Livingston police chief’s abrupt exit sparks outrage amid city’s tumultuous year
Livingston residents took to City Hall on Thursday to protest what they see as ongoing corruption by elected officials and city staff.
Thursday’s dissent was sparked by news earlier this week that Livingston Police Chief John Markle was retiring from his duties Dec. 30 — just six months after starting.
Shortly after the announcement on the department’s Facebook page of Markle’s retirement, a City of Livingston source who requested to remain anonymous confirmed to the Sun-Star that Markle was put on administrative leave Tuesday by City Manager Vanessa Portillo the same day, effectively relieving him of his duties.
It’s unclear why Markle was placed on leave. Thursday’s protest was organized by residents who are demanding an explanation.
“We don’t get answers. Sometimes we feel really discouraged to reach out,” said Livingston resident Leticia Vasquez, noting her multiple unsuccessful attempts to reach Portillo.
The protest was organized by community members like Vasquez who are driving efforts to recall four members of the five-person City Council, including first-term Mayor Juan Aguilar. The Sun-Star was unable to reach Aguilar for comment.
Members of the recall committee say Markle’s exit represents the latest in a list of grievances that are driving the recall effort forward.
“We just want to know what’s going on with our chief. We were very happy with what he was doing,” Vasquez said. “There’s no transparency, communication, openness.”
Markle declined to comment on his retirement or the protest.
Chief’s departure part of a pattern, say some
Markle’s leaving mirrored the termination of former Livingston City Manager Jose Ramirez in July.
Ramirez was let go by the City Council via a 4-1 vote without explanation, despite lengthy testimonies of support from dozens of Livingston residents — including some high-ranking Merced County officials.
Livingston residents later gathered outside City Hall to protest Ramirez’s termination and demand answers, which were never formally received.
The next month, however, City Councilmember Jose Moran — the only member of the council excluded from the recall election campaign — took to YouTube to air information that he believes gives context to many of the recent incidents in Livingston.
Moran accused Livingston City Councilmember Gagandeep Kang and his brother, Livingston Police Sgt. Wapinder Kang, of encouraging him in June 2020 to run for city clerk during the November 2020 election — with the promise of over 1,000 votes guaranteed.
Both Kang brothers were already connected to ongoing turmoil in Livingston at the time Moran made the accusations public.
Sgt. Kang was arrested and put on leave about one month earlier due to his alleged involvement in filing a false police report to cover for another law enforcement officer. Councilmember Kang is subject to the ongoing recall effort.
Moran said the Kangs offered him the city clerk position because the brothers wanted him to be on their “team” in directing city affairs. He alleged the brothers told him they were trying to change some of the people who held key city staff and elected positions.
The Merced County District Attorney’s Office confirmed that it was investigating potential Livingston voting fraud in conjunction with the Secretary of State’s Office.
According to the District Attorney’s Office, at least one unnamed suspect allegedly directed Livingston citizens to surrender ballot envelopes, signed and unsealed.
The suspects then allegedly completed the ballots themselves and submitted the envelopes to the Merced County Registrar of Voters — a potential crime that could constitute a felony punishable by imprisonment up to three years.
Merced County District Attorney investigators asked that anyone who was convinced to participate in alleged voter fraud during the 2020 elections or during any other Livingston election call the district attorney’s office at 209-385-7381 and ask to speak with investigators Bimley West or Bill Olson.
After posting the YouTube video, Moran told the Sun-Star he believed former city manager Ramirez was one of the people on the list of individuals the Kangs wanted out of City Hall, along with several other department heads.
Prior to Thursday’s protest, Moran reiterated a similar rationale for the exit of Markle.
“I think more than anything, (the reason is) trying to accomplish everything that they had on their list,” Moran said of the Kang brothers. “I guess the next one on their list was the police chief.”
Attempts by the Sun-Star to reach the Kangs were unsuccessful.
Recall proponents see no other way forward
Recall election proponents said they believe the four City Council members subject to the campaign effort are on the Kangs’ “team,” along with some city staff.
Vasquez and Moran, as well as some other Livingston residents posting online, speculated that placing Markle on administrative leave was a move to prevent him from terminating Sgt. Kang.
“Before the chief had the opportunity to do that, he was released from his duties,” Vasquez said. “We believe that’s because they don’t want it to happen.”
Markle came to the helm of Livingston’s police department in June from Madera County, where he served as a chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office. His departure from the title of Livingston police chief marks the end of a 30-year-plus career.
It is unclear who will lead the Livingston Police Department in Markle’s absence.
Vasquez and Moran said a consistent lack of communication from Livingston officials has stripped any optimism that issues can be solved by dialogue.
“I think the only other option other than recall is having these people resign themselves from office,” Moran said. “Because I don’t believe this council would be able to do the right thing and work for the benefit for the majority of the community.”
The deadline to submit signatures in support of the recall is Dec. 2, after which point they will go through a verification process. Under California law, cities like Livingston with between 1,000 to 10,000 residents registered to vote must have 25% of registered residents sign the recall petition in order for it to move forward.
This story was originally published November 18, 2021 at 7:55 PM.
