Tyler Izen

March, 2010

Chief Charlie Beck has publicly stated many times that constitutional policing is his number-one goal for the Los Angeles Police Department. On January 20, he told a group of business supporters that the “process is more important than results” and he “will push this down at every opportunity.”

When asked by a Los Angeles journalist what he would tell every officer in the city if he could have a private chat with each one of us, Chief Beck responded:

“Police in a constitutional manner, be open, be direct, treat people with respect, do your job. Remember that police work is the one profession where process trumps results. You have to do things right.

“You can’t let the end justify the means. So if they do that, if they’re well-led and they’re well-equipped and they’re well-staffed, then the city gets the kind of policing that it deserves.”

I know that Chief Beck is firm in this belief because he was the investigator (and presenter) of the now 20-year-old investigation to which I referred in my October TBL article about our responsibility to each other to prevent stepping over the line and allowing the ends to justify the means.

I trust that Chief Beck will emphasize and reinforce to his command officers that the end does not justify the means in accomplishing other Department goals: for instance, reducing overtime and overtime payment.

As I wrote last month, as a cost-saving measure for the City, our most recent contract increased our compensatory time off (CTO) overtime bank from 96 hours to 400 hours. In a further compromise, our agreement allows the Department to manage the overtime liability by providing that the “Department may at its discretion require employees to use CTO time in excess [emphasis added] of 250 hours…”

At the January 26 meeting Board of Police Commissioners, Chief Beck assured the commissioners that he would be holding each of his commands accountable to manage overtime in order to avoid the budgetary burden of additional overtime payments.

There is no evidence that Chief Beck intended to violate our contract or direct his command staff to violate our contract, and there is no part of me that believes that was his intent. So, imagine my surprise when I received information from members indicating that several commanding officers are requesting/requiring/threatening to keep overtime balances below 250 hours (some of the claims are actually backed up with copies of desk notes and e-mails).

Again, our contract increases our CTO bank to 400 hours and allows the Department to manage CTO banks above 250 hours.

Then why were commanding officers telling our members that they should be “taking time off” if their balances exceed 150 hours? Why was there direction to supervisors to schedule mandatory time off if personnel will exceed 171 hours worked within a deployment period? Neither of those requests/orders was consistent with the contract that was just finalized. Were these examples of commanding officers being overzealous in their efforts to please the Chief, or was this a simple case of miscommunication? Did commanding officers elect to alter the 250-hour overtime bank contractual agreement to make their jobs easier or to look more efficient to Chief Beck? Or, did they neglect to read and understand the rules that they were enforcing?

This overtime issue created a great deal of consternation among the rank and file of the Department. Frankly, we have enough stress as a result of this economy without our leadership contributing to that stress, either because they are unaware of the rules or they elected to circumvent them in the interest of expediency.

But, there is a lesson in this for all of us. We must also be well-versed in the terms of contracts, rules and regulations. And, Chief Beck is right. You can’t let the end justify the means.

Apparently, just because someone of rank asserts something is so, doesn’t mean it is. It doesn’t matter whether their error is a result of their ignorance of the rule, or an intentional “expeditious” deception. Unless you are informed and prepared to intelligently discuss the issues, the result to you is the same.

Let me know what you think, accept responsibility for your actions and hold me accountable. It’s why I’m here. Contact me at (213) 251-4554 or via e-mail at tylerizen@lappl.org.