Notes from the December 20, 2024 Police Commission Special Meeting

• The Board of Police Commissioners held a closed session to discuss the Department's proposed Financial Disclosure program and draft Special Order, in accordance with paragraph 132 of the Federal Consent Decree.
• The public comment period included remarks from Los Angeles Police Protective League President Timothy Sands, as well as members of the community.
• The Board reconvened in Open Session and announced its unanimous decision to approve the Financial Disclosure program and draft Special Order as clarified, in accordance with paragraph 132 of the Federal Consent Decree.

Comments

[b&wop;]

I am a gang unit supervisor with almost 20 years of unblemished service to the citizens of Los Angeles and I will seek other jobs before I fill out a financial disclosure statement. My wife and children and their personal, retirement, college, and savings accounts are none of the city of L.A.'s business and won't be disclosed just because some federal judge thinks I "might" be corrupt. The list of facts against this stupid rule are longer than the perceived problems it claims to solve.

If the purpose of the financial disclosure is to root out corruption, why is it only applicable to the ranks of lieutenant and below, and only affecting gang and narcotics personnel? The Consent Decree was imposed on the city because there was political cowardice reigning at city hall. It should have been fought in court by then-city attorney James Hahn, and the federal government should have been made to prove that the Rampart scandal involved "patterns and practices" of violations of civil rights by the LAPD. After all, those three or four officers convicted of crimes related to Rampart were caught the LAPD's own Internal Affairs Division, not by outside entities like the FBI or investigative journalists. If three or four hoodlums with badges using excessive force, planting evidence, stealing narcotics, and violating the civil rights or other hoodlums means 9,000+ of us are equally guilty, then we live in country I no longer recognize.

During the Parks regime, one of his deputy chiefs was buying real estate with ill-gotten monies his son earned while partaking in criminal activity. The Consent Decree doesn't require captains, commanders, and deputy chiefs to fill out financial disclosures. Vice officers, who obtain Secret Service funds to use during their vice operations and bar visits aren't affected by the financial disclosure requirements. Rightfully so. If an officer is suspected of appropriating funds or stealing narcotics, then order that officer to provide a financial disclosure pursuant to the investigation, or get a subpoena for his or her records. The main issue out of Rampart was planting evidence and unlawful or excessive uses of force. Those issue will not be deterred by looking at officers' finances. They will be deterred by having proper supervision on the streets--which the LAPD doesn't have; and they will be deterred by hiring the right person for the job--which the LAPD is not doing.

The Consent Decree is managed by a company that gets $10 million or so from the taxpayers every year. What is their incentive to find the LAPD in compliance? It will plug their money trough. The taxpayers of this city could sure use the 300+ officers currently assigned to audit grammar and spelling errors on a myriad of reports, to hit the streets and do police work. In my part of the city, only 3 out of 5 basic cars are deployed because there aren't enough officers on the streets. I'm sure it's that way in other parts of the city. Financial disclosures aren't going to fix that.

[ron]

Years ago before I started this job I drove a truck. When I first started there was no such thing as a "DRUG TEST". Then a few years later we were told that we have to submit to a drug test durning our yearly physical,after a accident(no matter who is at fault) and random drug testing. This is without any suspicision of any wrong doing, no probably cause no nothing. We were told in the interest of safety our rights to privacy came in second. We would have to do it or lose our jobs. Just like the soberity check points no probably cause that you are suspected of driving drunk we just want to make sure. THEY ALSO TOLD US IF WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHAT US THE BIG DEAL??? I had nothing to worry about or try to hide so I took the test and passed them each and every time. I think the same thing could be said about the FD. We don't think you are doing anything wrong, but we just want to check and make sure that everything is on the up and up.

[Dano]

Ron, it would be great if financial disclosures were good indicators of behavior, as are drug tests. They are not. Trucking in all of my credit card statements, mortgage statements, bank statements, all of the above for my wife, etc, etc... will only make me not want to join one of the units which require it. What a hassle. If they think we are dirty, subpoena all of that crap, I dont care

[pdhog]

What you are missing Ron is that FD doesn't DO anything except expose the officer to possible unfair treatment, danger, and invasion of privacy. If I pee in a cup it is either clean or dirty. If I provide the department with all of my personal financial records (as well as those of my family) there is no "clean or dirty". The information is subject to interpretation by whom ever..."undisclosed financial institutions" is how the original FD SO draft worded it. If I pee in the cup and chuy's defense attorney wants to see it...so what, but if he gets to see my financial info? Standby. And finally, FD will not expose corrupt cops. Perez/Mack took cash and spent cash. They didn't buy property and stick the left over money in a bank. So, full circle, FD will not do anything except allow more department intrusion into our life. Remember your standing on this when you get called into the CO office and told that because of a nasty divorce your FICA score has dropped below 600, making you a credit risk and that an "undisclosed financial institution" feels you are such a credit risk that you will most likely steal money when given the opportunity so your are hereby transferred to the kit room....pending further investigation. Then, let us know you don't think FD is a big issue...

[Richard Davis]

The isuue will be resolved by the court and revolves around 4th Ammendment protections regarding unreasonable search and seizure. I just hope this happens before large numbers of officers vote with their feet.

[me]

I for one certainly hope that the union stand by and fights this with everything they have. I have a wonderful gang office that works at Hollebeck and I would hate to see leave because of this. He is a wonderful officer and his financial matters have nothing to do with the job he performs. I think at one time all of us has been in a position of living paycheck to paycheck. Get rid of this before out areas lose some wonderful officers!

[Mia]

Why is the LAPD the only agency in the country subjecting its officers to this type of scrutiny? Why does one federal judge hold this much power over our Department? Sure, you're going to have some officers sign this disclosure, but these are going to be inexperienced officers. Your experienced officers are going to walk out of these specialized units once the two year "grandfather" clause is up whether it be through attrition, transfers, or promotions. Where is your loyalty to your guys in blue? Parks didn't give a flying fig when it came to this issue because he wasn't personally affected by it. In a time of identity theft this a clear threat to a family's financial security. Who in their right mind wants all of their personal information out there for public scrutiny. It's not a question of having anything to hide from the public or trying to prevent transparency (the Chief's favorite political buzzword), but protecting oneself from unscrupulous defense attorneys and criminals.

[Dis and Dat]

Mia....I agree with you completely. Although LAPD is under the Consent Decree, there has GOT to be some way to work around the Financial Disclosure clause. From what I understand, Tim Sands from the League has indicated that they offered several options other than what's required in the FD, but it was rejected. I think Chief Bratton could have done more to support the options instead of standing back and doing nothing to support our anti-gang/narcotic officers. And for those who think that the officers' FD's will be kept in a safe and secured location, think again. Any Dept employee can walk into Parker Center and find boxes of so-called confidential material stacked in boxes in unsecured closets or even in the hallways. So if the officers' FD's are not maintained properly, meaning secured from all those except the ones who have a "right to know", then all that confidential information can fall into the wrong hands. Don't be naive to think that we don't have any unscupulous Dept employees who have hidden agendas or friends or family members who have an axe to grind against LAPD officers. It's a scary thought indeed....

[Robert Davis]

The following is taken from LAPD’s Training Bulletin Volume XXXVII, Issue 3, dated November 2005.

Retaliation is defined as an adverse employment action taken against an employee for engaging in protected activity. An adverse employment action includes an action that would cause a reasonable employee to be deterred from engaging in a protected activity or an action in direct response to an employee engaging in a protected activity. Adverse employment actions may include, but not limited to, negative performance evaluations, negative Employee Comment Sheets, the imposition of discipline, denial of paygrade advancement, coveted assignment or promotional opportunity, or change of assignment.
Protected activities include:
a) Opposing, reporting, or participating in any claim, lawsuit, or investigation concerning unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment;
b) Filing a grievance or participating in any unfair labor complaint;
c) Taking advantage of any labor right or benefit such as using sick or family leave, seeking compensation for overtime worked, or filing an objectively valid work-related claim for damages;
d) Reporting misconduct of another Department or City employee to the Office of the
Inspector General, or any Department or government entity; or
e) Supporting, assisting or cooperating in a misconduct investigation.

I believe our Department Managers and City officials are missing the bog gorilla hiding in plain sight. Its first and only name is LIABILITY. Here is how it works.

Those who refuse to comply with the Disclosure Agreement are forced to leave their coveted assignment. Hopefully all those affected by this disclosure will file grievances and not leave voluntarily. It is determined they are correct in exercising their right not to comply because the Disclosure Agreement violates too many laws to list. For sake of simplicity, we will be satisfied with violating just one law to be ruled unenforceable. Next, hundreds of lawsuits, probably becoming class action, are filed because the officers were forced out of their assignments and the court will treat that as retaliation, based upon our own Department publications, as well as many other statutes. It really does not matter whether that was the intent; it is the appearance that counts. That’s just one interpretation, there are many others based upon this same publication that offer equally enticing situations.

So far we are approaching 500 million dollars in twenty years for failing to follow the law when it comes to proper treatment of LAPD employees. Just like with the FLSA, our top management and our City Officials will find out the hard way that you simply cannot be in the business of enforcing people’s rights and continue to violate the same. The only question is, How much will it cost the City this time?

[Captain John Boyd]

This version of the FD is perfect for the chief. He knows GIT officers and detectives won't leave until they have to sign it. So for the next two years business will proceed as usual. Meanwhile, new officers will trickle in. Anything to get out of patrol, right? (Until areas treat patrol officers right, you're going to have officers who'll sell their soul to leave the watch. That's another story...)

I believe the League should encourage the members affected by the FD to leave now. It would show the department how strongly officers feel about it.

Many officers complain that the League doesn't do anything. Here they are actually trying to protect their members, and their efforts need the support of it's members.

Also, if the city council, police commissioners, mayor and chief think this is a good idea, they should show some leadership and open their financial information to scrutiny (does anyone know if they are?) These people are in very powerful positions that can easily be influenced by a little bit (or a whole lot) of money. Someone had to have made a bundle off those flashlights!

[Ed O'Shea]

I would like to submit another little interesting fact for you all to consider in this discussion about the FD. The Justice Department and the LAPD both agreed that the FD was to intrusive and not necessary, then went to court to alter that part of the CD. However, this Judge, who demonstrably hates the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles more than any gang member could, shot it down and decided that he is now a legislator! He has interpreted the FD in a way that fits his warped view of the LAPD. Someone better check his water glass on that bench, it's probably filled with vodka!

[Wyatt Earp]

It amazes me with what total lack of respect the rank and file on the LAPD are treated with. With so many other great agencies out there, why do you guys and gals stick around to work for a Department and City that do not trust or value you?

[Code One]

Wyatt Earp,

Well for some of us we have too much time vested in the department to start over again. Some of the Officers who do have five years or less may have a shot to work at another department. But for those of us who have ten or more years on, starting over may not be an option.

I actually considered leaving while Parks was at the helm, but Bratton came along and showed some promise when he started. Now everything has gone to hell in a hand basket.

For some of you baby P-2's out there who want to work gangs or dope, stand fast. DO NOT SIGN THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE! Look for other investigative assignments to work. You may think you have nothing to lose or hide, but that's not the point. The point is that the Federal Government, The City of Los Angeles and the Police Commission do not have the right to check your finance's, your holdings or your credit just because you want to work in a gang unit or a narcotics unit and "transparency" is the political buzz word of year. If the Department wants to be "transparent", then start the Financial Disclosure at the top of the food chain with the Bars and Stars. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[b&wop;]

I supervise a Gang Enforcement Detail, and was just interviewed by a background investigator from Santa Ana P.D. in Orange County. One of my team leaders, a P-III who is a great and productive officer, has applied for a police officer job there. The background investigator said his agency is stepping up recruitment and officers there write their own paychecks. Santa Ana P.D. has all the overtime an officer wants and a 3/12 schedule.

That's one example of what's to come. Boots coming in on one end, and experienced officers going out on the other end.

No one sees this at City Hall or Parker Center.