Los Angeles police union officials hoping to sway public opinion against a recent anti-corruption reform have launched a radio ad campaign this week warning that forcing hundreds of narcotics and anti-gang officers to disclose personal financial information will prompt them to leave those specialized units and "cripple the fight against drugs, gangs and crime."
Talking over pounding, dramatic music, Tim Sands, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, asks listeners to imagine being forced to give a supervisor "all of your personal financial information, even when you had done nothing wrong, including all your bank account numbers . . . and those of your spouse, your children, and even your grandchildren.
"Would you agree to work under these conditions?"
Sands said the disclosure requirement exposes officers to potential identity theft and threatens their "safety, security and future."
The union's ad is in response to a plan approved last month by the Los Angeles Police Commission to require about 600 officers who frequently handle drugs and money to reveal details about their bank accounts, outside income, real estate, stocks and other assets or debts every two years.
After the commission's vote, the union immediately filed a lawsuit seeking to block the reform measure from taking effect.
The disclosure rule was prompted in part by testimony by a former Rampart Division anti-gang officer who said he regularly stole cash and narcotics from gang members and drug dealers. The rule is one of the reforms mandated in a federal consent decree, which city officials agreed to in the aftermath of the Rampart corruption scandal.
The decree is overseen by U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, who still must approve the commission's financial disclosure plan.
Police commissioners and other public officials said the union's ad, set to run for three to four weeks, is full of shaky assumptions and will not generate enough public support to prevent the disclosure requirement from being implemented.
"The league is launching an ill-advised campaign to amp up the heat," said Commissioner John Mack, who accused union officials of using scare tactics.
The ad's suggestion that "more than 500 officers are willing to leave their units rather than take the financial risk of sharing their personal information" is unsubstantiated, Mack said. He said any transfers would have to be approved by the department's leaders, and that they would not sanction a mass exodus.
