Re "A case for LAPD openness," editorial, Feb. 10

Hopefully, the arms of Times editors aren't sore after their vigorous back-patting for the paper's "conscientious discernment" in not publishing a report that was negligently released by the Los Angeles Police Department in violation of its own policy and state law.

The report contained detailed information on officers investigated and cleared of racial profiling as well as information on the complaining parties. The Times' non-publication of this report does not overcome our strong opposition to the opening of board of rights hearings. It certainly doesn't cause us to drop opposition to the requirement that officers in specialized positions divulge all of their own and their family's personal financial information to the department.

The newspaper's "discernment" is clearly situational. The Times was the first paper to identify by name the alleged victim of pop singer Chris Brown, despite the LAPD's refusal to confirm the name after citing privacy laws. Sorry, but L.A. police officers aren't willing to subject their privacy rights to the whims of the media.

Paul M. WeberLos Angeles

The writer is president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.