LAPPL Blog: The official blog of the Los Angeles Policy Protective League
Paycheck protection or political power grab?
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 02/06/2012 @ 03:31 PM
Once again, a ballot initiative purporting to curb the influence of unions and corporations on elected officials has qualified for California’s November ballot. The initiative, pitched by proponents as the “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act,” would ban corporate and labor union contributions to candidates. More significantly, it would also prohibit corporations and labor unions from using funds collected through payroll deductions to be used for political purposes, hence “protecting” employees’ paychecks.
Similar initiatives specifically directed at labor unions were rejected by California voters in 1998 and 2005. But this time around, the initiative’s backers are hoping to sway voters by including corporations in the ban, disingenuously implying that prohibitions that impact all entities will impact them equally. This is misleading and ignores the reality of how unions and corporations currently participate in the political process.
Corporations very rarely use employee paycheck deductions to fund political contributions. Labor unions, on the other hand, rely on paycheck deductions as the primary means for political fundraising. The initiative would cut off the lion’s share of union fundraising while limiting only a negligible amount of corporate funds. The California School Employees Association has put together a fantastic fact sheet that explains how the paycheck deception initiative would silence the voices of public employees and increase the power of big corporations.
The League is joining public safety organizations and other labor forces throughout the state to oppose this measure. In the coming months, you will be hearing a lot more about this issue. We urge you to educate yourself on the deceptively worded initiative so you understand what is at stake. Labor fought and won this battle twice before and together we can defeat this paycheck deception measure once again.
On November 6, vote NO on the “Stop Special Interest Money Now” Act.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Why are we surprised by good news?
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 02/02/2012 @ 03:14 PM
It turns out that its pension funds performed well enough last year to save the City $90 million in anticipated contributions.
The cries of alarm from self-proclaimed experts looking to eliminate public pensions have been inversely proportional to the depth of the 2008 market collapse: the lower the market went, the louder their calls for ending public pensions became. Continuing to fund public pensions would lead to bankruptcy, they constantly claimed.
Yet, as actuaries and trustees have repeatedly explained, pension systems operate and invest over a long period of time. There are periodic upticks in the market, which in the past have been misused to grant “pension holidays” that allowed governments to skip their required annual payments. Likewise, there have been down times in the market, which have necessitated larger contributions.
As the League has pointed out many times before, skipped payments in good market times not only deprive the pension funds of principal necessary to generate investment returns, but also exacerbate the depth of a downturn since there is less money in the fund to cushion losses. The City’s sworn personnel are never allowed to skip their contribution payments–in good times or bad. But today’s self-styled “pension reformers” were deathly silent as the government shirked its pension obligations, which helped create the current problems of other pension systems.
A 7.75 percent long-term rate of return is sustainable in a well-diversified institutional plan that invests its assets for the long term. The long-term performance of the Los Angeles Fire and Police pension plan has validated this assumption. As for contributions by the City of Los Angeles, it is also important to point out that the percentage of the general fund paid into the pension system is within the historical range of what the City has paid, in good times and bad.
The news of this $90 million pension savings is a reminder that the funded status of pension systems ebbs and flows, as do the City’s corresponding contributions. Any proposed changes to pension systems need to be mindful of this fact, especially when affecting such an important benefit that provides security in retirement.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
A setback for police as Supreme Court reins in GPS tracking
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/27/2012 @ 12:33 PM
Photo: CBS News
It’s no secret that GPS tracking devices have been hot sellers of late to law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Local, state and federal officials have used them in countless investigations, and their use in solving crimes has proven efficient and effective.
But alas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police need a warrant before they can put a GPS tracking device on an individual’s vehicle to covertly track the person. The high court’s unanimous ruling – a setback for law enforcement at all levels – was surprising. Attaching such a small device to a car’s undercarriage did not seem to rise to a violation of property rights, nor did it seem unreasonable for anyone driving on a public street to expect their movements to go unmonitored.
The case that brought the issue to a head involved a Washington man convicted on drug charges with the benefit of evidence collected by GPS tracking. One justice wrote in the court’s opinion that investigators trespassed when they attached the device to the man’s jeep and collected 28 days’ worth of data. Another wrote in a separate opinion that the four weeks of monitoring violated the man’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
In its argument before the court last year, the Obama Administration laid out a compelling rationale for allowing the use of GPS technology in this manner. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreben asserted that police should not need to obtain a warrant because location information could have been obtained through ordinary surveillance methods. Anyone could track anyone – even Supreme Court Justices – without violating their privacy, he argued.
If there’s a bright spot in the decision, it’s that the ruling is narrow and leaves open some key issues in our new digital world. For example, the ruling provided no clear guidance on whether the government must obtain a warrant for access to such things as location data stored on an individual’s smartphone, or to emails archived by internet service providers.
The advance of technology is outpacing the courts. It’ll take many more cases and Supreme Court rulings to arrive at the exact restrictions criminal investigations must adhere to in their use of innovative technology. We can only hope that over time the right balance will be struck between citizens’ rights and law enforcement’s ability to use the latest technology to solve crimes in the most effective and efficient manner.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
High court decision backs law enforcement
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/24/2012 @ 04:45 PM
What do you call a federal court that changes facts to fit its argument and issues rulings so far outside established law that it’s routinely chastised and reversed – often unanimously and without a hearing – by a higher court? You might call that court lawless and reckless, but here in California we know it as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The latest reversal of the 9th Circuit involved Burbank police officers responding to a reported rumor of a student threatening a school shooting. Officers went to the home of the student, who’d been absent from school for two weeks, and were met by his mother and the student. She spoke to them outside the house but refused to invite the officers inside. When they asked if there were guns in the house, the mother turned and fled inside. The alarmed officers followed her inside, where they proceeded to interview her and the student for about 10 minutes before determining the school shooting threat was unfounded. No search of the residence was conducted.
The family sued the officers for entering the house without a warrant. The District Court found that the officers had qualified immunity because they faced a “rapidly evolving incident.” But last year, the 9th Circuit reversed this in a 2-1 decision, finding the officers’ actions unreasonable.
In an unsigned, unanimous opinion that was a stinging reversal of the 9th Circuit, the United States Supreme Court ordered that the case against the officers be dismissed. The Supreme Court first took the 9th Circuit to task for misapplying case law, writing, “No decision of this Court has found a Fourth Amendment violation on facts even roughly comparable to those present in this case. On the contrary, some of our opinions may be read as pointing in the opposition direction.”
The Court then went on to call out the 9th Circuit for changing the facts in the case to fit its legal conclusion: “Although the panel majority purported to accept the findings of the District Court, it changed those findings in several key respects.” The court concluded by rebuking the 9th Circuit for its “entirely unrealistic” analysis of the incident and its “second guessing” of the officers.
In 2011, the 9th Circuit was reversed in 19 out of 26 cases, with 12 of the reversals being unanimous. Some quotes from recent U.S. Supreme Court reversals highlight the lawlessness of the 9th Circuit: one decision was termed “as inexplicable as it is unexplained;” in another, the factual assertions by the 9th Circuit were “simply false”; and in a third, it was found that the 9th Circuit’s opinion undermined confidence because “judicial disregard is inherent in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit here under review.”
It is troubling when a reversal is unanimous because it is a clear sign that legal precedent was completely ignored.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Congratulations to Los Angeles’ newest councilmember, LAPD Officer Joe Buscaino
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/18/2012 @ 03:59 PM
We congratulate LAPD Officer Joe Buscaino, who today was declared the winner in the election to fill the 15th District L.A. City Council seat, left vacant by now-congresswoman Janice Hahn.
Residents overwhelmingly chose to place their trust in the hometown candidate, a graduate of San Pedro High School and 14-year LAPD veteran. Buscaino may be an “average Joe,” as he frequently called himself during the campaign, but he nevertheless brings firsthand knowledge of the needs of his district and the city, and leadership experience from his years as a Senior Lead Officer at Harbor Division.
Buscaino’s energy and commitment to his neighborhood and the city bode well for the city’s future. We congratulate him once again and look forward to working with him and the rest of the Council to meet the city’s problems head on.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
No parole for cop killers – no exceptions
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/11/2012 @ 01:21 PM
SB1399 was aimed at saving California millions of dollars in prison health care expenses by allowing the parole of medically incapacitated inmates. It’s unfortunate and outrageous that this law is being used by cop killers like Gerald Youngberg to seek parole.
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Lt. Al Stewart
CHP Officer Larry Wetterling
In 1973, Youngberg took the lives of San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Lt. Al Stewart, CHP Officer Larry Wetterling, and gas station attendant Robert Jenkins in execution-style murders. He was sentenced to death, but his sentence (along with hundreds of others’) was overturned in the mid-1970s when the California Supreme Court declared the state’s version of the death penalty unconstitutional.
Since then, Youngberg has applied for parole on 11 occasions and been denied each time. His last denial came in 2010 when he was told he would have to wait five years to reapply. But the enactment of SB1399 has made possible another hearing on Feb. 8, 2012, when Youngberg’s application for a medical parole will be heard by the Board of Parole Hearings at High Desert State Prison in Susanville.
“Although Youngberg is precisely the type of person who was not intended for medical parole, drafting provisions of that law make him eligible for an application,” said Sacramento Lobbyist John Lovell. “Since he has received a certification from the head physician at High Desert State Prison, defeating this effort will be a daunting one. This is true even though the stroke which afflicts Youngberg took place eight years ago, and he is not totally disabled. The only restrictions on his prison activities are that he is confined to a wheel chair and must have a lower bunk in a cell.”
Law enforcement agencies and organizations throughout California strenuously oppose parole of any kind for Youngberg. The League is joining the effort and encourages others to do the same.
Letters opposing Youngberg’s parole should reference “Penal Code 3550 Parole Hearing for Gerald Youngberg, Inmate Number B50097” and be sent to:
High Desert State Prison
Attn: C&PR/Records Office –Board Desk
475-750 Rice Canyon Road
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127
Board of Parole Hearings
Attn: Lifer Scheduling Analysts
PO Box 4036
Sacramento, CA 95812-4036
We also wish to take this opportunity to call on SB1399 author Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to consider amending his legislation to preclude the use of “medical parole” for anyone convicted of murdering a law enforcement officer.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Assaults on police officers continue to rise in 2012
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/10/2012 @ 03:39 PM
For over a year, we’ve been calling attention to the disturbing disconnect between declining crime statistics and rising assaults on police officers. Now comes news that these assaults are up dramatically for the first week of 2012. Twelve serious assaults occurred in this year’s first week, compared to two during the same week in 2011, and again two in 2010.
It’s too early to draw any conclusions from these numbers, but it is nevertheless a disturbing trend. We pointed out last month that assaults on LAPD officers in 2011 were up 26.7 percent compared with 2010. Chief Beck has noted that as assaults on police officers increase, so do the number of officer-involved shootings.
The increased violence toward officers is a reminder of the dangers they face every day. And although overall crime rates may be falling, the rise in these assaults should concern the public as a whole because an assault on the peace keepers of our society is an assault on society itself.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Sacramento’s new prison realignment plan is off to a terrible start
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/09/2012 @ 04:40 PM
State leaders might have seen an ideal budget fix in their new law allowing felons with prison terms of six years or less to be housed in local jails and then supervised by local law enforcement agencies, but the last 48 hours have already given us two examples of just how terribly bad this idea will turn out.
Shooting suspect Steven Hoff in a May 17, 2011 mug shot. (Daily News Los Angeles)
Steven Hoff was paroled from state prison in January 2011, but the parole was suspended in July, which typically means he broke contact with his parole officer, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Parole agents had been looking for him for a parole violation when he allegedly shot and seriously wounded a parole agent on Wednesday. He was apprehended after an hours-long manhunt in Lake View Terrace that forced the closing of the 210 Freeway and lockdown of two schools.
Within hours, details of his violent past began to emerge. Among other things, according to the Times, Hoff was involved in a standoff with LAPD SWAT officers in the same general area nearly a decade ago. On Aug. 21, 2002, he barricaded himself in a Sylmar home to evade police and state parole agents searching for him in connection with a parole violation and the slaying of a motorcycle club member in Kern County.
In the coming years, the Steven Hoffs of the world won’t be supervised and tracked by parole agents. Instead, the state will have turned over the job to local law enforcement agencies. What will happen when they simply abscond to another county to get away from local supervision? Who, exactly, will go look for these dangerous individuals if there is no statewide parole agency?
Captured escapee William Scott Woodin. (OCSD.org)
And speaking of local inmate housing commitments, the first inmate sentenced to local jail in lieu of prison escaped on Wednesday. William Scott Woodin, jailed locally because of the new law, escaped from Orange County’s Theo Lacy maximum-security jail by ‘wiggling through a kitchen window.’ He may be the first inmate to escape from that jail in 20 years, but he is a precursor of problems that will only multiply in the coming years. Jails are built to house pre-trial inmates and low level offenders. They are not equipped – by facility design or in staffing levels – to house inmates for years on end. Woodin was a mostly a thief and drug addict; but what will happen when violent felons like Steven Hoff start filling our local jails on multi-year sentences?
We’ve already seen the death and destruction caused by the state’s now abandoned “low level, non-violent” release program, whose sole aim was to release unsupervised inmates into our communities. This state’s latest effort, placing inmates into county jails and leaving local authorities to supervise them, looks doomed to be just as much of a public safety failure.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Currently reading page 1 of 27.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next Page
