NOTES FOR THE MAY 20, 2025 POLICE COMMISSION WEEKLY MEETING

•    Police Commission President Anthony Pacheco and Commissioner Robert Saltzman attended South Bureau’s Commanding Officers meeting.

•    Commissioner Andrea Ordin continues to work with Commission staff on various issues.

•    Commissioner Alan Skobin participated in a meeting with taxi industry leaders in relation to the City’s Bandit Taxi ordinances.  He also attended meetings with the Chinatown Public Safety Association and West Valley Station.

•    Police Commission President Anthony Pacheco and Commissioner Alan Skobin attended the LAPD Celebrity Golf Tournament on May 17, 2008.  All proceeds from the event benefited the Los Angeles Police Memorial Foundation.

•    Assistant Chief Sharon Papa reported although academy classes are slightly below anticipated at a little over 50 candidates per class, next year’s budget will allow for 60 recruits per class.

•    Police Commission President Anthony Pacheco requested clarification on instances where discipline was imposed upon an officer and the officer was able to utilize insurance coverage to recoup any salary loss.  He asked that a report be provided detailing how the insurance coverage works and the possibility of revising the disciplinary process.   

•    The Department’s report, dated May 14, 2008, relative to an update of the Internal Affairs Group investigative protocols for Racial Profiling investigations as presented by Commander Richard Webb was approved.  Commander Webb reported since the Internal Affairs Group’s (IAG) last presentation to the Commission in November 2007, IAG’s Review and Evaluation Section has closed 76 racial profiling investigations and 100% of the cases have been in compliance with application of Racial Profiling Investigation Protocols.  He noted several management strategies have been implemented by IAG since November 2007, including: providing each IAG investigator a copy of the racial profiling protocols, as well as posting the protocols on the IAG intranet site for ease of access for all Department personnel; conducting Internal Investigations Courses which include a four-hour block of instruction on investigating racial profiling allegations; and, designating an auditor within the Review and Evaluation Section as the coordinator for reviewing racial profiling cases, including an additional review by the Criminal Investigation Division Commanding Officer.  As requested by Commander Webb, Police Commission President Anthony Pacheco directed the Inspector General’s office to coordinate an additional review of IAG’s efforts.  Executive Director Richard Tefank stated two additional reports would be presented to the Commission after July 1.  One report will include the Department’s analysis and the other will include Commission staff’s analysis of other law enforcement agencies relative to racial profiling investigations.   

Comments

[El Tecolote]

Regarding Commissioner Pacheco's inquiry concerning an officer utilizing insurance to offset any salary loss in disciplinary situations:

Hey Commissioner you're the attorney. Until you start paying the premiums for the insurance, back off. It's called overstepping your authority and an invasion of privacy.

If LAPD didn't have such an archaic and punitive disciplinary process, there wouldn't be a need for officers to purchase insurance at their own expense.

How that benefit is distributed is none of your business.

[Dis and Dat]

Well said, El Tecolote....

Why should a police officer's family suffer because the officer got railroaded and laid out to dry??? With all the bogus lawsuits out there against good, hard-working officers, they have no choice but to insure themselves so that they won't end up on the streets with their family.

Don't forget, you're not the only one who has kids and a family to support. Try and put yourself in their shoes for a day....you'll be whimpering to go back to your safe office job.

[J Q Public]

The "insurance fund" reeks of impropriety and overstepping of the union's bounds. Time off without pay is a punitive measure designed to reward misconduct. Instead it becomes a paid vacation. Or a couple extra days to devote to the requisite side business.

As the Times article notes, over 75% of union members participate in this fund. And about 5 claims per week approved. That means a minimum of 250 days per year are doled out that serve no punishment whatsoever.

This is only the tip of the iceberg and only with continued public dialog will more details of this "insurance policy" become known.

[b&wop;]

JQ Public wrote:

"The "insurance fund" reeks of impropriety and overstepping of the union's bounds."

Why is that? An insurance policy is a pool of funds to offset losses, paid for by the customer. Using that logic, if an officer is found guilty of misconduct, he or she should suffer financial loss and hardship just so the public, politicians, and the Department brass feel they got their pound of flesh.

Let's apply such thinking to those drivers who cause collisions. Let's have the public and the politicians agree that if someone causes a collision, even though they have car insurance, they should forgo their insurance benefits and instead pay thousands of dollars for the damages to their own vehicles in addition to the other party's vehicle. Only then, will the driver at fault "get it" and everyone will have vengeance. Silly, isn't it? No police commissioner would want to volunteer for that.

The insurance fund is paid for by the officers, but it only reimburses the officer for his/her salary if they accept the punishment. It does not cover the days he or she loses from their pension fund. In other words, an officer who is given a 10-day suspension, will get the salary reimbursement, but will have to work 10 extra days at the end of their career to make up for the lost days.

It's still a monetary punishment. But no matter. It's a benefit paid for by personal funds and the commissioners or the Department brass have nothing to say about it.

Maybe officers should forgo additional disability insurance too, since we can trust the workmans compensation programs to fully protect officers.

Yeah, right!

[alice]

JQ Public - what you don't understand is that officers are guilty until proven innocent. The administration punishes before they discover what really happened. Do you realize how many so-called charges are later proven unfounded or exonerated completely - countless times it takes months, even years, for cases to be heard. What does the officer do in the meantime?? He/she has to protect his family during these witchhunts. It's clear that you visualize the process to be like joe-citizen, when that's not the case at all. As usual, most people who look at the surface of these cases, don't know what they are talking about. Unless you walk in their shoes, don't assume to know what should be done.

[On the Job]

Pacheco, go without car insurance and i will go without my beef insurance

As for the IAG, how many audits need to be done. NO racial profiling was shown. Keep looking in your efforts to find something wrong. Keep spending the money.

[J Q Public]

More smoke and mirrors. Let's not forget that government jobs are among the few that are protected in this working-at-will state. Be happy that the conduct that would lead to immediate termination without inquiry in the private sector equates to a slap on the wrist with months of hearings and lawyers in the public sector.

Let's not forget it was the union that was so instrumental in having officers' discipline files shielded from public view in this great State, under the notion of "privacy" (how a PUBLIC servant thinks their actions on duty are a PRIVATE matter is beyond me-- but alas I digress). Members of the union carry no credibility in this regard-- if what was said were true and the vast majority of accusations proved to be false then there would be no problem with full disclosure of the files supporting that conclusion. Since no one wants to substantiate their claims we must judge them as red herrings.

Regardless of what officers have to say about this, the public has already formed an opinion and it merely lowers the view we hold of the Department lower than it already had been. Perhaps we should petition to have the motto changed to, "To protect ourselves and serve our own self-interests"

LAPD has a long reputation of being gung-ho and shooting first while asking questions later.

Is it not unreasonable for management take the same position with the rank-and-file, as the rank-and-file takes with the general public? You can dish it out, but you cannot take it?

Luckily for the citizens of LA, the Times has grabbed ahold of this story, and it is sure not to go away any time soon.

What's the next scandal going to be?

[Code One]

JQ Public,

Why are you calling this a scandal when it isn't? If I was to go to a Board of Rights for something I did wrong, why is it any of your business? For that matter, what business is it of yours what I and what many other Officers from this department spend their money on? It is our right to have this insurance due to the fact that this department has such a draconian disciplinary process. If our disciplinary process wasn't so bad, I and other Officers wouldn't be paying extra money. And to relay what B&wop; previously posted; if we take five to ten day suspensions, we have to work those extra days on the tail end of our careers.

You make it sound like we don't mind getting suspended, when in actuality we do. None of us want to go through this archaic process. Wether you beleive us or not, this department is still playing the game of "Gotchya", and the Officers are flipping the bill one way or another. And it wasn't just our union that was "instrumental" on having our records being shielded from public view.

There shouldn't be any type of "Inquiry" done by Pacheco or anybody else for that matter. Who is he to tell us or our union what to do? Why is it when Officers benifit from something, our wonderful Police Commission wants to take it away?

[alice]

Oh..... now I get it. JQ Public is a cop hater. That makes sense if he believes what he reads in the LA Times.

Anytime you generalize about any "group", it negates your message.

[415M]

Dear J Q Public, it sounded like you work in the private sector and you have a deep concern with the government workers. You addressed that "How a PUBLIC servant thinks their action on duty are a PRIVATE matter is beyond me." Let me ask you a question, is your personnel file open to the public? Is your employer willing to let me see your personnel files? My guess is "NO" because if your employer opened up your file to the public, you will be the first in line to initiate a lawsuit. As for the insurance issue, there are insurance for everything. I am certain you have a few insurance for yourself and your family because you care for them. Likewise, police officers care about their famlies as well. In conclusion, please don't express so much hatred toward a particular group (in your case, the LAPD). It is a shame that an educated individual, like yourself, lack the sensitivity to see that police officers are human beings too.

[Robert Davis]

Here is some clarification and historical perspective on this topic.

For decades, a Board of Rights hearing was open to the public, yet the Los Angeles Times and essentially all other media almost never covered any of them. Now they have become confidential and suddenly everyone wants a front row seat. Even J. Q. Public could have attended but the opportunity is now gone.

The LAPD as well as the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) were not involved in the court decision leading to this new restriction on these personnel matters. It was the Los Angeles City Attorney who rendered the opinion these matters are no longer public. He is doing his job.

Insurance is a product designed to mitigate risk for a price. Anything can be insured for a price. While the controversy of this insurance may be relevant for public discussion, the insurance itself is a private product. You might love it or hate it but it isn't subject to oversight by the City, LAPD, Police Commission or the public. That's just the way it is.

The real issue is what led to the need for this insurance. It seems almost everyone sees that it was a disciplinary system perceived as being out of control.

Folks, it's the LAPD system of discipline that needs to be reviewed. It's generating upwards of 7000 complaints (there’s only 9500 cops) each year and there are huge variations in penalties for similar conduct or dissimilar rank. This is where the real work needs to occur. Hopefully this new found interest in the LAPD's discipline system will result in positive changes that are meaningful. Few people work in a job where they and their coworkers have their rights read to them just about every year.

For those who work in positions of influence, remember there already is an alternative to the current discipline system. It occurred from 1997 to 2002 when officers left to go where they were appreciated. The exodus has already been occurring again, only that's another issue that does not seem to be known either. Hey Los Angeles Times, there's another story for you.

[Edgar Friendly]

JQ Public...let's revisit here for a minute the case of 2 outstanding LAPD officers who in 2005 chased down & ultimately took into custody an armed gang member. They were treated dreadfully by the Department, their every action was questioned, dissected and probed during an investigation, with supervisors just looking for a reason to discipline them. These two officers, rather than living under the unofficial department motto of "no good deed goes unpunished", went south to work for Newport Beach, where they are appreciated for their hard work & dedication. The kicker on this one, is that these same officers were awarded the California Medal of Valor in 2006, for the very actions that the LAPD pilloried them for, and the Department brass wasted no time in jumping on the congratulatory bandwagon, completely forgetting their earlier actions...hhhmmmmm This, sir, is the reason that the officers have this type of insurance - because they go out their, do their jobs with outstanding results, and still wind up being the subject of a witch hunt. And the powers that be still can't figure out why officers leave for other agencies...

[Dis and Dat]

Well said, Edgar Friendly! I'm sure we can fill up this entire Blog with horror stories of how badly the Dept treats good-intentioned, hard-working officers.

It's a shame to think of all the great officers LAPD has lost to other agencies, not to mention all the experienced officers/detectives who have retired as soon as they could to avoid the on-slaught of political crap this Dept is dishing out. It's always one thing or another. No wonder pro-active police work is a thing of the past. What a sad state it is for the citizens of this City.

[J Q Public]

Robert Davis- I note that LAPPL was in strong opposition to SB1019, the bill that would have restored the public access to the aforementioned hearings. In fact it was the California Supreme Court that ruled the personnel matters were private, but why let minor facts and details get in the way? It's not like we can let those trivial inconveniences get in our way, we have a job to do!

To Alice, you will note there are a great deal of generalizations made by those who would purport to be in agreement with your position. Are we to assume your statement applies to them?

Instead of worrying about the process of the complaint system, suffice it to say that there are two sides to every coin. If the public had access, we might be in a position to agree with you.

Instead we are left to make judgments on appearances alone, and frankly this insurance system reeks of impropriety. It is unfortunate that such alleged egregious management practices seem to only be aired when the anonymnity of this blog is available, but if they are as bad and numerous as those referred to here then certainly it will make the headlines soon.

[Edgar Friendly]

Here we go again - on the front page of today's Orange County Register is a big o'l picture of (former) LAPD Officer Trevor Jackson being awarded the Medal of Valor - the only problem here is that Officer Jackson is now wearing the uniform of Huntington Beach P.D. WAKE UP LAPD!!! What does it tell you when your Medal of Valor winners - the best and brightest you have - are leaving for other agencies. On a telling note, there's nothing on the blog about the Medal of Valor ceremony.

[Family Man]

To J.Q. Public: Your writing style reeks of the "spin" put out by LAPD management up on the 6th floor of the glass house. From day 1 of the academy, LAPD tries to drill into your head that the Department comes first above all else. It is subtle at first, but then you're told as much during your probationary period by your C/O and some of your T/O's. Guess what pal? My family has and will ALWAYS come first. LAPD doesn't finish in the top 5 after God, friends, schools & community. The LAPPL insurance is a necessary evil to protect my family against the political whims of LAPD mismanagement!

[P-2]

J Q Public

For all your fancy talk you still don't seem to understand that our records just like your personnel records have been deemed confidential by the courts. You can't pick and chose who deserves to have there records sealed and who doesn't. The fact of the matter is our department has one of the strictest disciplinary systems around. Sometimes to the point of witchhunt.

Walk in an officer's shoes and see what it's like to have split second life or death decisions be monday morning quarterbacked by pencil pushing desk jockeys and see how you'd feel.

By the way public servant is not public slave. I too pay for my paycheck out of the taxes that are deducted every pay period. Unlike you that probably has a nice safe office job I have to work in all conditions. My thanks for protecting you with my life is you complaining that you can't know everything about my daily existence.

As for your belief that by seeing our records would help the public understand I seriously doubt it. The public in it's infinite wisdom will believe what they want. We still have people that think that when a gun wielding susp aims that weapon at me I should shoot a warning shot or shoot them in the leg. I guess the simple minds will understand complicated Board of Rights decisions right?

Think what you will you obviously hate law enforcement and will not be desuaded. I will fight though to keep my and other officer's information private. Not to hide my behvaior from paranoid liberals like yourself, but from gun wielding criminals that would give anything to get hold of information for their criminal activities. Stay in liberal lala land I'll continue to "Protect and Serve" you and the rest of the whiners!