and signal design on the part of Burbank. It was only improved because of a fatal accident there in the mid 80s, where her family was almost killed as well.

    It has always been a question of just how much influence the city has had on her family situation, and whether much of their official “concern” and scrutiny has actually been more of an attempt to force her out of town. This was a great concern of earlier, more sympathetic council members in the past.

  32. BF Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    Just in case you missed the great discussion about the Burbank economy last Tuesday night here is the sto.

  33. Manny Ramirez Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Stetch Armstrong

    I have been around the block for a long time. I have been a resident of the city for about 50 years. Mr. Carlile did not hit the hammer on the head, well maybe he hit it on the top of his head. I believe the city of Burbank has the ultimate right to respond to anything that the officer presented to the newspapers. Mr.Christopher Lee Dunn told the leader he was fired. The city can and should respond because Mr. Dunn opened his mouth about being fired. Therefore, the city can say whatever they want. Stetch maybe you should find a attorney and find out for yourself. You do not seem to have any idea.
    Why are you asking me to pay for the lawsuit? Why should the city or taxpayers pay for anything. Could it be possible that we don’t know about all the issues at the police department. I sure would like to know like you. I have heard that there are issues with some police officers at the police department. I would hope some inquiry is being done. If so then lets see results of the inquirys. Beecause the police officers are fliing lawsuits does not mean they are going to win. I am just saying lets see what happens. Maybe there is no truth.

    Tim R
    I wish I knew all of the information. I wish the city would disclose it. And I am not saying the city if right in any aspect. I just ask to get all the information before making any quick decisions. You allready have people saying to settle. I want to know the facts before settling anything especially if i am as a taxpayer going to have to pay out.

    Danny and Fronnie
    Call me a bully or call me heartless. I do not care what you call me. I have been attending the bubank council meetings and watching them since the mid 1980’s. Esther Espinosa has been gabbling her gibberish for the last 20 years. For all of her complaints i am sure the police department or the childrens agency would support any wrong doing. The complaining her blabbering podium council speeches got old in the late 1980’s.

  34. Honda Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm #

    Manny –

    Here is the fatal flaw in your thinking. Remember Rampart ?

    For years citizens filed complaints and complained to the police commission and to the Los Angeles City Council. They claimed to investigate and look into the claims, they dismissed the people who complained and they moved forward.

    Like Rampart just because some ones complaint is investigated doesn’t really mean it ever was.

    Let me see if I have this right. The city had some audit of the police department and that is suppose to say everything is alright ? Well then why is it after the audit police officers began to sue and say it isn’t all right ?

    Suspicious if you ask me and Manny how many times like Rampart did government just investigate itself and tell all of us everything is alright when it was anything bu alright.

  35. Burbank Lifer Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    There are two numbers for the total employees at the Burbank Police Department. There are what is called sworn officers and there is what are called civilian employees. I don’t think I have ever seen anything but the total number of employees, but I would like to know the number of sworn officers.

    The reason is simple, I suspect the number is way short of 200 for sworn officers.

    Now if you figure a guesstimate of say 150 sworn officers and then realize 6 have already filed lawsuits. Mix in the rumors of officers that are off on disciplinary leave and then factor in officers who have recently quit and left and then consider those officers out on leave due to hostile work environment claims, what percentage of of total officers are telling us that the department has much more than a few problems. It becomes like one of those old math questions from school now doesn’t it ?

    It is feeling to me like we are beyond 10% here. If that feeling is correct it is very hard to just dismiss claims that there are not just problems, but that the problems are very serious as this is a rather large percentage of our officers trying to tell us something.

  36. Ricky Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    “The city can and should respond because Mr. Dunn opened his mouth about being fired. Therefore, the city can say whatever they want”

    Well I guess the city can say whatever they want, and they did but that does not mean they can not be sued and can not pay dearly for just ‘saying whatever they want”

  37. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    Manny, I like your passion. What would it take to prove to you that something is very wrong. This incident with the release of a “21 page” document (other than the DA letter) was excessive and illegal. Most lawyers agree that in very very limited cases the accused have the right to respond to refute specific comments. NOT…NOT release portions of the actual file for review. You can rationalize breaking the law any way you want but the fact will remain…it was wrong!

    As far as “the city can say whatever they want” So if you have a complaint are you going to be happy when the law is broken to discredit you?

    You said you would like to know if an inquiry is being done. How’s the FBI, LASO, LADA, CAAG, and any other four letter word agencies you can come up with.

    Wake up! Once you decide to ask the right questions you will see what I have found out…the taxpayers are going to pay out more than they already have.

  38. Duck Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    Stretch good point.

    What you are saying is a lot like reasonable force. A reply to a specific acusation would be different than a pile of paper that brings out things there is no way to pinpoint what is being responded to.

    Sort of like a guy tries to punch you so instead of a defensive move you grab and axe and chop his head off and after that you grab the saw and cut his hands off and then you dump the body along some freeway.

    Sounds like the city is way beyond reasonable self defense here.

  39. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Burbank Lifer,

    There have been six lawsuits filed with more to come. A lawsuit with a female openly gay officer has already been settled in recent weeks for discrimination. Over 15 current and ex-officers have come forward to testify! Several civilian employees and consultants are also claiming racism and misconduct!

    What does it take to convince people like manny, “s” and “Al in so cal” Its not a question of IF there is a problem…its a question of what is the Mayor going to do about it?

  40. Burbank Lifer Friday, July 24, 2009 at 3:03 pm #


    I am convinced that there is a problem. The settlement you mentioned is probelmatic because I belueve the city settles cases like that one to get those confidentiality clauses signed and then they are able to quite down the issuse and do nothing to correct the problems that caused it in the first place.

    As for s and al in so cal, in my very humble opinion they have an agenda to deny anything bad in Burbank and no evidence will change their view of the world. If courts rule in favor of the officers I think both of them will remain in denial.

  41. Ryan C Friday, July 24, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    It really looks to me like the city has an attorney that doesn’t handle anything very well.

  42. Ryan C Friday, July 24, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    Here is the problem as I see it Manny. You can wait for all the information as you said but what makes you think the city will provide you with that ever. If they don’t what do you propose ? Leave things as if due to lack of information ?

    The fact that people must respond to what information they have is not their fault. It’s due to the city holding back information all the time on everything.

    Come on Manny, you say the city can say wha it wants and release what it wants, yet they always hold back and force people to base their decisions on what little can be pieced together.

    If you ask me the city causes that to happen and should get no sympathy for it.

  43. Elm Friday, July 24, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    I like to watch council meetings on Tuesday nights. I feel like it keeps me a little informed about Burbank.

    Something I don’t like is the way most of the council either ignores or puts down citizens that come there about things.

    It’s very obvious that some, not all, of them have no patience or respect for the public. That really bothers me because they run for office and ask for our votes to be public servants who represent us. They should all remember that.

  44. Disgusted Citizen Friday, July 24, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    So very true Ryan they never give out full or even truthfull information and then blame the public for seeing a conspiracy. The public only sees a conspiracy because of the cities arrogant attitude and inaccurate and incomplete information.

  45. lil Ardilla Friday, July 24, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Something I don’t get is the mayor of Burbank. If this was happening in Los Angeles the mayor I think would be speaking and calling for investigations but in Burbank the mayor doesn’t look like he even knows there is a problem. How wack is that ?

  46. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

    lil Ardilla,

    You are right! Any other real Mayor would be demanding transparency and not taking sides. He would also not be doing everything that city attorney tells him.

    Small town politics

  47. s Friday, July 24, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Stretch, why would you say s is back, I never left, just doing my homework. The reason I know they go back so long is because I have a friend who is the cousin to a friend who’s sister-in law was married to a Glendale cop, now is that a reliable source or what. Maybe Carlile and I have the same informent. For the record, not going after Carlile at all, he’s not an Attorney, period.

  48. Manny Ramirez Friday, July 24, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    You are comparing apples to oranges when comparing Rampart to Burbank. I have friends and family who are police officers. I would like to think I have some knowledge since family and friends are part of the police service. Some of these are Burbank Officers. I have been told by some people that there is more to what has happened at the burbank department regarding some or all of the police that filed the law suit. I do not know any specific information because these people can not talk about the investigation. I was told to wait for the investigations. Stretch, made a point that there are some investigations going on and I have heard the same. If the FBI, LASO, LADA are doing a investigation then let them do it. Let us see the results. Also, Stretch spit out what you know since you know it all. Do not hold back. I asked one of the people about this gay female officer and they did not know anything about any discrimination suit. I was told she was given some type of medical retirement. Let me finalize, I want what is right. I do not agree with a lot of things from the city. I believe there are knuckleheads running the show. All i want is things to be fair. So let us hear what these so called investigations reveal. If they fine the police department wrong then i am all for the payouts.

  49. Jim Carlile Friday, July 24, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    “The city can and should respond because Mr. Dunn opened his mouth about being fired. Therefore, the city can say whatever they want. Stetch maybe you should find a attorney and find out for yourself. You do not seem to have any idea.”

    Nothing wrong with the city responding– even though Barlow says that is not their policy, because they try their cases in court, not the public.

    But Burbank just didn’t respond, they broke the law right now by DISCLOSING a confidential personnel file, and then used this leak to make it look like the county DA endorsed the termination and wrote the derogatory disciplinary statements.

    This has caused great harm to Dunn. And that was the idea.

  50. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 10:53 pm #


    I accept your response. Fair point made. I have been around long enough to know that Barlow has made a public mistake and that is going to cost tax money.

    I also know that regular police officers in the department do not know what is going on with the upper management. The real scam is in the city attorney’s office and the chief. Some of the officers have talked even though the chief would like to keep them quiet.

    None of the news is good. Remember the article in the leader about a “vote of no confidence” for the chief. What happened to that? Was he forgiven? Covered up?

    I cannot remember the last time Burbank Officers wanted to vote out a chief. Where there is smoke there is usually fire!

  51. Stretch Friday, July 24, 2009 at 10:58 pm #


    Do us a favor and be serious for a minute. You obviously have ties to the Mayor. Save us some money and tell him we all know that he did not cause this problem. But it is now HIS problem. Is he in charge?

    Ask him to step up and show some leadership in the council meetings. Ask questions to Barlow in stead of making jokes and rubber stamping everthing Flad and Barlow say. Represent the people man!

  52. Manny Ramirez Friday, July 24, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Mr. Carlile
    Again I do not agree in any way. The city is able to disclose anything especially when there is a difference of opinion as to why Christopher Lee Dunn was fired. I believe it is 832.7 (d) of the penal code.

    I just want to reverberate my point, i do not agree with a lot of things that the city does. I have heard the same things about the city attorney and chief. My friend(s) did say a lot of the officers do know what is going on. I will ask about the “vote of no confidence” I did hear about it before.

  53. Honda Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 12:56 am #


    From what I hear, and yes I hear it from friends the investigations you are talking about have nothing at all to do with the lawsuits. They are about mistreatment of everyday people and that is why it compares to Rampart and is not a comparrison of apples to oranges.

    Think about it for a minute, if the investigations were all about mistreatment of fellow officers why would the officers sue until those investigations are completed ?

    From what I have heard the investigations are about the mistreatment of citizens, and that is very much like the real situation at Rampart.

  54. Honda Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 12:59 am #

    Stretch is right about Gary Bric. It is not that he started the abuse or caused the abuse that has occured it is that he is now in the position of Mayor and is expected to represent the people of Burbank and not the employees of Burbank. He will be judged as this all develops based on his own perfromance being in the position now that the problems are made public.

  55. Jay Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    Manny your statement is ” The city is able to disclose anything especially when there is a difference of opinion as to why Christopher Lee Dunn was fired”

    i would agree that may be a position that could be defended in court only if it can be shown that what was released goes directly to what is an untruth.

    This is a lot like truth as a defense against defamation however the proof that each and every sentence and each and every word released was necessary to prove an untruth and any that were not necessary goes toward vindictive behavior and diminishes the entire argument that it was necessary.

    Not sure that courts will buy the claim that reporters gleening statements from a court filing means as an sbsolute defense realeasing ‘anything one wants’ will fly at all, infact that stance is so arogant it could bring sanctions. Most judges prefer to see cases in court and not in the press. Imagine the city later claiming juries are tainted after they tainted them on purpose.

    Further it is never a true statement that you are free to release anything you want without potential liabilities.

    It will be amusing if the city has prejudiced its own evidence by this release as I think a snaction could be disallowing some information in the other civil suit due to this action.

  56. Tim R Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 1:15 am #


    So glad you got a new source, I am just shaking with excitement for you. So now that you have this great source be sure to ask her to tell you all about suspects being beaten in Burbank and then deported out of the country quickly to hide all evidence. Let us know what she says s.

  57. s Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 2:15 am #

    Stretch: Sorry, no ties to the Mayor, only patronize his Restaurant with my husband and family. Does he know me and my family, yes, could he possibily connect the dots and know that I have responded to this blog, NO. I’ve never spoken with him about the City, I’ve said good evening Mayor Bric and his response to me and other people I’ve heard say the same thing, “please, call me Gary”. Everyone says as Mayor he should be commenting on this unfortunate turmoil the Police Dept is going thru, I disagree. Let the PD conduct the investigation and since you are dealing with personell issues, the entire Council should probably wait until the investigation is complete. I don’t hear anyone on the Council making comments, and that goes for your friend David Gordon. When the investigation is completed, I’ll bet Mayor Bric addresses your concerns. To Tim R, what possible proof could you have about the comments you make. why don’t you and the others voice these thoughts at the part of the meeting where peopple speak, bet he’ll respond to you then but then you will never reveal your true identity, will you. It’s so easy for you all to critize the Council and Staff.

  58. Buzzie9 Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:23 am #


    From what I read in the lawsuit filed you are naive to think the mayor needs to let the police department investigate. If you read the lawsuit the problem is they don’t investigate and address problems.

    You propose letting the fox guard and then investigate the chicken coop, not a very good strategy at all.

    s, so just what is being investigated by the FBI and everybody else ?

  59. Danny Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    s sayzzz ‘why don’t you and the others voice these thoughts at the part of the meeting where peopple speak, bet he’ll respond to you then but then you will never reveal your true identity, will you. It’s so easy for you all to critize the Council and Staff.’

    s try watching a meeting once in a while, people have been asking and guess what, your mayor and the others sit there and say nothing. Nolan asked some good questions this last week. Real simple to answer and the mayor sat there saying nothing. I also read some people complaining that people speak. So nice trick s, no talking here and no answers there. get real s. How about giving Esther Espinossa some help s ?

  60. Stretch Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    Buzzie 9,

    I like the analogy “Fox guard and then investigates the chicken coop” That says it all!

    The allegations all include Chief Stehr, what is he still doing there? I think the city is keeping him around becasue they don’t want to seem like they are admitting something is wrong by sending him home. The problem is the Chief is manipulating the investigation and giving information so Brady was removed!

    Again I say…What happened to the Leader article subject about the “vote of no confidence” on the Chief by the rank and file officers?

    Look at the timing…a civil rights activist commissioner has his records leaked to the city attorney, in the midst of a civil rights violations investigation? Come on!

  61. Reese Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Did everyone see this letter in the Burbank Leader newspaper ? It sure brings up some good points about what being a commissioner at the council’s pleasure really means.

      Campaign donations should raise questions

    While reading through the July 18 article “Commission will meet more often,” I became oddly aware that I had seen the names of our Police Commission members elsewhere quite recently.

    I flipped on my computer, brought up the City Council candidates election financial statements that I had culled off the city’s website a couple months ago and made a most curious discovery — five of our six commissioners have given money to four city council member’s election campaigns.

    The sixth, Elise Stearns-Niesen, a City Council candidate herself, while not contributing to any of her opponents, did receive three contributions from fellow commission members as well. Now, isn’t that a cozy little club?

    The mandate of the Police Commission states that it shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Wow, there’s a double entendre if ever I heard one!

    Savor that for a moment, “Serve at the pleasure of the City Council” — the Leader couldn’t even print what that conjures up in my mind. Judging by the many checks that exchanged hands, I think it’s safe to assume that the Police Commission did, indeed, bring a great deal of “pleasure” to our City Council. But with millions of dollars in lawsuits now piling up against the city on their watch, whether they completely botched the real job they were empowered to do is another question altogether.



  62. Burbank Lifer Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    The letter written by Richard Tafilaw goes after one of the problems with our surrent system for Boards and Commissions.

    The system, designed by council members for the use of council members, allows for thsi unrestricted ‘at our pleasure’ for of appointment criteria.

    From this system, requiring nothing more than the ‘i like this person’ or ‘this is my friend’ or even ‘who gave the most to my campaign’ attitude as the guiding principle for board and commission appointments.

    This has caused a parade of the inept and even the vindictive to ascend to the throne of commissioner or board member with ease.

    We could hope that council members would remember they do not rule a kingdom where everyone must think and act like they do and actually appoint clear thinking people who represent the thoughts and lifestyles of the average citizens of Burbank. However, this has not been the case.

    The system has allowed the council members to appoint friends and benefactors who have proven their ability to serve as nothing more than small time feudal lords that have no understanding of anything in Burbank.

    The police commission is a great example right now as many of us wonder just what have they been doing and what good are they. However, they are not the only useless board or commission which has been reduced to the level of nothing more than a group of council member friends and supporters who meet to stroke and pet council members.

    The system needs revision at this point for sure.

  63. Burbank Lifer Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 12:23 pm #

    and on the timing, Stretch the timing on everything right now paints a picture in my mind.

    As for s and a few others, what I read in them is a desperate attempt to distract everyone from real issues and point everyone to lesser issues.

    A rather normal pattern for those at city hall to use, so I suggest everyone try to just keep them on topic when they reply lol in other words jiggs up s and manny. Manny has games to play we wouldn’t want him distracted and in breach of his contract with the Dodgers now would we ?

  64. Elm Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    If I were mayor of Burbank here is what I would do.

    Call for a special blue ribbon commission to investigate what is going on in the police commission and the police department.

    I would appoint no law enforcement to the blue ribbon commission, but I would appoint at least one retired judge who is respected. The rest of the blue ribbon commission would be all regular citizens and no citizens that are people who have already expressed some how wonderfull the city is stuff.

    I would suspend the police commission until the blue ribbon commission came in with recomendations and findings about that group.

    What I would not do is sit on my thumb and say oh what we have can just chug along like always because what we have doesn’t seem to work very well.

  65. Doberman Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    Richard Tafilaw is right on with those comments, The boards and commissions are all a joke filled with jokers here in Burbank.

    Time to get rid of the court jesters they appoint with their ‘pleasure’ like little tyrants.

  66. Johnny Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Has anyone else caught on that with the Burbank Leader there is this link so you can see Officer Dunn’s lawsuit but no link I can find anyplace to see the personal documents the city released ?

    Ok so people like Manny say the city released them so we could know the truth but there is no where to see them. Doesn’t that make you very suspicious ?

    Come on if the Burbank Leader can place a neat little link so I can see what Officer Dunn says why can’t they do that with what the city says ?

  67. Dolfin Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Very good point Johnny.

    The city says it released the personnel documents to correct errors, so who has read these documents. I sure can’t find them anyplace. Why are they not right on the cities own website ?

    For all the fuss some make that they have a right to realease whatever they want to defend themselves no one seems to have seen them. they are telling lies.

  68. Tim R Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 3:43 pm #


    You got me looking and just so everybody doesn’t have to find it like I did here is the link, check at the bottom and you can see the full copy of Detective Dunn’s suit.

    So we all get to read what Detective Dunn has to say and all we get is people like Manny defending the city and it’s actions. So Manny where are those documents the city released to keep the record straight ? Nice job saying that’s what they are doing but the fact no one gets to see their straight facts really makes you wonder now doesn’t it ?

    Unless someone in here can post up the document for us all to read what was the sense of releasing it to straighten out the facts ? hmmmm it looks to me like it was done for different reasons than stated at this point.

  69. Flan Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    Here’s the deal I think. That city attorney knows Officer Dunn is the real deal so the best he can do is try to spread a few rumors about him while Officer Dunn is releasing the real deal for all of us to read.

    I really hope this goes all the way through court to a trial. I think a jury will slap the hell out of the city attorney for his dishonesty. Just my opinion right now.

  70. Burbank Lifer Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    Since the say they want to counter untruths maybe they can send out the documents that correct the record in our electirc bills so everyone can read them.

  71. Jake F Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    It is looking (and sounding) more and more like the city never tries to ‘get the truth out there’, they just try to confuse and mislead.

    I don’t know how much control the mayor has over it but he really needs to get some balls and start telling the worker bees to get on the honesty and drop the cover ups at this point.

    They appear to have their hands caught in the candy jar already and everything the do just seems to make it worse. How about some honesty from our leaders ?

  72. Manny Ramirez Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    Tim R
    Funny how you think I can magically pull these documents out of my hat. I do not work for the city or have any access to any city documents. I am not specifically siding with the city at all. I am justifying why I think the city has responded. It is not going to be up to you or me who is right or wrong. We will see what the courts have to say. If you all want to see the documents go find Mike Nolan. He obviously has them.

    I would be willing to bet a Dr. Pepper that the city was able to legally respond per 832.7(d).

  73. Tim R Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 5:25 pm #


    Not my point that you are able to pull anything out of a hat. My POINT is that if you expect me to buy that the information released by the city was to correct untruths where is the information ?

    Here is what I see. The city attorney releases the information to the Burbank Leader. Does the Burbank Leader print the documents ? NO.

    Sure they mention they have them but try to find them anywhere.

    Now if they are out to reveal the truth and that is realy what the city attorney believes then why are they not out to provide the truth, you know light of day style ?

    I think once given to the Burbank Leader they became public documents so just where does the public see this truth ?

    My POINT is the truth argument makes no sense whatsoever because claiming to release the truth but keeping it from the light of day is a contradiction.

  74. ERG Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    From Manny ….”Funny how you think I can magically pull these documents out of my hat. I do not work for the city or have any access to any city documents.”

    Manny also says …”Some of you have NO CLUE about anything especially Jim Carlile. I can’t wait to prove you all wrong.”

    So Manny since you can’t wait to prove everyone wrong just what information do you have that just maybe you would like to share.

  75. Elm Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    What on earth does working for the city have to do with the documents the city made public unless you are the one who did it ?

    I am sure someone will tell me go ask for them, however I would concur I do not have to go ask for what was claimed by Policeman Dunn so why would I need to go ask for the confidential, now public documents.

    This makes perfect sense to me, if your desire and motivation is to uncover the real truth I would suspect you would do all you could to make the truth document available.

    Maybe the Mayor could start the next meeting by reading them, I will be watching and ready to record for listening a few times.

  76. Buzzie9 Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    According to this story at the semichorus blog we won’t see what they tell us we will see if we get to look at the documents.

    So now they can make the documents easy available and prove semichorus wrong or they can keep them hidden and claim semichorus is wrong.

    How about posting the whole document on line or in the paper so we can all see for ourself what exactly it is.
    Or do some just keep saying that semichorus is wrong ?

  77. Manny Ramirez Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    Tim R and ERG
    We’ll wait for the courts to decide this mess. Then the majority of you can finally say Manny you were right. The only other thing I can say is time will tell. I know you all are impatient but I would NEVER settle right now at this juncture.
    I asked my connection about the “no confidence” issue. I was told that one officer had brought it up but there was no vote or other talk about it. So might as well squash that one. I do not have any reason to not believe this officer.

  78. Jim Carlile Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    About this so-called 832.7(d) exemption that is being cited here in defense of Burbank:

    It’s perfectly OK for Burbank to cite “facts” if false statements have been made. But none were– all Dunn’s PR release did is cite the general problem. And “fact’s” doesn’t mean they can hand over the whole termination file. They didn’t even need to in order to refute the claim.

    But here’s the worst thing for Burbank: (d) only gives them the right to do this if the “false” claims are in print or on TV.

    Why is that a problem for Burbank? I’ll put it in caps:


    All there was was the attorney’s PR statement– and that’s not NEWS!

    What Burbank did was a pre-emptive hit to INFLUENCE the news stories. That’s illegal in all cases.

  79. Buzzie Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    Finally say manny you were right LMAO. 🙂

    You are over confident and those who are crash and burn.

  80. Manny Ramirez Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    jim Carlile

    In the Daily News article from July 17th the following was stated by Christopher Lee Dunn’s attorney:

    “The facts of this case further demonstrate that Detective Dunn’s termination was racially motivated and in made strictly in retaliation for his complaints of harassment and discrimination, and the complaint made against him was totally without merit.”

    This statement made by Dunn’s attorney opened the floodgates. To me the city is refuting Dunn’s assertion that he was fired because of his complaints. This was brought out in the media via the newspapers. So the city can show their proof that he was not fired because he was making complaints. Sounds as if DA Cooley had issues with Dunn based upon what Mike Nolan had read last tuesday night. Officers I spoke with never heard of any complaints made by Dunn while he was working at the police department.
    Again time will tell who is right. I am betting on #99 is right here.

  81. Manny Ramirez Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    If I am not wrong then you can buy me my Dr. Pepper. We will see!!

  82. Stretch Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:16 pm #


    I don’t know if it is even worth trying to present facts to you because you keep missing the point. It is legal to respond with SPECIFIC quotes or facts to a allegation that is beleived to be false or misleading.

    However…and pay attention…the city attorney cannot hand over entire documents (21 pages) for the world to see. The summary of termination is the problem NOT the DA letter.

    Furthermore, again pay attention…the DA letter does not use the words cited by Mike Nolan…those are Chief Stehr’s words and the city attorney.

    The DA Brady letter (do some research manny) only requires that the incident (the allegation) be released during a “pitchess motion”. Even then it is a case by case basis. That is directly from the DA website. It says nothing about “not being able to testify” like Nolan said. Wake up Manny…if you can’t understand this after all the explanation…well then, you know what you are.

  83. Manny Ramirez Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:35 pm #

    You are missing the point. Once Dunn’s attorney brings up his firing and gives a different reason for being fired. It is an open ball game. I ll be back here when this is all settled. I have given my opinion, I have heard yours. I think we both agree we want what’s right (even though we can not agree on that).

  84. Fronnie Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:54 pm #


    Excellent discussion and presentation of facts and opinions. I find I must agree with Manny. We’re going to have just wait and see how all this plays out to determine whose opinion was on the mark.

  85. s Saturday, July 25, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    Manny, please stay off your blackberry, your 0 for 3 and it’s the 6th inning.

  86. Jim Carlile Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    Just to note:

    The earliest news story that you could say was “published” on the Dunn lawsuit was late afternoon after 5 p.m. on the L.A. Times blog on July 16th– the day of the filing. Not even sure if that would qualify under “published” by 832.7 (d) but lets say it is.

    OK, what in that “article” is demonstrably false? Nothing at all.

    Subsection (d) only allows a disclosure exception under strict circumstances. Now the article seems like it comes from the attorney press release, but not sure. Regardless, the reason given for termination was accurate. It may not have been the complete story that the BPD wants you to hear, but it was NOT false.

    Burbank disagrees with it, so they think they can just get the whole confidential document out there and rebut it right now– as if their disagreement makes it automatically false. What arrogance!

    That indeed is what they think, and they are wrong.

    Besides, what (d) means is that if Dunn were fired and he were going around screaming that the reason was because he had, say, given a DUI to a council member, when the real truth was, say, absenteeism, then he would be lying and they could correct that.

    But that’s not what’s happening here. If Burbank had said, “Look, he was fired because of this Culver City thing and he was later insubordinate etc.” that would be OK. They could even pull out the Brady letter from the D.A. They could cite that reason to the paper.

    But the termination document was unnecessary to correct any alleged errors or falsehoods. And there were not any lies– and it was– at best for them– only ONE blog posting. Even under the BEST of circumstances for 832.7 (d), they jumped the gun.

    Clearly, the city can’t argue the lawsuit right now by leaking their confidential discovery evidence. That’s for court.

    The worst thing is– this is subterfuge on their part. they know they can’t use the Brady letter as disciplinary cause so they dress it up in a 21-page document and THEN make it look like the DA wrote it. That’s why they lesked it.

  87. Tim R Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Fundamental problem remains for me. City attorney claims he released the files to correct the record, yet even for Manny nothing has been seen so he waits to see.

    Does not add up at all, the city has the ability to make anything public, they even have their own official website to do it and nothing is there.

    The real issue is did the city attorney release the documents to corect the issue or to just create doubt about Detective Dunn. If he did it to correct the record where is it ? If he did it to create doubt by rumor, well that sure seems to be what I see. Thing is I doun’t buy it. Don’t buy the reason he did it or the doubt it is suppose to give me.

    Sure Manny quote a line from it read by Mike Nolan, or quote a line in it quoted by the Leader or someone else but remember you and I don’t even know if the line is in the documents because although released and made public we can’t find them anyplace to check.

    The fundamental problem that no one agrees what the document is and is not tells me the city attorney did not honestly correct any record at all, so what was his motive ?

  88. Jay Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    I sure hope the city doesn’t plabn to quote the statement below as their reason for the action it appears they took because this is kind of a standard announcement when cases are filed and the city could have responded in kind and said the evidence will show whatever they think it shows to respond to this.

    “In the Daily News article from July 17th the following was stated by Christopher Lee Dunn’s attorney:

    “The facts of this case further demonstrate that Detective Dunn’s termination was racially motivated and in made strictly in retaliation for his complaints of harassment and discrimination, and the complaint made against him was totally without merit.”

    The more this is discussed the more I think Jim Carlile is dead on target with this and the city attorney is sweating bullets.

  89. Donna Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    So here is my question.

    The Officer sues, the city says he is a bad guy. I don’t see anyplace where the city said the officer was found guilty after he was investigated. So if he wasn’t found gulty that means he was cleared of wrong doing ?

  90. Nike Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm #

    The critical question is was the officer found guilty of the accusation. If not then I suppose they fire all officers who get an accusation made against them ? If not then there must be some other reason they fired this one. If the city were clear on this they would have shown everyone the results that convicted the officer.

  91. Stretch Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    I am sure we have not heard the last of this issue…so stay tuned. I also know I will never see the headline “The city of Burbank is cleared of all charges!”

    Too many cops coming forward, being suspended, numerous investigations, multiple law firms, weird responses from the city, unanswered questions, and it is all BS? I don’t think so!

  92. Tomasa Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    Personally I believe that if the cop were found guilty of something the city would have handed out his convcition. Since they didn’t the cop didn’t do anything wrong so now they try to make it look like the fact he was investigated says he is guilty.

    None of that tells me why he was really investigated or why he was not convicted due to the investigation. So that does not tell me the officer was not fired for complaining about racism.

  93. Butterfly Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Did everyone read in the Burbank Leader that Mr Golonski now plans to have the police right you a ticket for watering outside ? This part from teh story really irritates me because they just keep on building when there is no more water.

    CITY HALL — Burbank would move to a three-day, 15-minute summer watering schedule and down to one day in the winter under a proposal unanimously approved by the Burbank Water and Power Board.

    The push to move from the first to second stage of the city’s recently modified water rationing ordinance comes after the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Board of Directors voted to hike rates nearly 20% and impose penalty rates on member agencies that exceed designated water allotments.

    MWD’s allocation plan, which took effect July 1, reduces shipments of imported water to member agencies by 10% from levels that were already down 10% last year. The main water wholesaler for Southern California provides Burbank with approximately half of its water supply.

    “If it were up to me, I probably would have done it sooner, before the hottest months are past us,” said Bill Mace, assistant general manager for water systems at the city’s utility. “If you were to wait until December, you may have missed the boat for that year.”

    Despite a recent announcement by the state Department of Water Resources to release 10% more water to the region, the wholesaler opted not to distribute the extra water to local utilities and use the windfall to avoid tapping as much into its reserves, which in the last three years dwindled from 2.2 million acre-feet to 0.3 million acre-feet.

    One acre-foot of water meets the needs of two average households for a year.

    The City Council in May expanded the sustainable water use ordinance from four to six stages, imposing irrigation timetables, prohibiting residents from hosing down driveways, patios and sidewalks and banning restaurants, hotels, motels, cafes and cafeterias from serving water unless requested by customers.

    The second stage would bring the city more closely in line with Pasadena and Glendale by limiting the irrigation of landscaped areas to three days a week — Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays — April through October, and only on Saturdays November through March.

    The first stage banned outdoor watering between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Hand watering is allowed in some cases. It also includes seven additional mandatory practices, including the prohibition of outdoor water use for landscaped areas during, and at least two days after, rainy days.

    Councilman David Gordon pointed to the increased state water allocation in questioning the timing and criteria used to impose new restrictions on residents.

    “What changed since Stage 1 became effective?” he said. “What happened in two weeks? Is this artificially created? Are they raising it preemptively? They underestimated how much water was going to be coming in and arrived?”

    The first violation carries a $100 fine. The second and third violations, if issued within a 12-month period, climb to $200 and $500, respectively. The penalties were approved last year as part of the original ordinance.

    Mace said another way to help the city meet the planned 2% reduction in sales volume each of the next four years is a tiered rate structure implemented this month.

    While he could not provide total water savings last year broken down by single-family homes, multifamily and businesses, the total water into the city’s system for the last fiscal year was 7.3% below the budgeted amount, while consumer sales were 4.45% below budget.

    Councilman Dave Golonski said part of the city’s goal is to arm residents with information.

    “Most of the people are engaged, interested and are aware of the water situation,” he said. “The more difficult question is how do we connect with everybody else?”

    “Faced with a statewide population increase of 9 million people over 20 years, dwindling shipments from the State Water Project, and federal environmental court decisions protecting native fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region, 60 urban water districts have introduced mandatory conservation efforts, up from half a dozen last year.”

    I went to the Empire Center yesterday and I could not believe how messed up Empire is now with the new construction going on around it. They had very nice walkways for cross walks and you should see them today. Then there is that massive building being built at Empire and Buena Vista and I watch each day while the dig everything up to bring bigger water pipes to that building.

    Who is kidding who if there is a shortage of water STOP BUILDING more demand for water. This really gets me mad and Golonski seems to be behind all of it.

  94. Sk8 Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    Yeah building more to move more people in is stupid but who ever said Golonski was anything else.

  95. grey Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    I am new to this blog. After reading some of the comments all I can say is What the hell is going on in the city of Burbank!!?? All these controversies cannot be a fluke or a bunch of whiners. Even if half of the stories are true…we are screwed.

    All my taxpayer money will be used to pay lawyers, regardless of who is right! People better wake up and hold the city council accountable. In fact, it is time for the mayor to give some updates, not some lawyer.

  96. Arfie Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

    Hey Grey

    I agree but fact is it was time for the mayor to show some leadership a few weeks ago and most of us already turned blue waiting for that to happen. Hold on to your wallet cuz we got no leaders in town all we have is puffed up people excited with their own importance.

  97. Arfie Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    Hey Butterfly

    Yep they fkd up the Empire street bad building all those new buildings to use up the last of our water and the worst part, bet we get to pay to fix the streets they fkd up to.

  98. Jim Carlile Sunday, July 26, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Somebody wrote this:

    “The city says it released the personnel documents to correct errors, so who has read these documents. I sure can’t find them anyplace.”

    By the Brown Act, anyone can now demand a copy if the city disclosed them to anyone else. That’s the law. So everybody should go down to city hall and ask to see the material– all of it– and they can’t charge you anything for simply viewing them, either.

    Personally, I don’t want to see them because I don’t think they should be released. They’re just going to be a cherry-picked job anyway– they’ll tear off Dunn’s rebuttal attachments, for sure.

    So why won’t the Leader post them on their new “blog?” Good question.

    The big problem for the city is that they released these file documents BEFORE anything was published. So what were they “responding” to in the news? Nothing.

    Worse– even if there had been things published– the city did not CITE what was “false” in their view and specifically rebut it with file material. They could have done that– maybe. But they didn’t, not at all. They didn’t even try.

    And they STILL have not told us where Dunn or his attorneys were false.

    You know why? Because they weren’t.

  99. Tim R Monday, July 27, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    Very Good points Jim. more or less I am convinced of the same things.

    The fact people should go down and ask for the proof the officer lies troubles me because if that is what it is really all about then it should be far more simple than that to access.

  100. Manny Ramirez Monday, July 27, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

    It is a hell of lot more than what you all perceive. Again, from what I am told, time will tell.

  101. Jim Carlile Monday, July 27, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    “The fact people should go down and ask for the proof the officer lies troubles me because if that is what it is really all about then it should be far more simple than that to access.”

    That’s it– in other words, where is the city’s official statement about what specifically was false about the attorney’s words regarding the termination?

    Barlow says they can “respond,” but they didn’t. They didn’t say a thing. They didn’t cite the falsehoods at all. They just handed over the prsonnel file material to the local paper.

    I can’t believe that any judge in California will say that the city’s action here satisfies the limited Penal Code disclosure exemption for police personnel files. They didn’t tell us what they were specifically “responding” to ! Plus, in my view, nothing was “published” yet to start off the disclosure.

  102. Kelly Monday, July 27, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    I was a civilian employee at BPD for 7 years loved loved my job and most of the people there, BUT that department has alot more problems than most think. IT could be a great department but the brass is something to be desired, was then and from what I hear and read now it still is. You play their game or you lose…they treat their employees like criminals. Its not all about racial discrimnation at all its gender as well. A strong women better keep her mouth shut and follow their rules or they will tell you stuff like “just take the day suspension and go shopping” that coming from a jailer(male) who was a union rep for me real cute huh? Everyone thought I was disgruntled now let the truth be known it sure in the hell was not all my fault considering what is taking place currently. I always took my accountability for my actions and they were not always correct or professional but BURBANK POLICE DEPT and the CITY has never taken accountabiliy for the crap they put me through. I resigned as they were handing me terminiation papers funny how I was one step ahead of them best thing I ever did was get out of there..miss the friends I made but sure in the hell don’t miss the politics. There are some great officers there and great civilians and my heart goes out to all of them for being stuck there. Maybe someday it will become a wonderful Police Dept if only the FEDS could clean house.

  103. Stretch Monday, July 27, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    If the mayor doesn’t beleive the cops mabye he should talk to the civilian employees. A few have come forward. They must be whiners too…right Manny?

    Let’s see who is reporting misconduct:
    1. Highly decorated cops
    2. Civilian employees
    3. Citizens
    4. Federal Agencies
    5. Lawyers
    6. Ex cops
    7. Ex employees
    8. Ex city officials
    9. Blog reporters

    Who is supporting the city:
    2.City Attorney
    3.City council
    4.The Leader Smoozepaper
    5.Manny and “s”


  104. Fronnie Monday, July 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm #


    Thanks for dropping by and sharing your experience working for the Burbank Police Department. Even though you cited problems within the department, you also pointed out “There are some great officers there and great civilians…”

  105. Manny Ramirez Monday, July 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    Who said I was supporting the city? Trust me, as a long time resident my views of the city are not even close to what you think. Just because I am against any settlement, I am for the city? Also, I have heard certain bad things about some of the officers who have filed the lawsuit, Contrary to what you think, you are an idiot. I am by all means not for the city. There is some HUGE problems. So please get your facts straight because you are the lost dog.

  106. s Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 2:09 am #

    Manny: Don’t let them ruffle your feathers, it’s not worth the aggravation. Were the minority on this blog or should I say witch hunt, nothing we say will make a difference. Most of these bloggers have nothing better to due, like no life.

  107. Jim Carlile Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 4:24 am #

    You know s’, you’d be amazed at how little time it takes to write these things. That’s because they write themselves–that’s how obvious the situations are.

  108. V Sanos Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 10:47 am #

    Thats right s , people who think about their city or ask questions about their city have no life. For sure what they should do is gather in small groups to support Burbank charities. You are sounding a whole lot like what Kelly described in her post, just use your time to shop in Burbank so the city can spend the money they get from those sales tax donations. Aren’t those taxes really just donations to Burbank and aren’t good citizens the ones who keep quiet and pay their taxes so the city can throw the money to the wind ? I won’t even bring up the high utility bills we are forced to pay or the garbage collection fees which are ridiculous, just pay and be good cititizens.

  109. Flippification Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 10:50 am #


    I hear the stories about the good ol’ boy attitude and the sexism from lots of friends. Seems we have those in Burbank that are still fighting the womens right to vote and a few on the council who like women a lot just so long as they know their place.

  110. Fronnie Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 11:03 am #


    You know you have become a frequent commenter on this blog, despite all the bad mouthing you do about it. At one point, you claimed to be leaving, but that was not true. No one is forcing you to visit. So get real.

    I don’t think it such a bad thing to be the minority opinion. Again, if you are unhappy with opinions of others here or don’t like the tone of the debate, you don’t have to participate.

    I don’t see why you and Manny get so upset. If you are both right about the issues and others are wrong, then you should be willing to watch and see how it all develops.You’ll be able to gloat later on.

    And if you really don’t think anything you say here will make a difference, I can’t imagine why you would want to keep coming back

  111. Stretch Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    Witch hunt? We are the minority? “s” you need some help, seriously. You have no idea what or who you are talking about. The funny thing is, your the one that keeps me coming back!

    It’s hard to believe that you can’t see one thing wrong with the current situation facing the city. The fact that you blindly argue every comment, for the sake of arguing says it all.

    Wayne Dyer said it better than I can,

    “The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.”

  112. Danny Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    Hey Fronnie lewis

    Good questions for s, but hey s never answers any questions s just assures us he/she knows everything about everything and everything is great.

    s loves the mayor but when it comes to everyone else can you spell barely tolerates ? Take Mrs Espinossa, it looks to me like s just sees her as a big time problem because she raises questions about things.

    Not sure why but s sounds to me like s has lots of personal interests to protect and that’s why s ignores any question and moves to the lowest common denominator and that is YOU ARE WRONG JUST BECAUSE I SAY SO. lol sorry s but I am not really impressed with that act because both you and Manny get steamed up when anyone asks any question, proclaim them wong and never give any facts about why they are wrong to ask the question in the first place.

    That’s what I see anyway in s and manny.

  113. Cool Chick Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    The witch hunt ?

    I honestly think the ones running a witch hunt are the city officials, why else have they fired so many cops and arrested so many citizens for just plain wacked stuff like using a camera or coaching kids teams ?

    Honestly, I think the city officials suspect everyone in this city of something these days its wacked and they just have a very guilty conscious.

  114. Honda Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    This is the worst part of Burbank right here and it’s the long time standard for city hall. You attack and discredit anyone who asks a question or makes a suggestion.

    This is how they do business in and around city hall, the problem for them is everyone knows it now. They will do it to your neighbor, your grandmother, employees or even you without blinking an eye and it’s just wrong.

  115. Tim R Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 3:53 pm #


    You bring us great points that really get me thinking and its like you do it each and everytime you post.

    I still say that if I take the city at its word on the personnell file and it corrects untruths then I go right back to just where is it and why does the city want to claim they have the truth but they sort of kind of keep it hidden ?

    I have no plans to ask anybody to see their truth, if they have so much truth it should de easily available on line, but since it’s not I consider it to be just rumors and false claims from a desperate group of people who will say anything to cover their asses right now.

  116. Manny Ramirez Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Again people, a great majority of you have NO clue whatsoever. You have your speculation as to what is happening at the police department and with the ciity. Unfortunately, you don’t any patience. Hell, I am an impatient person but in complicated cases like this, you have to wait for all the facts to come in. When they do come in, I am sure will all be in for a huge surprise.

    Fronnie, I don’t want to be threatened with your “this is my blog” so I will make this my last post until I come back on to gloat. There will be gloating, that is a fact.

    I was NEVER upset but when Stretch makes his false statement that I am siding with the city, when I am actually horrified at a lot of things done by the city. So please continue to feel free and think whatever you want.

    Please continue with your financial support to Ms. Espinosa. It is just another thing you have been snowballed with. Funny how for the last 15+ years, she has blamed the police department for taking her kids and grandkids away from her family. If the citizens would have their facts straight, they would realize that the police do not take the children away. DFCS is the agency that takes children away.

    As for Kelly, I know her. I am sure she would admit that she does not know everything that has gone on since her departure.

    I do applaud your enthusiasm but the great majority are only believe what you want to believe. Personally, I do not have a problem with anyone. I actually enjoy this but when things are said and taken out of context, who wants to continue arguing? Then you are accused of being “upset.” I am happy and will always continue to be and even more so after you get the whole picture. I think these blogs are great but there also has to be mutual respect with any adversary.

  117. Tim R Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm #


    For being the person who said this to someone
    “Contrary to what you think, you are an idiot.”

    I am surprised at your most recent comment
    “I think these blogs are great but there also has to be mutual respect with any adversary.”

    I never speak for everyone, I ask my own questions. I for one am not assuming things here or anywhere. I get the city attorney ‘claims’ to have released the ‘truth’ and continue to wonder why the ‘truth’ he ‘claims’ to possess is so hidden from view.

    Like I said Manny that leads me to one conclusion, he is not telling me or us the truth about it.

  118. Ann Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Saying people have no clue implies you know things yet you refuse to share and infact claim to know nothing at this time yourself. Who is clueless after all ?

  119. Ann Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Has s forgotten that we all read about the witch hunt that Mayor Bric lead against Mr Brady ? How about the witch hunt that Mayor Bric threatened to do against Jim Carlile in his emails ?

    Shame on the city council for all of that it made them look petty and the city look very bad.

  120. Danny Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    If someone listened to what Mrs Espinossa says about her grandkids that somebody would hear that she says the Burbank Police took her grandkids and called DFCS.

    Give Mrs Espinossa a break she does not only talk about her grandkids. I actually listen to what she says, some people are clueless what she is saying is my best guess.

  121. Marie Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    A whole lot of Burbank long timers are really suffering right now financially, not just Esther and the truth is the city does nothing at all to help the long timers who basically built this city now that the economy has taken what they had. This really burns me up about Burbank.

  122. eddie Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    Every one know what CARMA is ? Burbank is in some really bad CARMA right now and things are about to very seriously come back around on them.

  123. Steven Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    I sure hope this mayor knows what Karma is because he is a great big lightning rod for it when it strikes.

  124. Steven Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    Manny Ramirez will be back to say I told you so, but wait he never told us anything at all. There is the plan, say nothing and then no one will know if you were wrong or right in what you thought you knew, but never said you knew. Sounds like Mission Impossible to me.

  125. Burbank Lifer Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    I have to vent on what I just read. Take a click on this link and read the story about SUV hotting bike and the agressive persuit of justice performed by the city of Burbank.

    If this is not overkill and let’s face it we do have more serious problems in Burbank than this sort of thing.

    What is next from these people, maybe prosecution of citizens for failing to wear swimsuits in the shower. Oh wait, maybe watching who takes a shower due to water restrictions and the police pulling citizens out of the shower if they are in there more than say 3 seconds ?

  126. Been there done That Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Everyone please understand that the few people that go to council like mrs. Espinoza are actually talking for alot of us that dont put time or have the cajones to dispute a problem happening in our surroundings. i personally Thank all of you that do attend and stand up for the people at city council THANK YOU…this isnt Pleasantville where everything is fine their has always been problems here in burbank the only difference is that its actually affecting everyone else too not just the poor or the minority i have had my share of bad experiences with police officers but keep in mind not all are bad i just want to know if the reason they threatened to kill me and make me disappear and put their knees and guns to my head were because of the pressure of other officers i went through some real bad police brutallity and i honestly tell you i will forgive them all if they just tell me it was the pressure. as i said not all cops are bad because i did run into some perty cool one very respectful. where i work employees do stupid stuff but again it because of the pressure from up above in the chain of command.

  127. Burbank Lifer Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    Honestly been there done that as I watch council meetings I know that every speaker is saying what a whole group of people are saying. How does that saying go, No man is an island ?

    I agree those who speak up should always be respected and should always be thanked, even when we do not agree with them they do make us think and that is always a good thing. My question is why is it so important to some to quell discussion and keep us all from thinking.

  128. Richard Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    I watched the City Council last night and those people are just an infestation of viral infection.

    What is up with the parking for all those businesses anyway ? Don’t the fools realize you can’t make things any better for business by stealing their parking ? Be honest do you shop places you can’t park ?

    Those people talked and talked about it and did nothing while those poor business people lose money every day ?

    Those people are like a viral infection and they are spreading to just destroy everything in Burbank. Hey City Council BUSINESSES = JOBS don’t you see the unemployment rate in California ???

  129. Jon Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm #


    The problem as I see it is some of the council persons are really full of themselves. They think they know what is best no matter what, and they listen to no one.

    The idea of destroying the parking for more cars is beyond insane. Think for a minute cars come to shop someplace right ? What I mean is how often do you say gee I think I will cruise say Magnolia Blvd. My guess is when you go there you are going someplace.

    So exterminate the parking on Magnolia right, destroy all the parking. Will you drive there anymore ? Sure if you just went there to cruise you might, but if you went there to shop you will leave for greener pastures with lots of parking.

    So how does this stuff happen ? The great kahunas sit there and decide parking there is not important to them so exterminate it. These Kahunas really need to start listening to people and admit they are not filled with knowledge just because they get some title like Mayor or Vice Mayor. Maybe we should just dump those titles and call them Big Kahuna and Little Kahuna ?

  130. Flippification Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    Pretty much everyone agreed the parking removal was wrong but they just left it that way WTF ?

    Can you all spell CLUELESS.

  131. Buzzie9 Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Has everyone seen the cities latest ? Can someone ask me who was asking these questions ? All I have heard is questions about where the documents can be seen but somehow the city came up with these questions to answer. What a bunch of hogwash this is.

  132. Been there done That Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    honestly someone has to go up to the podium and literally scream at the council memebers “STOP WHAT YOUR DOING RIGHT NOW AND GIVE ME MY 5 MINUTES OF DIRECT ATTENTION” havent you noticed that theyre not really listening to anyones comments. i have seen other council meetings for a few other cities and the councils seem to care what the citizens say and feel they all give their undivided attention, thats what we voted them their for isnt it look it takes more than complaints and blogs to change things it takes UNITY unite as many people as possible and things will change if we really want a new Mayor or vice mayor,council members then we must unite together as one but what makes you think the next one will do any better. not in this town everyone is tied down by someone higher “Follow The Money.”

  133. Ann Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    Well I am not sure if they really don’t listen or are just not able to understand anything.

    So often I hear what someone says and then I listen to Coucnilmember Golonski or Councilmember Renkey drone on and on and I think to myself what on earth are they talking on and on about because it has nothing to do with what the person even said and oftentimes it’s the absolute opposite of what was said.

    I am not convinced they do this on purpose, it just might be that their brain power is so limited they are unable to hold a complete thought. They appear programed in advance and are ready to drone on and on about something even if it is not something anyone even asked. It’s like they have an agenda or mission and no one is interupting it, honestly those two are like destructive robots programed to destroy everyone in their path.

  134. Donna Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    what bothers me about both the vice mayor and the former mayor is everything is just oh so personal. Have you noticed all the personal ourage about just everything from those two ? I believe everything is so personal because they have a real personal gain in everything they do, that’s why they do it. Just my thought on those two.

  135. Al in SoCal Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at 1:18 pm #


    You wonder why Manny and ‘s’ should get mad or take things personally – well have you read the posts? This board likes agreement and nothing else will suffice. This reminds me of GW Bush’s “you’re either with me or against me” line. The bandwagon jumpers who have NEVER liked ANYTHING the city council does loathes people who actually like living in Burbank and think it’s a great place.

    I have yet to find someone that actually has something nice to say about our great city in these posts. I think that’s really sad.

    I will try to find a link to the old Burbank Taxpayers group aka “Elect the Berlins” forum on Yahoo. This is an exact replica of that forum.

    I especially like the posts ragging on the Empire Center or any other large development (guess who pays the city bills). No – no – don’t listen to reason – don’t wonder where our $$ comes from – just complain, jump to conclusions and continue to think the worst about Burbank. Watch out – I might just see you at Target!

    Fronnie – if you want REAL debate and good back and forth it might be nice to find where you disagree with Jim Carlisle or Mike Nolan – or any of the city council detractors.

    It also might be nice for you to research when Mike Nolan – who you quote very often – had anything appreciative to say on his Tuesday night rants? I’ll give you a hint – rarely if ever. The core group of Tuesday night visitors like the camera that they grandstand in front of.


    Here’s a question for those people moaning about Esther Espinosa – how many of you voted for her? Although I like her as a person, and do grieve for her problems, please note that the city did indeed make her an offer on her house.

    People getting up in front of the City Council to discuss personal matter should be referred to the agency which can help them – nothing more. Why? If you go the extra mile for Esther – then Tuesday night city council meeting which are meant for city business will become a personal problem forum. I would ask if she has called the several agencies which might be able to help her – or even the LA County 611 information line.

    >>Fronnie, I don’t want to be threatened with your “this is my blog” so I will make this my last post until I come back on to gloat. There will be gloating, that is a fact.

  136. Al in SoCal Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Sorry – not 611 – 211 for LA County help.

  137. Incognito Monday, September 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    Another bomb for the city with regards to the Police Dept. How many more suits have to filed, how much taxpayers money will be spent, before someone within has the GUTS to comfort the problem.

    Let’s face it we have a SERIOUS problem and everyone just wants to sweep it under the carpet.

    “What is Right is not always popular and what is popular is not always Right”

    Let’s give the brave few, who have come forward support, because let’s face it, it takes a lot of courage.

    “Stand up for what you believe in or for fall for everything”

Comments are closed.