HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB1- Police City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Police Department
Interoffice Memorandum by:ntered Into Ree, c 4CC/CpG ( 9,A/ /JC
by: It an-) No._
To: Ter7.)er,(A istant to City Manager by'
City Clerk/ [?C
From: Kei Kilmer, hie of Police
City of San Sernaresino�ry
Subject: PC 290 Registrant working at the Church of the Nazarene
Date: September 2, 2009 ORIGINAL
Per our conversation 1 have prepared this document to assist your office in reviewing this issue
as well as to inform you of the steps the Police Department has taken to investigate this matter
and ensure public safety.
On Wednesday, August 26, 2009, Kent Paxton notified Captain Ernie Lemos and members of
the San Bernardino County Department of Children Services (Child Protective Services) alerting
them to the possibility that a registered Sex Offender, Jason Hoyt, was allowed to visit and work
near the campus of the central Operation Phoenix facility and the Soar School Academy. Mr.
Paxton indicated that the subject was the step-grandfather of a child that attended the "Soar
Academy" and that he was a volunteer at the Nazarene Church with Pastor Rhone's permission.
Based on that information Captain Lemos contacted Parks& Recreation Director Kevin Hawkins
and informed him of the situation. Captain Lemos confirmed Hoyts' status information based on
the Meagan's Law website and gave that information to Mr. Hawkins. Captain Lemos suggested
to Mr. Hawkins that he share the information witli members of his staff at the Operation Phoenix
Center so they could be aware of his possible presence and ensure that there would be no
interaction between the children and the registrant.
Captain Lemos notified Captain Scott Paterson who is in charge of the Investigations Division
and Captain Paterson started a more detailed investigation into the matter. Sergeant Keith
Prostler, the department expert on child crimes, researched the issue and found that the Hoyt was
a volunteer and member at the church and that Pastor Rhone knew he was a past sex offender.
Rhone indicated that Hoyt worked largely at the church facility on Saturdays and Sundays at his
request.
During his investigation Sergeant Prostler determined that the Sheriffs Department had
(originally) been called about this situation because of a child custody case where the natural
father of the aforementioned student (Hoyt's step granddaughter) contacted the Sheriff's
Department and indicated that his wife was living with the sex registrant (Hoyt) and that Hoyt
was visiting the school to pick up his daughter. Based on that information, the Sheriffs
Department opened an investigation.
TRr.sBPD IS COMMIT7'ED'TO PROVIDING.
PRO GRFSSiVi;QU.ALI'IY POLICE SHRVI(Z
A SAFE ENVIRONMFNT'ro IMPRoVT'nfE Qu u.ITV'i I-LIFE;
1 REDUCTION IN CRIMF'n IROUGH PROBUiM RFCOGNI'nON AND PROBI.F.M SOLVING
Page 2
On Monday, August 31, 2Noq, at Captain Paterson's direction, a meeting with the Executive
Director of Soar, the Charter School facility, and Pastor Rhone was initiated. Parks &
Recreation Director Kevin Hawkins was unable to attend. During the meeting Lieutenant Keil
and Sergeant Prostler teamed that Jason Hoyt was never actually a handyman for the church.
Hoyt did general contractor work for a company that worked for the church, but that he had no
contact with any of the children.
Hoyt is currently employed by a company that installs new air conditioning and does air
conditioning maintenance and repair. As an employee Hoyt does not enter the north campus
where the schools are located. Pastor Rhone confirmed the fact that Hoyt is a member of his
church and currently helps at the church on Saturdays with the food distribution program and
attends worship services on Sundays.
Currently there are three related programs on the church grounds; one being the "Soar' Charter
School, the second being the "Operation Phoenix Center" and the third, the "Valley Christian
Pre-school". All three campuses are located on the north end of the facility, as related to the
church building, with the church located to the south. According to Sergeant Prostler, an
agreement has been reached that was written into the "Soar " lease that any work completed by
Hoyt would be done only in the southern portion of the building (Church), not the school
building and that Hoyt would not have access to any portion of the campus where children's
programs are held.
The directors of all three children's operations, Ms. Lancaster, Soar; Mr. Hawkins, Operation
Phoenix; and Pastor Rhone, Valley Christian Pre-school, were made avmre of Hoy.'s presence
and the stipulations that have been placed on him by the church. "Soar" Executive Director,
Trisha Lancaster, indicated that all of her operations were conducted Monday through Friday
without any weekend events. Ms. Lancaster indicated she had not contacted the school district
regarding the matter as Hoyt was no longer working in and around the school. Hoyt's employer,
who is also aware of Mr. Hoyt's past, has indicated that to help alleviate any problems he would
have Hoyt work on other jobs outside of the area.
Sergeant Prostler contacted the San Bernardino County Child Protective Services (CPS) and is
working with them to monitor Mr. Hoyt and his family. The Police Department will work
closely with the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department to jointly review and share
information related to this matter and any reported violations will be thoroughly investigated and
forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution.
At this point it appears that because Mr. Hoyt was acting as a parent when he visited the school
to pick up his girlfriend's daughter, and because the work he conducted at the facility was done
at the request of the church, Mr. Hoyt is compliant with State and local law.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Entered Into Rec. at MCGCDC Mtg;
by; Q �t
Agenda No; Nbl
by: _ �f�- -ham (Ij- e�
CIty Clert DC Secreta
NOTIFICATION OF CON 2JE&a �
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER IN YOUR AREA
Name: JASON JOHN HOYT
Date of Birth: 12-01-1974
Height: 5'9"
Weight: 280
i
Eyes: Brown
Hair: Brown
Last know address: 265 W. 10' St,#3
San Bernardino 92410 WIN E
The purpose of releasing this information is to allow members of the public to protect themselves and
their children from sex offenders (California Penal Code Sections 290 and 290.45).
JASON JOHN HOYT, a convicted and registered sex offender, has been
discovered to be working/volunteering at the FIRST CHURCH OF THE
NAZARENE.
3
JASON JOHN HOYT has been convicted of Penal Code § 288(a) — Lewd and
Lascivious Acts with a Child under 14 Years Old— and Penal Code § 285 —Incest.
JASON JOHN HOYT is required to register as a "Sex Offender" as a result of his
convictions for these crimes. The nature of JASON JOHN HOYT's crimes leads
i the San Bernardino City Attorney's Office to believe he poses a possible threat to
j public safety.
This information is being released pursuant to Megan's Law(listed within California Penal Code§290)and Penal Code§
290.45, which authorize law enforcement agencies to inform the public when the release of information will enhance public
safety and protection.
It is illegal to use information obtained in this bulletin to commit a crime against a registered sex offender or to engage in
illegal discrimination or harassment against a registered sex offender. A person is authorized to use this information only to
protect themselves or a child at risk. Penalties for illegal use ofthis information are listed in California Penal Code§290.46
I
TRANSCRIPT - REPORT OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER WORKING AT THE
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE NEAR THE CAMPUS OF THE CENTRAL
OPERATION PHOENIX FACILITY AND THE SOAR SCHOOL ACADEMY
Kelley: I don't know about everybody else, but I've received a letter here on the dais at the
beginning of this meeting that really is an issue that arose after the posting of the agenda and
it's from our Chief Kilmer regarding an incident that's happened at the Soar Academy in and
around the Operation Phoenix area so I'd like this to be moved to maybe the Ways and Means
Committee or . . . Mr. Penman, I want to be able to discuss this and I'm not too sure what the
process is. It's an issue that arose after the posting of the agenda, unless somebody else has
information that I'm not aware of.
Penman: Well, you can discuss it as part of your announcements, you can ask that it be
referred to Ways and Means, you can ask that it be considered as an agenda item where the
need to take action arose after the agenda was posted. I think you have several options.
Kelley: Well, my concern is. . . Did all the members of the public receive this—or the
members on the dais receive this? It is concerning.
Morris: Why don't we have it referred to the Ways and Means Committee which you serve
s upon and bring this back at a future date.
Kelley: If I can get a second for it.
McCammack: I would recommend that—if it's this item that you're talking about—I would
recommend that we at least have a discussion because evidently it's been in existence for a
while and if it were me, I would be asking that action be taken today.
Kelley: It's regarding the Department of Child Protective Services and it's alerting regarding
a possible registered sex offender. It's near the Operation Phoenix facility and the Soar
Academy—and just given the history that we've had, I just don't want to have to go through
{ any more agony regarding this.
1
I
f
McCammack: I would recommend, if it were me, and I just glanced through it myself, I
would be moving that we take action, but we need a vote of the Council to discuss it because it
has arisen after the posting of the agenda, so I would make that motion, at least.
Estrada: I'm not quite sure how we're addressing this since—what is the topic—you want to
refer it to Ways and Means under what topic I mean there's no mention of what this is.
Morris: This is marked—I just received a copy of this as well and it is marked confidential.
Penman: It's not confidential any longer your Honor—I saw the same thing earlier. I called
upstairs and informed the office that we had a memo from the Police Chief saying there is a
registered sex offender at the Operation Phoenix center and he'd been there for some time and
the Pastor knew about it and allowed him to be there and while they've worked it out now that
he's not there while Operation Phoenix is in operation, apparently, the Soar Charter School is
still open during the week and so is the regular school of the church. I'm concerned that this is
dated September 2 and our office wasn't informed of it and the City Charter requires the City
Manager to immediately inform the City Attorney of any legal issues and this is replete with
legal issues, but the conclusions in this document are very disturbing. It says that because the
work that the man conducted at the facility was done at the request of the church, he was
compliant with State and local law, but that makes no sense. I mean, if the church asked him
to run the preschool program, we've checked the man and he is a registrant for lewd and
lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, and apparently, Mayor, your office referred
this to the Police Department on August 26, and I commend you for doing that, but in my
checking briefly with the Police Chief I learned that the parents of the children at the Operation
Phoenix center, at the Soar School Academy, and at the school there on the church grounds,
have not been notified that this gentleman is a member of the congregation, was doing
handyman work there around the facility, he had access to the children—whether he went near
them I don't know—but this memo is very disturbing. It appears that from what I've gathered
in the brief conversation with Police officials, that the pastor felt that the man had a right to be
there because he is a member of the church, and my thought is, that may be true, but we have
a right to have the Operation Phoenix center there, or not have it there, and I don't understand
why this pastor wasn't told. You've got your choice, you can keep Operation Phoenix here
and this man can go to another church or you can keep him here and Operation Phoenix can go
somewhere else. But I think the fact that the City has a big program going on there with
children, not to mention the fact that the former center director is sitting in jail on charges of
molesting a child. Now we find out that there is another registered sex offender, not that the
first man was, but there is a registered sex offender who's affiliated with the church, is
apparently under the protection of the church, he is roaming around there, and I'm happy to
hear that he is no longer supposed to be there while the children are there, but how do we
know that, I mean, it sounds like the pastor has a pretty close relationship with the man and is
kind of protecting him. I'm just stunned. I also don't understand why our office wasn't
notified. This memo is dated September 2 and if your office notified the Police on August 26,
I wonder how long the City knew and why our office wasn't involved because there are
certainly some preventative steps that we would have recommended had we known about this.
Morris: Mr. McNeely.
McNeely: My understanding is in talking to the Chief is that they have investigated this and I
would suggest that if the Council is interested we can simply refer this to committee and the
Chief and staff can be prepared to bring in the necessary information and discuss. . .
McCammack: Time out, time out, you guys. We have what appears to me to be parents that
have not been notified that there is a registered sex offender in and around a location where
they are sending their children to preschool and school and we're going to wait to tell them?
This is ridiculous. It is very ridiculous Mr. City Manager. Let me tell you something. If my
kid went to this preschool and somebody didn't tell me, this City would be all over the map
with knowledge of how this City didn't care about its kids or its parents.
McNeely: I think this has been dealt with by not only the Police, but also by the Parks and
Recreation Department.
McCammack: Okay. Mr. City Manager. Mr. City Manager. If this man has been
convicted of incest and acts with a 14 year old and he's been convicted and he's registered on
Megan's Law website, he shouldn't be anywhere near our Operation Phoenix children—period!
I am incensed that your attitude is let's just—what I'm actually more incensed about to be
honest with you is that we're finding it out accidentally, which tells me Mayor if your office
knew about it before August 26, we as Council members should have been informed because
we have a responsibility to make sure that our Operation Phoenix centers that we're funding
and that we're paying rent to this pastor who hired this guy, we need the ability to make a
decision whether or not we want this to continue.
Morris: Ms. McCammack, I referred it directly upon my office obtaining information about it
to the Police Department for an appropriate and full investigation and that's what has been
obtained, is a full investigation. . .
McCammack: Okay, let me read the full investigation to you. "At this point it appears that
because Mr. Hoyt was acting as a parent when he visited the school to pick up his girlfriend's
[grand]daughter, and because the work he conducted at the facility was done at the request of
the church, Mr. Hoyt is compliant with State and local law." That can't even possibly be true.
So if that's a full investigation, then we need to ask the District Attorney to investigate the
investigation.
Penman: And your Honor I talked to the Chief and all he did was look at it criminally, there
was no attention at all given to the City's potential liability and the moral duty we have to the
parents and the children who are in the preschool, the Soar Academy, and the Operation
Phoenix center. Now, Mayor, we already had one man down there who molested a little girl,
so what is going on here.
Morris: Mr. Penman, let's do this. Let's . . .
McCammack: I move that we take action upon this item—it arose after the posting of the
agenda and I think this Council has a moral responsibility to actually take some action today,
Mayor.
Penman: Somebody better notify the parents, Mayor, or my investigators are going to go
over there tomorrow morning and they are going to notify every parent that drops a kid off.
Morris: Let's do this. Since we referred it to the Police Chief for an appropriate
investigation, let's call upon the Police Chief. Mr. Kilmer.
McCammack: We got it right here. Why do we need it regurgitated?
Morris: Just a minute, Ms. McCammack.
Kilmer: Mayor and members of the Council. The memo that you have before you was not
intended for you at this particular meeting.
McCammack: Why not?
Kilmer: It was not written as a full investigation as you refer to it, Councilwoman.
McCammack: Why wasn't a memo like this intended for us?
Kilmer: Let me just respond to the question and some of the issues that I've heard mentioned
here briefly. The department was notified of a 290 registrant who was convicted of crimes or
found to be a registrant or a registrable offender about 15 years ago. The particular person
that we're talking about is not a supervised registrant. If they were a supervised registrant for
certain types of crimes and they were classified accordingly, then they would be required by
law to stay a certain distance away from particular locations such as schools, parks, places
where children congregate. This offender is not under that particular screen. There are certain
rules for making community notifications. I would suggest that if you want to discuss this in
some more detail we would do this in a closed session. The memo that you have before you is
not intended as a full and complete investigation. We do have detectives that worked on this.
We have the Sheriffs Department that also conducted a criminal investigation and under the
facts that were presented when we went out and interviewed persons at that whole complex—
the church, the school, etc., there was no detectable, criminal offense that was found. So
i
that's my response to what I've heard tonight. I mean, if you want more detail we can
certainly go out and provide that to you in whatever format you would request that in.
i
Penman: Well, it can't be done in closed session, because this is not a closed session matter.
The criminal investigation is over according to this memo. The problem now is that the City
has a contract and a relationship with that church and that man, according to this report, is a
parishioner there and the pastor tends to let him stay there and he was there unsupervised, and
it's fine to say that he's not as serious a sex offender as someone else, but my office has
brought down the Megan's Law printout that says he was convicted of 288(a) - Lewd and
lascivious acts with a child under 14 years. I think that's pretty serious, Mayor.
Kilmer: It is a serious crime and any crimes are serious, but what I'm trying to. . .
Penman: Why didn't you call the parents of the children there?
Kilmer: What I'm trying to get across to you is that notification has to be done a certain way
depending on the classification.
Penman: Chief, you don't have to get that across that to me because as the City Attorney I've
been involved in giving these notifications under Mayor Minor and under Mayor Valles and
Mayor Minor and Mayor Valles whenever they found out that a registered sex offender was in
an area with children, they sent the City Attorney's investigator's out after meeting with the
Police Chief and the City Attorney to inform the parents and the people in that neighborhood
of the registered sex offender. This man is right there with a preschool, with an elementary
school, and with the City's Operation Phoenix. This isn't just some sex offender who is living
in a neighborhood. This guy is right there where our kids are and we've got a responsibility.
McCammack: And might I add, Mayor, that this man, and Chief I don't know if you know
this or not, this man was convicted last August 2008 of spousal abuse.
Kilmer: And that is not the type of offense that we're talking about in relation to. . .
McCammack: We're talking about a man that shouldn't be anywhere near our Operation
Phoenix kids, that's what we're talking about, and I believe we have a moral responsibility to
do something about it. And if you guys didn't tell us and we found out accidentally, that's
disturbing to me. We're the policy makers here. We decide whether or not Operation
Phoenix stays open, and no one brought it to us.
McNeely: Mr. Mayor, I would point out as the Chief has said, if the Council is desirous of
more information beyond this, certainly the Police Department can provide that and then at that
point you can decide if you want to take further action, agendize it, however you want to do it.
McCammack: No, I think you're missing the point Mr. City Manager. I think we need to
take immediate action.
Morris: May I ask Ms. McCammack what is that action that you're intending to make here
today?
McCammack: I'll tell you, personally, first we need to make a motion to discuss it and have
it agendized. That's my opinion, so I would make the motion.
Morris: To what end, madam?
McCammack: You know what, at this point, I think we need to have it on the table as an
agenda item.
Morris: To what end?
McCammack: That's my motion, that we actually discuss this as an item that arose after the
posting of the agenda that in my opinion requires action of some. . .
Penman: There are a number of things we should be doing your Honor and if the City
Manager hasn't done it and the Police Chief hasn't done it and the Mayor hasn't done it, then
it is up to the City Council. And if the City Council Members aren't going to do something
when they've got this type of evidence in front of them, I don't know what to think of it. I
mean, somebody needs to tell the pastor, look, we've got a City run program there with
children coming under the City's umbrella and you've got a sex offender. You say your sex
offender has a right to go there, fine, we have a right to keep our program there or not to keep
it there. Mr. Pastor, you either tell your parishioner to find another church, if you want, or
you tell him he has a right to stay there, but we're going to move the Operation Phoenix center
to some other location where the pastor of the church isn't more concerned about protecting his
parishioner who is a registered sex offender than protecting the children under his care. This
is a serious matter. I don't understand wanting to refer it to committee or even debating on
why you'd want to have it on the Council agenda—it clearly meets the legal standards that the
need to take action arose after the agenda was posted. If the Council fails to act on this then
the Council becomes complicit, then whatever failures the Mayor's office, the City Manager's
office and the Police Department are involved in. This is a horrible memo and the conclusions
in it don't make any legal sense.
Estrada: Point of order. Thank you, Mayor. There was a motion, there was a second. Are
we supposed to be functioning under Roberts Rules of Order or something so that we can move
i
on.
Morris: Okay. There is a motion, I gather, to agendize this as a matter that arose after the
last posted agenda. Is that correct? Did you make that second?
Estrada: No, Mr. Kelley seconded it.
Morris: Mr. Kelley, did you second that motion? Alright.
Morris: Okay, that's the motion before us, whether to agendize this or not today. Alright,
it's now agendized. It will be an add-on to our calendar today and we'll come to it at the
appropriate time.
McCammack: I think we should come to it right now, sir, because I think that there are
children that are prone to behavior of a man that has been convicted of lewd and lascivious
acts, and if that's the case, then we need to take action.
Morris: Ms. McCammack we're in the announcement phase of our agenda. We'll come to it
as a regularly-scheduled item now that we've agendized it, we'll discuss it at that time. Thank
you very much, Chief, we'll come back to you at a later moment.
i
Penman: And thank you, Chief Kilmer, we appreciate your help.
McCammack: Well, I guess I read the memo for my announcements.
"Per our conversation I have prepared this document to assist your office in
reviewing this issue as well as to inform you of the steps the Police Department has
taken to investigate this matter and ensure public safety.
"On Wednesday, August 26, 2009, Kent Paxton notified Captain Ernie Lemos and
members of the San Bernardino County Department of Children Services (Child
Protective Services) alerting them to the possibility that a registered Sex Offender,
Jason Hoyt, was allowed to visit and work near the campus of the central Operation
Phoenix facility and the Soar School Academy. Mr. Paxton indicated that the subject
was the step-grandfather of a child that attended the "Soar Academy" and that he was
a volunteer at the Nazarene Church with Pastor Rhone's permission.
"Based on that information Captain Lemos contacted Parks & Recreation Director
Kevin Hawkins and informed him of the situation. Captain Lemos confirmed Hoyts'
status information based on the Meagan's Law website and gave that information to
Mr. Hawkins. Captain Lemos suggested to Mr. Hawkins that he share the
information with members of his staff at the Operation Phoenix Center so they could
be aware of his possible presence and ensure that there would be no interaction
between the children and the registrant.
"Captain Lemos notified Captain Scott Paterson who is in charge of the Investigations
Division and Captain Paterson started a more detailed investigation into the matter.
Sergeant Keith Prostler, the department expert on child crimes, researched the issue
and found that the Hoyt was a volunteer and member at the church and that Pastor
Rhone knew he was a past sex offender. Rhone indicated that Hoyt worked largely at
the church facility on Saturdays and Sundays at his request.
"During his investigation Sergeant Prostler determined that the Sheriffs Department
had (originally) been called about this situation because of a child custody case where
the natural father of the aforementioned student (Hoyt's step granddaughter) contacted
the Sheriffs Department and indicated that his wife was living with the sex registrant
(Hoyt) and that Hoyt was visiting the school to pick up his daughter. Based on that
information, the Sheriffs Department opened an investigation.
On Monday, August 31, 2009, at Captain Paterson's direction, a meeting with the
Executive Director of Soar, the Charter School facility, and Pastor Rhone was
initiated. Parks & Recreation Director Kevin Hawkins was unable to attend. During
the meeting Lieutenant Keil and Sergeant Prostler learned that Jason Hoyt was never
actually a handyman for the church. Hoyt did general contractor work for a company
that worked for the church, but that he had no contact with any of the children.
i
"Hoyt is currently employed by a company that installs new air conditioning and does
air conditioning maintenance and repair. As an employee Hoyt does not enter the
north campus where the schools are located. Pastor Rhone confirmed the fact that
Hoyt is a member of his church and currently helps at the church on Saturdays with
the food distribution program and attends worship services on Sundays.
"Currently there are three related programs on the church grounds; one being the
"Soar" Charter School, the second being the "Operation Phoenix Center" and the
third, the "Valley Christian Pre-school". All three campuses are located on the north
end of the facility, as related to the church building, with the church located of the
south. According to Sergeant Prostler, an agreement has been reached that was
written into the "Soar" lease that any work completed by Hoyt would be done only in
the southern portion of the building (Church), not the school building and that Hoyt
would not have access to any portion of the campus where children's programs are
held.
The directors of all three children's operations, Ms. Lancaster, Soar; Mr. Hawkins,
Operation Phoenix; and Pastor Rhone, Valley Christian Pre-school, were made aware
of Hoyt's presence and the stipulations that have been placed on him by the church.
"Soar" Executive Director, Trisha Lancaster, indicated that all of her operations were
conducted Monday through Friday without any weekend events. Ms. Lancaster
indicated she had not contacted the school district regarding the matter as Hoyt was
no longer working in and around the school. Hoyt's employer, who is also aware of
Mr. Hoyt's past, has indicated that to help alleviate any problems he would have Hoyt
work on other jobs outside of the area.
"Sergeant Prostler contacted the San Bernardino County Child Protective Services
(CPS) and is working with them to monitor Mr. Hoyt and his family. The Police
Department will work closely with the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department
to jointly review and share information related to this matter and any reported
violations will be thoroughly investigated and forwarded to the District Attorney's
Office for prosecution.
"At this point it appears that because Mr. Hoyt was acting as a parent when he visited
the school to pick up his girlfriend's daughter, and because the work he conducted at
the facility was done at the request of the church, Mr. Hoyt is compliant with State
and local law."
McCammack: I'm sorry, but I believe the law says that a sex registrant cannot be within 500
feet of any school.
Morris: We go now to our supplemental calendar and that relates to confidential information
from the Chief of Police to the Assistant to the City Manager, Teri Baker, and it has been read
into the record by Ms. McCammack and I will call upon the City Manager to report on that
and with him I imagine the Police Chief and perhaps the Director of Parks and Recreation.
McCammack: Well, I can make it very simple, Mayor. Since this Council member decided
to bring it forward, I'd just like to make a motion and then we can debate the merits of the
motion, and I would make the motion that we temporarily suspend that center until Pastor
Rhone can either ban Mr. Hoyt from the premises, by the way, a premise to which we pay
monthly rent, or until we can move that particular Operation Phoenix facility. That is my
motion.
Kelley: I'll second that.
Morris: Alright, there is a motion and a second and I'll now turn to the City Manager and the
Police Chief for their response. Section 290 of the Penal Code makes it clear that it is Police
Department's duty and obligation to determine whether there is a "reasonable suspicion that
information is needed to protect a person at risk," and that is the obligation that my office
turned directly over to the City Manager and the Police Chief. Mr. McNeely.
McNeely: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Given the questions that were raised earlier, I need to
go back to the Chief and Parks and Rec. They are prepared to give you some additional
information based upon the work that was done when this issue came up so I would, with the
indulgence of the Council, ask that the Chief be allowed, as well as the Parks Director, to just
update you, if you don't mind.
Morris: Please, Mr. Kilmer.
Kilmer: Mayor and Council in the time we've had to review the circumstances of the matter
we're talking about tonight, I was just handed a notification paper, I'm not going to display
it—it was not prepared by the Police Department. I'm not sure who it was prepared by. But
in light of the circumstances in which this matter was disclosed tonight and brought forth to the
Council, I think it's a good opportunity to talk about the investigation that we conducted. I
think it's a good opportunity to talk about Megan's Law and this issue and I think there is
opportunity in the future to talk about it in more detail and I think the public deserves probably
a better forum or education process to find out about this particular issue. But tonight we'll go
ahead and we'll go forward and we'll discuss the limited time that we've to prepare all this
information, but I feel confident that the Police Department staff, the investigators, did an
excellent job with the information they've provided and the investigation that they conducted.
I have Lt. Kyle here that supervised the investigation and can speak to the steps that we went
through as an organization to determine if there was a risk to the public. It's a difficult topic
to talk about, I mean, I'm a parent and I'm concerned about sexual registrants in this City or
any other community where any parent resides and has children. It's also from my experience
a topic that is often misunderstood and the guidelines that are prepared for us under the Penal
Code require a lot of times specialized and a significant amount of training to understand and
implement and we have people like that in our organization that deal with this on a continual
basis. With that said the public notification process and I think that's kind of the crux of what
I get out of the conversation that I've heard thus far tonight. Public notification is not made on
every sex offender in our City or any community. In fact, the public notification process is
utilized pretty infrequently when compared to population of offenders that are in our
communities. Just briefly, certain individuals who are convicted of certain crimes are required
to register whenever they come into a jurisdiction. They are required to register whenever
they move and we monitor those persons in our community through our personnel. California
maintains a website and I would encourage everybody to visit that website and take a look at it
and look at the warning information that's included on that website, familiarize themselves
with Penal Code Section 290 and all the provisions that follow including Section 290.45 that
talks about public notification and who is responsible for that notification. The responsible
party for that notification and the one that's given immunity is the local law enforcement
agency in the context of what we're talking about tonight. And there is good reason for that is
because it's not an uncomplicated area of the law and it's an area of the law where I think the
State has tried to sort of balance the public's safety rights and then the individual who is
required to register and is under the continued scrutiny of the State. And again, as a parent,
you know, my personal opinions and my personal feelings as to how that should be
administered is probably different than my legal responsibility as the Police Chief and the
responsibility of the officers who are sworn to uphold the law in the Police Department.
About 75 percent of the offenders are registered in the State of California. There are a number
of offenders who are not registered-25 percent—because of the type of violation. There is a
category of high risk offenders and that is a determination that's made by the State essentially
as to whether this person is a high risk based upon the type of crime that they've committed
and their propensity to be a risk to the public and that's basically the criteria for notification.
High risk offender, which the individual that we're talking about tonight has not been classified
as a high risk offender. If that were the case, then our response would be different and our
discussion would be different. If there is information that comes to our attention and again Lt.
Kyle will kind of talk about how that information came into the department and I'm somewhat
reluctant to even talk about some of the details here tonight because I think it puts us in kind of
a precarious situation in terms of how far we've already gone tonight to notify the public. And
I would err on the side of caution as far as notifying the public, but it's based upon facts, it's
not based upon the status of the offender. It's based upon whether that person poses a risk to
public safety with the information that comes into our possession and again we'll talk about
that in more detail. The fact that someone is registered as a sex offender does not trigger
public notification beyond the Megan's Law website and again, the validity of some of the
information contained on Megan's Law is probably not up to date. The information contained
within the Police Department and the information we have access to is much more up to date
and we are able to look at that information and actually assess what the factors are as far as
risk goes. The law when you look at in this area as far as public notification goes gives us as a
law enforcement agency the responsibility to assess the risk and then outline the scope of that
risk as far as the notification goes. If it was an escaped prisoner that was a risk to public
safety because of their sex offense or any risk whatsoever because they were violent, then the
scope of that notification would be very, very broad and would be out in the media. Other
cases are much more limited and I think that's the case that we're talking about here today. I
would just encourage us to all become more aware of this area as parents, as citizens, as
government employees, become more aware and become more educated about this area of sex
offenders and what the requirements are and what our responsibilities are. And I would
caution us against taking sort of independent action contrary to the scheme that's laid out in the
Penal Code. I would caution against that type of action because it's prohibited in some cases
to take independent action contrary to what the law says, and what the law says in his
understanding is that the local law enforcement agency is responsible for making those
notifications. I'm going to have Lt. Kyle come up and give you an understanding of how this
information came to our attention, what the context is, and the steps we went through as an
agency to determine what the risk was. Lt. Kyle.
Kyle: Thank you. Good evening. When this was first brought to the Police Department's
attention, the information that was provided to us was that a gentleman working as a handyman
at the church at 16' and Sierra Way which houses the Soar Program, a Charter School, as well
as an Operation Phoenix Center, was a sex registrant and was on the property working on a
daily basis around the children. We began to look into those aspects and first of all we looked
at the fact whether this gentleman had actually registered with us and we found that he was
currently registered and there were no warrants in the system for him and he had no other
restrictions other than the fact that he was required by law to register as a sex offender in the
City that he resides in. We looked beyond that as to what generated the concern on the
individual that had reported this to us and we found that there was an ongoing dispute, a
I
j domestic dispute, between the ex-husband and his ex-wife, and we found that the gentleman in
question had in fact become with the ex-wife and was currently living in her home.
Subsequently, he was also helping to tend for the children in the home and was transporting the
children back and forth to school, the school being the Soar Center. So that was his first part
of actually visiting the location of concern. We looked beyond that and went back and found
f
out that the ex-husband had notified a number of agencies to include the San Bernardino
County Sheriffs Department. We found that the Sheriffs Department had conducted a full
investigation into the allegations of a registrant being on the premises where they were not
supposed to be and found that any wrongdoing on this person's part was unfounded. We
looked beyond that again and found that the same individual had reported the same fact to
Child Protective Services alleging possibly child molestation. We checked with Child
3 Protective Services and found that these allegations had been investigated and were deemed as
unfounded. We made contact with the operator of the church, Pastor Rhone, and we made
contact with the Director of the Soar Program and spoke with them independently. We found
that they were well aware of the fact that the gentleman in question was a sex registrant. We
discovered that he was not a handyman for the church, but rather a member of the
congregation that attended church on Sundays and assisted with a food giveaway program on
Saturdays. We found that while assisting the church with the food giveaway program he had
come in contact with a general contractor who subsequently was hired by the church to do
some work on the facility and he had become employed through that contractor. So his
purpose of being on the church premises was solely as an employee of this contractor.
Because of the concern that had been expressed from the outside to the church and Soar
Program, we discovered that the church had laid specific parameters down for this gentleman
while he was in the course of the employment that he was not to visit the area of the school nor
was he to visit the area of Operation Phoenix and they actually established boundaries around
the church property so that he was isolated from the church itself... (end of tape) by that
particular contractor and he had moved on to other employment which is now away from the
church facility itself so we were assured by the Pastor of the church as well as staff on the
premises that he was no longer there on a daily basis and that his visitation to the church
property was solely for the purposes of attending church services and helping with the program
on Saturdays. Beyond that the pressures from the reports and things we're to understand that
he's moved from the home that he was living in, that the relationship there had been severed
and that the children have been removed from the Soar Program so as to not create any
additional problems for that program subsequently making appearance that there would be a
draw for him to come back to that particular facility. With that, that's where our investigation
fell.
Morris: Thank you very much Lt. Kyle. Chief.
Kilmer: I just want to point out that the detectives in the department take these types of
matters very seriously and we were involved right away. Sgt. Prostler who has had specialized
i
training is very well versed with the requirements of 290, led that investigation and went out
and contacted as many individuals in that area and not one piece of information came out that
a
provided any indication there was any inappropriate behavior, wrongdoing, anything like that,
i
i
that would cause us to enlarge our scope of notification or investigation. It was related to his
involvement with the church and bringing the children to the Academy. Beyond that we found
no additional information that would cause us concern.
Morris: Kevin Hawkins.
Hawkins: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I think it's been pretty much summed up and I think our
department is uniquely sensitive to any allegation or threat to the youth. Me, in particular, in
terms of being a department head given what we went through this past year. What I can say
is that there has been no interaction with this person with our staff or with the children. When
we were made aware of this individual we immediately briefed our staff and apprised them to
inform us if he's been on the premises or if there has been any reports of anything anywhere
along that line. To this point there has been nothing. Again, our hours of operation are
Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. As far as I know he has not been there, he has not
been to the facility and any prior work there—I think the Chief alluded to—happened on the
weekends. Now, again, I talked about my sensitivity to this issue. It's kind of ironic that here
I find myself again talking about this when earlier today we had the Governor's office praise a
department in this City in particular about our commitment to youth. For a department that,
according to the Park Master Plan that was cited previously, we were underfunded by $2
million and after February we are now underfunded by $4 million. But what keeps us going is
our commitment and our passion especially to our youth. This is our profession, this isn't
politics for us, this is what we do. So if there is any threat and I would tell you, you know I
would tell you, but there hasn't been. The Police did an excellent job in terms of reporting
this—in closing it up—to my satisfaction at least. If there was anything else, I would let you
know. My priorities are to the department, to the youth, and also to my two children who I
represent. Thank you.
Morris: Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
Penman: Your Honor.
Morris: Mr. Penman.
Penman: Thank you, your Honor. Unfortunately our laws change and when the Mayor first
starting talking he quoted a section of law that used to be the law when he was on the bench,
but no longer is. Section 290 of the Penal Code did indeed used to read that it was a peace
officer that had to make that determination and he had to have a "reasonable suspicion" as the
Mayor said. But, as things go, and it went on—that law went on for three or four pages, but
today the California Penal Code has been changed. Effective September 30, 2003, the
language that the Mayor was talking about was in effect. Also, leaving it to a peace office was
in effect. But effective October 7, 2005, the law changed. I'll read to you what the law is
now. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (2),
any designated law enforcement entity," and I'll repeat that, "any designated law enforcement
entity may provide information to the public about a person required to register as a sex
offender pursuant to Section 290, by whatever means the entity deems appropriate, when
necessary to ensure the public safety based upon information available to the entity concerning
that specific person." Now what is a designated law enforcement entity. Under Section
290.45 (t) it is defined. "For purposes of this section, "designated law enforcement entity"
means the Department of Justice, every district attorney, the Department of Corrections, the
Department of the Youth Authority, and every state or local agency expressly authorized by
statute to investigate or prosecute law violators." Let me read that again. "Designated law
enforcement entity" means every state or local agency expressly authorized by statute to
investigate or prosecute law violators." The San Bernardino City Charter specifically provides
that the City Attorney's office has prosecutorial authority. Moreover, under the California
State Constitution provisions of City Charters have the full force and effect of State laws and
statutes. Section 102 of the City Charter - Authority and Duties of the City Manager -
provides the City Manager's authority and duties and it reads as follows: "The City Manager
shall have the following authority and duties: (i)" and I'll read the pertinent part, "to
immediately notify the City Attorney of any important legal issues or difficulties that arise."
Now, when Tom Minor was Mayor this issue arose with another sex offender and that Mayor
immediately convened a meeting with the Chief of Police and the City Attorney and we went
over the law and a decision was made to make notification to the residents of an apartment
complex where a registered sex offender had moved into. And, by the way in the old days
when they had the different ratings of the sex offenders and the high risk sex offenders, that's
not in the statute any more. The Attorney General has a process whereby they do an
evaluation and they sort of grade or rate sex offenders. When Mayor Valles was faced with
the same situation in her term, she immediately convened a meeting of herself, the Chief of
Police and the City Attorney. And again it was determined to give that notification, and they
went out and gave that notification. This time, the City Attorney's office wasn't contacted at
all. Nobody called us to say, "Hey, you guys have handled these sex offender notifications
previously, what's been your experience? How have you done it? You guys are up on the
law. Is the law still the same as it was in 2003?" We didn't get any such phone call. There
was no such meeting. And I was disappointed to hear the Mayor quote, as these historical and
statutory notes say, "Similar provisions were formerly found in Penal Code Section 290".
However, AB 1323 rewrote this Section which had read, "When a peace office reasonably
suspects based on information that has come to his or her attention," that's gone now. It's now
that "any designated law enforcement entity may provide information to the public," and that's
what we're going to do. The difficulty, and I talked to the Chief about this and I talked to one
of the, and I'm not sure if that was an acting captain or his lieutenant, but I talked to one of the
officers involved and they told me what they did was the criminal part of the investigation and
I think they did a good job on the criminal part of the investigation. I've got no criticism of
the Chief or any of his detectives or his captains, lieutenants, sergeants. They did a fine job,
but they did not look into the broader perspective. They did not look into the City's liability
and as they said to me, "Well, that's a policy matter." And therein lies the problem. The City
has a youth facility located at this church. The City is subject to lawsuits if we don't act with
reasonable care. If the City knows that there is a registered sex offender in the same parcel, in
t
the same general facility as one of the City's Parks and Rec, Operation Phoenix, whatever you
want to call it, institutions, we have an obligation to care for those children when they are
there. Their safety becomes our responsibility. Whenever the Police Department concluded
and they told me they talked to the DA and I'm sure they did, and if they concluded that this
man had not committed a criminal act that they could prosecute him for, fine, that's their job.
I've got another problem. I've got a City facility there and it's a City facility with a track
record and the track record is that the former Director, Mr. Mike Miller, is sitting over at
i
County jail today awaiting trial on allegations that he molested two young girls, one of them
was a participant at that center. And then I learned, not through the City Manager, not
through the Police Chief, not through the Mayor, that since August 26, at least, when Kent
Paxton who is I believe one of the Mayor's assistants and head of the Operation Phoenix
program notified Captain Ernie Lemos and members of the San Bernardino County
Department of Children Services alerting them to the possibility that a registered sex offender,
Jason Hoyt, was allowed to visit and work near the campus of the central Operation Phoenix
facility and the Soar School Academy. Now, even assuming that from the Police Department's
standpoint that there is not a concern, there certainly is from the City Attorney's office. And I
think there is a moral concern that the Mayor and Council have beyond the criminal law and
that moral concern is protecting those children. I don't know what the rating of this sex
offender is, and quite frankly that's not my concern, because I know what will happen if a sex
offender there gets their hands on a child and molests them and we knew that sex offender had
a relationship with that agency and was there. We will get sued and their lawyer will make
that man look like Jack the Ripper. They will get in front of a jury and they'll say the City
knew. Ladies and gentlemen, the City of San Bernardino knew when they advertised and they
held that facility out for people to come to that facility, for children to come to that facility,
they knew that the pastor of that church, Pastor Rhone, had a parishioner whom the Pastor
knew was a registered sex offender and the Pastor allowed him to do work for a company in
the vicinity of those children. And I can tell you that it doesn't matter whether he ever had any
actual contact with the children or not. The fact that that guy is there, if something happens,
we are going to be on the hook. But beyond that, beyond our legal liability, which would be a
problem to defend if something happened, what about our moral responsibility. I mean, at any
other City facility in town, almost all of which are totally owned by the City, if we knew that a
registered sex offender was coming around, we don't allow that and we certainly don't allow
them to be employed there. This man was employed there. It may have been by another
company working there, but he was employed there. There is a City Schools Charter School
Program there, the Soar Program, there is a preschool there. No one could get hired by the
City Unified School District to work in that capacity in a City school, so why should we as the
City of San Bernardino have a person working in one of our facilities or in close proximity to
it. I've been to that center many times. The area is not that big. And you know, sex
offenders are difficult people. They are difficult people to predict. They watch the comings
and goings. Some of them study their victims. They look to see what time does mom drop
this little child off. What time does mom pick this child up. Does this child ever walk home
alone. This person was convicted of a pretty, well, all felonies are serious, but, 288a - Lewd
and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years. And very many of the children there, not just
in the Operation Phoenix Center, but in the preschool and in the Soar Academy, are under 14
years, and people who do that type of thing, I'm told by experts, and I've sat through plenty of
trails where they testified, tend to focus on one particular age group—it might be a range or
one or two years. Now, I'm also bothered by the fact that this gentleman had a violation of
parole in June of 2002 and was listed as a felony. But, I'm more concerned with the fact that
on August 5, 2008, just a little over a year ago, he was arrested and the charge was PC 273.5
(a) - Inflicting Corporal Injury on Spouse or Cohabitant. Now, I don't know from the
documents I have whether there was a conviction or not and this gentleman is presumed
innocent until proven otherwise. I'm sorry. Ms. McCammack tells me it's a conviction and
she's read the same document. She had a little more time. I had some other Council matters
to look at today. But, just the fact that he came to law enforcement attention just a year ago
for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant is a violent action. Now, it may not
have been on a child, but that's what his history is. I am concerned, people in my office are
concerned, and a lot of other people around town including a lot of law enforcement people
around town both in and out of the San Bernardino Police Department have expressed to me
their concerns that this isn't right. We should have notified the parents of the children going
there. The Police Department should not have. They did their job. But the Mayor and the
City Manager should have contacted the City Attorney. This memo is dated September 2, so I
assume the City Manager's office got it around the 2nd or the 3rd. You know, today is the 2151.
People have been taking their children there for how long. There was a rumor a while back
that the Police were investigating it and an inquiry was that they were going to make this guy
leave that facility. He was going to be gone, but then this memo comes out and guess what, he
didn't leave it. I'll discuss the matter with the District Attorney about the conclusion that
apparently the DA's office came to and I'm sure the District Attorney will have a good
explanation for me about that and I'm interested in hearing that. But as the City's attorney, my
concern is more broad than just the limited criminal issues that the Police Department deals
with. Did he or did he not commit a crime just by being there. The Chief says he didn't, the
DA says he didn't and that's their business, but I can tell you that it's a liability issue and more
than that I'm a parent, I'm a grandparent. The parents there need to know and if we're not
going to inform them, then, but we are, because our office is going to do it starting at 6:30
a.m. tomorrow morning. City Attorney investigators will be there passing out those notices
a
that the Chief referred to which gives the information contained in the reports that says who it
comes from. It says that the nature of Jason John Hoyt's crimes leads the San Bernardino City
Attorney's office to believe he poses a possible threat to public safety and the disclaimers
required are in there. But, our investigators should have been passing this information out
several weeks ago. At the latest they should have been passing it out right after the City
Manager's office got the Chief s memo of September 2. Perhaps they should have been
passing it out even earlier on August 26 when Mr. Paxton notified Captain Lemos about it
because even though they had a criminal investigation to look at, there was a civil liability too
and they have to go hand in hand. And with every Mayor I've worked with, the City Attorney
has been in there on these investigations working hand in hand. We've had joint meetings
constantly on matters the Police Department is investigating or matters the City Attorney is
investigating. We have had very few of those under the current administration and that is a
radical departure from what has happened in the City before and when I talk to my colleagues,
other City Attorneys, they tell me that such meetings are commonplace especially true with
i
elected City Attorneys and Charter cities who are also prosecutors. So, what you folks do
about it is your business, and the folks at home can bare witness to this. I don't have a vote. I
can't decide what you're going to do. I don't understand why the pastor wasn't told, Pastor
Rhone either remove this guy from the premises or we're pulling Operation Phoenix out. Yes,
he has a right to be in your church, but we have a right not to have Operation Phoenix there.
Your church is getting a lot of money from Operation Phoenix. Your church got a substantial
amount of reconstructive efforts from Operation Phoenix. Your church has a lot of people
coming to it due to Operation Phoenix. It's had a lot of positive publicity due to Operation
Phoenix. Don't we have some responsibility to the children at Operation Phoenix or the Soar
School or to the preschool there that goes beyond, "we'll wait and see if there's a crime and
then there isn't a crime, so everything's okay. I don't think so folks. That's basically what
this memo says. We've checked it out, he didn't commit a crime, so there's no problem.
There is no problem criminally. And I assume this report is correct as to the criminal law, but
there is a serious problem with the City's civil liability and there is a serious problem with the
City's moral obligations. And someone made a reference a few minutes ago—one of the
speakers to something about politics—I don't know about politics, but I know about children in
this type of instance who get abused. Unlike Judge Morris I didn't sit for 30 years, but I sat as
a Judge Pro Tem in juvenile court on many occasions and I had many cases of all the abused
children in front of me and this is not something you look at lightly, this is serious, and the
Council needs to act on this. And just having the City Attorney's investigators out there early
tomorrow morning passing out the notice is not sufficient in my opinion. This issue needs to
be addressed. We have a lot of empty buildings in town. We have a lot of other churches in
town that don't have registered sex offenders there where we can have Operation Phoenix and
other programs. The City does not need to be having a program—I don't understand why a
pastor of any church would bring a registered sex offender in to do work there and know he
was doing work there in proximity to where the children were where he could watch the
children's comings and goings whether he contacted them or not and not do something about it.
I do not understand that. Thank you, your Honor.
Morris: Thank you, Mr. Penman. Chief, you've investigated the facts, made an assessment
of the risks, protocols in this instance. Is there anything in your view that rises to the level of
a need here for public notification?
Kilmer: No. We investigated the risks, we talked to people at the various locations to see if
there was any behavior that would cause us risk beyond the fact that this person is registered as
a sex offender. There are a number of individuals in this City who are registered sex
offenders. We typically do not go out and make public notification in the area that they live to
residents nearby and they are just as likely as any other person to commit those types of crimes
based upon their status. We work off of facts. We work off of information. In listening to
j
some of the comments made by the City Attorney and just kind of looking at the practical
application of how this is done, I think this is dysfunctional. If we approach it in that manner
where the law enforcement agency is responsible for monitoring registration and the registrants
are required to go to the local law enforcement agency, which would be the Police
Department, we maintain registration at the Police Department under the law. We constantly
monitor those people. We interview them when we do the intakes. Our people receive
training on those types of offenses. The public expects the Police Department to be the one
that conducts the enforcement and makes the notifications. If they call in with respect to a sex
offender or a perceived criminal, they don't call the City Attorney's office, they call the Police
Department. So, I think the manner that that particular issue is being discussed is
dysfunctional and misleading to the public. The Police Department is where offenders of
various types, whether they are narcotics offenders they are required to register, whether they
are arson offenders they are required to register, or if they are sex offenders they are required
to register. The Police Department is responsible for monitoring those people and we do that.
Penman: So you disagree with the law, Chief. Youildisagreeing with the law, don't disagree
with me, I'm just following the law.
Kilmer: Let me finish my comments, sir, I let you speak for a while.
Penman: Chief, are you speaking as to criminal or civil.
Kilmer: Just let me finish my comments.
Penman: I would love to have you finish.
Kilmer: So the public expects the Police Department to be the one in their minds that deal
with these issues, not the City Attorney's office. Now, going back to the law and I'm not
going to go into a legal analysis because that's not my job, but we deal with legal statutes all
the time. Penal Code, Vehicle Code, whatever code. Officers on the street who go through
iI
the academy deal with enforcing codes. It doesn't mean they're practicing law or they're
interpreting legal issues, but they are trained to do this type of thing and we rely upon them to
do their job and we keep second guessing the jobs that they do. But, if I went back and kind of
went with the analysis that Mr. Penman went with, Code Enforcement enforces the law in this
City. I wouldn't expect Code Enforcement to go out and do public notifications. I wouldn't
expect the Bureau of Weights and Measures of the State of California who has enforcement
responsibility and investigative responsibility to go out and do public notifications with respect
to sex offenders. I wouldn't expect Animal Control who can enforce the law and investigate
certain types of crimes to go out and make public notifications with respect to sex offenders.
So, I just want it to be clear from my perspective, that the Police Department is charged with
monitoring sex offenders in this community. Narcotics offenders, arson offenders, those
people that are required to register. We maintain that information in our department. We
have access to certain criminal records that I don't know if the City Attorney has access to
those criminal records and can actually do a proper investigation with criminal history, and so
on and so forth, it's the same context, but he doesn't have the same amount of resources the
Police Department has to go out and monitor those individuals on a daily basis. So I think
what I just heard with respect to what the responsibilities are describe a dysfunctional system
for me and a confusing system for me and I just want to make that clear—I think it's
inappropriate. And if public notification is done as proposed I would ask that this be clearly
delineated with the City Attorney's office on the top. I don't want it to be mistaken because
the public will be misled by this information right here. They'll think the Police Department
put it out.
Penman: Well, Chief, you should put out your own pamphlet then.
Kilmer: That's a different issue. I'm talking about right now.
Penman: No, sir, but you said, what you said was if the Police Department doesn't do the job
in this City, the City Attorney's office has been the one the Mayor's have called on and we
follow the law and we do the job.
Kilmer: No.
Morris: Mr. Penman, this is a City Manager government these days. Reporting process is
through—information received goes to the City Manager and through the City Manager to the
Police Chief and his department heads.
McCammack: Okay, point of order, Mayor. This. . .
Penman: Mayor, the City Manager shall immediately notify the City Attorney of any
important legal issues or difficulties. He didn't do that. So he's not doing his job as City
Manager. I'm sorry that you have that form of government—your government is
dysfunctional. I'm sorry that the Chief doesn't like what the State law says, your Honor, but
my job just as it's his job as far as I'm concerned is to protect the children. Now, we got a
sex offender at a City facility and if you're not going to protect him, the City Attorney's office
will.
Morris: As the Chief suggests, this needs to be done in a professional way based on facts, on
professional judgments of police professionals and the risks and protocols. Mr. McNeely.
Estrada: Can Council Members get a word in edgewise, Mayor. Through the chair.
McCammack: With all due respect, the Council brought this item to the dais in the first
place. Excuse me, Mayor. Mr. McNeely the last time I check was not elected. Was he?
Morris: He had his hand raised first, madam.
McCammack: I'm sorry, but my hand has been raised for 15 minutes.
Morris: Mr. McNeely do you have a comment?
McNeely: Well, I do, and I can make it now or I can wait Mr. Mayor until after the Council
members make their comments. Why don't we do that.
McCammack: The bottom line here, Mayor, is that the Council members were not informed
at all and since we are the policy makers, whether you like us or you don't like us, or you like
our mannerisms or you don't, it is our responsibility to our constituency when something like
this comes to our attention, if the City Manger and the Police Chief weren't going to inform
us, nor your office, we had to get the information—somehow we got the information. That is
dysfunctional. That is disappointing, Number one. Number two: Whether there is a
difference between the legal and the criminal and the civil and all of that stuff, I don't care
what the differences are. The bottom line is if there is a City facility that has a registered sex
offender, no matter what level, who has access within 500 feet of our City facility that houses
children, then somebody needs to notify somebody. I don't really care who. I don't care if
it's you. The bottom line is somebody needed to do it because I'll tell you what, you keep
putting black eyes on Operation Phoenix whether you want to or not. It would have been so
much better, not the first time it happened, I came to your office and begged you—hold off,
shut it down for a little while, inform everybody so that everybody would at least know that we
were trying to do the right thing. You said, "nope, not necessary. The guy's in jail." Well,
if my kid was in that center and I was a parent, I'd have your butt on the line. I didn't have a
kid there, but I still care. Bottom line is here, Mayor, we are the policy makers. We are to
determine whether or not that facility stays open not him and not him and not him and not him,
us. So my motion stands and I'd like you to call for the question.
Morris: Yes, Mr. Kelley and then Ms. Estrada.
Kelley: I think Council member Estrada was first.
Estrada: I think, Chief, with all due respect, this is not about you. This is not about your
men. This is not about Mr. Kevin Hawkins. It's not about your departments. It's about the
process. A process that was followed that was not inclusive of the policy makers or at least
this group of policy makers and by it not being inclusive of ourselves early on, this really
caught all of us by surprise. And when things happen like this and we're caught off guard,
irregardless of how well you did your job and how well Kevin did his job and the offices out
there did their jobs and they did do it well, it gets caught in a mud hole, if you will, a very,
very nasty mud hole. And that's kind of where we're at right now because you have a
difference of opinion here relative to the policy makers that should have been apprised. We
may have a problem over there, we're not sure, we're investigating, we're going to find out,
we're going to get to the bottom of it, we'll come back and we'll report to you and let you
know. In the meantime, it could have been a confidential matter, everything remains in that
room, but we're apprised of a potential problem and at the same time then at least we know
that maybe if we need to alert or take an emergency action or something, maybe then we do.
But not having had that opportunity is what is causing all of this ruckus. So I personally want
you to know that it's not your departments, you all did your jobs and you do them very well.
Thank you for that.
Morris: Thank you very much. Mr. Kelley.
Kelley: Thank you. Council member Estrada, I'm a little sorry I deferred to you to go first
because that was pretty much along the lines that I was thinking so let me try to say it in a
different way. Chief, we are not questioning your personnel and we're not questioning you.
We're not questioning Kevin Hawkins and his ability and his limited staff and what they're
doing. But let me put it in a perspective that I think you might understand. We all receive a
copy of the shift logs and you don't report every little incident that occurs, but when there is a
murder or a large traffic accident typically your area commander will pick up the phone and
call the Council member whose ward that is in and notify them of the tragedy. And at least
they're kept in the loop and then they do the things that are internal. I'm not lecturing you I'm
just trying to give a little advice here. We're part-time, supposedly. It's a full-time job, but
we're part-time. But we don't have ten hours a day to stay in the building. We've got a City
Manager who does that, a City Attorney, department heads, two Chiefs, and the Mayor. The
Council is part-time. So, given the fact that there is a practice, a current standing practice of
notifying the Council members, in this particular case, is this Ward 2, is it the second Ward
this occurred in? Was that Council member notified? I'm going to assume from the silence
that the Council member wasn't notified. Therein lies just a little bit of polite suggestion that
i you know it's important for me, remember I was the first one to raise this, here is this memo
sitting here on this dais when I got here. Now, I don't know where it came from or how it got
here, but everybody had one, and it would have been very helpful if we had agendized it and
just gave us a quick, brief report in closed session as Council member Estrada mentioned, then
it wouldn't be out here. But as a—everyone here has said it—but as all of us being parents,
someone in the neighborhood can move in and can act as responsible neighborhood watch
captain or the active concerned parent who is constantly googling people or going to Megan's
website could determine whether their status is severe or light or moderate or whatever the
case may be and pass out in their neighborhood an FYI that so and so 12 years ago was a sex
offender or on Megan's Law. I see you shaking your head so perhaps maybe there's
something you know that I don't know, but let me share with you in the last five years working
with your department, with your detectives and your officers, we have been out to multiple
locations where somehow, some way a member of the public found the data and passed it
around and in each instance the department came out and did a professional job in saying what
they could or could not do. In this particular case, all of us being parents, at the very
minimum we err on the side of caution and just let folks know that there's the possibility, even
if this was 26 years ago that this person did this and they've cleaned up their act and they're
not going to do those types of activities any more and they are nowhere to be found, but I
don't think anybody was watching this person ten hours a day. And there lies my concern. I
don't want somebody in an area that could for whatever reason entice a child into a bad
situation. So, to reiterate, it's nothing to do with the department. Nothing to do with the
Parks and Recreation Department. Kevin, you're a great department head—you do a great
job—we never get an opportunity to say it enough. But this particular case, I think, could have
been handled much better than it was and my strong suggestion is that no matter what the
particular case may be, because I know that this person I believe, I would venture to guess,
could not get hired at the Unified School District and could not get hired by the City of San
Bernardino based on the background check that would be done. So, I can't urge you enough
that in the future let's communicate a little bit better. If we need to go into closed session and
talk about things, then that's fine, but I don't want that only to be to the Chief, I'd like that to
be with the City Manager's office as well. If you are aware of this type of activity, or just err
on the side of caution and say, "Hey, fyi, we've got some information here we want the
Council to be apprised of." This is not an opportunity to make anything light, but I want staff
to remember once again that we're the folks that cannot get out of the grocery store without
our ice cream melting. So, the public will hear about this, get wind of this, and then they're
going to question us. And we need to know what's going on and if it's something that's
confidential and we can't share, then we explain that, but instead we look at them and go,
"Uh." And so, thank you for listening. I hope you take that as constructive information. City
Manager, I hope you understand where we're going with this. It's vital that we have a healthy
dialogue and communication at all times. Even when the news is bad, we've got to know.
Thank you.
McNeely: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a couple comments. First of all, let me be real
clear here in that at no time has staff at all insinuated or taken any action with respect to
illustrating, demonstrating that this Council does not have the right to make policy decisions. I
want that clearly known here. We clearly understand the role of the Council and your
decisions to take action on whatever issue you want to is your domain. So having said that,
however, let me also say that when this issue was brought forward I met with the Chief. I am
thoroughly impressed with the quality of his investigation and the work that was done. I think
they did an excellent job there. I think they handled it better than any department certainly I
have seen and I would concur likewise with the Parks and Rec Director in terms of work that
they did. And not only has Kevin stated here in terms of ensuring that the kids were not in any
way contacted, had any interaction with this individual, but they also made contacts with the
school district to make sure that they were aware. And so I think the department did a number
of things here that I would expect them to do. If there is an issue here, because clearly all of
us are very sensitive, we all have kids. We are all sensitive to this issue and I think the level
of the debate here clearly indicates that this is a sensitive issue that we all take very personally
and we're very concerned about it and we want to make sure that we're doing the right thing.
McCammack: Through. . .
McNeely: If I could finish. I take the comment that Mr. Kelley and others have stated here
and Councilwoman Estrada as well, that part of the issue I think here is that we need to go
back and take a look at a process here in terms of how we handle these things and ensuring that
there's communication. And I will tell you that as far as I'm concerned, the buck stops here
with me as City Manager. It's my job to coordinate this and make sure that that information is
getting out. So I will take that responsibility, that rests with me, in ensuring that we go back
to look at the process here and make sure that going forward that we rectify any particular
issues that we need to with respect to this. But having said that, I wanted to say that when
looking at this issue, meeting with the Police Chief and meeting with Parks and Rec, I feel
comfortable that they have done their jobs and that we have addressed the issue and we have
protected the students that were involved, as I said, that we have direct supervision over,
9999999 instance that happened in the past.
McCammack: Through the chair. I've heard this said three times now that at no time did this
person ever interact with the Operation Phoenix kids. Unless someone watched every single
video for every single hour that that center was open since August 26 and maybe before, I
don't know how someone can make that statement. It doesn't matter Kevin whether you did or
you didn't. I keep hearing that statement said, but beside that, Mr. City Manager this is the
second Council meeting and the second closed session that went by without any information to
this Council. The system has broken down somewhere along the line.
McNeely: What's the other issue, Councilwoman McCammack, that you're referring to? You
said this was the second.
McCammack: Two Council meetings, two closed sessions that this particular issue that you
all have had knowledge of that we've had zero knowledge of. So, with that, Mayor, I call for
the question.
Brinker: If you don't mind, I'd like to . . .
Morris: Mr. Brinker.
McCammack: I didn't see your hand up, I'm sorry.
Brinker: That's okay, thank you. A couple of things. I was on a school board prior to
serving here and as a school board member we were occasionally faced with situations similar
to this where we had people who exposed themselves to children or did things that would be in
an area near a school and we always erred on the side of caution in terms of notification. And
so as a personal statement let me explain sort of the process that we had and maybe going
forward this might be something we should consider doing because obviously we can't go back
and redo what's happened, but I will state my preference. And that is, we as a school board
made it very clear to our superintendant that we wanted to always err on the side of caution in
these matters and the general process was that as the superintendant became aware of situations
that the local police told him or if our campus security told him or if an administrator called
and said, "Hey, a kid just showed up in my office and they are upset and something has
happened," or "we've heard from a parent that there's something going on." The
superintendent would then call the president of the school board, in this case I would suppose it
would be the Mayor, and notified him first, and then would begin the notification process and
it was usually done using an automated phone system and we would get a phone call out.
Typically, the Colton School District is very large, so if something happened in the
Bloomington side of the district, the people over in the Colton end didn't get the call because
it's ten miles away so we didn't do the whole district, but they were fairly targeted in trying to
at least get the information out. And so, on that note, I will share a little disappointment
because I do feel that there should have been some notification just I the sense that we want to
always err on the side of caution when children are involved. (Changed the tape) . . . come
into contact with people that if people become aware of them they may call the Police
Department and say, "Did you know this person is a sex offender?" And I'm fairly sure that's
probably a fairly routine thing and if we did notifications on all of them every time that
happened, I think you'd become kind of like background noise, like the boy who called wolf,
that when you really did have the serious one that you really needed to know about, that people
wouldn't respond because we were always doing notifications. So, I understand, I think, the
need to balance that a little bit. But having said that, again, this is a school. This is a City
facility where young children are at and I think we do have to err on the side of caution. Now,
the specific motion that we have before us, is not about notification, it's about closing down
the Operation Phoenix center and I am concerned that that is an overreaction based on some
things that you've said, Chief. And that is that the family that was going there that the whole
reason that this guy had for being there is now gone and that he is actually no longer in the
area—that he has changed residences, and so forth.
McCammack: Where?
Brinker: Well, that's what I thought I heard the Chief say, that this gentleman has now—the
woman that he was living with—they're no longer together. She's moved, he's moved.
McCammack: He lives on West 10i° Street.
Brinker: Well, I'm going back to the Chief based on why I heard. . .
Kilmer: Are you going off the address on the flyer because I think they have . . .
McCammack: No, I'm going off the address on Megan's Law and if that's incorrect, then
he's in violation again.
Kilmer: Well, I'm going to tell you that Megan's Law is a State database and it's not timely
all the time. It may be 30 days behind, so be careful about what you see on Megan's website.
I'm just cautioning that the address on the flyer may not be the appropriate current address, but
we can talk about that offline.
Brinker: Okay, well I want clarification, though.
Kilmer: Well, I don't want the children disturbed.
Brinker: No, but my clarification is in maybe you said it or maybe your officer said this,
your detective, that he's no longer living with the girlfriend and that he's no longer in the area.
Kilmer: He has relocated from the residence that he was listed at and I believe he still does
attend church, though.
Brinker: Okay, well that's important to know. Thank you.
Shorett: There has been a lot said here tonight and I agree with I think most of it. I do think
that a lot of this is up for interpretation. I tend to agree that we should err on the side of
caution. I also would have liked to have been informed at least in closed session to at least
know that this was going on and not be broadsided with this tonight the way this came about. I
do believe, though, that we pay some top people, Chiefs, City Attorneys, City Managers, a lot
of money to do a job and make judgments on a daily basis. I tend to agree that in this kind of
a case we should probably err on the side of caution and at least I would have liked to have
been informed as a policy maker here that we did have a potential problem. There's nothing
we can do about it now, but I don't think that we should have a knee-jerk reaction at this point
in time, again, based on a lot of things that we know tonight and throw the baby out with the
bathwater. I think we can learn and I think this can be a learning moment for moving forward
and I think that we, the policy makers, we cannot be notified on every little issue that comes
up, or every little thing that's going on, and that's what we pay you folks to do. But an issue
like this that's such a hot button issue and such a hot topic, I do think that going forward we
should be notified immediately and at least given the opportunity to discuss what we might as a
group decide to do on this.
Morris: Alright.
McCammack: I'll just amend the motion then if that's the feeling of this Council. That we
either demand that the pastor not allow this parishioner to come back to his church ever,
because if Operation Phoenix is open on Saturday and he's helping people on Saturdays at the
church, or we stop paying rent there. One of the two. We need to do something. And if the
Chief doesn't want to notify, and I understand why, and you all think that's a knee-jerk
reaction, then we need to do something. Sitting here and doing nothing is not an option.
Kelley: I would second that. That's not as severe as the other. So the Center's going to be
open and the City Attorney's office can get out there and still notify the parents so that they're
aware, which was my concern. I would second that.
Morris: Let me see if I have a sense of the motion, Ms. McCammack. The motion is to give
an ultimatum to Pastor Rhone is that basically the idea with regard to this parishioner coming
to his church.
Estrada: Can we have it very clear, please, what is your motion.
McCammack: Sir, we cannot pay rent to Pastor Rhone for a facility when there is a
registered sex offender that spends time on that parcel of land and they're within 500 feet of
each other. It's not like it's a football field away.
Morris: He attends church on Sunday and our occupancy is Monday through Friday, or in
this case usually Thursday I think given our reduced schedule.
McCammack: Do you know what, we're not monitoring this man. They're not there on
Saturday, Kevin.
Hawkins: Only if there is a special event. The hours are Monday through Thursday.
McCammack: Again, I think we need to err on the side of caution and tell Pastor Rhone if
you want to keep getting your monthly check for rent, don't allow this person, or any other
registered sex offender, on your facility. It's simple. It's erring on the side of caution. It's
leaving Operation Phoenix intact, I agree, that's important to those kids.
Morris: It is and ultimatums most often don't move well.
McCammack: Then we're not serious. Then we're not serious.
Morris: It's not to say we're not serious at all, Ms. McCammack. It is a discussion that I
think we can engage, but to issue ultimatums seems to me not to be constructive in terms of
problem solving.
McCammack: You know and I agree, Mayor, except for the fact that this is a man that writes
wonderful letters to the editor about you, this Mr. Rhone, and he adores everything you do and
I get that you don't want to upset him. I get that. But, that's not the problem here.
Kelley: Members of the Council if you'll permit me. I understand the concern thinking that
this is a knee-jerk reaction so the motion was amended not to close the facility so it could
continue to do the good work—Kevin, you said Monday through Thursday.
Hawkins: That's right.
Kelley: Are all of our community centers Monday through Thursday?
Hawkins: Yes.
McCammack: 10 to 6?
Hawkins: 10 to 6.
Kelley: All of our community centers are Monday through Thursday, 10 to 6. Thank you,
sir. So I would think that it would probably be the wise thing to do to allow the City
Attorney's office to go out there and notify the parents, require that this particular sex offender
or any others not be allowed on the premises near our children. Not Ward 1, not Ward 7, not
Ward 3, our children. All these kids in our City are our children. So I think that's fair and
it's not as egregious as the other motion and it still allows the program to continue, but please
support it.
Morris: Let me be clear once again about the motion because it's not clear to me.
Clark: Mayor, if I could restate the motion as Ms. McCammack stated and that is either
demand the pastor not to allow the parishioner to come back to the church ever, or stop paying
rent there.
McCammack: No, that's not what I said.
Clark: That was your original motion.
McCammack: No. I said premises. He is a parishioner, he has a right to be a parishioner
pretty much anywhere he wants, except for the fact that this is an anomaly. We have children
on those premises, that is the difference. So I would suggest based on my colleagues'
recommendation that the pastor be required. . .
Shorett: Shouldn't that be a requirement for any facility?
McCammack: Thank you, Mr. Shorett. Am I missing something here? That was perfectly
said. Not only for Mr. Rhone, but for any other City facility where we house children or we
pay rent to somebody to house children there should never be a registered sex offender allowed
on any of those properties. In this particular case, Mayor, I know you want this to come to
resolution, in this particular case, my motion is that the Pastor be required or told that he ma�
not have Mr. Hoyt on his premise.5or any other registered sex offender.
Morris: Your motion is a complete vacating of the premises by this particular parishioner on
any day of the week including Sunday services.
Kelley: Or any other registered sex offender.
McCammack: Yes, or any other registered sex offender, and if he can't agree to that, then
we need to stop paying rent to him and find another location for the Operation Phoenix center.
Kelley: Second.
McCammack: Please call for the question, my daughter needs to go home.
Morris: I am. There's a motion and there's a second. I'll ask for your votes, please.
Alright, we have passage and we're at the end of our agenda.
McCammack: Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Thank you to your captain, lieutenant,
detectives. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.