Decade Old Sexual Misconduct Allegations Raised in County Superintendent’s Race

Jesse OrtizIs County Superintendent Candidate a Subject of a Politically Motivated Smear Campaign? - On Monday, the Vanguard was sent the police report by Woodland Record Editor Dino Gay, of a nearly 10-year-old case involving then-Woodland Community College counselor Jesse Ortiz, who is now a candidate for the Yolo County Superintendent of Schools.

A day later, an individual named “Garry Gallagher” sent a mass email to undisclosed recipients, stating, “I was sent this email last week and I am forwarding it to others. This is quite upsetting to me as a parent in this community. This is clearly inappropriate behavior for someone in his position and while on school campus. Some of you have endorsed this individual. Mr. Ortiz has sued the school district and lost twice yet no one has reported on the lewd act that he has done. When he didn’t get his way he then claimed it was racially based. “

The Yuba Appeal-Democrat on December 30, 2013, reported that an appeals court upheld a Yuba College ruling that the Community College did not violate the Brown Act when it considered disciplinary action against Ortiz, not for the incident, but the failure to fully cooperate with the investigation in 2005.

The court notes that the letter of reprimand was issued “for failing to cooperate fully with the administrative investigation.” It also notes, “sexual misconduct involving Ortiz could not be substantiated during the investigation.”

In its lead, the Appeal-Democrat wrote, “What may have been a case of mistaken identity sparked an eight-year legal battle between a counselor and the Yuba Community College District.”

The Vanguard was inclined to not pursue this matter, given the nearly 10 years that have passed since the incident, and given that there is no allegation that Mr. Ortiz did anything other than have consensual sexual contact in an inappropriate location – there is no evidence that this was coerced, forced, with a student or an employee, or has any other secondary accusations to it.

Those familiar with the case told the Vanguard that Ortiz was unjustly accused of an alleged incident for which no evidence implicating him or anyone else was ever produced.

They stated there was no evidence ever produced – no license plate, no description of the car, no identification or description of the other person allegedly involved, nothing ever produced, no evidence that anything happened at all.

The fact that he was chairing as Board President a Woodland School Board Trustee meeting the entire evening that was cited was not even considered. The fact that his wife testified he was home after the meeting was also not taken into consideration.

Given the lack of any tangible evidence tying him to this incident, he wanted the bogus incident to be discussed in a public forum so the lack of evidence and the false allegation against him could be heard; however, the district refused.

When he learned that the Board had discussed the incident in closed session he filed suit to protest the unwillingness of the administration to openly discuss the matter. Although the court did not rule in his favor, he believed that any attempt to shed the light of day on a false allegation against his character was justified.

A letter of reprimand was issued against him and placed in his file by a human resources officer. That letter was subsequently removed when a new administration determined that the lack of due process, false statement of “not cooperating” or of any evidence implicating or tying him to the incident made any letter in his personnel file improper and unfounded.

However, given the continued efforts to spread this campaign designed to harm Mr. Ortiz’ candidacy, we have looked into the matter as well as we can determine.

Critics allege that, while “sexual misconduct involving Ortiz could not be substantiated during the investigation, the records show that ‘Ortiz was not cooperative’ and he ‘did not provide a reasonable explanation’ and ‘could not reasonably account for his time’ for the two hours during which the alleged activity took place. The police report states, “Jesse Ortiz acted inappropriately by receiving oral sex while at the workplace and outdoors in the public view.” He was charged with Penal Code §647(a).

In the narrative, the officer described the incident on April 14, 2005, at 9:40 pm, “I walked over to the passenger’s side of the car and stood approximately two feet away from the passenger door, concerned for officer safety, activated my Streamlight Stinger flashlight.”

There he saw what he described as a black female adult, and said “I believed the female was performing oral sex on the driver, a Hispanic male adult, who I immediately recognized as Woodland Community College counselor Jesse Ortiz.”

He stated, “I contacted Ortiz, who had the driver’s side window partially rolled down. While looking at Ortiz I stated to the effect, “Hey Jesse, What’s going on?” Ortiz replied, “We’re just having some fun,” and spontaneously commented, “We’ll just be leaving.” Both occupants departed the campus without further incident.”

Five days later, Mr. Ortiz “stated that he had met with the Yuba Community College District’s Chief of Police (Chief Wilkinson) yesterday because of allegations made by Officer Pate regarding Ortiz’s behavior. Ortiz stated, “This morning when I sat down with the Chief, I asked that I wanted to meet with Ben. The Chief didn’t say no.” Ortiz denied acting inappropriately, saying “I didn’t do it Ben” and claimed that his wife and other unidentified persons could vouch that he was home at 9:00 p.m. on the day in question. Ortiz stated that he had been married 28 years and this situation had never happened to him before. Ortiz requested that both Chief Wilkinson and I meet with Ben so everybody could work this situation out together.”

According to the facts laid down by the court, Mr. Ortiz worked as a guidance counselor for the District since 1994. Mr. Ortiz spoke with the college chief of police and repeatedly denied he was the man in the car.

Both parties hired civil and criminal counsel to address the investigations and in early May 2005 Ortiz and his attorney met with the District’s human resources director and its general counsel. Later that month, Ortiz’s attorney wrote several letters to the District complaining about the propriety of the investigations and the District’s lack of response to Ortiz’s previous inquiries regarding the issue. Ortiz’s counsel accused the District of being uncooperative and of abusing Ortiz’s civil and due process rights. Ortiz also informed the District that he wanted to participate in any discussion regarding the matter pursuant to the Brown Act.

On June 15, 2005, the Board met in closed session to discuss the Ortiz matter without notice to Mr. Ortiz that “this matter would be discussed in closed session.”

The court wrote, “During the closed session, the District’s counsel briefed the Board very generally on the ongoing administrative investigation involving Ortiz and the potential for litigation from both Ortiz and the unknown female in the car. In an attempt to limit the District’s litigation exposure, the District’s counsel mentioned that he was considering recommending a letter of reprimand against Ortiz, although no definitive recommendation was made at that time and the Board was not asked to vote on and did not vote on any such measure against Ortiz.”

According to the meeting minutes, the Board did not take any action on any closed session items.

The court then wrote, “Nearly two months later, the District’s human resources director gave Ortiz a letter of reprimand for failing to cooperate fully with the administrative investigation. No Board approval or authority was necessary before the human resources director could issue the reprimand letter. According to the letter, sexual misconduct involving Ortiz could not be substantiated during the investigation.”

Mr. Ortiz would file a complaint against the District alleging numerous causes of action, including one for violating the Brown Act. The matter was tried at a bench trial.

The court would rule “that during the closed session the Board did not take any ‘action’ as that term is defined in the Brown Act. The court separately found that the Board did not consider any disciplinary action against Ortiz at the closed session. Finally, the court found the District properly agendized the matter under the potential litigation exception to the open meeting laws found in section 54956.9.”

The appellate court’s ruling basically upheld this decision, which had bearing again on whether the board had acted properly in giving a letter of reprimand, rather than at the core issue of the original investigation.  As the court noted, the letter of reprimand was issued “for failing to cooperate fully with the administrative investigation.” It also notes that “sexual misconduct involving Ortiz could not be substantiated during the investigation.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

54 Comments

  1. PhilColeman

    I’ll ignore the issue of identification of the male participant. Note what was depicted as a crime is later described as sexual misconduct and one person said the act was lewd. Most everybody has their own standard of how those terms apply to a given sexual circumstance. What I can say is that the action, as described by the reporting police officer, was not a crime.

    The key element to 647(a) here is “public place.” The participants were in a car, and a apparent public access parking lot in darkness.

    That is not a “work place” as somebody said, unless one of the participants sells or services vehicles. The only observer was the police officer. Bluntly, he doesn’t count as meeting the “public” standard as far how a 647(a) is charged. I doubt there is any patrol officer of any length of service that has NOT come upon an instance like this, multiple times. If it were two consenting adults, no report would ever be taken. The participants would be told to leave, or left alone.

    1. D.D.

      I guess some people are offended by oral sex the way some people are offended by homosexuality. I wish adult consensual behavior was left private. My vote is not swayed by a candidate’s adult consensual sexual behavior.

  2. tj

    Now this makes 2 strikes against Sam Neustadt.

    The 1st is Delaine Eastin’s endorsement of Neustadt. She harassed one of her accoountants, who discovered millions of dollars for ESL programs were going to post office boxes, with no sign of any ESL programs, then demoted him when he kept asking questions, and finally harassed the accountant into a heart attack. He sued and it cost the state $1 million.
    It was reported elsewhere but seems not to have been reported here in her home town.

    Ortiz will definitely get my vote.
    ____________________
    This morning’s mail has a hit piece against Dodd. Not hard to figure who it’s meant to help.

  3. fb

    Instead of reporting this, which you claim is a smear campaign but reads like an ad for Ortiz, why not compare the candidates’ resumes? Ortiz wants to be superintendent after letting his credential lapse for almost two decades. But, since this piece addresses the issue of character, let it be pointed out that Ortiz sued his own employer to keep this story quiet. If that lawsuit was paid for by the taxpayers, that too should be reported.

    1. Davis Progressive

      he actually sued his employer and allowed the story to get out. had he not sued his employer, the letter of reprimand would have been a private personnel document, and thus confidential. the only way this incident became public was suing his employer. so you have it completely backwards with respect to the law.

    2. David Greenwald

      I just want to be clear: I have no dog in this fight. I have met with and interviewed both candidates. I think both are qualified for the position. I know Jesse Ortiz a tiny bit previously. I am not supporting either candidate.

      I was sent the police report on Monday by Dino Gay, that’s the first I knew about this case. After checking out the allegations, I find that at most, nine years ago, a man received oral sex in a car. There was an investigation, they found nothing to substantiate it. He received a reprimand, but since those discussions were in closed session, for all we know it’s because he hired a lawyer. BTW, I would have too regardless of innocence or guilt. The suit as DP notes above, actually made the reprimand public, had he been trying to keep it quiet, he simply does nothing and the reprimand would have been a slap on his wrist Obviously he felt that this was wrong and decided to fight it.

  4. D.D.

    I actually have more respect for a man who does not kiss and tell. Maybe that refusal to talk is referred to as being “uncooperative”. Maybe he was protecting the other person in the car with him.

    1. PhilColeman

      Interesting point. It seems reasonable that the investigation into the matter included asking for the identity of the partner. Were it me, I’d tell them to “stuff it.” That response would be easily interpreted to be uncooperative, when the real reason was to protect the willing partner.

      1. D.D.

        I agree. I would not snitch on the other person to clear myself. I’d tell them to stuff it, too. Wonder if this person named G.G. is holding a grudge because it was his girlfriend, or wife, or adult daughter, or adult niece, etc., in the car with him?

  5. Dave Salinas

    Mr. Greenwald I do appreciate that you have reported on this.

    I would like to point out some issues that I have regarding the story. I have also received the copy of the investigation report. Some have stated “it was a decade old” Well doesn’t change that this is an individual that is running for public office and he is married. Seems to me that other news organizations have attacked other public officials for kissing and intern etc… Many have called for them to step down. Why should this be overlooked because it was 2 consent adults as some have pointed out. Sorry that may. Let us not forget that this lewd act as the investigative report filed states “was done on school campus while students were attending.” That is not okay for me.

    Quote from the FINDINGS page 10 of the supplemental report exactly as it was written.
    “Based on the investigation, Officer Pate’s observations, and interviews the allegation was sustained. Ortiz engaged in lewd conduct while on the Woodland campus open to the public while students were attending classes and Woodland faculty was on campus.

    During the interview Ortiz was not cooperative and did not provide a reasonable explanation. He could not reasonably account for his time (over 2 hours) after the board meeting. The pants he was wearing during the board meeting are similar to the pants description in Officer Pate’s report .”

    So let us backup for a moment and play devil’s advocate.

    Mr Ortiz’s states this ” saying “I didn’t do it Ben” and claimed that his wife and other unidentified persons could vouch that he was home at 9:00 p.m. on the day in question. Ortiz stated that he had been married 28 years and this situation had never happened to him before.”

    That is where it really goes to his credibility and his moral character, he claims that his wife or other unidentified people can vouch for him. That was on page 3 of the investigative report.

    On Page 7 of the supplemental report.
    I asked Ortiz again if his wife would confirm that he was at his residence . Ortiz stated that before I could interview his wife “I want to get an attorney first.”
    I asked Ortiz if anyone could corroborate his story from when he left the board meeting, drove to AutoZone then to Wal-Mart .I asked him if he received a cellular telephone call or spoke to anyone. Ortiz stated, “Well there was people in there. I didn’t talk to anyone.”
    I gave Ortiz my business card with my cellular telephone number. Ortiz spontaneously stated “I am more concern[ed] about the integrity if something like this gets out. If I could tell you right now that it was me it was an adult it was …nobody I would say it.”
    I asked Ortiz if I could call his wife. He was adamant’ that he would talk to his wife before I interviewed her.
    Ortiz stated, “You know what Chief it wasn’t me. If it is going to help me in this situation. To tell you that I was there and that was an adult. Then I’d rather just do that and get this over with and don’t have to deal with it. If that’s it!”
    Ortiz stated that I was insulting him and he became angry. I told him to calm down and take a breath . Ortiz then received a cellular telephone call from his brother, who was waiting for him in the lobby of the Woodland Police Department.
    I asked Ortiz when he would be contacting an attorney. He replied, “least til noon. ”
    We concluded the interview .

    On Page 9 He claims his wife will vouch for him Here is what she says to the officer who called her:

    On April 21, 2005, at approximately 9:48 a.m. I contacted Mrs. Ortiz via telephone . A female answered the telephone and identified herself as Mrs. Ortiz . I explained that I had spoken to her husband Jesse about an incident involving Jesse on April 14, 2005, in the evening after Jesse departed the Woodland Joint Unified School District meeting .

    I told her that Jesse and I had agreed that he would talk to her before I did . She admitted that Jesse had spoken to her, but would not give any details of her conversation with Jesse. Mrs. Ortiz spontaneously stated, “I will not talk to you without an attorney .”

    I told her that I understood, however, did she know any African American Females that owned a green vehicle . Her voice cracked and appeared to start crying and refused to answer my question. I asked her if she would speak to Jesse and her attorney to set up an interview time and date. We ended our conversation .

    Conclusion:
    Jesse’s statement is he would admit to something to make it go away even though he has been adamantly stating that it wasn’t him. Shaking my head at that response.

    Again seeing if I am being short sided and not being fair in looking at this. I took it upon myself to do some research and see if others viewed it differently. Here are just a few of the comments from that research.

    Do You Care if a Candidate Cheats on His Spouse?

    Here are just a few of the comments from people.

    “Past performance is a predictor of future performance.”

    ” Their sex life is their own ,but it shows who they are.”

    “If a man can’t be true to his wife, how can he be true to his word???

    “I do care if they cheat on their Spouse, if they they can lie to their Spouse,
    what makes you think they won’t lie and cheat to the Public.”

    “We are seeing more and more politicians getting caught in lies, and infidelity,
    and that is indicative of their personal choices as well as their ability to be an
    effective leader for the position they are responsible for.
    Everyone has problems, but personal choices DO effect job performance.”

    “I think it shows they are not tied to morals. You look at the morals or values
    associated with marriage: commitment, honest, loyalty, respect, trust, admiration,
    love are a few. You need these same values as a leader, well, if you couldn’t even
    hold to these values on a small scale (your marriage) how can I trust you to hold
    these values while overseeing the school system.
    It would color the way I viewed that candidate as a potential leader.”

    “Candidates run on a family values ticket yet they are not practicing actual family
    values. That is the definition of hypocritical. If they ran on the idea of cheating on
    their wife then sure, it won’t matter.
    It is when they are hypocritical to the ideas they are selling us on. Don’t hug and kiss your
    wife and play to the camera if you are really not that type of person. Show us who you really are.
    People want to elect other people who represent them.”

    1. Davis Progressive

      which leads me to a lot questions

      1. how did someone get a hold of a police reports?
      2. what public purpose is served by reliving an incident from ten years a retired police chief doesn’t even think is a crime?
      3. how about evaluating his very public record from the last eight years and see if he measures up?

      this whole thing smells.

    2. Tia Will

      Dave Salinas

      “I will not talk to you without an attorney .”

      I told her that I understood, however, did she know any African American Females that owned a green vehicle .”

      I think that you pose a valid point about trust. However I think that you are targeting the wrong person. I do not see how we can put trust in the accounting of an officer who when reporting a conversation believes it is ok to ignore the clear statement of a citizen that she will not speak without an attorney which is well within her rights and continues to ask questions clearly designed to cause emotional distress.

      “Jesse’s statement is he would admit to something to make it go away even though he has been adamantly stating that it wasn’t him. Shaking my head at that response.”

      I am not sure just what is worthy of “head shaking” about this statement. One thing that has consistently come out over the years about confessions is that under duress, people will frequently admit to committing acts that they did not do to protect themselves, or someone else from perceived harm. Since the police see nothing wrong, in fact are trained to lie in order to gain confessions, and are not above emotional harassment of even the obviously completely innocent ( as above) to get information they want, why would this be surprising to you ?

      So the question that I have for you Dave is what about innocent until proven guilty ? It seems that there is simply nothing here to moralize about save perhaps the actions of the police.

  6. Dave Salinas

    “I think it shows they are not tied to morals. You look at the morals or values
    associated with marriage: commitment, honest, loyalty, respect, trust, admiration,
    love are a few. You need these same values as a leader, well, if you couldn’t even
    hold to these values on a small scale (your marriage) how can I trust you to hold
    these values while overseeing the school system.
    It would color the way I viewed that candidate as a potential leader

    1. D.D.

      Mr. Salinas, then I deduce you’ll never ever vote for anyone who ever “sinned” in any manner whatsoever. Wow. You will have a difficult time finding a candidate.

    2. D.D.

      “…if you couldn’t even hold to these values on a small scale (your marriage) how can I trust you to hold
      these values while overseeing the school system.”

      It’s rumored that Benjamin Franklin was quite the ladies man. And John F. Kennedy. Not too shabby company Mr. Ortiz is keeping.

  7. Dave Salinas

    Question 1.
    How does one get a hold of a police report If you want to request a copy of a crime report, you must mail your written request to Records & Identification (R&I) Division Other cities / counties have different rules.

    Question 2.
    A retired police chief doesn’t even think is a crime ? Where was that published? Did I miss something? Or is that you conclusion?

    Question 3.
    Evaluating his public record is exactly what the public is doing. You just seem to think that we have to accept the fact that he cheated on his wife and sues the school (and loses ) which cost the school district a lot of money you can be sure of. Then when others questioned him he file a racial lawsuit which he ultimately loses again costing the school district money.

    Smells of what?
    His failure to cooperate with an investigation?
    His failure to tell the truth ?

    What smells is that he should have just admitted what he did instead of lying about it. He would not have to deal with any of this so called smelly stuff. After all he stepped in it when he had sex on campus. Get a hotel or better yet just don’t cheat on your wife.

    1. Tia Will

      Dave Salinas

      Just to be clear, we are basing any judgement about the activities of Mr. Ortiz on the statement of one police officer who since there was no trial, was presumably not bound by an oath to tell the truth. Given that we know that police officers use lying as a part of their accepted technique to gain confessions of wrong doing, how exactly do we know that it was not the police officer who was lying ?

      I am writing as perhaps the strongest critic you could find of those who chose to cheat on a spouse. Having said that, I believe that in our society, one is innocent until proven guilty. Given that standard, there is simply nothing here except a contemptible attempt to smear someone with a decades old non crime of which there is no proof.
      If you have proof of your claims, you should show it. If not you and everyone else involved in this sleazy attack
      should apologize and limit any future comments to the current demonstrable issues.

      1. David Greenwald

        ” we are basing any judgement about the activities of Mr. Ortiz on the statement of one police officer who since there was no trial, was presumably not bound by an oath to tell the truth. ”

        Who apparently, though I still need to confirm, has since been terminated from his job and no longer works in law enforcement.

    2. David Greenwald

      “How does one get a hold of a police report If you want to request a copy of a crime report, you must mail your written request to Records & Identification (R&I) Division Other cities / counties have different rules.”

      That is not accurate. A police report is generally not a public document and generally only available to the subject of the case. It is very difficult to get a hold of police reports – I know from experience.

      1. PhilColeman

        I’ll validate the above, and add that among the reasons for it is that police reports are replete with hearsay and could be used to cause undue harm to a person’s public reputation. You need not look too hard to find a distinct example.

      2. D.D.

        is difficult to acquire a cop’s report unless you work at the police dept. or one used to work there and still have buddies, good ole boys, who still work there. I used to work with a man who worked for Sac. Co. Sheriff, years ago. He stupidly bragged about what info his buddies could get for him. What a dummy.

    3. D.D.

      have been bullied by the Dixon police, years ago. I was uncooperative with the bully. I was also an innocent person. Being uncooperative with a nice decent cop or with a mean, verbally abusive cop does not make an American citizen guilty of a crime.

    4. D.D.

      Mr Ortiz’ critics scoured his history to discredit him, a dirty political maneuver. They had to go back almost ten years to find anything at all. It appears his wife stood by him, whatever happened or did not happen. They have moved on. A man who is not his wife can’t forgive him. Oh well.
      Who cares about Mr. Salinas’ judgMental rant? Almost ten years ago is the only thing his critics can find. Wow.

    1. D.D.

      Were Mr. Salinas my neighbour, I’d hope he was paying more attention to his own personal relationships and less attention to mine. Consensual adult behavior is really none of his beeswax.

  8. Dave Salinas

    Tia Wrote: Just to be clear, we are basing any judgement about the activities of Mr. Ortiz on the statement of one police officer who since there was no trial, was presumably not bound by an oath to tell the truth. Given that we know that police officers use lying as a part of their accepted technique to gain confessions of wrong doing, how exactly do we know that it was not the police officer who was lying ?
    My Response: The difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt.

    Tia wrote: I am writing as perhaps the strongest critic you could find of those who chose to cheat on a spouse. Having said that, I believe that in our society, one is innocent until proven guilty. Given that standard, there is simply nothing here except a contemptible attempt to smear someone with a decades old non crime of which there is no proof.
    If you have proof of your claims, you should show it. If not you and everyone else involved in this sleazy attack should apologize and limit any future comments to the current demonstrable issues.

    Tia your point is that, while “one is innocent until proven guilty” may be a good standard for making decisions in criminal cases, it really isn’t the best method for deciding what is most likely true about the investigation on Jesse Ortiz “Ortiz engaged in lewd conduct while on the Woodland campus open to the public while students were attending classes and Woodland faculty was on campus” That was exact findings of the investigation not by just one officer as many have tried to claim.

    This statement from the officer on the copy of the police report speaks volumes to me.

    Section 48 Describe Briefly How Offense Was Committed
    Jesse Ortiz, a WCC counselor, was observed receiving what appeared to be oral sex from an unknown black female adult, while parked on the Woodland Community College campus driveway located to the southwest of Building 600.

    Section 51 What did Suspect(s) Say -Note Peculiarities
    “We’re just having a little fun.”

    Section 54 Trademark – Other Distinctive Action of Suspect
    The black female adult was spitting and pulled what appeared to be hair out of her mouth with her fingers, after being caught performing what appeared to be oral sex upon Ortiz. Ortiz pulled up his pants_

    NARRATIVE:
    On April 14, 2005 at 9:40 p.m. while on uniform foot patrol on the southwest comer of building 600, I observed a rounded dark metallic green car drive past my location west towards the fence dividing the high school from the college at a high rate of speed, and park facing north, in the unlit, dark, and secluded driveway area in the far southwest comer of the campus approximately 50 yards from the 600 Building. The car’s headlights and engine were then turned off. Before I approached the car, I waited and observed the car, for my safety and the safety of the vehicle occupants. I did not see any interior lights activate or persons exit the vehicle. I found the occupant(s) behavior unusual so went to investigate.

    I walked over to the passenger’s side of the car and stood approximately two feet away from the passenger door, concerned for officer safety, activated my Streamlight Stinger flashlight, and illuminated the inside of the vehicle’s gray interior, and observed two occupants. I observed a black female adult with her waist and legs physically in the passenger’s seating area and her upper torso turned to the left with her back towards me, with her head in the driver’s groin area. The female jumped back to a sitting position, spitting, and tried to pull an unknown material out of her mouth with her right hand fingers. Based upon my observations .and the female’s abrupt action, I believed the female was performing oral sex on the driver, a Hispanic male adult, who I immediately recognized as Woodland Community College counselor Jesse Ortiz. I noticed the BFA had brown eyes and black straight layered hair approximately 3″- 4″ in length that gently stuck out and was graying at her temple areas. Looking through the front windshield as I continually illuminated the vehicle interior and walked over to the driver’s side of the vehicle, I observed Ortiz pull up the front of his grayish or khaki colored pants. Both occupants appeared to be embarrassed. I have known Ortiz for at least seven years and he had been my counselor while I was a student at Woodland Community College. As early as a week before, I had seen Ortiz on campus. I was shocked to be observing this behavior.

    I contacted Ortiz, who had the driver’s side window partially rolled down. While looking at Ortiz I stated to the effect, “Hey Jesse, What’s going on?” Ortiz replied, “We’re just having some fun” and spontaneously commented, “We’ll just be leaving”. Both occupants departed the campus without further incident.

    INVESTIGATION REPORT SUSPECT: JESSE ORTIZ

    PAGE 3
    CASE NUMBER: 05-0083
    I elected not to ask for the female’s identification because I immediately recognized Ortiz, the female appeared to be mature, they elected to depart the campus, and I was shocked and taken aback by Ortiz’s inappropriate behavior.
    On April 19, 2005 at 2:48 p .m. while being briefed for my shift by Officer Redfield in our office space, located at Woodland Community College in room 127, I was contacted by Jesse Ortiz.

    Ortiz related the following to Officer Redfield and I:
    Ortiz stated that he had met with the Yuba Community College District’s Chief of Police (Chief Wilkinson) yesterday because of allegations made by Officer Pate regarding Ortiz’s behavior . Ortiz stated, “This morning when I sat down with the Chief, I asked that I wanted to meet with Ben. The Chief didn’t say no.” Ortiz denied acting inappropriately, saying “I didn’t do it Ben” and claimed that his wife and other unidentified persons could vouch that he was home at 9:00 p.m. on the day in question. Ortiz stated that he had been married 28 years and this situation had never happened to him ‘before. Ortiz requested that both Chief Wilkinson and I meet with him so everybody could work this situation out together .

    While you may not hold enough certainty about the event to criminally convict Ortiz, the preponderance of evidence does still seem to suggest that he most likely did something very wrong here, and it therefore still seems most reasonable for us as private individuals to presume his guilt and speak of him accordingly, even if we didn’t go so far as to criminally punish him based on that assumption. If he truly did nothing wrong then he should have in his lawsuit objected to the police report as being false.

    He has only filed lawsuits on a brown act violation and race discrimination.

    Then when he was instructed by the court:
    “As plaintiff has now made four attempts to state a cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1985, the Court declines to afford further leave to amend, as further attempts to amend the complaint appear to be futile.
    Source: http://www.yolo.courts.ca.gov/forms/ATO-TEN-070816.pdf

    When that failed he then attempts to claim action for race discrimination in May 2007
    Which Jesse Ortiz again lost. The motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is DENIED.

    The most interesting part of all of this is that no lawsuit was ever filed by Jesse regarding the Lewd Act Sexual misconduct. He should have given all of the lawsuits that he filed against the school district (brown act violation, race discrimination) All filed based upon this lewd act that was in a police report that he says is not true. So why not file against the officer that some of you are stating could be lying.

    “If a law enforcement officer was involved in bringing the false accusations, the accused may also have a claim for false imprisonment or for a civil rights violation, often called a Section 1983 action after the provision in the federal law creating that cause of action.

    Yet to this day no lawsuit was ever filed. I’ve read the police report so has Mr. Ortiz. I am convinced why he has not filed it.

    I have my opinion of this as do others on here . While some of you make interesting points I disregard the rants and I will stick to what I consider valid comments.

    My biggest issue is not the act itself. Those of you stating it was done by 2 consenting adults I have no issue with that at all. It is where it was done and he is married.

    Everyone should be outraged that this was done according to the Findings from the investigation which was done by more than 1 officer.

    FINDINGS:
    Based on the investigation, Officer Pate’s observations, and interviews the allegation was sustained. Ortiz engaged in lewd conduct while on the Woodland campus open to the public while students were attending classes and Woodland faculty was on campus.

    Did you catch that ” Ortiz engaged in lewd conduct while on the Woodland campus open to the public while students were attending classes and Woodland faculty was on campus”

    I wonder if you would have felt that same way had a minor student came upon this and reported it to the officer. I wonder how many of you would come to Mr Ortiz’s defense. I think most of us already know the answer to that.

    He did this on School Campus while Students were attending classes is what they state.

    That finding by the investigation is where I will end this and my position is clear.
    “I do care if they cheat on their Spouse, if they can lie to their Spouse,
    what makes you think they won’t lie and cheat to the Public.”

    If you support him that is your choice. I am not supporting anyone who would do this around kids PERIOD!

  9. Davis Progressive

    “was observed receiving what appeared to be oral sex”

    but how? dark parking lot, at night, no lights, so how did the officer come to observe this?

    second, findings? is that your opinion?

    “Based on the investigation, Officer Pate’s observations, and interviews the allegation was sustained. Ortiz engaged in lewd conduct while on the Woodland campus open to the public while students were attending classes and Woodland faculty was on campus.”

    officer pate’s observations in his police report are as the former davis police chief coleman observers, highly subjective.

    the university presumably had access to the same report you do (although i again have to question how this got to the public realm) – something that you never addressed – and the university did not sustain the allegation.

    moreover, as chief coleman observed, a dark car, at night, in a publicly accessible location is not a 647a.

    add in the passage of time and your inability to address my other point regarding the fact that the suit actually made this public rather than suppressed it, i have to question your motives here in addition to your conclusion.

    1. Dave Salinas

      Davis Progressive apparently you only read what you want to.

      Officer states”I walked over to the passenger’s side of the car and stood approximately two feet away from the passenger door, concerned for officer safety, activated my Streamlight Stinger flashlight, and illuminated the inside of the vehicle’s gray interior, and observed two occupants.”

      1. Davis Progressive

        as an attorney who often reviews these kinds of cases for the ag’s office, i’m very skeptical of that. why would he have gotten that close to the door, why would he fear for his safety. there are reasons this case was never tried and one of them is the shoddy work of the officer – why did he never get the license plate and description of the car? why did he never get the description of the suspect or his driver’s license?

        1. Dave Salinas

          I agree on the lic. plate. I also agree that the officer did shoddy work. That being said If you take the time to read this I feel that most of your questions will be addressed.

          From the investigative report.

          black female adult had straight layered hair approximately 3″-4″ in length that gently stuck out and was graying at her temple areas.

          On April 14, 2005 at 9:40 p.m. while on uniform foot patrol on the southwest corner of building 600, I observed a rounded dark metallic green car drive past me at a high rate of speed, and park facing north, in the unlit and dark driveway area in the far southwest comer of the campus . The car’s headlights and engine were then turned off. I waited, observed the car, and did not see any interior lights activate or persons exit the vehicle.
          I walked over to the passenger’s side of the car, shined my Streamlight Stinger flashlight inside the gray interior, and observed two occupants . I observed a black female (BFA) adult leaning from the passenger’s seat and into the driver’s lap. The BFA was performing oral sex on the driver, a Hispanic male adult, who I immediately recognized as Woodland Community College counselor Jesse Ortiz. The BFA jumped back to a
          sitting position, spitting, and tried to pull an unknown material out of her mouth with her fingers. I noticed the BFA had brown eyes and black straight layered hair approximately 3″-4″ in length that gently stuck out and was graying at her temple areas. Both occupants appeared to be embarrassed. Looking through the front windshield as I continually illuminated the vehicle interior and walked over to the passenger’s side of the vehicle, I observed Ortiz pull up his sweat type pants.

          On April 21, 2005, at approximately 9:48 a.m. I contacted Mrs. Ortiz via telephone .
          A female answered the telephone and identified herself as Mrs. Ortiz . I explained that I had spoken to her husband Jesse about an incident involving Jesse on April 14, 2005, in the evening after Jesse departed the Woodland Joint Unified School District meeting .

          I told her that Jesse and I had agreed that he would talk to her before I did . She admitted that Jesse had spoken to her, but would not give any details of her conversation with Jesse. Mrs. Ortiz spontaneously stated, “I will not talk to you without an attorney .”

          “I told her that I understood, however, did she know any African American Females that owned a green vehicle . Her voice cracked and appeared to start crying and refused to answer my question. I asked her if she would speak to Jesse and her attorney to set up an interview time and date. We ended our conversation .”

          Looking through the front windshield as I continually illuminated the vehicle interior and walked over to the driver’s side of the vehicle, I observed Ortiz pull up the front of his grayish or khaki colored pants. Both occupants appeared to be embarrassed. I have known Ortiz for at least seven years and he had been my counselor while I was a student at Woodland Community College. As early as a week before, I had seen Ortiz on campus. I was shocked to be observing this behavior.

          I contacted Ortiz, who had the driver’s side window partially rolled down. While looking at Ortiz I stated to the effect, “Hey Jesse, What’s going on?” Ortiz replied, “We’re just having some fun” and spontaneously commented, “We’ll just be leaving”. Both occupants departed the campus without further incident.

          INVESTIGATION REPORT SUSPECT: JESSE ORTIZ
          PAGE 3
          CASE NUMBER: 05-0083
          I elected not to ask for the female’s identification because I immediately recognized Ortiz, the female appeared to be mature, they elected to depart the campus, and I was shocked and taken aback by Ortiz’s inappropriate behavior.

        2. Davis Progressive

          ” I observed a rounded dark metallic green car drive past me at a high rate of speed, and park facing north, in the unlit and dark driveway area in the far southwest comer of the campus . The car’s headlights and engine were then turned off. I waited, observed the car, and did not see any interior lights activate or persons exit the vehicle.”

          i’d be interested in phil coleman’s take on this. seems odd that they would fly into a parking spot and a few minutes later she’d be giving him oral sex.

        3. Dave Salinas

          Not sure why you find that odd.

          How do we not know he already had his pants down and ready to go. We don’t know if they were somewhere else and then wanted to find a place that was darker and that may have been why they were in a rush.

          I certainly can not say since I was not there that seems at least a very likely scenario.

        4. Davis Progressive

          i’d also like to understand why he would investigate a 647a that he declined to take down a license or license plate for?

          “Violation of Penal Code 647(a) is a misdemeanor. It is punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.”

        5. Dave Salinas

          Jesse is the one who in my opinion made this a bigger investigation than it would have been. He tried to deny it was him.

          That is when other officers got involved as well as a photo lineup that was done by using photos from the Department of Justice photos. Then trying to claim that his wife could vouch for him as well as other unidentified persons yet not one single person did or could.

          He continued to bring more questions than factual answers.

          On April 19, 2005 at 2:48 p .m. while being briefed for my shift by Officer Redfield in our office space, located at Woodland Community College in room 127, I was contacted by Jesse Ortiz.

          Ortiz related the following to Officer Redfield and I:

          Ortiz stated that he had met with the Yuba Community College District’s Chief of Police (Chief Wilkinson) yesterday because of allegations made by Officer Pate regarding Ortiz’s behavior . Ortiz stated, “This morning when I sat down with the Chief, I asked that I wanted to meet with Ben. The Chief didn’t say no.” Ortiz denied acting inappropriately, saying “I didn’t do it Ben” and claimed that his wife and other unidentified persons could vouch that he was home at 9:00 p.m. on the day in question. Ortiz stated that he had been married 28 years and this situation had never happened to him ‘before. Ortiz requested
          that both Chief Wilkinson and I meet with him so everybody could work this situation out together .

          Officer Redfield and I related to Ortiz that this matter was an ongoing investigation and it would be inappropriate to comment or communicate . with him . Ortiz departed our office.

        6. Davis Progressive

          but had the officer gotten his driver’s license and license plate from the start, it was a non-issue.

        7. Davis Progressive

          a subject of an investigation isn’t required to acknowledge guilt, the investigating agency has to prove it. they failed when the officer failed to get the details necessary. i have no idea what he was thinking.

        8. Tia Will

          Dave

          “Not sure why you find that odd.”

          I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can tell you why I find it odd. If I were looking for a place to have a sexual encounter, I would not be interested in attracting any attention to my vehicle. I certainly would not be speeding and then make an abrupt stop and spring into action so to speak.

          A few questions for you.
          1) How far is it from the place where the officer said that he was patrolling to the spot where the car was stopped ? Did he walk quickly across that distance or did he approach cautiously the entire distance ?
          3) If you were not in favor of another candidate, would you have bothered to bring this up at all ?

  10. Davis Progressive

    “This statement from the officer on the copy of the police report speaks volumes to me.”

    it shouldn’t it was never scrutinized, tested in a court of law, or otherwise cross-examined.

      1. Dave Salinas

        NO cold showers here. I appreciate his opinion it makes me look at it from a different perspective and that is a good thing. Every investigation is different and I can have an opinion just as everyone on here does and at the end of the day I will sleep just fine.

  11. Tia Will

    Dave

    I am sure that no one is wishing you insomnia. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this matter.
    The issue that concerns me is what you are choosing to do with your opinion. It seems to me that you are actively engaging in a smear campaign against Mr. Ortiz. When one is advocating for or against someone, I think it is fair for others to question your information and your motivations.

  12. Dave Salinas

    What I am doing with my opinion is exactly the same thing that you are doing with your opinion. Expressing it.

    Difference is that I have the report and court docs. It is obvious that you do not.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up