Does this really surprise anyone?
Who else laughed along?
Angel’s Burbank emails were first released in 2014 in response to records requests filed by a Los Angeles attorney on behalf of a client. The Times recently learned of the requests, which sought various records, including four years’ worth of emails to and from top-ranking Burbank police officials containing derogatory language about Islam, African Americans, Latinos and others. The attorney, Travis Poteat, did not return calls for comment.
The Times asked for the same records he obtained. In its response to the newspaper, the city did not initially include the emails forwarded by Angel until a reporter asked why they were missing. City officials said the emails were in a batch of records that were inadvertently overlooked.
In all but one case, the city redacted the names and addresses of Angel’s email correspondents. A city spokesman said the redactions applied to anyone who did not work for the city because making their identities public would amount to an invasion of privacy.
Bullshit. Even worse, you know damn well that the city is lying here. There has to have been more then one City of Burbank recipient.
Albano and Company just don’t want you to know who they were. They released the one name to make it look like they were complying with the legal request. Releasing none at all would have made it perfectly obvious that they were being willfully dishonest and non-compliant.
[The one city email they did release was apparently that fairly innocuous question to Cremins about the “72 virgins.” What a coincidence that the one Albano finally decided to let go of was also the least offensive of the bunch.]
If this idiotic stuff had been known to be floating around the city’s email system back then — which it was — it would have added fuel to the fire to those 2007-2014 legal cases against the city, including that of the Justice Department. And so the Burbank city attorney and city manager don’t want anyone to know the full extent of it.
So where’s our intrepid “investigative reporter” Will Rogers on this one, eh? Does he approve of this blatant lack of transparency on the part of his charges?
You know, he himself can release those city names if he wants to. Will he?
As to Angel — didn’t it matter to him or the Burbank Police Department that he was sending this crap around during the FBI mess? How stupid can you be.
“They were not right, not to be condoned,” LaChasse said. “There’s nobody more contrite about it than Tom Angel. That’s not a part of his DNA.”
Angel declined to comment on whether he was disciplined but said he has never been the subject of an internal investigation for his conduct.
“Ask if there has ever been any kind of issue with my dealing with any minority communities in the history of my association with law enforcement, and you’ll find there’s been none,” Angel said.
Not in Burbank. Of course not. That’s why all this stuff kept happening and happening.
Oh, we’ll amend that second-to-last statement. There is if the management people deem you to be insubordinate in nature. Like, if you levy or file a complaint or lawsuit against them. Then they’ll go after you! Then there’s an “issue.” And lots of internal investigations in your name.
We saw that over and over again in Burbank. If a police employee raised hell about something the uniformed and civilian management people always found a reason for discipline.
Also … don’t these rediscovered emails contradict that very last utterance of his?
Of course they do. There’s an obvious issue there with this guy, and it doesn’t take much to “find” it. Unless management helps him out by trying to hide his bigoted smartass emails for as long as possible.
As to Councilman Rogers, here’s a great opportunity to re-ask an old question of ours. It’s something we’ve always wondered about:
Rogers was all over the place politically in this town right before the Portos story went wild. And he was all over the place after everything had eventually settled down, beginning about a couple of years ago.
But where was Rogers during that years long Portos/BPD/discrimination controversy itself?
Portos and its fallout was national news everywhere, and yet Rogers the investigative journalist didn’t seem to be interested enough to even come out and lend a word or two about it to the public? For the biggest Burbank news story of the last 50 or 60 years?
This was very odd, and we noticed his absence at the time. He of all people you’d think would be out there talking about things, no?
Why the years-long disappearing act?