Politics & Government

Banning's Employment Risk Management Attorney Weighs in on Purvis Settlement Debate

Published 6:15 p.m. Dec. 31 2013

A Banning city spokesman and the lawyer for the city's Employment Risk Management Authority contacted Patch Monday and Tuesday, respectively, to suggest the ERMA attorney be given an opportunity to clarify recent statements about the city's $300,000 settlement with former Chief of Police Leonard Purvis.

Melanie Poturica, ERMA lead counsel for the City of Banning, wanted to respond to a press release distributed Monday by City Council member Don Peterson and to comments made by Purvis' attorney, Bradley Gage of Woodland Hills.

The information was first published Dec. 30 by Banning-Beaumont Patch under the headline

Peterson Touts Finding of No Wrongdoing, Says Purvis Accusations were 'Fabricated and False'

The report was updated Monday afternoon under the headline

UPDATE: Purvis Attorney Fires Back at Peterson, Says 'Payment by City Proves There Were Problems'

In a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, Poturica told Patch the following:

I want to clarify that Mr. Peterson was not cleared of wrongdoing. There were no findings against him. But he was not cleared of wrongdoing. There was no investigation.

Mr. Peterson made a statement that former Chief Purvis' accusations were completely fabricated and false. There was no such finding. And there is no finding that he, Peterson, has always acted in the course of his elected duty.

And again there were no such findings because there was no investigation.

I agree with Mr. Gage's statements that there was neither an investigation or discovery that was provided in the lawsuit to absolve anyone from the city of wrongdoing.

That includes his client, former Chief Purvis. No one was absolved of wrongdoing.

There was no clearance of wrongdoing or finding of wrongdoing on anyone's part.

And I disagree with Mr. Gage that the large payment by the city proves that there were indeed problems with the way the city treated Chief Purvis.

I disagree that former Chief Purvis was mistreated by the city or its council.

I disagree with Mr. Gage that the city paid large sums of money because of wrongdoing of its employee.

I disagree with Mr. Gage that the city would not have paid so much money early in the litigation if the city did not realize there were problems with the case.

I disagree with Mr. Peterson that Chief Purvis' accusations were completely fabricated and false.

The city believes it was in its best interest to settle the case rather than spend a lot of money litigating the case and fighting it, which would have cost money and time and energy.

I want to be clear that while there were no findings against Mr. Peterson, there were also no findings against former Chief Purvis.

The city and former Chief Purvis made a decision to settle the case and move forward, and it is unfortunate that this matter is being raised again to the press, because the parties had agreed to move forward.

Given an opportunity to comment for this report, Peterson declined.

Gage and Purvis did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Purvis first filed a $250,000 claim against the City of Banning in July, alleging misconduct violations by Peterson that occurred in December 2012 and March 2013. The city settled with Purvis in November, and Purvis was rehired by the Sheriff's Department earlier this month.

For background see:
City of Banning's $300K Settlement with Former PD Chief Purvis: The Fine Print

Purvis Rehired by Riverside County Sheriff's Department

UPDATE: Banning Police Have No Chief, Purvis on Voluntary Paid Leave

Banning Police Chief Files $250,000 Claim Against City


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here