Mayor Rosenthal’s strongly worded press release in response to the California First Amendment Coalition’s Black Hole Award, faults that organization for providing the city with “one-day notice to provide our side of the story”. It’s likely that the city knew more of the pending “award” than they acknowledged in that October 25^th statement.

In that story, ClaremontCA also spotlighted last years recipient, Rancho Cucamonga/Brea/Hesperia city attorney, James Markman, for comments he made in a presentation to the California League of Cities entitled “Ethics in City Hall”. In that speech Mr. Markman was quoted as saying “Hey, does anyone here give a real damn about the Brown Act?"

Footnote: The California League of Cities met again in September. It is unknown if Mr. Markman reprised his Brown Act, but Claremont was well represented at the assembly. Al Leiga, Richard Gutherie, Susan Smith, Paul Held, Karen Rosenthal, Tamara Gates and Sandra Baldonado attended the conclave at a cost to taxpayers of $2275.00. Mayor Rosenthal and Councilwoman Smith are slated to attend the National League of Cities Congress in Boston next month.

California First Amendment Coalition's "Black Hole Award" Goes to the City of Claremont.

ClaremontCA broke the story of the City of Claremont's nomination for this award in an August 22nd
article.

Last weekend the winner's were announced: The City of Inglewood, the County of San Bernardino, and educated, enlightened, Claremont.

According to the ignominious CFAC award, the search for the least democratic city in the State of California ends right here in Claremont.

We at ClaremontCA.com might be more sympathetic and defensive of our elected city officials and city manager had we not gained firsthand knowledge of the city's disregard for First Amendment rights and California's Brown Act when we were denied access by Assistant City Manager Bridget Healy to an "invitation only" press conference in August.
Read Article.

Read the text of the CFAC "BLACK HOLE AWARD" here.

ClaremontCA Current News:

Coalition to Preserve Claremont's Character Wins a Round.
Two Initiative's On the Ballot in March?
The Oaks Initiative An Ordinance?
August 24, 2000
Rev. August 24, 2000 4:10 PM
GO

City of Claremont Nominated for the "Black Hole" Award.
First Amendment Coalition's First Amendment Assembly in Fullerton Oct. 13th - 14th.
August 23, 2000
GO

City of Claremont Denies Equal News Access to ClaremontCA.com
8/10/2000
GO

Know Thy Neighbor - The Land Holdings of the Claremont Colleges.
GO

Another major land development greenlighted.
Keck is approved, Bernard Falls. 6/9/2000 Special
Council Meeting Online
6/21/00
GO

5/9/00 Council meeting online.
GO

Claremont Study Circles - Review and Report, Spring 2000.
June 7, 2000
Read text.

Official text now online. To understand more fully how
these meetings function, check out ClaremontCA's
recording of another city study group, Claremont Choices.
Claremont Choices

CJPIA Tires of Being the Fall Guy – Read their extraordinary letter to Mayor Rosenthal.
Read Letter
May 20, 2000

In an extraordinary letter to Mayor Rosenthal, the city’s insuring agency, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, rebutted point-by-point the city’s claim that the CJPIA alone was responsible for withholding settlement details in the Mellor v. Claremont and McKee v Claremont lawsuits. The letter also rebuts claims made by city manager Southard, Mayor Rosenthal and Councilmen Leiga and Held that city staff had not participated in the in the settlement of the case. The letter claims city involvement from beginning to end including a city settlement demand that activist Mellor and his organization, The Time is Now, “get out of town”.

Additionally, according to the letter, city staff not only participated in the settlement talks but opposed council
for the city Scott Grossberg who had suggested “repeatedly” that the city return to court to unseal the settlement. Mr. Grossberg’s association with the city
ended in March.

Los Angeles District Attorney to review findings of Landrum investigation.
May 14, 2000

The L. A. County District Attorney's office told ClaremontCA that the district attorney will review only new evidence involving the gun allegedly used by Irvin Landrum in the January, 1999 police shooting incident.

The 45 caliber Smith and Wesson, long a part of a quagmire from which the city seems unable to escape is again at the center of the controversy. After the close of the D. A's investigation, the S&W handgun was discovered to have belonged to a former Ontario police official and Landrum's defenders want to know how Landrum acquired it.

The D. A.'s account of the weapon in the incident has been under fire since the results of the investigation were released. The original investigation established that the "Landrum" gun had not been fired, contrary to the police report and that Landrum's fingerprints were not present on the weapon. This incongruity of evidence has raised the suspicion of the Landrum family and many in the Claremont community.

The District Attorneys original report conceded that "not all questions arising from this investigation can be answered". Yet the report defends and explains the officers actions in
a compelling fashion and certainly raises issues with the issues that have been raised.

The D. A.'s report summarizes:
"It is more unusual than not to find fingerprints on a gun. Many surfaces do not retain prints; unless the prints are undisturbed, they may be destroyed by handling. In cases such as this, where the gun handle was serrated, one
would not expect to find prints." The gun had a wooden, serrated handle.

2. Landrum fires at officers, precipitating a return of fire by Officers Jacks and Hanna.

One officer, Hanna, reports that upon seeing the muzzle flash from Landrum's gun, and believing that he's being fired upon, fires back in self-defense. The other officer, Jacks, also reporting a muzzle flash and believing that his partner has been shot, opens fire with a volley
that ends the confrontation.

Yet the gun the suspect allegedly used was not fired. This raises one of the most tenacious questions; if the officers weren't fired upon as they stated, what precipitated the deadly exchange. How can one officer confuse the muzzle flash from his own weapon as that coming from another, unfired weapon.

Regarding the muzzle flash the D.A's report states "Investigators speculate that the muzzle flash seen by Hanna [the officer closest to Landrum] was actually his
own first shot reflecting in the darkness." Also in the
D. A.'s report, "It is most probable that the flash seen by Officer Jacks [from the passenger side of the "suspects" car, opposite Hanna ] was the first shot fired by Hanna's gun", not a shot fired by Landrum.

Adding a further question mark to Hanna's statement, police Lt. Smith arriving at the scene after the shooting was told by Jacks that Landrum had "pulled a gun and pointed it at the officers".

The shooting timeline from "he's got a gun" until the last shot lasted approximately three seconds according to the report. The officers stress levels were extreme "and may explain their inability to clearly recall the sequence of events in those fatal seconds".

It is at least clear that prior to the shooting, the officers were involved in a deteriorating situation. According to the report, Landrum's conduct was non-confrontational until he was asked to leave his car. From that point the situation disintegrates and it's recorded on officer Jacks' micro-cassette recorder, though apparently only partially decipherable. It culminates with what one listener heard as Hanna saying "he's got a gun" and another listener heard as Landrum saying "you're both dead".

But whether Landrum fired a weapon or aimed or attempted to reach a weapon is perhaps, moot. The D. A.'s report cites the following case law: "The use of deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of another is permitted if it reasonably appears to a person claiming the right of self-defense or the defense of another that he actually and reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death".

And now, how did Landrum come into possession of a weapon owned by a former police chief? This most recent issue raises another question about the investigation and suggests a very different scenario from the one presented by the District Attorney.

It's an unlikely scenario considering the evidence presented, but many citizens fear that such questions will not adequately answered without an independent investigation.

Claremont Planning Commission OK's Guns and Ammo, Pawnshops, Check Cashing and Indoor Swap Meets in revamp of the city's zoning laws. 4/20/2000.

Go for complete text of City's "Proposed Actions".

Proposed: Claremont's zoning laws are to be expanded to "reflect current city goals and objectives".

NEW: The Industrial district is renamed the Business/Industrial district. What's allowed: Indoor/outdoor recreational, amusement facilities and with a conditional use permit Guns and ammo, hospitals, crematory and fortune telling.

Not allowed in the Business/Industrial Park: All residential uses. New Village permitted uses include (with a conditional permit) microbreweries, theaters and pool hall.

Most significantly, what is added and vaguely defined is the "mixed-use development." Mixed-use, an important, often repeated component of the Village West Development, is added in all commercial districts except the Freeway and Business/Industrial. The only listed restriction on mixed use is a requirement to have "a large commercial component on the first floor". The existing code prohibits mixed use throughout the city.

Claremont College students stage rally to save the "Bernard Field Station".
To see what Students for the field station are about visit fbbfs.org or pomona.edu.

The city wants to hear your opinion. The Claremont City Council hosted a special "Choices" workshop for input on specific issues identified by the council as priorities. Topics included the Village Expansion, Griswold's Old School House, Facilities & Programs, Communication, and "Your Issues".

A mailer sent to each Claremont residence outlined the City's position on each of these issues and provided guidance for the discussions.

At Sunday's meeting, participants were divided into nine groups with each group assigned a facilitator. The meeting ended with a summary of each group's opinions by the facilitators, a.k.a. the council members and other commissioners. We've got one representative group online to provide the flavor and substance of the meeting. Later this week we'll post a summary of all nine groups.

The "Choices" mailer has a survey form that participants turned in to give specific feedback to the City on issues of importance, service and communication. Although those surveys were intended to supplement the feed back given during discussions, citizens are encouraged to fill out their surveys and submit them for consideration before March 31.

Planning Commissioner Randall Prout on testing the waters with a temporary traffic circle:
"We shot ourselves in the foot, we should have put a permanent [traffic circle] in, I think it would have worked".

The Planning Commission has had enough, for now. The traffic circle will be removed. Had a permanent installation been approved for the three roundabouts, the bill would have been $500,000. ClaremontCA's report and the planning commission excerpts will be online Thursday.

Traffic Circle Extended Despite Residents, City Engineers Concerns. 2/26/00
In what the Times called a "surprise vote", the traffic commission voted 3-2 to extend the traffic circle experiment for 90 days. Traffic and Transportation Chairwoman Ellen Taylor and commissioner Maurice Flora did not attend the meeting. Mrs. Taylor had recused herself because of a possible conflict of interest in the decision.

The decision however, did not come as a surprise to ClaremontCa. Last week (below) we suggested that the city might disagree with staff and extend the Traffic Circle's welcome. Well, they did! Why? The city's expansion plan will turn Indian Hill between 1st and Bonita into shopping area and the traffic circles (3 are planned) are necessary for the control of traffic. See photo above.

Traffic Circle Bombs - City engineers ready to pull the plug. 2/20/00
City engineers admitted in a report last week that "the overwhelming majority of the public has negative feelings" about the traffic circle. ClaremontCA's poll supports this conclusion with 63% of the respondents voting to "Change it back". Read our voters comments on the polling page.

The city spent about $25k on this experiment.

Will the city agree with their engineering department? Or will this pose a structural problem for the proposed Village West expansion and be returned for further study? Stay tuned.

The 2/8/2000 City Council Meeting is online.
Highlights: The drumbeat for the dismissal of city manager Glenn Southard begins: Five speakers demand his dismissal. A petition for the recall of Mayor Rosenthal and Councilman Leiga is to be circulated. Patty Earle offers a $5000 reward for the arrest and conviction of the person/s who intimidated a witness in the Landrum shooting and much more. A complete rundown can be found here.

Feature: New Police Chief Scheidecker Ousted. Scheidecker Responds.
In an unusually decisive move, the City of Claremont rejected new police chief appointee Thomas Scheidecker. Scheidecker's background as a member of the LAPD's notorious spook unit, the Public Disorder Intelligence Department, was disclosed in an effective series of articles written by LA Times writer's Joe Mozinga and Selicia Kennedy-Ross.

At issue now is the how this information eluded the city's formal background check. Claremont Mayor Karen Rosenthal (click to continue)

Newspaper reports stall police chief's debut.
City Manager Glen Southard announced that new police chief Scheidecker would not assume his post on Valentine's Day. The city will re-review his background check in light of facts unearthed (click to continue)

City Manager's Office Embarrassed Again. Police chief designee Tom Scheidecker's decades-old history with the L.A.P.D's shadowy spook unit, the Public Disorder Intelligence Division, is disclosed in Los Angeles Times reports (read #1, read #2). According to the Times, in 1982 Scheidecker was suspended and later reassigned for (click to continue)

On Our City Hall Page

Claremont a No-show on NPR's Respected, "Which Way LA" Radio Show. Audio Online KCRW.org
(Approx. 20 min. into show)

The Claremont Planning Commission reveals their vision of Future Claremont at the 1/18/2000 joint council, planning commission meeting. Audio online.

The First Council meeting of the Millennium Gets Off to a Rocky Start. Audio Available Online. 1/13/2000
City Holds Private Meetings with Landrum Protesters.

Landrum confronts Southard. (Audio Available)
Judge Finds Claremont Motion "Frivolous". (1/4/00)