Full financial disclosure for police officers?

[SlowDownThere]

LAPD Officers May Quit Over Disclosure Demand


Updated: December 19th, 2007 03:59 PM EDT


Most Read Most E-mailed E-mail Article Print Article


RACHEL URANGA
Daily Breeze (Torrance, California)



Some 500 Los Angeles Police Department gang and narcotic officers are threatening to retire or change jobs if the city follows through on a plan that would force them to reveal their personal finances, union officials say.

A financial disclosure proposal set to be considered Thursday by the five-member civilian police commission would be the last major hurdle to comply with a 7-year-old federal consent decree meant to root out police corruption.

Under the proposal, all gang and narcotics officers with the rank of lieutenant or below would be required to provide a detailed list of their finances, including all their properties, past due credit card debts, outside income, stocks, bonds and checking accounts.

"No other law enforcement agency in the country forces its officers to share this kind of information," police union President Tim Sands said in a prepared statement.

"This financial disclosure plan is an unnecessary and ill- conceived intrusion into the private lives of LAPD officers, their spouses and their children."

The decree, which arose out of the Rampart corruption scandal implicating several officers on a gang detail of framing and beating suspects, has been a top priority for LAPD Chief William Bratton, a former consent decree monitor.

Bratton was vacationing Tuesday, but First Assistant Chief Sharon Papa said she could not comment on a matter that would be considered by the police commission in closed session.

Under the proposal, financial disclosure would be phased in over two years. Incumbent officers would not have to report for two years but all newly assigned officers must divulge their finances within 10 days of their assignment.

Though decree reforms have been departmentwide, it's the gang units that have seen some of the most intense scrutiny.

Many in the unit are already resentful of the amount of paperwork required of the heavily scrutinized officers, he said.

The reform is only one of dozens forced by the federal consent decree that radically shifted the way the LAPD conducted day-to-day police work after the Department of Justice found "a pattern or practice of excessive force, false arrests, and illegal searches and seizures."

Under the decree negotiated by then Mayor James Hahn to head off a Justice Department lawsuit, the LAPD has implemented TEAMS II, a complicated tracking system that aims to root out troubled officers.

It also prohibited the use of secret informants, demanded gang officers be uniformed, created an integrity section and instituted a massive audit division.

But the police union and others doubt whether the financial disclosure proposal will reveal bad officers who hide money in trust funds with family members, in property and elsewhere.

"I am puzzled by this," said Robert Stern, the president of the nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies.

"Usually, (financial disclosure) is meant to prevent conflicts, not corruption. I always say that the ones who want to be corrupt will be corrupt and won't disclose."

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

[SlowDownThere]

Unbelievable. Outrageous!

How can the city negotiate away the privacy rights of individual officers?

That would be like the city agreeing that all of their officers will vote a certain way in the next election. The personal financial information of these officers isn't the city's to negotiate with.

Next we'll hear about FOIL request for the data.

[MotorCitySwat]

I can see why the city would want them to disclose this information, but its too extreme. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving that to anyone

[Mad_malk]

Waste of time. Sorry but if your in that type of task force and your running down the money. one would presume you would know the best way to hide it as well. There for this would hassle good honest cops which would be the majority and just give a gloss of protection to those few rare dirty cops.

[xcfmx]

Originally Posted by MotorCitySwat

I can see why the city would want them to disclose this information, but its too extreme. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving that to anyone

I have had to disclose all of this for both departments i've applied with on the personal history statement packet. Checking/Savings account balances, investment accounts, real estate, and a credit report... I understand the application process is different than being an employee on the payroll, but I'd think this information is more relevant as an employee than an applicant.

That said, I do think this is overstepping the privacy boundary.

[L-1]

Originally Posted by SlowDownThere

Unbelievable. Outrageous!

How can the city negotiate away the privacy rights of individual officers?

Next we'll hear about FOIL request for the data.

Actually, California law has specifically allowed law enforcement agencies to require its officers to make financial disclosures of this nature for around 30 years now. It's just that no one has ever made an issue of it.

From the California Peace Officers Bill of Rights:

3308. No public safety officer shall be required or requested for
purposes of job assignment or other personnel action to disclose any
item of his property, income, assets, source of income, debts or
personal or domestic expenditures (including those of any member of
his family or household) unless such information is obtained or
required under state law or proper legal procedure, tends to indicate
a conflict of interest with respect to the performance of his
official duties, or is necessary for the employing agency to
ascertain the desirability of assigning the public safety officer to
a specialized unit in which there is a strong possibility that bribes
or other improper inducements may be offered.

Additionally, peace officer personnel records (which contain financial information) are confidential as a matter of law in California and are not subject to inspection pursuant to FOIA or Public Record Act requests.

[exdrip]

Now that's a bit ridiculous

[donutdestroyer]

i had a problem with my department checking my credit and financial records during the background investigation.......i can not imagine what i would do if they pulled that

[BPD_126]

I think they're requiring more info than I had to give while applying for my home mortgage loan! Where are the "civil rights" guru's gonna be now that it's cops getting the raw end?

[texaschickeee]

being as that ts only two differant divisions- I hear the word discrimanation flying out somewhere.

but then again if you go into these divisions, and KNOW what your dealing wtih- theres the qualifer that you must make some concestions.

[itnstalln]

that seems really inappropiate to require someone to disclose their personal finances

[fedguy889]

I have to do one every year..but then again, I have a TS/SCI clearance and its mandated by POTUS...so not really the same thing...

[ManoloQ]

I agree with BPD and I am sure nobody in the city or public will back the officers on this. What they should do if polygraph every officer applying for those specialized units and then do it again every three years once they get in. That is a waste and a big pain gathering up all that info and then studying it, who would do it. 500 is a big number.

[L-1]

Originally Posted by ManoloQ

What they should do is polygraph every officer applying for those specialized units and then do it again every three years once they get in.

Can't do it. We're one of the more civilized states when it comes to giving poly's to officers. Again, from the California Peace Officers Bill of Rights:

3307. (a) No public safety officer shall be compelled to submit to
a lie detector test against his or her will. No disciplinary action
or other recrimination shall be taken against a public safety officer
refusing to submit to a lie detector test, nor shall any comment be
entered anywhere in the investigator's notes or anywhere else that
the public safety officer refused to take, or did not take, a lie
detector test, nor shall any testimony or evidence be admissible at a
subsequent hearing, trial, or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, to the effect that the public safety officer refused
to take, or was subjected to, a lie detector test.

(b) For the purpose of this section, "lie detector" means a
polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress
evaluator, or any other similar device, whether mechanical or
electrical, that is used, or the results of which are used, for the
purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or
dishonesty of an individual.

[Fëanor]

Cool. How many otherwise-worthless peons will they have to hire to review and monitor all these financial records?

An under-funded, already-hated police department is going to waste a bunch of taxpayer dollars to make sure that the cops aren't stealing from rich gangs and rich drug dealers.

Glad I don't live in California.

[SlowDownThere]

It's still outrageous, even if it's legal.

Why not require it of teachers, because they "might become corrupt."

...city coucilmen, or proffesional athletes, or just about anybody...

That's a good idea, city coucilmen.

[SgtCHP]

In a statement, the LAPPL said that more than 500 LAPD officers in specialized units -- including gang enforcement and narcotics -- will request transfers or retire rather than submit to the "draconian" financial disclosure requirements.

The commander was on the news and she commented that she is concerned that there is going to be a mass exodus from the units and no requests for assignments in the units. The bangers and dopers can hardly wait.

[L-1]

Originally Posted by SlowDownThere

Why not require it of teachers, because they "might become corrupt."

...city coucilmen, or proffesional athletes, or just about anybody...

That's a good idea, city coucilmen.

Hold onto your hat, because we do require it of others.

California's Political Reform Act requires public agencies to identify jobs within those agencies whose official decision making abilities and actions have the potential to materially affect the assets and income of the persons staffing them. The people staffing those positions must then file financial disclosure reports with the State Fair Political Practices Commission annually and upon leaving office. Failure to do so can result in up to a $5.000 fine, termination and criminal prosecution. Because "having the potential to materially affect the assets and income of the persons staffing those positions" is purposefully vague, the standard can be pretty low when it comes to mandating financial disclosure in public employment.

[mdrdep]

Originally Posted by L-1

Actually, California law has specifically allowed law enforcement agencies to require its officers to make financial disclosures of this nature for around 30 years now. It's just that no one has ever made an issue of it.

From the California Peace Officers Bill of Rights:

3308. No public safety officer shall be required or requested for
purposes of job assignment or other personnel action to disclose any
item of his property, income, assets, source of income, debts or
personal or domestic expenditures (including those of any member of
his family or household) unless such information is obtained or
required under state law or proper legal procedure, tends to indicate
a conflict of interest with respect to the performance of his
official duties, or is necessary for the employing agency to
ascertain the desirability of assigning the public safety officer to
a specialized unit in which there is a strong possibility that bribes
or other improper inducements may be offered.

Additionally, peace officer personnel records (which contain financial information) are confidential as a matter of law in California and are not subject to inspection pursuant to FOIA or Public Record Act requests.

L1 you need to read this a little more closely and compare it with what the city is actually trying to do. i've had to deal with this particular sittuation. An agency may check your finances when your applying to a job that may be subject to corruption such as narco, vice, or gangs. Once your there or in any other position the dept. is not allowed to inquire about your finances as it is personal. it also precludes your personal finances from being divulged to the general public. So while LAPD may require any future applicants to theese positions to disclose their finances the people already there would be exempt, and the city is actually violating the POBR with this action.....................rwi

[L-1]

Originally Posted by mdrdep

L1 you need to read this a little more closely and compare it with what the city is actually trying to do. i've had to deal with this particular sittuation. An agency may check your finances when your applying to a job that may be subject to corruption such as narco, vice, or gangs. Once your there or in any other position the dept. is not allowed to inquire about your finances as it is personal. it also precludes your personal finances from being divulged to the general public. So while LAPD may require any future applicants to theese positions to disclose their finances the people already there would be exempt, and the city is actually violating the POBR with this action.....................rwi

You're right. 832.7 & 832.8 PC make peace officer personnel records confidential and exempt from public disclosure without a Pitchess Motion. I don't think I suggested otherwise and I don't think there was anything in the article SlowDownThere referenced to suggest they would be made public either, so I'm a bit confused on that one.

You are also right about the POBR section I referenced. It only pertains to selecting someone for assignment to a specific unit. SlowDownThere expressed shock that this could be done and I was merely explaining that state law has allowed it for 30 years.

As far as requiring further financial status checks, I believe LAPD is relying upon the California Political Reform Act as the legal basis for their actions. It requires public employees whose official decision making abilities and actions have the potential to materially affect their own assets and income, to file financial disclosure reports annually and upon leaving their assignment. Granted, it may conflict with POBR. But if you will remember, as a rule of law, when two laws are in conflict. the newer law prevails. In this case, the California Political Reform Act is the newer law so it takes precedent. Designated personnel in my agency have to file annual financial reports with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) or face criminal and civil penalties along with loss of their jobs. Because they are peace officers, their filings are exempt from public disclosure, but they still must file. I am going to bet that if you check around, certain personnel in your agency are doing annual FPPC financial filings as well. It's just as I said before, no one has ever made a public issue of it, so most folks are unaware of the fact that it's been going on for years.

For further information you might want to check out the California Fair Political Practices Commission website.

[mdrdep]

L-1 I think the problem here though is the City wants those records themselves as opposed to FPPC, and I think that is where the violation of the POBR is going to come into play.

[L-1]

Originally Posted by mdrdep

L-1 I think the problem here though is the City wants those records themselves as opposed to FPPC, and I think that is where the violation of the POBR is going to come into play.

But what I'm saying is the California Political Reform Law is the hook that is allowing them to do it. If you look at the act, it allows the employer (in this case, the city) to determine which positions qualify for financial reporting purposes to the FPPC. The reports are then submitted through the employer to the FPPC. The employer is also obligated to report to the FPPC, those employees who fail to comply. In my own agency, reports are submitted to the department, who keeps a copy to prove compliance, checks your name off the list and then forwards them to the FPPC. Other than to the FPPC, the reports can't go outside our officer's personnel files. So, if a politician, another government agency outside the department, or a civilian wants to peek at them, they're out of luck unless they come up with a discovery order from the court.

Traditionally, financial disclosures of this nature have only been required at the higher ranks. For example, in my agency, you need to be a station commander or higher, or be involved in financial decision making position before you have to start reporting. But, the law is so broadly worded that it allows the employer to include anyone who can benefit financially from their official actions. That's what's happening here. The Police Commission will vote on whether to extend this reporting requirement to gang and narcotics detail personnel. which under the Political Reform Act, is their perogative.

As far as violating POBAR, you will notice that no one from the police union has even mentioned this. Instead, they simply talk of personnel resigning from the concerned units, (because the Political Reform Act bypasses the protections of POBAR). If POBAR applied, my own union would have challenged it years ago and no one from my agency would be filling out the disclosure forms. BTW, don't misunderstand the tone of my POST. I don't like the idea of financial disclosure in this instance. I'm just explaining how they are getting away with it.

FWIW, when you fill out the financial disclosure forms, you don't lay out your finances down to the penny. Instead, your categorize your assets (real property, stocks, bonds, investments, income, and assets of business entities/trusts where the ownership interest is 10% or greater). You then check boxes to tell if their fair market values are in the $2,000 to $10,000 range, $10,001 to $100,000 range, $100.001 to $1,000,000 range, or over $1,000,000. Other income, loans, etc are listed similarly but the check the box dollar amounts are different.

[Frank Sector]

They could just ask me and I could tell them,I have a huuuge amount of bills and no money in the bank. Case closed.
If you have to dig through someones bank statements to figure out if a person is stealing or funneling money on duty then your investigative skills smell of hot-sick!

[LAgumshoe]

Let me attempt to put out a little bit more accurate information as someone who is directly involved in this process.

The City of Los Angeles specifically the LAPD and the US Dept of Justice entered in to a Consent Decree in an effort to avoid the threat of the DOJ litigating and attempting to take over the LAPD due to what they saw as civil rights violations ( ie Rodney King and Ramart scandal). This was mistake number one, but I won't divert too far from the topic. ( Outright litigation or at least waiting out the upcoming election which changed Administrations (Clinton I to Bush II) and thus the Federal governments desire to become involved in state and local matters such as this).

Specifically on the issue of financial disclosures.
The verbage of the decree requires implementation of a financial disclosure for gang and narcotics officers. The problem faced is two fold. First, it is a violation of Ca State law to mandate any LEO within an assignment be forced to sign a financial disclosure for a position he/she is already an incumbent. Second at issue, the DOJ, the LAPD, the City of LA, and the police league representing the officers all came to an acceptable agreement as to what the disclosure would consist of and how this intrusiveness would be fairly implemented. This agreement was taken to the Federal Judge (Fees) whose job is to "oversee" the decree. He believed the agreed upon disclosure was not thourough enough and thus the new disclosure in it's form was drafted. They City merely wanting compliance to eventually get out of the decree has thus sacraficed the officers in an attempt again to avoid litigation.

A lawsuit has been filed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League in an effort to stop its implementation.

Neither I nor hundreds of other officers affected by this have anything to hide. But if politics also dicated that "I have nothing to hide in my house", I sure would not let my City, Department or the Federal government in to walkthrough whenever they damn well pleased.

In the words of one arrestee "The LAPD might kick you A@@, but they don't take your wallet"

[yellowreef]

Originally Posted by SlowDownThere

"No other law enforcement agency in the country forces its officers to share this kind of information," police union President Tim Sands said in a prepared statement.

BS, we (and a most fed agencies) have to make full disclosure of all finances before even being hired, and every 5 years after that. It's the cost of doing business.