Sorry LA Times – It’s about public safety, not turf or personalities

A recent LA Times editorial underestimated my relationship with Mayor Villaraigosa relative to the Airport Police issue and my reasons for voicing my opinion about the potential public safety effects of the Airport Police at LAX seeking new policing and pension benefits.  The Mayor and I have always had and continue to enjoy a solid relationship based on mutual respect and trust. I am comfortable with my role, and the Mayor is comfortable, I am sure, with his role as the City’s Chief Executive and the ultimate decision-maker. So, just to be clear, there is no tension between us, no matter how much the pundits at the LA Times would like to create that kind of City Hall drama. The Mayor and I are just fine. Thank you.

I meet one on one with the Mayor on a regular basis, and he relies on me, as he relies on his other general managers, to provide him with advice and counsel and, most of all, my opinion on issues related to the safety and security of Los Angeles.  A significant part of that safety equation is the Los Angeles International Airport, the highest identified terrorist target on the West Coast.

Now, about the airport - The editorial and the LA Times news story upon which it is apparently based (June 2, 2006: Bratton Rips Proposal of LAX Police) are significantly inaccurate.  As my hero Sergeant Joe Friday would say, here are “just the facts,” relating to the so-called controversy between the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department (LAWAPD) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), as I understand them and my opinion on what needs to take place.

The LAWAPD is an 830.33 agency, according to the California Penal Code (PC).  This means that according to State law, LAWAPD officers are only allowed to function as peace officers in or about a property owned and or administered by their employer, the Los Angeles World Airports.  The LAWAPD is seeking, through State legislation, 830.1 PC status, which would allow them peace officer status anywhere in the State of California.  This seems like a minor change, but the repercussions for security, liability, and City expense are potentially significant.   Not reported in both the poorly researched news accounts and the editorial is another underlying motivation – a change in pension status that offers significant financial and disability benefits to LAWAPD officers, which I have taken no position on since it doesn’t affect public safety at the airport.

In reference to their police powers, this status change would allow LAWAPD officers to, among other things, make vehicle stops, engage in vehicle pursuits outside of the airport, serve search warrants anywhere in the city or state, and to form and deploy a special weapons team and bomb squad. What is potentially problematic and certainly more costly in terms of liability and inefficiency is to have two equally empowered police agencies both with “primary responsibility” operating in the same arena.

The Penal Code recognizes the need for the Chief of the City police department to exercise a measure of control over other agencies operating within his or her jurisdiction by stipulating that the Chief may confer “full” peace officer status on officers serving within the City’s jurisdiction.  The current tiered configuration allows the Chief of Police the appropriate level of control over law enforcement activities in the jurisdiction for which the Chief is ultimately responsible.  By going to the Legislature, the Los Angeles World Airports is effectively side stepping the existing Penal Code provisions governing the matter and cutting the Mayor, the Police Chief, and the City Council out of a process on an issue that should be their decision, not that of a state body.

Last year, after a long and arduous debate regarding the responsibilities of the LAWAPD versus the LAPD and calls for a possible merger, a City Charter amendment reaffirmed that the LAWAPD reports to the Los Angeles World Airports Board.  The Charter amendment did not directly address areas of mutual concern or the status of LAWAPD officers as defined by the California Penal Code. Effectively, the issue of a merger was put on the “back burner” and the two agencies agreed to forge ahead and work closely on the security of the airport.  For the record, my previous comments misinterpreted by the LA Times not withstanding, I believe that the LAWAPD is very good at what they currently do, but they are not equipped to do it all and here’s why. 

The LAWAPD currently lacks the stringent hiring and background standards of the LAPD.  LAWAPD officers do not receive the extensive training afforded to LAPD officers, they are understaffed, and do not possess nor do they need the legal right to perform many of the essential duties that LAPD officers perform on a daily basis.  They have a limited mission, and the powers they seek would diminish not enhance their focused efforts at the airport. The bottom line is that when faced with a major emergency, the LAPD resources far outweigh the resources of the airport police, both in terms of overall expertise and sheer numbers.  The LAWAPD could never be sufficiently staffed to deal with emergencies and catastrophes that would require the much larger resources and capabilities of the LAPD.  It would simply be too expensive to maintain.

As I previously mentioned, it is no secret that I believe and have believed all along that we should move to merge the agencies in order to better secure LAX, one of the nation’s foremost terrorist targets.  I do recognize that this opinion is unpopular and politically not viable at the moment.  The fact remains, however, that the LAWAPD cannot perform this important mission on its own.  In addition to a full-time complement of 53 LAPD officers permanently assigned to the airport, the LAPD has been staffing the airport with overtime details to the tune of nearly one million dollars per month.  Even with this expenditure, it is still much more efficient to staff these posts with LAPD officers on an overtime basis than it would be to hire full-time equivalent LAWAPD officers with the commensurate levels of benefits. The current configuration allows for more flexibility to reduce or expand the staffing at the airport in response to the threat level. It also allows us to have a ready reserve already in place at the airport in case of an emergency.    LAWAPD would have to hire and deploy at least 140 more officers to assume the basic responsibility of manning the security checkpoints where LAPD officers on overtime are now deployed.  Based even on the most liberal hiring practices and reduced training time, it would take them years to accomplish that large increase in their force so as not to risk a decrease in the quality of their personnel.

Accepting that any kind of merger is not possible at this juncture, how do we perform an important unified mission with two separate agencies that may end up with overlapping or misunderstood responsibilities?  The answer: through a Memorandum of Agreement.

The LAPD, at my direction, has worked out the terms of a new MOA with the LAWAPD.  The new MOA is based on mutually agreed upon solutions to interagency issues that we have identified together since the last MOA was signed in 1988.  The new MOA covers issues ranging from investigative responsibility to vehicle pursuits, to use of force policy and investigative procedures, and the deployment of special weapons teams. Operationally, the agencies have come to an agreement, the City Attorney has weighed in and, since March 7, 2006, I have been waiting for the airport leadership to sign this essential public safety document.  Here is an additional concern that I have.  I am unsure if the bill passes how LAWAPD’s status will affect the relationship between the two agencies and the way we work together to ensure the safety of the City of Los Angeles both at the airport and outside of the airport environment.  It will probably, at a minimum, require significant renegotiation of the new MOA.

So, given all of that, in addition to getting the MOA signed, here’s the solution I propose. Regardless of whether or not the legislation passes affording the LAWAPD 830.1 status, all future LAWAPD police recruits should go through the same rigorous background employment screening and recruit training that LAPD applicants receive.  I am offering to train their personnel at our academy. Both agencies, and more importantly public safety at the airport would be enhanced by this coordinating effort. 

If afforded 830.1 status, then by all means LAWAPD officers should rightfully receive the same benefits as their LAPD counterparts; and in return for the enhanced responsibilities, LAWAPD should adhere to same hiring standards and background investigations and training requirements as the LAPD.  This will help to ensure that the airport continues to be staffed by high-quality officers who are better trained and equipped to complete their public safety mission and work with their counterparts at the LAPD.

In the end, let me assure everyone that the LAPD officers assigned to the airport work very well with their brother and sister officers from LAWAPD.   Should a major incident occur, I am sure that the men and women of both of these law enforcement agencies will perform admirably despite the current situation.  As far as the boots on the ground are concerned there is no turf war, just good cops doing their best to secure our travelling public.   

The “turf war” is a creation of the press.  My focus and concern is public safety, not turf, and I will continue to speak out on that issue whenever I feel it is necessary. Fortunately I work for a Mayor who is confident enough and smart enough to not want to surround himself with a bunch of “yes men” telling him only what they think he wants to hear. Sorry LA Times – you are missing the real story on this one.

Chief William J. Bratton

Comments

[russ]

There's a brewing problem at the corner of Wilshire and San Vicente boulevards. Mistimed traffic lights are resulting in motorists traveling west on Wilshire to get caught in the intersection after the light turns red, thus blocking the paths of southbound San Vicente motorists. I work in an office building at this corner and can hear honking constantly from angry southbound drivers. I also can see a backup for a few blocks developing at rush hour as well as non-busy times. Until the traffic light people can fix this (the real culprit is a mistimed light at Wilshire and La Cienega), more enforcement is needed to insure westbound travelers don't block the way.

[Rita Garcia]

Who authored this piece? It's unsigned. Is it by Bill Bratton? That should be noted, if so.

[chonchers III]

To Rita you nitwit it says at the end of the piece it was written by Billy himself. Open your eyes.

[Robert]

This comment should be a full interview given to a competing newspaper. The public needs to know about the insight of the Chief.

[M.K.Gentry]

How convenient of Bratton to "comfortably" interpret penal code section 830.33 PC- he seems to have left out the part that says "the following are peace officers whose authority extends ANYWHERE throughtout the state", then goes on to say that with respect to the patrons or on or about the properties owned and operated by ther employing agency- Our employing agency IS the City of Los Angeles,through its semi autonomous Dept, the L.A. World airports.The FACT is this- Giving L.A. airport Police 830.1 PC will not effect the operations of the LAPD,nor will it stop LAPD from operating or interacting with airport PD or any other law enforcement agency at LAx.

LAX Police officers already pursue suspects in vehicles, enforce traffic laws in and around the airport area,we already serve search warrants and arrest warrants throughout the county of Los Angeles, and many times conduct criminal investigations- with or without the assistance of LAPD.Policing the airport is a joint effort,neither totally local, nor state,nor federal, but a mixture of all. And LAPD will still have a very important role in the policing of the airport,like anywhere else in the city.The provisions under 830.1 PC will only close the loophole that "could" restrict the daily duties that the Airport Police have done,which for some reason LAPD wants to do(* for more than nearly 20 yrs). LAPD ,and indeed Bratton , are fooling themselves if they think that they alone are the answer to protecting the city of L.A. or even the LAX.Currently parts of this city, from the "southend" to the Valley go under served by LAPD,while Bratton and the LAPPL rail against a "sister agency" that has never once let the city down in providing service,nor jeopardized the safety of the community .And for the record Chief, LAXPD officers have been trained at LAPD and still have the opportunity to train at the LAPD academy.LAXPD supervisors,Dets,even specialized response units still are trained by LAPD. Our hiring standards are the same( the city Personnel governs that aspect) , and until 3 yrs ago, there were THOUSANDS of LAPD officers who did not have to be polygraphed to attain their positions-many of them are still working LAPD,so are you saying that they are unqualifed ? Be brave-print the "truth" ,print this.........

[G. Holt]

The facts, as I see them, are these: Chief Bratton wants to keep the Airport Police at their current status, because then they will "need" the LAPD at the airport to perform certain specialized functions (the main one that comes to mind is the Bomb Squad). This, in turn, allows LAPD to keep its collective foot in the door at LAX, which will allow them some justification to dust off another merger proposal at some point in the future. As we all know, last year's attempt to set up a merger between the two agencies went down in flames at the polls, much to the chagrin of Chief Bratton and Councilman Jack Weiss. The reason that LAPD wants to merge the agencies is that the Airport Police are marvelously well-funded, at least compared to the LAPD. Chief Bratton wants a slice of that pie for his agency. This is understandable, of course. Chief Bratton would actually be remiss if he did not actively explore every possible avenue by which he might better fund his overburdened and understaffed police department. He should just be more forthcoming with that aspect, instead of pretending that it's only about Public Safety.
The LAPD's officers union (The Los Angeles Police Protective League) is going along with this charade because they, too, have a vested financial interest in keeping the Airport Police in its current peace officer category. LAX is one of the only places that an LAPD officer can work overtime and get paid top dollar while doing a minimal amount of work. The Airport Police handle the vast majority of lwa enforcement activity at LAX, as they should. With the exception of the mtorcyle officers, the LAPD officers who are assigned on overtime at LAX have been instructed to stand (or sit) at podiums at the passenger screening checkpoints and radio for the Airport Police in the event that a report needs to be taken or that an arrest needs to be made. The Protective League fears that if the Airport Police upgrades its status, then LAPD officers will no longer be needed at LAX. As with Chief Bratton, it is understandable why they would intervene in the affairs of the Airport Police. They, too, should be honest about their true motives. The proof that this is about preserving overtime money for the League's members lies in the fact that the Protective League never once publicly opened its mouth to protest the L.A. Port Police having its status changed to the very same category that the Airport Police now seek via the exact same mechanism (the state legislature). Why not? Many believe that the Protective League said nothing because it didn't affect any LAPD officers or their interests. After all, there is no cash overtime for LAPD officers at the Port of Los Angeles. There is PLENTY of it at LAX, and they would like to keep it that way. Why else would a police union try to interfere with the efforts of police officers to improve their own lot? By the way, the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of San Diego and the international airport in San Diego are all on the same terrorist target watchlist as LAX. The specialized police departments that protect these critical assets had their status upgraded to the exact same category that the L.A. Airport police are now seeking years ago. There have been no problems with any jurisdictional issues at any of these facilities as far as anyone has heard. Lastly, the frantic efforts of those who would endeavor to suppress the efforts of the Airport Police to become even more effective as an agency should be viewed this way: Damage Control. They want to say that this is a local issue and that it should be decided locally. What they leave out of their many scathing, untruthful articles is the fact that one of their chief allies, Councilman Jack Weiss, set this whole chain of events in motion at the local level in 2004. He was the one that demanded that a study be commissioned to identify the best way to police LAX. One of the recommendations to come out of that very study was that the Airport Police have its authority upgraded. That recommendation, along with the others, is now being implemented. This has been a case of "Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it" for Councilman Weiss. Also, this is more than a local issue. 2 of the 4 airports that the Airport Police provide services to are not even in the city of L.A.. In fact, one of them (Ontario International Airport)isn't even in the County of L.A..This affects the residents of Palmdale as well as Westchester, Ontario as well as Van Nuys. It is certainly not a local issue.
I would really love to see an open, honest debate about this issue held in a public forum. Only then can the facts be brought out and the many lies that have been told about this issue be challenged and shown to be false.