When the Los Angeles City Council does something particularly stupid, there's usually money or personal ambition involved.
There's a bit of each in the lawmakers' unanimous decision to obstruct implementation of the federal consent decree under which the Los Angeles Police Department has been operating for the last seven years. That agreement, you may recall, was negotiated and ratified during the Rampart police scandal, when the U.S. Department of Justice was threatening to sue the city because the LAPD had "a pattern and practice" of violating people's civil rights in fairly basic ways -- such as stealing from them, framing them for crimes they didn't commit and shooting them for no better reason than the officers' corrupt convenience.
The feds felt this situation had festered because the mayor and City Council had irresponsibly failed to either supervise or reform the LAPD. (The passive complicity in police corruption by the district attorney's office and so many Criminal Court judges was -- unfortunately -- beyond the scope of Justice's inquiry.)
So now, a U.S. District Court judge, Gary A. Feess, and an outside monitor oversee the LAPD's reform. After a halting start, there's been better than substantial progress, and the city may be within a year of regaining control of its own police force -- and of realizing the substantial financial savings that would follow satisfaction of the decree (because those involved in administering it could go back to other work).
Or, at least that was the case until the City Council decided to get involved.
One among the handful of reforms yet to be made is the adoption of regular financial disclosure by the 600 or so anti-gang and narcotics officers whose duties require them to regularly handle drugs, money and other contraband. Every two years, those officers would be required to disclose personal financial data to the department, such as outside income, real estate holdings, stocks, debts and their bank balances -- including accounts they share with other people. Officers who already are in these units wouldn't have to comply until two years after the reform takes effect.
The reasons for such disclosure are too obvious to belabor, and the fact is that federal law enforcement officers are already required to provide such financial information. That's partly why the Police Commission approved implementation of the financial disclosure reform. Then, last week, the council intervened, overturning the commission's decision and taking jurisdiction of the issue for itself.
