California law clearly establishes both the right of a citizen to file a complaint against a peace officer as well as the duty of the agency to thoroughly and fairly investigate every formal complaint.

Investigations are to be conducted with strict adherence to the laws of procedural due process assuring that whether the alleged misconduct is petty or egregious every person and every complaint is handled the exact same way.

The rules of procedural due process are not about any individual and this – in my opinion – is one of the most valuable tenets of our broader justice system.

There are several hundred law enforcement agencies in the state of California and every one of them handles personnel complaints against peace officers the same way: officers under investigation are ordered not to discuss the complaint or the allegations with anyone but their attorneys until the investigation is concluded.

It is that simple. Deviations from those rules are considered to be an act of insubordination. The rules are long-standing. They are universal. And they exist for a reason.

In January of 2010, a woman filed a formal personnel complaint against two sheriff’s deputies alleging physical abuse during an arrest a year earlier. Pursuant to state law and department policy, our department initiated a formal investigation into the allegations and both deputies were given the standard order to speak only to their legal representatives about the allegations until the investigation is concluded.

One deputy obeyed that order and the other – Francisco Rivero – held a press conference announcing the details of the allegation and accusing the department of plotting against his campaign for elective office.

The public was not aware of the department’s investigation until Francisco held his press conference wherein he professed himself a victim of a smear campaign.

To reiterate, Rivero alone was responsible for making the citizen’s complaint to the department broadly known – so he alone was responsible for a smear campaign against himself.

This kind of public antic by a peace officer can have potentially catastrophic effects upon victims of police misconduct.

Gloria Flaherty is the executive director of Lake Family Resource Center and a lifelong advocate for victims of crimes with special focus on crimes against women. In the interest of full disclosure, she is also one of my supporters.

Although people who know Gloria know well that her opinions and beliefs are her own and I certainly have no influence over them. Without steering Gloria to a particular answer, I asked her for her opinion about Rivero’s press conference and she expressed immediate concern about the implications of it.

Gloria put it this way: “I see the press conference as intimidating and counter to the credibility of safety and confidentiality within the justice system. Imagine being a woman who is trying to build her courage to report a sexual assault committed by a peace officer from any agency. After seeing the press conference, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that she will not assume that she would be met with reprisal and public exposure by the accused officer if she files a complaint. How is she to know that this is not what she should expect if she makes her own allegations against another peace officer? How is a real potential victim of such a crime supposed to know the political machinations that were a motivation for that press conference?”

So why would Rivero want to make a formal complaint that the department kept confidential a very public issue?

The answer is – so that he could claim to be a victim of retaliation.

It is precisely the kind of thing that professional victims do. It is precisely the kind of thing that made Francisco Rivero a millionaire in the 1990s when the taxpayers of San Francisco paid for a lawsuit that Rivero filed against the San Francisco Coroner’s Office.

Retroactive allegations of discrimination were the hallmark of Rivero’s claim against the San Francisco Coroner’s Office but only after they terminated his very lucrative contract for cremating the remains of indigent people who died there.

Rivero took on the mantle of “corruption buster” and made allegations against the San Francisco Coroner’s Office that included: claims that the coroner unlawfully terminated his contract; claims that the coroner discriminated against him because of his Cuban heritage; claims that coroner employees were corrupt and were taking bribes; claims that the coroner’s office was a 'good old boy network'; and finally – and most lucratively – the claim of retaliation when the coroner’s employees lashed out at him for all of the allegations that Rivero made against them.

Rivero’s claims of discrimination and unlawful contract termination did not stick but the retaliation claim made Rivero a fortune – just shy of $2 million.

Rivero had made all of his claims before the trial in a very public manner using a variety of different media outlets. Those public claims of retaliation worked so well for Rivero in San Francisco that the circuit court actually commented on his deft use of the media during his lawsuit against the taxpayers of San Francisco.

Rivero joined the Lake County Sheriff’s Department in May of 2007 and he was an ardent supporter of the entire department through March 2009 – which is when the sergeants’ promotional examination took place.

On March 27, 2009, 14 days after Francisco learned that he did not place as high on the sergeant’s promotion list as did deputies with eight times his level of experience, Rivero activated the script that made him a fortune in San Francisco.

It was only after Rivero’s failed attempt at promotion that he began making retroactive allegations of discrimination against him for his Cuban heritage. It was only after his failed promotion attempt that Rivero began alleging corruption in the sheriff’s department and only after the failed promotion attempt that Rivero took on the mantle of the heroic corruption buster.

Finally, in keeping with his profitable San Francisco strategy, Rivero used the woman’s personal complaint made against him (and the other deputy who followed the rules) as his basis for alleging that I was retaliating against him. And Rivero’s circle is complete. Or at least Rivero hopes it will be complete.

Anyone who reads the published court decision regarding the San Francisco Coroner’s Office lawsuit will see that the script Rivero followed there then is precisely the script that Rivero is using here now. The difference is that the men and women of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department have shown enormous restraint.

These local professionals have not retaliated against Rivero for any of his many false claims against them. Our staff did not respond in a way that would have completed Rivero’s profitable circle.

Professional crime fighters surround themselves with other professional crime fighters and they are truly concerned with the interests of law-abiding citizens they don’t even know.

Professional victims surround themselves with other professional victims and they are solely concerned with their own personal interests.

Rivero’s closest allies are former law enforcement officers who proved to be professional victims too.

Being a professional victim is one of the key reasons why Francisco received not one vote of support from any of his peers as sheriff’s department associations endorsed a candidate for sheriff.

The Lake County Sheriff’s Department employs 187 people. There was a secret ballot. Not one vote.

The men and women of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department are professional crime fighters who live up to our expectations to do selfless, challenging and often dangerous work on behalf of people they do not know.

And they do it all with a work ethic that says, “It’s not about me.” I have never been more proud of them.

Rodney Mitchell is in his fourth term as sheriff of Lake County and is seeking re-election. He lives in Lakeport.

Congressman Mike Thompson says the country needs to double down on its efforts to develop renewable energy technology. Courtesy photo.

“This is not 1965, the oil and gas companies can drill offshore now with all the new technology they have and do it safely and not cause accidents,” a constituent wrote to me recently in an email.

“Drill baby drill” was the call from across the country not that long ago. If you didn't agree that the government should open more offshore area for drilling and exploration you were labeled anti-American, an environmental extremist or worse, a socialist. The latter being the label of choice by some for anyone that disagrees with them on anything.

Drilling offshore is and has been going on for sometime. And from day one, drilling proponents have said that “new technologies make it safe” and that oil spills shouldn't be of concern.

We heard it again last month when Sarah Palin spoke at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Louisiana. “We don't need more studies. We need more action,” she said. “Let's drill baby drill. Not stall baby stall.”

If only we could “stall baby stall” the oil that is now spilling into the gulf coast. The Louisiana spill is leaking 210,000 gallons of oil per day – up four times from what British Petroleum claimed when they first reported the spill to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It's hard to understand how British Petroleum could be so far off on their calculations. Now it sounds like it may take months to drill a relief well, during which time experts fear ocean currents could move the oil up and down the East Coast.

I have always opposed drilling for oil off the coast of Northern California and for good reasons. First, there isn't enough recoverable oil to benefit our needs vis-a-vis the risk. But that hasn't stopped some from pursuing leases to explore and drill.

Second, our coast is rich in marine life and is one of only four major upwellings in the world. Damage to this fragile ecosystem would devastate not only our district but an incredible amount of marine habitat throughout the Pacific Coast.

Third, our tourism industry is the life blood of many communities in Northern California and visitors don't buy rooms, dinner, or shop in area devastated by oil spills or cluttered with off-shore oil drilling equipment. Our fishing communities, tourism communities and related businesses up and down the coast generate billions in economic activity and should not be put in jeopardy by drilling off shore.

Last, but certainly not least, the beautiful, rocky and rugged Northern California coastline would make cleaning up a spill extremely dangerous and difficult. Some argue that the rough terrain coupled with equally rough seas would make clean up impossible. And remember, our coast is earthquake prone, which only exacerbates the spill concern.

It is particularly difficult to understand why some would continue to promote this policy at a time of great advancement of renewable energy.

Renewables are many years away from displacing oil and we will always rely on some amount of oil. However, we need to be doubling down on our efforts to develop renewable energy technology, put these new innovations into operation and get as far away from oil as we can.

This is a tall order but we're entrepreneurs, innovators and, most important, Americans. We can and we will succeed.

Congressman Mike Thompson represents California's First Congressional District, which includes Lake County, in the US House of Representatives.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf .

On Thursday, May 13, the Clearlake City Council was forced to take some very drastic action in order to balance their budget so that they will continue to be able to pay their bills. The problem with the city of Clearlake’s finances is lack of adequate income. The cuts are major but would not have been nearly as severe if the Sierra Club had been willing to withdraw their lawsuit whose effect is to slow down, and perhaps eliminate, the Lowe’s project on the old airport property.

It is true the Sierra Club did not create the city’s current financial crises, but the lawsuit eliminates “the light at the end of the tunnel” that could have prevented many of the layoffs.

The future sales tax income – estimated by the Sierra Club’s own experts to be based on revenues of $38.2 million – of between $400,000 and $600,000 every year would have started in early 2012. The building of the project would have provided money for several city employees who would be working on the project thus making other general fund money available for the positions that had to be eliminated.

The airport property has been slated to be a business park since it was purchased by the city in 1996. The Clearlake Vision Task Force Report describes it as part of “the area which has the greatest potential to grow into an important source of employment and the retail center for the region.” The Lowe’s project fulfills this vision as the project also contains six additional retail business spaces.

It has taken time to find and negotiate a contract with a developer with an anchor tenant who would sign a contract and make the commitment to build the project. Lowe’s did this and the contractual obligations in the contract would have protected the city financially from building delays.

The Sierra Club lawsuit outlines a number of concerns, and states that a full environmental impact report (EIR) is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ). CEQA requires a full EIR only when substantial evidence exists that a project may result in significant impacts to the environment.

The studies done for this project that resulted in the negative declaration decision detail that significant impacts will either not occur or were mitigated within the project. Mitigating environmental effects is the purpose of CEQA. CEQA is not designed to stop a project; it is designed to protect the environment through mitigation of any significant environmental issues. In the case of the Lowe’s project the requirements under CEQA were satisfied.

The areas of the Sierra Club’s environmental concerns and the already accomplished resolutions are as follows:

Air quality: First, the Lake County Air Quality Management District agreed with the city’s assessment that the impacts on air quality by the Lowe’s project would be mitigated to less than significant. Second, the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions have decreased by 50 percent between 1990 and 2008. Additionally, an analysis meeting state requirements was done showing that greenhouse gasses would be decreased as much is possible. The Lowe’s store would actually exceed the state’s energy saving requirements by 20 percent. Greenhouse gasses also would be reduced when people shop locally instead of driving to Santa Rosa or Ukiah for building materials.

Traffic: A traffic study was completed by a registered traffic engineer and a total of $2.1 million in mitigation measures were required and built into the project to provide the improvements necessary to solve the traffic and circulation problems identified by the study. This is exactly what an environmental review is intended to accomplish – the mitigation of impacts.

Urban decay: The city of Clearlake is very aware of its status and actually has significantly more blight than urban decay. Blight is more severe than urban decay and the lawsuit will actually increase it because there is very likely to be an increase in crime with less police officers and more unabated public nuisance properties because of the elimination of the code enforcement program. Additionally, the elimination of the planning department will mean significant degradation of services to new businesses attempting to locate here. The city adequately addressed the potential for urban decay.

Although the above items are the ones listed in the lawsuit, another substantially different set of reasons is outlined in the Sierra Club’s position paper available at their Web site – http://redwood.sierraclub.org/lake.

Most of the items in the position paper are economic issues which would not be covered under CEQA and so would not be addressed in an EIR. Therefore the filing of a lawsuit requesting an EIR unnecessarily negates the time and effort that the city of Clearlake has devoted to creating a more livable city for its residents and begs the question – what is actually behind this lawsuit if it is not really environmental?

Susanne Scholz lives in the city of Clearlake.

I have been following the Clearlake airport saga over the last year, and, have come to the conclusion that it is time for the citizens of Lake County to begin thinking outside the box.

Our county board spends money for out-of-county people to do marketing and planning for our county's future. I believe it is time we take control, and come together to present our board with real local input. I question spending our money on big ad firms who look at Lake County as just another client. Our county's future is a personal thing to many of us.

I recently approached county Supervisors Denise Rushing and Jeff Smith and Clearlake City Administrator Dale Neiman with an idea for the south county's future should the Lowe's project fall through.

The concept divides the shares of redevelopment money into three sections. The old part of town and the airport split the money that’s left after the sewer system investment.

My concept is a long-term investment in the county. It is the belief that Lake County can be the premier vacation destination in Northern California. We need to create our own version of a cross between the attraction of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri. Tourists spend money to be entertained and to have fun. The scope of the concept involves Lower Lake all the way through to Clearlake on Highway 53.

Considering the airport property is along a major highway, with a lot of traffic, it is logical to put businesses that draw people to them. My suggestion was to entice Starbucks and In-N-Out Burger into investing in our county. We all know the In-N-Out Burger would draw out-of-county business and also be a familiar sight to many tourists. These are just two anchor businesses that could help the city of Clearlake’s tax intake and the county as a whole.

I also suggested creating an avenue of the wines with special attractions that other wine counties do not offer.

I believe we all need to contribute ideas that could become a reality in our county. We as citizens have a responsibility to find ways for the citizens to make money and not have to leave the county to make a decent living. My feeling is we need to have the voice of the citizens speak to the board's decisions for our future instead of another out-of-county firm telling us what we need to do. Let’s be local and plan our counties future together.

I am asking for input from people so I can put together a comprehensive marketing plan that I can present to the Board of Supervisors. So if you want to help me go beyond the usual talk about – well they should do this and why don’t they try that – please get in contact with me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The only way things happen in life is when we make them happen.

Keith Buter lives in Lucerne.

On Thursday, April 15, in the state of Wisconsin a federal court judge ruled as “unconstitutional” something that almost every president in the history of our nation has supported – certainly each president within our lifetimes – as well as many of the signers of the US Constitution.

Judge Barbara Crabb of United States District Court in Madison, Wis., ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

What is the National Day of Prayer? In 1777 it was the day that Congress set aside as a day of Thanksgiving to our “Divine Benefactor” for the new born United States.

In 1789 James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress; it included what we now call the First Amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The same Congress, which passed the First Amendment, asked President George Washington to declare a National Day of Prayer in 1789.

The president gladly complied, proclaiming, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

The finest minds in American history have long recognized that neither the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, guarantees the people “freedom from religion.” Rather, the law of our land requires the courts to refrain from creating laws which establish religion or prohibit free exercise of religion; proclaiming a day of prayer and thanksgiving neither establishes a religion nor prevents free exercise of it.

The lawsuit that led to the ruling last week was brought to the courts by a Madison, Wis.-based group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Their Web site describes their mission as follows, “The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism [sic],” and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”

Separation of church and state was not a constitutional principle according to any of the signers of the Constitution. In fact, the phrase comes from a personal letter from President Thomas Jefferson written to a Baptist minister guaranteeing him that the state would not do the very things that the Freedom From Religion Foundation are now doing.

The most poignant proclamations calling for National Days of Prayer have come at the darkest moments of our history, and have expressed the sighs of our souls and longing for a better future for our country.

My personal favorite was Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation two months after using the Emancipation Act and months before the horrors of Gettysburg:

“Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation. And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”

There is an appalling hubris at work in the acts of organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Judge Crabb’s ruling which seek to strip America of its soul, leaving nothing but a political machine in its wake.

Evidently President Barack Obama also disagrees with Judge Crabb because he has pledged that on May 6 he will issue a proclamation calling for a National Day of Prayer.

As with many of our freedoms, we often fail to appreciate what we have until we are in danger of losing them.

Personally, when asked to help plan a National Day of Prayer event in Lakeport this year I said I was “too busy.” I see now a different response is required.

A National Day of Prayer event will be offered at United Christian Parish, 745 N Brush St. in Lakeport, on Thursday, May 6, at 6 p.m. All are welcome.

Rev. Shannon Kimbell-Auth pastors United Christian Parish in Lakeport, Calif.