You have a right to know what your government does. You have a right to know the names of adult shooting suspects.
So why is the L.A. Police Commission suddenly refusing to identify cops involved in shootings? "The officer's right to privacy."
In fact, the decision itself was private:
The change in commission policy was made during a closed-door meeting Dec. 13. The five-member civilian panel, which functions much like a corporate board for the Police Department, sets standards and oversees operations in conjunction with Chief William J. Bratton. It meets each Tuesday and usually makes decisions in public and by a majority vote. In this instance, it did neither.
And no, they weren't gonna tell us eventually. They agreed to discuss it today only after Times reporters needled them and demanded an explanation.
If the Los Angeles Police Department wants to improve relations with its citizens in the wake of big messes it's going to have to work a lot harder on being open about the little, routine ones - such as giving officers who definitely shot someone the same treatment it gives citizens who are merely suspected of shooting someone.
You shoot someone on our dime, we taxpayers deserve to know who pulled the trigger.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today expressed support for his police commissioner's controversial decision to withhold the names of officers involved in shootings, but vowed to review the matter.
Villaraigosa also said he was troubled by reports that the executive director of the commission urged the police union to threaten a lawsuit if the names were not withheld.
While the mayor's stance is disappointing, it's not surprising to see him fall into line politically behind a move that will make the rank and file happy.
What's really shocking and sad is to see Commissioner John Mack abandon his long-held advocacy for openness and accountability in the face of a simple legal opinion from City Att. Rocky Delgadillo's office, which told him the commission "has no choice."
No law so vague and obstructionist as this is barred from appeal, testing, reinterpretation or even questions. Mack gave in too easily, IMHO.
Posted by: Mack_Reed on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 09:33 AM
