.

Purvis Gets $300,000 Payout

BY GAIL WESSON STAFF WRITER December 20, 2013; 06:59 PM

The city of Banning has reached a $300,000 settlement with former police Chief Leonard Purvis in connection with a claim he filed alleging misconduct and retaliation by a councilman that he claimed was condoned by the city.

The settlement resolved all claims with neither party admitting any wrongful acts. Purvis agreed to waive any rights to pursue employment-related legal action.

The city provided a copy of the settlement agreement in response to a California Public Records Act Request from The Press-Enterprise.

Purvis, 44, filed the claim against Councilman Don Peterson and the city in July. On Oct. 5, he went on a voluntary paid leave and officials announced that mediation would lead to his departure.

His resignation was effective Nov. 18, according to the city.


Read the rest of the Article here: http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/the-pass/the-pass-headlines-index/20131220-banning-cit...



Libi Uremovic December 21, 2013 at 08:59 PM
On Oct. 5, he went on a voluntary paid leave..... .. His resignation was effective Nov. 18, according to the city. .....Riverside County Sheriff’s Department has hired him back as a sergeant, Sheriff Stan Sniff announced in a Facebook post that included a photo of the two shaking hands after a badge-pinning ceremony on Dec. 11. and he's paid off on December 20th...that's a very fast timeline...
Libi Uremovic December 21, 2013 at 09:04 PM
it's a bunch of crap that the city of banning handed purvis a fat check right after the news of the mini tank broke.... where does a little town like banning get money to burn...???
Jeremiah December 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Actually it's a bunch of crap that the city put themselves in a position of having to pay out on a claim to avoid an even larger lawsuit that their attorney was certain that they would lose. Now I know all the ATC's and other boo birds are going to respond to this, but the plain fact of the matter is that there was an issue and it was legitimate or they would simply have denied the claim and let Leonard Purvis file his lawsuit. ATC is going to come up with his "they did it to avoid legal fees" stuff but that doesn't fly. The city has it's own attorney on staff, and $300,000 is a lot for legal fees in an employment related action. **** They did it to hide the issue and bury it, is what they did. **** Jeremiah
Jeremiah December 21, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Actually I'm a little confused and curious here - the claim was against the city and Don Peterson - so how come the city is paying all of it instead of half and Don Peterson paying the other half? **** Jeremiah
Jack Smith December 22, 2013 at 01:36 AM
The Banning taxpayers get to pay it all. The taxpayers of Banning deserve to be punished. Go ahead, take food out of the mouths of the poor. Buy yourself a nice motorhome Leonard or a fine country club membership. You certainly earned them for all the work-related stress you had to suffer. Have a nice day.
Jeremiah December 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM
I think people have got it turned around here. The wrongdoing was on the part of the City or there would never have been a claim and a settlement. All the City had to do was say no if there wasn't cause to pay the claim and let it go to court. To try to cast Leonard Purvis as the bad guy is a little off the mark. The City and Don Peterson are the ones costing the taxpayers $300,000. It's not as if Purvis just woke up one morning and decided "Aha, today I am going to stick it to the City I have worked for and donated my time to the children and other charities in" no matter how badly the Purvis detractors would have you believe that. There was cause - cause the City signed an agreement to hide. If you want to pin the blame on someone for costing the City money, point the finger at Don Peterson, who used the City to pay his part of the claim. Any rational person would put the blame where it belongs and where it started, not on Purvis. There is not any person out there that wouldn’t have filed a claim if their employment was threatened, so the “high horse” mentality by some is unwarranted. **** Not all that money was a settlement for wrongdoing. There is more to this article that wasn't shown. Here is a quote: “Purvis will receive $166,000 from the city as severance and $134,000 from the Employment Risk Management Authority, the city’s employment claims administrator, made payable to a trust account “as damages for alleged injuries and attorneys’ fees,” the settlement said.” According to this $166,000 is severance pay and would have been paid as salary if Purvis had stayed, so it is not a “loss” to the city. It was their choice – they could have retained him. The City paid out his contract to make him go away. The other $134,000 is the amount that was paid for “alleged damages and the attorney’s fees” for the attorney Purvis retained in the matter. This is the amount the city is out for the wrongdoing they paid a settlement to avoid admitting. So the tired excuse that the City settled to avoid legal fees is not valid – they paid them anyhow, so if they weren’t at fault they should have taken it to trial. Obviously the City’s attorney felt they would have lost before a judge or jury. The City’s attorney obviously didn’t feel that 12 impartial people would have come to the same conclusion as the boo-birds who will soon descend on this comment and thought those 12 impartial people might award even more in the case. **** A last thought – here is one of the most ridiculous and weakest things I have ever seen in print: “The settlement resolved all claims with neither party admitting any wrongful acts.”. There was no wrongdoing for Purvis to admit to! This was totally about acts of the City and Don Peterson and they paid a settlement costing the taxpayer $134,000 to bury it and make it go away. Put the blame where it belongs! **** Jeremiah
ATC December 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Your petty, preemptive attack on me, while no surprise, is not even worth commenting on, Jeremiah. Some of us know things about this issue that you obviously don't, and Purvis is no longer Banning's problem. That's all I will say on the subject. ***** Merry Christmas to everyone (even you, JP), and whatever your "2013" was like, here's hoping your "2014" is even better.
haden ward December 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Ummmm, It's not gonna be what you think, he had a contract, which in any event has to be paid out - plus any vacation and sick time that was accrued. He is not regular folk and is not represented by a union. His payout is gonna be different. Any whoooo, he is gone now.
Jeremiah December 22, 2013 at 03:19 PM
Haden, you are right and that is one of the points I was trying to make. $166,000 of that "settlement" was for just that, his contract and all the other. $134,000 was the payout on the actual claim. Only part of the article by the PE was reported by Libi, although I don't think she had any intention of misleading anyone - it was just too long and she did post the link. (me, agreeing with Libi?!! It must really be Christmas!!) **** Jeremiah
a litttle justice December 22, 2013 at 06:48 PM
ATC...I believe everyone who reads and writes on this site knows that you are a supporter of Don Peterson, and that's O.K. What I find very disturbing is that you suggest you know things that the citizens don't know, which apparently justifies the Chief's dismissal. My question would be how do you know?
ATC December 23, 2013 at 01:25 PM
Justice; disturbing in what way? While I haven't talked with Purvis, I have read the detailed claim that he filed, as well as the settlement, and I've sat down with Peterson and actually talked to him. What a concept, eh? Peterson's detractors refuse to talk to him, to actually sit down and discuss issues with him; something he has made clear that he is perfectly willing to take time to do with any of his constituents. ***** Purvis' claim was against the city, not Peterson, and both the city attorney and ERMA agreed that none of the accusations had merit; nothing Peterson did was outside the scope of his duties as a councilmember. However, while the city wanted to fight it, ERMA determined that it would likely cost $300K to litigate (on top of the $166K contract payout which would be required no matter how Purvis left), and the judge could rule either way when it came to paying for those court costs. Additionally, there is no guarantee of what a jury would rule (think OJ Simpson, or Trevon Martin...). So the $134K payout was the cheapest and surest way of getting rid of the cancer. ***** Once the council started looking into Purvis' extraordinarily high use/cost of Internal Affairs Investigations and the widespread rumors that they were used as a means of punishment and discipline, I think Purvis had plenty to hide, so he figured that he would try to play hardball with the council, especially Peterson, to get them to back off. He didn't count on the city calling his bluff, and certainly didn't count on it costing him his nice cushy job. ***** And just how did he get hired so quickly with the Sheriff's dept? Could it have anything to do with the fact that more than $40K went to the Undersheriff's husband for some of those IA Investigations? Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Patch Reader December 23, 2013 at 01:27 PM
Leonard was just the beginning, just wait. Other department heads will be gone. These particular people have their own agenda and as you can see will go through great lengths to get their way, even if it means misconduct and a payout for Purvis. Mark my words there will be more!
Carol Stull December 23, 2013 at 03:36 PM
Patch Reader - I would certainly hope you're right but I'm not holding my breath. Banning's city Development Director, Zai Abu Bakar, got her/his position created by the city manager to bolster certain projects as seen fit by some. Mayor Debbie Franklin was instrumental in her/his hiring - surprised??? Just google "Zai Abu Bakar" and past employment activities with several various cities for interesting reading. Most recently the report on a proposed Very High Density Residental project on south Sunset Ave was shown to be a complete fraud - an outright lie. A report that was submitted to the AQMD within an environmental impact study was rejected as being a fabrication. But just ask mayor Franklin and she'll tell you much the city needs this person. As for Leonard Purvis, I really do wish him well. Maybe we can replace him with the city of Bell's former chief, Randy Adams - he's out of a job but doesn't come cheap. lol.
Guy McCarthy (Editor) December 23, 2013 at 05:39 PM
City of Banning's $300,000 Settlement with Former PD Chief Purvis: The Fine Print http://bit.ly/JlBeWC

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something