Paul: Just a minor point of correction if I may. Just because public employee unions advocate for their members (which is these organizations entire raison d'etre, after all) and just because city government sometimes withholds, at least initially, the identities of city employees involved in high profile news stories like this one, this is not *quite* the same as "work(ing) to keep the names of those in trouble 'secret.'" In truth in all but the rarest of cases, these identities are not really "secret" at all. They are known -and almost immediately- to city officials who have been elected specifically to represent the interests of the people of our community. With almost no exception, our elected Councilmembers are notified, immediately and -whenever possible- personally, whenever high profile incidents involving city employees occur.
Please also keep in mind that some identity information concerning public employees, and still more information concerning public safety employees, is actually and specifically exempted -as a matter of law- from public disclosure under certain and specific conditions.
So when some city officials decline to release such information, they are often simply following the law and the appropriate legal advice of the official we have put in office to advise them on such matters, our elected city attorney.

This bicyclist is SERIOUSLY INJURED!!!! The person who hit him left him to die!!!!
This whole thing smacks of bad principles... there is something that I've always believed in and that is "rigorous honesty". I just wish that the police department and the district attorney would be forthright and prudent - they are not.

Mr. Ruehle: Do you believe it to be either reasonable or necessary to denigrate and disparage Seal Beach Police Officers in the way that you have here? What possible constructive purpose does your insulting "apologize...and hand him a 12-pack" comment serve? Wasn't it SBPD who placed Hines under arrest and booked him in the first place? Doesn't California have specific statutory laws and criminal court precedures for the granting of bail and the releasing of persons in custody on that basis? Is it possible that the incident is still being investigated and/or that the OCDA is still assessing which charges may be the most appropriate to file in this case? Your inference that we can expect a cover-up or that one may already be in progress involving the OCDA simply does not comport with the facts currently available.

"It is up to us to organize the people. As for the bureaucrats in city government, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow them. Everything bureaucratic is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself." [Attributed to Chinese writer, 1945 - modified somewhat for application in Long Beach, California, 2011.]

According to reports, the incident occurred at 1:30 pm on April 1st. Hines was arrested at his home in Huntington Beach at approximately 2:00 pm and taken to the Seal Beach Police Station and booked as a felony hit & run DUI. The article indicates he was released that same "day." If you assume the booking at Seal Beach Police Station was completed at 3:00 pm, that means he was released less than 9-hours after being booked for a DUI. Is that enough time to become sober?

If he was actually released in the "day" time as opposed to the "night time, that would mean he was only held for 3-hours. Either way, I wonder how common it is for a police department to release a non-city worker in such a short time.

Also, a measly $50,000 bail seems awful low considering it was a felony hit & run.

How much cash do you have to put up on a $50K bond?

Absolutely correct. I am certainly biased towards holding city and elected officials accoutable for how they spend my tax dollars.

I've lived (and worked) in Long Beach since 1982. Remember the Pussycat Theatre and the Navy Locker Club on Ocean Blvd? I'd say this city has come a long way since then. Sure, there are bad aread of the city, but no more than any large metropolitan community. I've seen many so-called "community activists" who see conspiracy theories at every turn, and are never happy unless they have something to complain about.

LOL, so interesting, Paul. I assume you've lived here? I've lived here for decades and would never imagine it "The Slum by the Sea." Who calls it that, in your experience, people of modest income, or those with greater means?

(I've called it the toilet bowl for the LA Basin because of the LA River dumping effluent into a stagnant harbor/bay. This would be a radically different place if we had a wild coastline. But we don't any longer, and I doubt we ever will. It pisses me off that the ocean may as well be a backdropped illusion on a green screen, for all the use it is for a refreshing swim.)

Daughter Draper: (earnestly) Are we rich, Mommy?
Mother Draper: (pauses, smiles) It's not polite to talk about such things, honey.

Wendy: It is one thing to seek to try to create an awareness about Long Beach city officials and quite another to attempt to do so by posting knowingly false and blatantly misleading information, as Mr. Ruehle has made a habit of doing at various times, on various topics, and on various fora. Mr. Ruehle simply has not done so here, on this topic. At least that we know of. At least not yet.

Although we do not know the exact charge(s) SBPD booked Hines under, the presumptive bail schedule in Orange County for both "Hit and run: personal injury/death" (20001 CVC) and "Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (If a felony per Vehicle Code section 23550 or 23550.5)" is $50,000.
http://www.occourts.org/directory/criminal/felonybailsched.pdf
Where bail is granted, bonds are usually 10% of the total bail amount. The total amount of the bail is posted, but the defendant only puts up 10%, with the bond company remitting the remainder (for a fee, of course.)

How come everything you get from the Long Beach Police Department is clouded in secrecy and you can't rely on whether they have their facts straight or are lying to you. And this is the department charged with getting their facts straight.

I can just hear it now......"Sorry judge. Zerby didn't have a gun after all. I forgot to mention it was only a hose nozzle."

Nancy, don't you have some PR/Marketing people on-staff? It would be interesting to get their take on how the city (mis)handles its public image, or brand, or whatever the hell they're calling it these days. It's very close to being literally stunning, to me at least. They've got this huge public support dividend potential they're just squandering - all they have to do is get out in front of a damaging event and DO THE RIGHT THING AND QUICK - TRANSPARENTLY. (Somebody might have to sedate Mr. Shannon, Esq., and strap him to a mobility scooter, but it'd be a small price to pay for the positive pub and he needs a break anyhow.)

Richard,

I have a solution to your complaints. You can continue to focus on the positive like you want, and I'll continue to focus on ignoring your complaints about my questions. Doesn't that sound like a win-win (DeLong's favorite expression)?

Richard, doesn't it land you in the catagory of a hypocrite when you complain that other people are complaining?

I know that a tragedy like this leaves a lot of people suffering, including the friends and loved-ones of the Hines family. I am sorry for what you are going through.

Nancy: I agree that the Patch has not suggested any wrong-doing on the part of anyone but Mr. Hines. No, that was Mr. Ruehle, who for some reason felt it was pertinent to bring Off. Hines into the discussion even though she apparently was not present at the time of her husband's alleged crime and really had nothing to do with it other than to be left dealing with the tragic aftermath along with everone else. Given his own past personal experiences, I should think Mr. Ruehle would be a bit more aware of -and sympathetic toward- the friends and loved ones of DUI suspects. While it is apparently true that Off. Hines and others have been named in a civil rights violation lawsuit, this has *zero* bearing on her husband's current arrest for something entirely unrelated and over which Off. Hines apparently had no control. Mr. Ruehle's purpose in injecting Off. Hines into this discussion is despicably transparent. Off Hines is already down as a result of the lawsuit (note - I do not believe she has actually been found *guilty* of anything) as well as her husband's recent arrest. Off Hines is down, and Mr. Ruehle wants to kick her.

Thanks, John. It appears from the account in the story above:

"(Long Beach police Sgt. Rico Fernandez said Tuesday afternoon that Fawn Hines was no longer employed by the department, and referred further questions to the city's civil services agency. Calls requesting more details were referred to human relations, then to city spokesman ED KAMLAN, and by 9 p.m. he said the police department would call the next morning. On Wednesday, Fernandez learned that he misspoke and that Fawn Hines remains with the department.)"

and from the search linked below:

http://goo.gl/nzoJA

that Ed Kamlan's office is NOT the first that Patch reporters call - if they call him at all. If that assessment is correct... why?

Pan: I cannot answer your question, since I do not speak for city government or how or why it does some of the silly things it does. To me, the most efficient and effective approach would be to have a single PIO office that answers directly to the elected Council (rather than the appointed City Manager.) And that this office, and only this office, would have authority to issue official press releases or to answer official inquiries from the press about all city operations, regardless of department. This is not the case currently, wherein, unless things have changed, both PD and FD have PIO's in addition to the city PIO. This is not to say that there cannot be PD orn FD specialists within the city's PIO office, only that all PIO functions should be centrally located and centrally managed. In my humble opinion.

Interesting. One can speculate that one reason the city may prefer the PIO "organization" it has is that it serves to delay, deflect or fully prevent effective inquiry - the exact opposite of what I suggested above: a *central* *coordinating* press officer who helps an inquiring reporter establish - quickly, accurately and completely - background information they are compiling in support of a story.

If that speculation is accurate, it goes to explain the appearance of PR incompetency, and concomitant loss of public trust - a trust the city may feel is worth sacrificing for the practical (though unethical) benefits it may gain by "run-around" and "stonewall" tactics.

By these methods, public cynics are bred.

And one could just as readily speculate that there is no ill intent in the current approach and that it is currently being done in this way because it always has been. This is not to say that the approach could not or should not be changed, only that no one has gone to the effort to do so. One could also reasonably argue that the current approach actually serves to *shorten* necessary delays in official comments and responses because a department-based spokesperson is likely to be reachable more regularly, reliably and quickly than a more centralized citywide spokesperson might be. But truly, what I suggest is a simple administrative reorganization, moving the citywide PIO function from the CM to the Council and then staffing it with the very same employees who perform that function now. PD, Fire, Harbor, Airport and other department-centric spokesperson could still do what they are already doing, they would just have to answer directly to, and take direction from, one citywide PIO who, in turn, would answer drectly to and take direction from, our elected City Council. This suggestion makes the city's PIO function more responsive to the community, because whenever it is not, the voters have direct recourse through their elected Council, rather than through a Council appointee. In my humble opinion.

"But truly, what I suggest is a simple administrative reorganization, moving the citywide PIO function from the CM to the Council and then staffing it with the very same employees who perform that function now..."

John, that strikes me as a great idea; actually feel it a little in my gut which is usually a good sign. Anyone else see a flaw in it?

Hmm, why not let the public ELECT the citywide PIO. That could create a healthy tension all around and an even more direct accountability to the people.

This is an interesting idea and I might be willing to support such an initiative.

I believe it would require changing our Charter, which would require a general election, which could take some time and cost quite a bit of public money we really do not have right now.

The administrative change could occur in a matter of a day or two and cost us little to nothing, so long as the new Council-appointed PIO proved to be an existing city employee or so long as such a person was hired to replace another who had comparable pay and benefits and who would be, or had already been, discharged.

So, the administrative change could be mandated by... the council?

And how does one minimize the influence of ol' Shannon, Esq., and his "I cannnot direct, only advise" line. The idea of Shannon, Esq. inserted into this scenario makes my prostate hurt.

Yes, I believe the Council could require the administrative change I suggest without a need for a Charter change.

As to minimizing the influence of our elected City Attorney, I hope we never seek to do such a thing. As our current elected City Attorney, Mr. Shannon serves as the sole and exclusive legal advisor of the City, City Council and all City commissions, committees, officers and employees. Independent legal advice of this sort is critical to our government's functioning as far as possible in the most lawful manner possible.

He is entirely correct that his role is that of legal advisor to those groups and people mentioned. He can certainly direct his own staff, but he can only advise the Council, etc. Much as our most excellent elected City Auditor can only conduct independent audits and make recommendations based upon their findings, but has no authority to compel the Council to act on the recommendations she makes. Would that she could!

Much like the City Manager and City Clerk, A Council-appointed PIO would answer directly to our elected Mayor and Council who, ostensibly, answer directly to the voters.

Factor this in:

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/police-chief-autopsy-shows-doug-zerbys-arms-outstretched-when-officers-fatally-shot-him-2#comment_421875

And tell me if you believe our elected City Attorney would be consonant with the spirit of the change you propose.

In my opinion, the city must risk a little legal exposure to recover the public trust. IT MUST DO THE RIGHT THING UNEQUIVOCALLY. I judge Mr. Shannon constitutionally incapable of condoning that. And he appears to wield more influence, de facto, than his position legally defines.

I think it is more than possible and, in fact, highly desireable, for our elected public officials to speak on the record whenever tragedies like this occur and assuming they are moved to do so. The people have a right to hear from their elected government representatives during difficult times such as these. The people have a right to feel confident that their reasonable concerns have been heard and are being fully and appropriately considered. There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with our elected officials offering sincere public assurances along these lines.
I think it is more than possible for our elected public officials to fulfill this aspect of their responsibilities to us without acknowledging corporate guilt or admiting to civil or criminal liability. This they should *never* do unless/until facts are revealed that lead independent bodies to such a conclusion.
It is Mr. Shannon's job to advise our city council, etc accordingly and if that is what he did I find no fault with it. If, on the oher hand, he advised them with some variation of "say nothing." Then, yes, I would take considerable exception to that.
If part of our City Attorney's responsibilities include limiting corporate liability (and it is) then I would think he might support a single citywide, Council-appointed PIO office. One of the clear benefits of this approach would be to better manage the city's message during tragedies such as these, meeting public need while limiting corporate liability.

"I think it is more than possible for our elected public officials to fulfill this aspect of their responsibilities to us without acknowledging corporate guilt or admiting to civil or criminal liability. This they should *never* do unless/until facts are revealed that lead independent bodies to such a conclusion."

So a councilperson, privy to inside information that confirms malfeasance, should never nullify the legal process in the service of justice and truth?

That's the crux we writhe upon. What would Jesus do?

Hmm...you have added something to the mix and that changes the question considerably. Ethically speaking, any elected (or appointed) public official who believes he or she has personal knowledge of malfeasance must divulge this information to the independent body conducting the investigation.
That would be the proper manner to do so, so that his or her information may be properly investigated, confirmed, and then considered in proper context with all of the other factual information, both mitigating and aggravating, being compiled and considered. No information, whatever its character, exists in a vacuum. Nor should any one person, public or private, presume to decide -entirely on their own- the criminal or civil guilt or innocence of anyone else. This is why we have a system of investigations and of jurisprudence...so that all information available can first be collected and evaluated, and so a trier of fact can reach a reasonable and just conclusion based upon all of the evidence at hand, and not simply one piece or another.
The Councilperson in your hypothetical who handled his or her information in this way, would not be "nullifying" the legal process but, rather, supporting and upholding it, as they swore an oath, in part, to do.

Have you ever lost faith in the system?

I would say I have often lost faith in our ability to maintain constructive control of our various systems of self-government. If a given governmental system fails, here, in this greatest and most free of all nations, it is becasuse those responsible for creating, monitoring, adjusting and maintaining these governmental systems (we, the people) have failed to meet our responsibilities to do so.
Do you agree that we, the electors, have the ultimate authority and responsibility to effectively control our government? Do you agree that we, the electors, have the ultimate authority and responsibility to place the sorts of people in elected office who will assist us in exercising these authorities and meeting these responsibilities, either directly or by appointing others who will help them to do so?
Do you agree that Long Beach is a municipal corporation and we, the electors, are its owners...its shareholders? Our Council is its Board of Directors, the Mayor is its Chair and the City Manager is its CEO. As in any corporation, our corporation's CEO is an important and powerful figure and he appoints many department heads, bureau chiefs, division administrators, and section coordinators to help him run our corporation. But our CEO still works for our Board, and our Board still works for us. I think we too easily and too often forget this simple truth.
We can only delegate some of our authority. But never any of our responsibility.

I think that Humpty's badly broke, and the king's horses and men are making an omelette of
his remains. Quite happily, I might add.

Ol' Humpty is flagging badly, but still testy.

The illusion is "bottom up", the reality is "top down", near as I can tell, John.

Hey, John, thanks for banging it around, I learned a lot. Cheers, Pan

Likewise, Pan. It was a pleasure!

1. Mr. Ruehle offers *zero* proof that Sgt. Fernandez lied. For Mr. Ruehle to make such a claim without offering proof is despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous. This is also extremely ironic, given Mr. Ruehle's own propensity for *intentionally* posting false and misleading information on this forum and others
2. I suspect that The Patch claims Sgt. Fernandez "misspoke" because, like Mr. Ruehle, it has no proof to the contrary and, unlike Mr. Ruehle, it is not interested in publishing remarks about public officials that are despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous
3. Mr. Ruehle claims he can provide examples of police spokespeople frequently lying or misleading the public, yet conveniently fails to do so. If he ever does so, I suspect what we are more likely to read is a long list of public comments that Mr. Ruehle feels a need to mischaracterize as lies, when in fact they are not. Much as he has now done in the case of Sgt. Fernandez
4. As was made clear yesterday, John Hines' bail amount seems to be in complete compliance with the current OC bail schedule. Mr. Ruehle offers *zero* proof that any person or organization brought any undue inflluence to bear upon the bail decision made in this case
5. Mr. Ruehle's method of discussion and debate remains one of intentional falsehoods, blatant misdirections, rhetorical obfuscations and deflections, and unfounded allegations entirely bereft of any offering of factual proof

How is it possible that John B. Greet (former police officer, sergeant and detective) in a 20-year law enforcement career did not learn the difference between slander, which is spoken, and libel, which is written? It can’t be that he thinks a blog post is a spoken defamation because he uses “slanderous” to describe “publishing” in one sentence.

Examples of Greet’s legal expertise:

“The BelmontShore-NaplesPatch, however, is apparently not so willing to slander Sgt. Hernandez. This is how the Patch has chosen to report this information:”

“Mr. Ruehle offers *zero* proof that Sgt. Fernandez lied. For Mr. Ruehle to make such a claim without offering proof is despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous.”

“… it is not interested in publishing remarks about public officials that are despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous”

Mr. Ruehle is correct. I inadvertently mis-identified his offense as slander when what he has actually committed against Sgt. Fernandez is more appropriately referred to as libel. I stand most humbly corrected and I assure readers that I will not again mistake what some may consider the often slanderous comments Mr. Ruehle sometimes utters when speaking publicly, with the libelous written comments he posts on fora such as this. Mr. Ruehle was right to correct me in this and I willingly except his correction.
Now if only he would make some small effort to correct his libelous comments concerning Sgt. Fernandez. I suspect he will not do so, any more than he has made any attempt to correct any one of the many other intentionally false and misleading comments he has posted here and elsewhere. Mr. Ruehle does not appear to believe that he should be held accountable for the intentionally false and misleading comments he posts on fora such as this.
I intend to disabuse him of that notion.

So says recently retired Long Beach Police Officer Greet.

Yes, so say I.
I also say that those who would seek to engage in a debate or a discussion with others should not offer intentional falsehoods and blatant misdirections to support their positions. They should not lodge allegations of professional misconduct without concurrently offering proof, and they should not intentionally slander others, or rhetorically kick people while they are down. Mr. Ruehle engages in all of these despicable tactics on a routine basis and from now on every single time he does so, either here or elsewhere, I intend to call him on it.
Mr. Ruehle seems to thrive on attention. I hope he will enjoy mine.

Mr. Ruehle will never prove it because I think he knows he cannot do so. I think he knew he could not prove it when he said it, but I do not think he expected anyone to take notice or, if they did, to mention it. So common have his intentionally false and misleading statements become on public sites like these. Mr. Ruehle was right to correct my error, however, and I appreciate the correction. He did not commit slander, I believe he committed libel. And were I Sgt. Fernandez, I would consider filing a civil suit against Mr. Ruehle for doing so. Perhaps if folks started holding Mr. Ruehle more accountable for his habitual dishonesty on public sites like these, he might start to adjust his behavior.

Hi Nancy, thanks for your comment. For my part I apologize for spending so much space, here, confronting Mr. Ruehle on those of his comments that were libelous and intentionally false and misleading. Mr. Ruehle is not likely to change his habits in this area but it is very difficult to read ths comments of his that meet those descriptions and not make some effort to call attention to them.
Again, my apologies.

Respectfully, Pan, I too am one of those writers and commentators and am pleased and happy that Patch has looked for diversity in our communities for contributors and writers. Distinctly male on this end. Paige and Nancy do great jobs as editors and they both have very strong writing staff. Thanks!

Hey Seth

Do you think The Patch will be able to bridge the tension of polar opposites like diggity dogs and bait balls?

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/diggity-dogs-looking-for-loveand-a-home#photo-5668779

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/group-of-killer-whales-feeding-on-fish-an-unusual-sight-2

Or will readers only tolerate each others stark differences in temperament and taste, shudder quietly, and pass silently like well-behaved consumers at the mall?

I suppose you think responding to the questions directly will disarm me. Ha! When words fail, call on The Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbydnc-vNjM

In case any of you mugs got this wrong, love The Patch. Toughest little rag on the block.

The editors here are a bulldog. They got sand. The LBReport & greaterlongbeach, too.

May you all grow stronger together. The Slum by the Sea needs you, like Pauly sez.

I would argue that nepotism in police departments *can* put public safety at risk as this article clearly illustrates. When nepotism does put public safety at risk, we have access to legal remedies to that challenge, as I think this article *also* clearly illustrates.
Because a community can also greatly *benefit* from positive aspects of nepotism (also referred to as patronage) we should avoid blanket prohibitions against this practice. LBPD, at least, does appear to have some restrictions in this area and these may, in fact, be citywide. To the best of my recollection, former LBPD Chief Lance accepted a service retirement when his son was appointed to the police academy.
That Long Beach has clearly benefitted from the informal practice of patronage in its police department is, I think, inarguable. One need only look to such prominent Long Beach Police families as the Fosters, the Rose's, the Robertsons, and several others for clear proof of this. A blanket prohibition against the hiring of those kids-of-cops would also have severely diminished the overall quality of our public safety!
Wherever police misconduct occurs it is wrong and those who commit it should be dealt with quickly and severely.
But let's avoid throwing out the police babies with the bathwater, shall we?

Mr. Ruehle is certainly entitled to his opinions, however ill-founded in fact or unsupported by evidence they so often are.
Neither the Fire nor HR departments are discussing Hines' work status or disciplinary measures because they are exempted from doing so as a matter of statutory law. Mr. Ruehle appears to prefer to be able to pick and choose from among the laws we should and should not follow. Mr. Ruehle seems to take great pleasure in routinely tossing out allegations against others for which he offers no proof and for which he is rarely held to answer.
Capt. Hines has been arrested, booked and suspended without pay pending the completion of an investigation. He will no doubt face extremely serious criminal charges in the coming weeks and months. Yet Mr. Ruehle has already determined Capt. Hines is guilty, not having been at the scene and not having access to any of the physical evidence in the case. One can only hope that Mr. Ruehle is never allowed to serve on a jury in a criminal trial, for in his mind, apparently, no trials are necessary...Mr. Ruehle already knows everything he needs to know to render *his* verdict.

Mr. Ruehle has no problem with making potentially libelous statements either. If I were a public servant, and Mr. Ruehle made such statements about me I'd have his behind in court so fast it would make his head spin.

Mr. Ruehle apparently finds the truth to be "laughable." I suppose that could explain, at least in part, why he has been proven to sometimes knowingly post false and misleading comments concerning various topics on this site and others.
Mr. Ruehle's link is interesting and he has posted it before. But it in no way refutes the fact that I offered, it merely serves to deflect attention from that fact because, as we now see, Mr. Ruehle finds facts to be "laughable."
Part of the reason cities like Long Beach choose to avail themselves of their statutory exemptions in the case of employees who have been accused of misconduct, may be because the investigations are often still in progress (as is currently the case with Capt. Hines) and, in the event the employee is ultimately exonerated, releasing such information prematurely would not be fair to the employee who, despite being a public servant, still has a right to fair treatment under the law from his or her employer. Mr. Ruehle seems to believe that this should not be the case also. A city reserving its legal right to restrict comment on such matters does not necessarily equate to a "cover up." It just suits Mr. Ruehle's biases to allege that it does.

I interpret that quote as telling city staff they need to do what his office tells them to do. I've had many, many, many discussions with DeLong in the past. There is no middle ground with him. It's either his way or the hiway. DeLong's version of "win-win" is when you do exactly as he says.

I have also had many conversations with Mr. DeLong concerning many public policy issues upon which we do not always agree. In every case he has listened attentively and with courtesy, respect and due consideration. Perhaps this is the case because I, in turn, offer him the very same consideration, courtesy and respect. When we disagree I do not berate him. When he follows a public policy path that differs from my personal preference, I do not accuse him.
For better or worse, Mr. DeLong represents an entire Council District, comprised of tens of thousands of residents and, as well as possible, he must find a reasonable way to balance the needs and preferences of a true majority of them with all of the other legitimate interests within the district, including those of businesses which, whether Mr. Ruehle likes it or not, are also a very important and necessary part of our community. The fees and taxes they pay, the products and services they offer, and the many local jobs they provide are all aspects *essential* to the overall health and well-being of our community.
Mr. Ruehle represents *himself.* Whenever someone disagrees with him, he insults them. Whenever someone suggests a path other than that which he advocates, he berates them. When he finds facts he does not like, he misrepresents them. When he can find no facts, he manufactures them.
The louder, more insulting and more disingenuous Mr. Ruehle becomes, the less people listen. He is often his own worst enemy.

For those who are unaware, retired police officer John Greet has been Councilman DeLong's defender, lackey and lobbyist for as long as Councilman DeLong has been in public office. Whenever ANYONE questions DeLong, officer Greet immediately becomes the comment board police.

Officer Greet also is the comment police whenever someone questions Long Beach police misconduct. The bond between DeLong and Greet is obvious because officer Greet continues to lobby for DeLong even after DeLong blamed the police for letting 2nd street bar disturbances get out of hand. Greet would have been all over anyone else who suggested the police were at fault for anything.

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_17915810?source=rv

Just as I said:
"Whenever someone disagrees with him, he insults them. Whenever someone suggests a path other than that which he advocates, he berates them. When he finds facts he does not like, he misrepresents them. When he can find no facts, he manufactures them."

The bicyclist, identified by [Seal Beach] police as Jeffrey Gordon, 47, of Garden Grove, was admitted to Long Beach Memorial Medical Center with head trauma. [THE PATCH HAD BEEN AFTER THE VICTIM'S IDENTITY FROM THE OUTSET. WHEN FINALLY IDENTIFIED BY SB POLICE, WHY WAS THE NAME PROVIDED ONLY TO THE PT?] He has since been released in good condition, according to hospital officials. [HOW SERIOUS WERE HIS INJURIES? HOW LONG WAS HE HOSPITALIZED?]

Long Beach civil service rules allow [BUT DO NOT REQUIRE?] the city to suspend an employee who is accused of committing a felony for [EXACTLY?] 30 working days [M-F?, I.E., 30 WORKING DAYS = APPX SIX CALENDAR WEEKS?] while officials conduct an administrative investigation. Within that period, the city must determine whether to return the employee to work, fire him or take other disciplinary action.

"He has not been working since the day of the occurrence," the source said. "He's been suspended without pay pending the outcome of the investigation."

The official suspension didn't go into effect until about a week after the April 1 incident [WHEN?] and will end May 20, [30 WORKING DAYS FROM FRIDAY APRIL 8 - THE DAY TV NETWORK NEWS BEGAN COVERING THE STORY AS IF IT HAD JUST OCCURRED] the source said.

[ http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/bicyclist-suffers-head-trauma-after-being-struck-by-an-allegedly-drunk-hit-and-run-driver#comment_528698 ] (more)

Officials with Long Beach Fire Department and the Human Resources Department wouldn't discuss Hines' work status or disciplinary measures this week.

"We're not able to comment on specific personnel matters," Human Resources Director Debbie Mills said. "Of course, it's the city's policy to investigate all allegations of misconduct." [HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT INFORMATION BEING RELEASED BY A RELIABLE SOURCE?]

If disciplinary action is taken against Hines, he has the right to appeal the decision to the Long Beach Civil Service Commission.

Hines may face criminal charges by next week, according to Seal Beach police spokesman Sgt. Steve Bowles. Police are still finishing their investigation before turning it over to the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

"They're definitely in the final stages of preparing all the paperwork and completing the investigation," Bowles said. "We should get all the paperwork over to the DA next week." [THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ALL OUTLETS VIA PRESS RELEASE?] (more)

Witnesses to the accident told police that the bicyclist was traveling east in the bike lane on Westminster Avenue near Bolsa Chica Street when a Chevrolet truck swerved into the bike lane and struck the cyclist while going about 60 mph. [WHAT WAS THE SPEED LIMIT?]

The collision caused the cyclist to be catapulted from the front of the vehicle, landing on the dirt shoulder of the roadway, police said.

Witnesses followed the vehicle and driver to a residence in Huntington Beach, where the driver was arrested, police said.

[WHO WERE THE WITNESSES, WHAT DID THEY SAY? READ THIS ARTICLE ON THE PATCH TO FIND OUT. APPARENTLY, THE PT DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME. OR SOMETHING.]

[NO OTHER OUTLETS REPEATED THE PT'S RELIABLY SOURCED UPDATED INFO FROM WHAT I COULD FIND. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.]

It appears the City of Long Beach only releases information to the media outlet that spins the information in the best possible light for the City. In my opinion, impartial news is an alien concept to the Press Telegram. The PT has become a PR organization for the expressed purpose of promoting the city of Long Beach and reports straight to City Manager Pat West.

When Mr. Ruehle is right, he is definitely right. The OCR seems to routinely cover most news stories in greater depth and with greater specificity than does the PT.

That said, when Mr. Ruehle characterizes Hines' $50k bail as "measly" he neglects to mention the fact that the bail granted was *fully compliant* with the current Orange County Bail Schedule for the offenses for which Hines was arrested.

Ms. Burns I must respectfully disagree.
Many individuals and news organizations (including the Patch) routinely report upon a lot of wrongdoing in LB. But only Mr. Ruehle, and a few sycophantish followers, resort to knowingly posting false and blatantly misleading comments in reporting their information or in support of their pre-determined conclusions.
When Mr. Ruehle strays from simply reporting his (sometimes excellently researched) information and from offering well-reasoned and courteous opinions and, instead, begins posting comments that are sometimes so blatantly false as to be libelous, or when he asserts information that he knows (or reasonably should know) to be untrue, or when he asserts information in a manner that is so clearly misleading with the intent of convincing others to his points of view, or when he resorts to the offering of insult, and dismissiveness and denigration toward those who dare to disagree with him, then he is not on the right side of the law nor is he providing any sort of constructive or productive service to his readership or to our community as a whole.

Here's one for you, Richard: John & Mike could be in cahoots. Wouldn't that be a knee-slapper? ;-)

Yip, Pan, you've found us out. The Patch actually pays us all to stir the pot and generate interest...

Well, if they paid the bloggers, they wouldn't be able to pay US, so, um, buck the floggers, with all due respect...