In response to a Los Angeles Times Editorial on September 15, 2009 regarding the furlough of police officers (read below), LAPPL President Paul M. Weber has submitted the following response to the LA Times:
September 15, 2009
Dear Editor:
Re: L.A. police funding must be a priority (Sept. 15, 2009)
We agree with The Times that the city's overriding best interests are served by continuing to make public safety the top priority in the city budget process.
Los Angeles has long been under-policed compared with the nation's other largest cities, based on the number of officers per capita and square mile. Clearly, we need to expand our police force. However, it is ill-conceived public policy to furlough trained officers in order to hire new ones. And if experienced officers are furloughed, who is going to train the rookies?
The city's police furlough plan would halve the number of officers responding to 911 calls, creating a feedback loop. Without properly staffed patrols, residents and their property would be softer targets, increasing the amount of crimes while greatly delaying police responses to those crimes.
That's not a responsible way for government to serve its residents.
Paul M. Weber
President
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Original Op-Ed story:
**********************
L.A. police funding must be a priority
Neighborhood security must be sustained, however unfair the channeling of funds might seem in a time of layoffs and pay cuts.
September 15, 2009Los Angeles Times Editorial
The city of Los Angeles will not be getting the revenue it needs over the coming months to sustain its current level of spending, and it must cut back. That reality has become painful for employees who have devoted themselves to public service and now face mandatory furloughs or even layoffs.
The prospect of losing a city job is especially bitter when one job is pitted against another. Why, for example, should civilian employees suffer disproportionately under a system that may see public safety workers left relatively unscathed?
The hard answer is that although fairness to employees is important -- it recognizes years of service, rewards flexibility in bargaining and secures a stable workforce, all of which are good for the city -- fairness in city labor decisions ultimately must take a back seat to the overriding best interests of the city.
After years of toying with expanding the size of the Los Angeles Police Department, advancing and then retreating when a limited funding stream evaporated or the economy turned sour, Los Angeles has begun to make some headway. It has been an important development. A growing LAPD, together with smart deployment decisions, have helped to keep crime in check and to improve the working relationship between the department and the neighborhoods it serves. A larger number of officers helps the LAPD to move away from the "occupying force"-style of policing that once prevailed in Los Angeles, keeping some communities secure and others geared for confrontation.
Allowing the LAPD to drop in size would be a setback for Los Angeles. If the city can afford to hold steady, until good times return and expansion can begin again, it should.
The police officers union argues that it makes no sense to consider furloughs for officers already serving to save enough money to keep hiring. On the contrary; it makes eminent sense. Even if furloughs keep the city from utilizing the full department today, the hiring will mean that a full force, and not a diminished LAPD, will patrol the streets once better budget times return. Furloughed officers, moreover, can be recalled to duty in an emergency.
Other city departments may have to take deeper cuts to keep the city properly patrolled. It is harsh, but it may still be the best course. It is unfair -- all the more unfair because with better resource management, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa could have planned better for the current crisis and taken steps that would have made sacrifice more bearable, and because police hiring is widely seen as a political benefit to the mayor. That may be, but it is still the right move.
