Front Page  »  

Parkinson: We didn’t conceal it from them

October 20, 2010

San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s candidate Ian Parkinson says in a published interview that he stopped his private work as a traffic accident reconstructionist around six years ago. [Tribune]

Parkinson, who continues to defend his actions in a 2000 Monterey County civil trial, also indicated that he had to receive annual approval from San Luis Obispo city officials to continue his off-duty consulting work.

Parkinson testified in 2000 that he had investigated about 3,000 to 4,000 traffic accidents during the nearly 17 years he’d worked as a police officer, and made several hundred reconstructions of accidents since 1990.

The controversy stems from a CalCoastNews article about Parkinson testifying as an expert witness for the plaintiff back in 2000 who turned out to be his sister-in-law Rita Tavernetti. A review of the transcript by both CalCoastNews and the Tribune shows that Parkinson failed to disclose his family relationship to the court, which eventually awarded Tavernetti $1.4 million.

“We didn’t conceal it from them,” Parkinson said of his relationship to Tavernetti in the interview published Wednesday. “If I knew that 10 years later I would run for sheriff, would I do it differently? Yes, I would make sure it was on the record that we disclosed it.”

Parkinson and the plaintiff’s attorney, James Murphy of Arroyo Grande, have maintained that Murphy disclosed the family connection to the defense attorney Frank Cunningham before the trial began.

Cunningham died two years ago and both his co-counsel and private investigator on the case have stated they had no knowledge of the Parkinson relationship.

Parkinson, currently a captain with the San Luis Obispo police department, is facing retired Pismo Beach police chief Joe Cortez in the Nov. 2 election.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comment

Anyone can advertise or donate to this site.

I believe from what I have seen thus far that Karen acts on tips, then investigate it’s validity before she post.

Case and point: Tom Bordonaro , when Karen reported something unusual or irregular about his office Tom confronted Karen.

In the aftermath, I had more respect for the “both” of them than I had before!

This is the way it should be!


0

What first bought me to Cal Coast News was Karen’s report on French Hospital and Coastal Cartiology.

Last year I was suppose to have open heart surgery, since postponing I found that some surgery were not immediately necessitated.

Since her report I have noticed many of these medical professionals modified their attitude and concern more positively.

I don’t know if the media attention influenced it but I believe it did.

Investigative news reporting is necessary to protect all of us.

Trying to resolve most problems with large institutions or agencies or powerful individuals seldom work.


0

Karen cozies up to her doners and can be bought NOT TO REPORT somethiing that will tarnish their image or business interests…corrupt or crooked- invite her to lunch and buy an add you should be fine…It’s true ,…I do know that for a fact….


0

Talk is cheap. Prove it…


0

I think local residents are pissed… The Tribune once again remained mute hoping this story would just blow-over — a common tactic of the Tribune these days. Instead the story gained traction in our community. It must have gained enough traction to force the Tribune to respond. Only the Tribune did not respond in order to disseminate the news. The Tribune finally responded as a damage control effort for Parkinson who they have publicly supported. This and other transgressions is going to haunt the Tribune…


0

Gimme a break – what difference does it make which badge heavy Boy Scout gets to be Barney and toss as many tax payers in County as possible so as to maintain bloated public wages and pensions? During this period of reality re-set, a new-old cliché is being uttered from a million clueless pie-holes: the rule of law. Well, as Joni once sang to happy Boomers, “…you don’t know what you got ’til it’s gone….”


During the last ten years, The Big Swindle, we were all too happy to systematically ignore the niggling, stodgy rule of law in our haste to get something for nothing. Now the cargo of swindles is accelerating out-of-control and breaking apart. Suddenly this cliché – the rule of law – begins to assert its meaning for this nation of slobs, morons, and grifters, to the degree that even politicians and lawyers begin to understand what’s at stake (as opposed to just how much they can get paid), though the bankers will never learn. Sorry pilgrims, the lid on the national putrid stew of scams, schemes, fraud, swindles, laziness, greed, and corruption can no longer contain the stench.


The only possible redemption is for public figures and private profiteers to face prosecution and any number of years assigned to a steel slab bed and a ping-pong career in some correctional facility. That is, if we are even able to recover some fragment of the rule of law from the landfill of good intentions. What are the chances of that?


The trouble is that the damage is so severe through every public institution that none of these monkeyshines can be mitigated. The life blood of US law enforcement is plain and simply tossing as many people in prison as humanly possible while keeping the financial Swindle Train chugging along as long as possible. Who gets to be Barney will not change any of that.


In the last ten years a lot of the things that were broken will never be put back together again. And the truth is, nobody has a clue what happens next, most particularly the folks in charge of things. All we know is that the old rule of law no longer applies and the only question is how much has much has been lost forever.


0

Dave, Tacoma and Bert (whoever you are)


You are so eager to pounce, you missed the point. it is about attacks on any candidates. And yes, I always put my money where my mouth is. Classy language Dave.


Have a good day


0

Brady: Dave did not use anything that was not “classy” language; perhaps you have his comments confused with Bert’s? As Dave challenged: ” list every fact in this story that Karen has wrong. We’ll wait for you. Tell us. Where is the reporting incorrect?”, but no, you have to try and attack the messenger. You cannot post anything here that will refute the facts that Karen reported because there is nothing to refute, period. I read the Tribune’s piece this morning as well, and try as they might, they could not diminish the effect of what Ian Parkinson did, and even he admitted that he did not do everything as proper as he could have when he stated : “If I knew that 10 years later I would run for sheriff, would I do it differently? Yes, I would make sure it was on the record that we disclosed it.” In other words, he KNEW that his NOT disclosing his relationship to one of the plaintiffs was “wrong”, even if it wasn’t illegal. Character matters for those in elected office and Ian Parkinson has repeatedly demonstrated his INability to exhibit good character.


0

Sorry Dave,


It was “Bert” who said I was “full of s–t” when I say I am donating. His comment has been pulled, as it should be. An angry person I say, Angry. Laugh a little “Bert” who ever you are?


0

That’s fine, Brady. No harm, but you’re ignoring my challenge. Where is the reporting wrong? The Tribune, CCN and KSBY all agree on the basic facts in the story. The difference is that The Tribune relies more on experts who aren’t as troubled by the admission of Parkinson. No one is accusing karen of making this up.


So, again, we’ll give you some time to assemble all your proof to show that Karen is wrong. If she was wrong, the Tribune wouldn’t even bother.


0

Nah im not angry at all. but why the censorship?


0

Comment moderation happens in my living room; disagree without being disagreeable.


0

Parkinson is walking a fine line here if you ask me. He is correct from my understanding that he doesn’t have to reveal bias but (here is the fine line) morally and ETHICALLY, especially being in law enforcement, I think you would want to reveal as to not look improper just in case.


The fact that he didn’t leaves it open to speculation of if this was with intent or not. We will never know but it is through his handling of this, that he has brought upon himself of doubt to be raised.


Again no laws broken but life isn’t always about laws. It is also about how one conducts themselves, that shows character.


0

Am I the only person who sees whats going on here? I log on this morning and see this article slamming Captain Parkinson and above the article is a huge banner advertising Cortez for Sheriff. Bottom line is that if Parkinson becomes Sheriff Cal Coast News needs to have fair reporting rather than a one sided perspective or nothing will change with the Sheriffs department or there reputation. Havent we slammed them enough? I know both Cortez and Parkinson and will say i would be proud to have either one as Sheriff. I am voting for Parkinson because he is a man of the community. He makes time to learn your name and stops to say hello. If you ever saw him at the fair he was walking around with the people actually seeing what was going on. Cortez I know is a great person and leader ,however he is not a man of the community. Im sure he would do an alright job as Sheriff but It would be more of the same “big boss” mentality leading from his office and use of his title.


0

I agree

If Ian or Joe becomes Sheriff, they can do the job

They and many more not running for Sheriff just as capable of doing the job if elected, therefore I am not objectionable to who becomes Sheriff.

I doubt that any of them would be so timely cordial, friendly, and had the time of day to know any of you till this Sheriff race materialized in the horizon.

I will not be voting for either of them (I will be filling in a different name), my criteria for voting is based on who I believe have the best or better integrety, education and experience, once elected you can’t change things or it will be very very difficult to do so.

Superficially most promotion and attacks appear campaign based, others are reactionary to the discovery of new facts.


0

YEAH…VOTE BEN HALL as a -WRITE IN-


0

After months as a quiet, objective observer, I must weigh in. I just read the Tribune article related to this issue. It is much more clearly reported and objective than the article authored by Karen.


After reading attack after attack on Ian, I have conclude there is an agenda on the part of Karen and CCN. I have always been opposed to personal attacks on political candidates. Not just Ian.


Let it be known, while I did work with Ian for several years, I do not have a horse in this race. In fact, I don’t live in the area and am not registered to vote in SLO County. I have become a Parkinson supporter thanks to Karen and her one-sided reporting.


I am so disgusted by these endless, personal attacks, I have decide to donate to the Parkinson campaign every time Karen publishes a hit piece against Ian. Based on the past year, this could get expensive.


0

Brady: Of course, it’s always easy to attack Karen and make CCN seem bias, etc. So here’s your chance: list every fact in this story that Karen has wrong. We’ll wait for you. Tell us. Where is the reporting incorrect?


0

So I take it you think its OK to be an expert wit for a family member without divulging it to the Judge or Jury? Would you think it was OK if you were the defendant who got shredded to the tune of 1.4 million?


0

We were not there. We do not know what happened. But, we are reconstructing what might have happened based on what Ian Parkinson says.


My reconstruction of the events is that +Mr. Parkinson did conceal his very personal relationship with his sister-in-law, +it was intentional and purposeful, +she benefitted handsomely (1.4 million dollars).


This is unethical. Sure seems like insurance fraud to me which is illegal.


It is an utter and extreme violation of the court’s and the people’s trust.


It reduces “Captain” Parkinson to Liar Parkinson.


0

“If I knew 10 years later…..” Hasn’t Parkinson been telling us all along that he has been training “all my life” to be sheriff?


0

The fact is Parkinson’s testimony likely weighed heavily in the decision for the award given. Had EVERYONE in the case been privy to the material fact of the relationship between Parkinson and the plaintiff, would the award been the same? Doubtful. Parkinson: you do not have my vote. You do not represent an office deserving of leadership from a person who has everyone’s best interest, not just those you owe favor to. Cortez has my vote.


0
1 2