Paul M. Weber

March, 2010

LAPD Officers Cleared After Attorney Admits Video Was Fabricated

The League was pleased when on January 22, two Hollenbeck officers were vindicated in court, after being falsely accused of perjury in the case against gang member Rafat “Danny” Abdallah. See Gary Ingemunson’s article on page 9.

Expect Crime to Rise with Early Prison Releases

For nearly a year, I have been talking about the early release of inmates from county jails and our state prisons.

In January, local and state officials began to comply with new state laws that were designed to save money and alleviate overcrowded prisons.

In the short term, the prison purge will free over 6,500 felons. The early release of these prisoners is tied to a new law that allows inmates to receive one-half day of credit for good behavior (it used to be one-third of a day). Now, any inmate who behaves well behind bars will serve half of their sentences. Make no mistake about it: the measures designed to save money threaten public safety, erode our criminal justice system and send the wrong message to criminals. They were aimed solely at “saving” money for the state, even if the cost of crime and incarceration on the local level rises.

In the past, “low-level” offenders were sent to prison because they either had lengthy records of convictions prior to that crime or failed numerous opportunities to be law abiding while on local probation. Before the change in the new law, a parolee, upon release, was supervised by a parole officer, even if on a banked caseload. If they committed a new crime like a misdemeanor, they were violated and sent back. If they tested positive for illegal drugs — meaning they started using drugs again and were likely committing crimes to support a habit — they were sent back. If they blew off parole, they were sent back.

Now, these same repeat failures are going to be released without supervision — or, if there is any, there will be no sending them back unless they commit new crimes. They will be offered rehabilitation services. However, if they test positive or ignore the mandatory rehab, they won’t be sent back. In short, these repeat failures have been released with the knowledge that, whatever they do, they will not be sent back on a parole violation. And studies show nearly 70% of them will be arrested for crimes within 24 months of release. This is a losing formula to reduce crime.

Some people are cheering the elimination of “technical violations.” But, let’s be honest. What is technical about not remaining law abiding, not reporting to your parole officer and all the other things that we should expect a newly released prisoner to do upon reentry to society? If they couldn’t do these technical things, that was a pretty good indication that they were likely to not be successful. Sending these people back to prison for short stints was the reminder that they needed to get their act together if they wanted to stay free.

This new world, which basically tells released felons that they will not be going back unless caught and convicted of a new crime, is a disaster that we will watch unfold over the next year or so. Along the way, we will expend a tremendous amount of money chasing these crooks down, incarcerating them and convicting them. What is worse, however, is that thousands of residents will become victims at the hands of those who should still be in prison.

League to the City: Involve Us in the Process to Fix Fiscal Woes

It’s well established that state and local governments are facing continued budget shortfalls and government employee pension plans are under stress. How city officials go about addressing these challenges will go a long way in determining how successful they are in solving the fiscal crises.

Unfortunately, city officials have recently chosen a new approach in dealing with employee unions that shows little regard for the process the League and City used successfully just last year to reach agreement on the LAPD contract. Here’s what happened as the new year got underway and why we are deeply concerned.

The City decided a meet and consult would adequately substitute for a meet and confer when discussing the addition of a new tier to pension plans for new police officers and firefighters. Unlike a meet and confer, a formal process where the League is engaged as the legal bargaining unit for officers with the City, under a meet and consult the City is not obligated to negotiate in good faith with the League as an equal partner.

It is the firm position of the LAPPL that the “City’s proposed changes to the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of individuals who will be occupying job classifications represented by LAPPL is subject to the ‘meet and confer in good faith’ process set forth in California Government Code Section 3505.” That enactment defines the obligation to meet and confer in good faith, including the “... obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions and proposals, and to endeavor to reach an agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the public agency of its final budget for the ensuing year.” [Emphasis added.] It adds that this “process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses …”

The City’s action in informing LAPPL about the new tier and its willingness to “... receive any feedback and listen to any concerns prior to moving forward on implementation” does not satisfy that obligation. The LAPPL believes that, irrespective of what procedural approach the City eventually elects to pursue, this feedback will be of benefit to both parties. Therefore, I informed the City that, even if the City is still unwilling to acknowledge and honor its responsibility to bargain through the mutual gains process, the parties continue to discuss this subject under conditions where LAPPL is not waiving any of its rights to challenge the City’s actions with respect to this subject matter.

That the City would not only abandon the mutual gains process of negotiations that we adopted last year but also attempt to take several steps back in our relationship by deciding to remove us from a process in which we’ve been included for many years is very disappointing and troubling.

We have contacted each city councilmember with our concerns, seeking to engage them on this issue so there can be a true collaboration on any needed pension modifications. Now is not the time to start experimenting with city-union relationships. Rather, is it time for the City to work with the League and other city employee unions in an established partnership far more likely to achieve success.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns at paulweber@lappl.org.