Reformers ask council to back off

Reformers ask council to back off

Civic leaders urge the panel not to veto a Police Commission disclosure policy that has angered officers.
By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 30, 2008

A Los Angeles City Council effort to overturn a Police Commission policy requiring officers to disclose personal financial information seemed destined for failure Tuesday, as civic and reform leaders warned that the council's intervention was undermining the commission's authority over the Police Department.For the second straight week, Councilman Jack Weiss, who has publicly called for a veto of the policy, held a lengthy committee meeting on the issue Tuesday and failed to secure a vote recommending the council reject the commission's plan.Despite the setbacks, Weiss insisted that the council's decision to get involved had produced results; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has agreed to seek a federal court order that, if granted, would add greater protections against the release of officers' personal information.Pressure on council members to abandon the veto increased this week as former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and others warned that any such move "would seriously undermine the confidence of the people" in the city's willingness to fulfill a broad set of reforms imposed on the Los Angeles Police Department in 2000 after the Rampart corruption scandal. The LAPD has been under federal oversight ever since.
"The interests should be weighed by the expert body, by the people dealing with this day in and day out," Christopher said. "It would be unfortunate to have someone else substitute their opinion instead."Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce President Gary Toebben, who also signed the letter, echoed Christopher, saying, "We just have to move forward."Along with Christopher, who led a major reform campaign after the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King, and Toebben, 15 other prominent civil rights leaders and reform advocates signed the letter, including many who have closely followed developments at the LAPD for years. Los Angeles Urban League President Blair Taylor, United Way Chief Executive Elise Buik and George David Kieffer, who helped write the City Charter, were among the council's critics.Tim Sands, president of the Police Protective League, which opposes the commission policy, rejected the letter's message, saying that Christopher and the others were more concerned about ending the federal oversight of LAPD than the merits of the plan."Nowhere in their letter do the well-intentioned civic leaders suggest that the financial disclosure plan under discussion should be implemented because it will be effective at rooting out or preventing corruption," he said in a prepared statement. The policy, which was approved last month, is aimed at helping supervisors identify rogue cops who are taking bribes or involved in other illegal activities. It requires the roughly 600 officers in narcotics and anti-gang units, who frequently handle cash, drugs and other contraband, to periodically submit detailed information about their income, assets and debts. Officers now in the units would have a two-year reprieve to decide whether to comply or transfer to other assignments.

Commissioners and Police Chief William J. Bratton had hoped that the policy would satisfy a final, unresolved part of the court-ordered consent decree the city agreed to after the Rampart scandal. Until the department has shown that all the decree's reforms are in place, the judge overseeing the agreement has made clear that the LAPD will continue to operate under federal control.The commission's disclosure policy set off a flood of angry opposition by rank-and-file officers and police union leaders, who argued that the strategy would do little to stop corruption but would invade officers' privacy. Union officials, backed by Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley and L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca, said hundreds of officers would request transfers instead of handing over the information.

Amid the upheaval, at Weiss' urging, the council asserted jurisdiction over the issue to consider a veto. Since then, the debate has foundered in the council's Public Safety Committee, which Weiss heads. Councilman Ed Reyes said he grew so frustrated during a closed-session committee meeting Tuesday morning that he stormed out, leaving only Weiss and Councilman Grieg Smith. He angrily dismissed Weiss' efforts, saying the two-week discussion was playing "Russian roulette" with the safety of residents in poor, violent neighborhoods, who rely heavily on the work of the anti-gang and narcotics units. Better to implement the policy, he said, and replace any officers who refuse to comply with others who will, in order to keep the units on the streets.Councilman Dennis Zine also criticized Weiss, saying it was a "disingenuous" effort to win favor with the influential Police Protective League. "He has no place to go with this, he has backed himself into a corner," Zine said of the push for a veto. Weiss declined to say if he would agree to drop the idea of a council veto, saying only that in light of the mayor's promise to seek the protective order, he would confer with other committee members "whether it is advisable to proceed."The issue is on the agenda for the council's meeting today, but it remained unclear whether it would be discussed or postponed. The council has until Tuesday to act or let the policy stand.

joel.rubin@latimes.com