L.A. POLICE PANEL REQUIRES FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FOR SOME OFFICERS; UNION SUES

The Commission Is Trying to Get Out From Under a Court Order for
Reform. Critics Say the New Policy Is Invasive and Won't Work.

The Los Angeles Police Commission approved a plan Thursday to require
hundreds of anti-gang and narcotics officers to disclose detailed
information about their personal finances, triggering an immediate
court challenge by the police officers union and a debate at City
Hall over whether to overrule the panel.

At issue in the rapidly intensifying dispute is what LAPD Chief
William J. Bratton and the five-member commission hope will be one of
the final pieces of a broad reform campaign that began after the
Rampart corruption scandal and has kept the department under federal
oversight since 2000.

Bratton and his civilian bosses are eager to get out of the federal
consent decree, which calls for some sort of financial disclosure
rule for officers in specialized units who frequently handle cash,
drugs and other contraband. The issue has proved to be the most
contentious sticking point as union and city officials have struggled
for years to strike a compromise between officers' privacy rights and
the need to satisfy the decree.

The reform is intended to help supervisors detect an officer who is
taking bribes or involved in other illegal conduct. Under its terms,
about 600 officers would be required to disclose to department
officials any outside income, real estate, stocks, other assets and
debts every two years. They would also have to reveal the size of
their bank accounts and include any holdings they share with family
members or business partners. Officers already assigned to the units
would be granted a two-year grace period before having to complete the records.

"It's important that we use every tool available to make absolutely
sure that even if it's just one officer who is potentially inclined
to go down this path, that we do everything within our . . .
authority to make sure that doesn't happen," said Commissioner John
Mack. "We cannot forget the Rampart incident."

Indeed, the legacy of the Rampart Division scandal hung heavy over
the commission's special meeting Thursday. The call for financial
disclosure stemmed in part from admissions by a former anti-gang
officer that he and his partner routinely stole thousands of dollars
in cash and narcotics from gang members and drug dealers. He said
there was little scrutiny of what officers did on the streets and
that many officers in his unit took advantage of the lack of
supervision by beating and framing suspects.

But Thursday, several police officers, union leaders and elected
officials questioned whether the disclosure requirement would do
anything to improve on audits, polygraph tests and other safeguards
against abuse already in place.

"You would have to look at the ebb and flow of money coming in and
going. This is just a snapshot. All they are doing is looking at one
day, and with that you have no idea what has happened," said Don
Brady, a lieutenant in charge of about 40 narcotics officers, some of
whom specialize in tracking the assets of drug dealers.

Critics warned that the commission's move has left rank-and-file
officers deeply angry and that hundreds may retire or request
transfers out of the specialized units instead of submitting to the new rules.

"It has dampened morale," Brady said of the officers in his units.
"They really feel like they're not being trusted."

Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, who has been closely involved in
the push to reform the LAPD, echoed the opposition to the policy,
saying increased supervision of officers was needed instead.

"The commission is caught between a rock and a hard place on this
one. It is trying to do what the court wants it to do, whether it's a
good idea or not," she said, referring to U.S. District Judge Gary A.
Feess, who oversees the decree. She said police officers "have a
right to be angry. They know this won't do any good and is an
infringement on their rights."

Although the vote was unanimous, Commissioner Alan Skobin said he
sympathized with the officers' concerns.

"I could not look the officers in the eye and tell them that it will
do anything to improve the Los Angeles Police Department, except to
hope that it will get us beyond the consent decree," he said. "What
we're asking them to do and what we're asking their families to do is
a very bitter pill. In fact, we're not asking, we're ordering them."

The scope of the policy goes beyond what is demanded of Bratton in
the financial interest forms he must file with the city Ethics
Commission. But although Bratton's disclosures are public record, the
officers' information would be kept confidential. In response to
union officials' concerns that the department would not be able to
keep the documents safe, the commission refined the policy Thursday
to make clear that the information would be kept locked in Bratton's
office until it was periodically destroyed.

The commission's disclosure policy puts the officers on par with many
federal law enforcement agents. Every five years, for example, agents
in the Drug Enforcement Administration must submit to thorough
investigations of their finances, said Special Agent Jose Martinez.

Before Thursday's vote, union President Tim Sands urged commissioners
to reconsider a compromise that city, federal and union lawyers
agreed to last year but that Judge Feess threw out as
insufficient.That deal called in part for the department to conduct
frequent sting operations and audits of narcotics and anti-gang
officers but did not require across-the-board disclosures.

"Go back to this judge and tell him that we had an agreement," Sands
said. "We will protect the rights of our officers. . . . We don't
want to go down that road. I am asking you, do not move this order forward."

In response to the commission's action, the union filed a lawsuit in
Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking an immediate injunction
against the disclosures, contending that they violate state laws and
collective bargaining rules that protect officers' privacy rights.

Councilman Jack Weiss, who chairs the council's public safety
committee said he would push other council members to take the rare
step of voting to supersede the commission and assume jurisdiction
over the issue. Such a move would require the support of 10 of the 15
council members. If the council takes that action, it can then vote
on whether to veto the commission's plan and force the panel to try again.

"I am skeptical" about the policy, Weiss said. "It's not clear that
it will assist in detecting bad cops."

Councilman Dennis Zine, a former LAPD sergeant, said he also opposed
the commission's decision but would not support Weiss' effort, which
he called a "disingenuous" move targeted at winning the police
union's endorsement in Weiss' upcoming run for city attorney.

Weiss could not be reached for comment on Zine's assertion. Lisa
Hansen, Weiss' chief of staff, said: "This is not about politics. The
council will decide this issue on the merits, but clearly it warrants
discussion."