Thursday, May 17, 2012
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta

Sheriff Lee Baca


Three Former Jail Supervisors Testify About Gangster-like Deputies, Violence at the Jails and Top LASD Management’s Repeated Refusal to Intervene

May 15th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


Post on Monday’s Jail Commission meeting coming shortly. Still writing.


EDITOR’S UPDATE: I’m writing a far longer story than I’d originally intended—mainly because I think the topic deserves it. Bottom line, the story will be in Wednesday-ish.

Posted in LA County Jail, LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca | 3 Comments »

CLOSING THE MOST DANGEROUS JAIL: The First Pretrial Releases of LA Jail Inmates Could Possibly Happen Soon – by Matthew Fleischer

May 14th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


EDITOR’S NOTE
: On any given day, the biggest chunk of the County’s jail population—45 percent— is made up of people waiting to go to trial.

Most of that pretrial 45 percent are in for felony charges. About half of those with a felony charge are accused of violent or sex related crimes.

But this leaves a big chunk of people who are in jail awaiting trial for far less serious charges. Many of this group are locked up, not because they are considered a public safety risk, or a flight risk, but because they simply don’t have the money or the assets (like a house) that will allow them to make bail.

Both Dr. James Austin and the Vera Institute compiled reports for LA County that recommended implementing an innovative system pretrial supervision, which would mean that certain people could get out, pretrial, without having to post bail, but they will have some element of supervision to insure that they show up for their court dates.

Matt Fleischer is keeping a close eye on the issue and has an update.



DR. JAMES AUSTIN SAYS THAT MAKING PRETRIAL RELEASE A REALITY IN LOS ANGELES IS NOT A SURE THING—BUT THE CHANCES LOOK GOOD

by Matthew Fleischer

It’s been nearly a month since LA County Sheriff Lee Baca stood side-by-side at a press conference with nationally-renown corrections expert Dr. James Austin to debut Austin’s plan to shutter Men’s Central Jail and reduce the LA County Jail population by up to 3,000 inmates. Austin worked with the Sheriff’s department for three months to develop his plan. (

The Austin plan, if you’ll remember, calls for the release of selected non-violent inmates awaiting trial, the transfer of inmates to lower-cost fire camps, expanded release opportunities through the sheriff’s Education Based Incarceration program, and the expansion of capacity at the North County Correctional Facility. The pretrial release component is generally considered the report’s centerpiece, and also the element that could be the most controversial.

Baca seemed impressed—publicly professing his support for the plan, and announcing for the first time that, thanks to Austin’s efforts, the complete shutting of MCJ could be accomplished without building a $1.4 billion new jail.

As I wrote in the wake of the press conference, however, Baca’s supportive statements were no guarantee of action. “The sheriff is not committed to implementing the Austin plan,” Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore told WitnessLA.

Even if the Sheriff does wish to implement the plan, he still has to convince the Board of Supervisors, the CEO, the probation department and the local judiciary of its potential efficacy. The prospect of closing the most dangerous jail in America certainly seems daunting.

I reached Austin by phone last Friday to see how things are progressing.


What is your role now that the plan has been completed? Are you sticking around to help implementation?

I’m funded to work with the Sheriff to help implement that plan. We’re starting that process. I just had a meeting with the CEO and the Board of Supervisors. We’re putting together the nuts and bolts.

How are things progressing in your estimation?

I’m still optimistic. By June 1st we’ll know how real this thing is going forward. We’ve got some players outside the Sheriff’s department, obviously–the CEO and the supervisors. Everything has to be negotiated. We have a ways to go.

Can the Sheriff enact any elements of your plan unilaterally? Does the money already exist for electronic monitoring of inmates released pretrial?

As far as the money situation, I’m not sure. Legally you can do it. But it’s best we get everyone involved. During the planning process I met with the overseeing judge, who was fully behind the plan. Funding is an issue, perhaps. But Baca can do it legally. He has those powers under the Rutherford case.

What is the first step we should be seeing the department take that would indicate they are taking this report seriously?

The releasing some of the pretrial people. The second thing would be to get the construction plans in place for shutting down parts of Men’s Central Jail and getting it reconfigured for lower risk inmates.

Have any pretrial inmates in the county system been released yet?

No inmates have been released. At least not that I know of. Things could have happened and I wasn’t informed of. But not to my knowledge anyway. We should see something in terms of releases soon though.

Posted in District Attorney, LA County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Lee Baca, jail, pretrial detention/release | 1 Comment »

LA Times Finds More on Sheriff’s Department clique, “The Jump Out Boys”

May 10th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


The LA Times Robert Faturechi has a follow-up to his story about another LASD clique,
specifically a clique that is part of the gang enforcement unit, Operation Safe Streets or OSS. The reported clique is called “The Jump Out Boys.”

In the original story, Faturechi reported that concern about the group surfaced when a supervisor came across a printed pamphlet that outlined a sort of mission statement for the clique and that reportedly seemed to portray officer involved shootings “in a positive light.”

This new story has a drawing of the tattoo that two sources confirmed to the Times was indeed the ink sported by the Jump Out Boys. It features a bandana-headed skull with demon eyes, its skeletal hand holding a large revolver. Two playing cards, the ace and eight of clubs, are fanned out behind the skull, representing the infamous “dead man’s hand,” that Wild Bill Hickok was said to be holding when he was shot and killed. (Actually, Hickok was supposed to have held two aces and two eights, plus a fifth card, still face down, the identity of which is in dispute. But nevermind. The ace and eight still is universally considered to represent that death-haunted hand.)

Moreover, Faturechi reports that “investigators suspect that smoke is tattooed over the gun’s barrel after a member is involved in a shooting.”

Yeah. About that smoke thingy.

Unfortunately, the suspicion regarding the added smoke may have a troubling precedent in the department.

WitnessLA has acquired a document indicating that when, a few years ago, some Sheriff’s department higher-ups became concerned about the gangster-like behavior of some of the Regulators clique based at Century station, they reported hearing reports that, if a member had been involved in “a fatal deputy involved shooting,” then smoke was similarly added to be “emitting from the barrels” of the revolvers featured in the clique’s signatory tattoo. (In the case of the Regulators, the clique tattoo reportedly depicted a trench-coated skeleton wearing a cowboy hat and holding not one, but two nice big guns.)

Okay, look: Yes, we know that many Los Angeles Sheriff’s stations have colorful mascots and that, in an era when the nice young guy ringing up your groceries at Trader Joe’s has a sleeve full of intricate tattoos, it does not necessarily indicate any kind of wrong doing if a few deputies have the mascot discreetly inked on, say, their ankles. And we understand that it’s good to build camaraderie among deputies, and that a little bit of harmless college fraternity-like behavior might help to do so.

However….when only certain people are invited to join the said inked group, a less than healthy “in” group and and “out” group cultural atmosphere is created at the station. Then, if the tattoo for the “in” group depicts some kind of gun-brandishing death-dealer, at that point one has taken a very large step out onto a decidedly slippery slope. And it is a slope that leads directly away from constitutional policing, and directly toward an us-versus-them, work-in-the-gray, shave-the-legal-dice and do-what-you-gotta-do mentality..

The insignia above, circa late 1990’s for the LAPD’s Rampart CRASH unit, is a signal example.

Posted in LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca | 51 Comments »

Independent Monitor Says Reform in LASD Will Rest on Baca’s Leadership

May 8th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


In Monday, special counsel to the LA County Board of Supervisors, Merrick Bobb, issued his semi-annual report
in which he found that complaints in the department were being handled appallingly slowly, and that reform in the jails, while showing some heartening progress, still had a long way to go.

Yet Bobb’s strongest theme was his clear expression that reform in the department depends greatly on Sheriff Baca’s leadership, and the sheriff’s willingness to stop ceding crucial control to others.

For instance, Bobb writes:

“To some extent, any LASD Sheriff is the public face of the Department and has to concentrate efforts on its external relations. The Sheriff perforce must delegate to trusted lieutenants. But it should be a delegation of authority, not an abdication of it. And the Sheriff must be certain that those who act in his name do so in a manner consistent with the Sheriff’s own core values… “

Here are a few more highlights from the 70-page report:


RUINING THE JAILS

“Two things seem clear: the Sheriff was not well served by major executives and managers who both actively and passively permitted the jails to operate at variance with the Sheriff’s core values, seemingly believing that the abusive culture there was intractable, at best, or not really a problem, at worst. Senior executives did not keep Sheriff Baca well-informed or else sheltered him from persons in his management seeking to alert him to the serious problems in the jails.

The Sheriff has taken some steps to chastise some of the individuals who let him down. There are signs that there has been a change of attitude on the part of some, which is welcome and bodes well for the Department. Nonetheless, it will take a sustained period of genuine progress to convince knowledgeable observers that those same major executives who presided over the apparent collapse of accountability in the jails are capable of presiding over jail reform.


THE DEPARTMENT’S INVESTIGATIVE BUREAUS MUST REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE SHERIFF

There has been concern expressed about a possible lack of support and respect for the Internal Affairs at the senior executive level. [This is, we presume, from WLA's reporting here.] The importance of the Leadership and Training Division has eclipsed in recent years and needs now once again to be front and center. The Chief of that division, which contains IAB, reports directly to the Sheriff, a recent change that we endorse. ICIB—the criminal investigations arm of the LASD—currently is a direct report to the Sheriff, according to the Undersheriff. The secrecy of ICIB investigations apparently has been compromised in the past, so there is a value in keeping layers of reporting to a minimum. In our review, as a matter of policy and best practice, both IAB and ICIB should report directly to the Sheriff. The power to initiate and terminate investigations and hence to make or break careers is one that requires oversight at the highest level. Direct reporting allows the chief executive to personally keep his finger on the pulse of the organization.


LASD’S NEW USE OF FORCE POLICY IN JAILS WOULD DISCOURAGE THE SLAMMING OF INMATE’S HEADS INTO HARD OBJECTS

There’s a lot more, like the rundown on the progress being made—and not made—in installing the video cameras in the jails, along with charts that show the degree to which use-of-force numbers have dropped since all the scrutiny of the jails began last year.

There is a short section on the importance of the recommendations about pre-trial release made in the Vera and the James Austin reports, if jail population is to be kept at a manageable level.

Plus there are things like this on a newly proposed use of force policy:

Among other things, the current reformulation attempts to subject a wider variety of head injuries to an immediate rollout by Internal Affairs. It should serve to discourage deputies from causing an inmate to strike his head against any hard object, be it the concrete floor or the bars in the jail. Should a deputy deliberately do any of those things, it may be a crime and should be dealt with as such. We believe it also should include instances where it might not have been done deliberately but was done recklessly, as when the deputy knows the high probability of what he is doing will cause a head strike, yet goes ahead anyway. Reckless conduct may also be criminal….

Okay, well, that’s encouraging, I guess. One would have assumed that such matters would have already been clear. But better late than never, one supposes.


JAILS TASK FORCE DOING WELL SO FAR

Bobb makes a point of praising the Commander Management Task Force or CMTF, whose job it is to “….assess and transform the culture of the custody facilities in order to provide a safe, secure learning environment for our Department personnel and the inmates placed in the Department’s care…”

Admittedly, WitnessLA was among those who were very concerned at the make-up of the CMTF because all but one of its five commanders were Undersheriff Paul Tanaka’s hand picked people.

While acknowledging the concern, Bobb says “the group is doing a good job so far,” and gives various examples of their competence, adding, “It is a positive step that they are reporting directly to the Sheriff.”

Merrick Bobb sums his assessment of the CMTF in this way, which also capsulizes much of what the report says when taken altogether:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Board of Supervisors, LA County Board of Supervisors, LA County Jail, LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca, jail | 13 Comments »

Sheriff’s Department Probes Yet Another Secret Deputy Clique

April 20th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


Secret deputy cliques within the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department
have been a problem for the LASD since at least the late 1980’s, some say before.

Such “affinity groups” most recently hit the public consciousness with the revelation last year that there were gang-like cliques reportedly wreaking havoc in the department’s troubled and notorious Men’s Central Jail. The highest profile of these CJ cliques is the 3000 Boys, with their matching tattoos and even hand signals. But there are also the 2000 Boys, among others, both inside the jails and out on the street.

Now, according to a story posted Thursday late afternoon in the LA Times, the department is newly worried by a clique inside the LASD’s gang unit—reportedly because of what is printed in a memo or pamphlet that may indicate that deputies’ participation in Officer Involved Shootings conveys status within the clique.

Rumors of shootings conveying status within other LASD cliques have long swirled around the department. However, if such a delineation really does appear in writing, it would be an entirely different matter.

The LA Times Robert Faturechi has the story:

Los Angeles County sheriff’s detectives have launched a probe into what appears to be a secret deputy clique within the department’s elite gang unit, an investigation triggered by the discovery of a document suggesting the group embraces shootings as a badge of honor.

The document described a code of conduct for the Jump Out Boys, a clique of hard-charging, aggressive deputies who gain more respect after being involved in a shooting, according to sources with knowledge of the investigation. The pamphlet is relatively short, sources said, and explains that deputies earn admission into the group through the endorsement of members.

The sources stressed that the internal affairs investigation is still in its early stages and that little is known about the Jump Out Boys’ behavior or its membership.

Still, sheriff’s officials are concerned that the group represents another unsanctioned clique within the department’s ranks, a problem the department has been grappling with for decades.

Last year, the department fired a group of deputies who all worked on the third, or “3000,” floor of Men’s Central Jail, after the group fought two fellow deputies at an employee Christmas party and allegedly punched a female deputy in the face. Sheriff’s officials later said the men had formed an aggressive “3000″ clique that used gang-like three-finger hand signs. A former top jail commander told The Times that jailers would “earn their ink” by breaking inmates’ bones.

On learning of the new investigation, LASD sources we spoke with expressed concern about whether the department’s investigation of the clique would be honest and aggressive.

Some sources took it as a possible good sign that the investigation is being conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau, or IAB, the investigative unit over which Sheriff Baca has recently retaken control. The department’s other investigative unit, UCIB, which looks into potentially criminal matters in the LASD, is still ultimately overseen by the Undersheriff, Paul Tanaka, who took over directly both investigative units last march, much to the dismay of many LASD observers.

As Faturechi notes, Tanka himself is a member of the now infamous Vikings clique that was most active in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, it’s members the subject of a massive class action suit that cost LA County $9 million in cash settlements and training. According to a deposition taken in an unrelated court case earlier this year, Mr. Tanaka still sports a tattoo on his ankle signifying Vikings membership.

WitnessLA has acquired a partial list of Vikings working inside the department culled from sworn depositions for various court cases. The list indicates there are Vikings members scattered at supervisory levels throughout the LASD including, at present, inside the departments’ internal investigatory units like IAB and ICIB.

It is, however, considered to be good news that IAB is now headed by Captain John Clark, recently put into place by Sheriff Baca. Clark, if you remember, was the supervisor that WitnessLA reported had tried to institute reforms in Men’s Central Jail when he became aware of the growing problem of deputy cliques inside the jail.

Modeled after the law-suit producing deputy cliques of the previous decades, like the Vikings, these cliques featured special tattoos, threw gang-like hand signs and, in some cases, refused to socialize with “rival” cliques within the department. In the case of the 3000 Boys and the matching group from the 2nd floor, the 2000 Boys, the cliques had also recently started waiting for their entire crew to get off work—sometimes lingering for hours at a time—before leaving the station together en masse. This was not only a violation of departmental policy, but it was eerie gang-like behavior intended to intimidate—to show both inmates and supervisors alike who really ran the jail.

But instead of getting support from higher-ups, Clark had his reforms swiftly revoked by Undersheriff Tanaka, who railed at Clark and his supervisors for their attempts at discipline, had his own private meetings with deputies, then transferred Clark away from custody work, altogether. (You’ll find more details in Part 3 and Part 4 of Matt Fleischer’s Dangerous Jails series.)

Officially Sheriff Baca disapproves of groups like the Jump Out Boys, the 3000 Boys, the 2000 Boys, the Regulators and the Vikings, et al. But sources inside the LASD tell us that unofficially a double message is conveyed to the troops with the undersheriff’s well-documented work in the gray speeches, and his tendency to protect, rescue and reward those who do color outside the lines. And of course his retention of the Viking ink on his ankle.

Sheriff’s department spokesman, Steve Whitmore, confirmed that IAB was doing the investigating, but reminded me that the notion of status conveyed for shootings could be “a fantasy.”

“We just don’t know.”

In any case, WLA will track the investigation as it develops as, no doubt, will the Times.
So stay tuned.

Posted in LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca, THE LA JUSTICE REPORT | 53 Comments »

Will the James Austin Jails Plan Suffer the Fate of the Vera Report Before It?

April 12th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon

JAMES AUSTIN PLAN…MEET THE VERA REPORT

by Matthew Fleischer


The mood outside of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department was cheerful on Tuesday at a press conference announcing the debut of a report by nationally-renowned corrections expert Dr. James Austin. After Austin made his presentation, LA County Sheriff Lee Baca spoke about shuttering violence-plagued Men’s Central Jail by 2013–without demanding a new $1.4 billion super-jail to replace it. It was the first time Baca had ever agreed to close CJ in its entirety without the precondition of a new jail, and his announcement visibly pleased the ACLU members. Even some of the normally jaded TV journalists in attendance, seemed excited, as if something new was afoot.

For the variety of reasons we have reported on here at WitnessLA, CJ is arguably the most dangerous jail in America. Virtually everyone–the LASD, the ACLU, the LA County Board of Supervisors, the Office of Independent review, LASD civilian monitor Merrick Bobb, the LA Times and WitnessLA—agrees it needs to be shuttered. Austin’s plan has created a roadmap for that to happen. Among other recommendations, the plan calls for the release of selected non-violent inmates awaiting trial, the transfer of inmates to lower-cost fire camps, expanded release opportunities through the sheriff’s Education Based Incarceration program, and the expansion of capacity at the North County Correctional Facility. If enacted, these proposals would help free up enough space in the system to close CJ permanently.

Asked why he has suddenly come around to the idea of closing the whole of CJ, without demanding a wildly expensive new jail, Baca replied, “I didn’t have an Austin plan before.”

True. But he did have a Vera plan. In September of 2011, the Vera Institute released a report, sponsored by the Los Angeles Board of County Supervisors and the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, that included 30 recommendations for how to alleviate population pressure in the LA County Jail system. Many of those recommendations dealt with enacting a more efficient system of pretrial release and the blended release of non-violent offenders—just like the Austin plan.

How many of Vera’s recommendations were acted upon since the report’s release? Exactly zero. And when Dr. Austin brought up the Vera recommendations Tuesday’s press conference, he said he didn’t expect any of them to be implemented.

If Vera’s recommendations were ignored, what assurances are there that the department will take the Austin report any more seriously?

When I asked Austin that question, he said he believed that we wouldn’t see a repeat.

“This plan has four very pragmatic recommendations instead of 30. Vera didn’t apply risk assessments to their release proposals. We did. I have full confidence our proposals can work, even with the various political considerations.”

One of the primary “political considerations” at issue is the rest of LA County’s government and several of its agencies. The Sheriff’s Department is limited in what it can do without the cooperation of the LA County Board of Supervisors, the county probation department and the judiciary. In other words, to implement most of Austin’s blueprint requires buy-in by various other county entities. The only thing Baca does have the legal power to do is to free inmates as he chooses–which is not exactly politically palatable.

“That’s not something anyone wants to see happen,” says Austin.

Sheriff’s spokesman Mike Parker wouldn’t comment on what aspects of the plan—if any— could be implement by the LASD alone.

“The public wants us to work together,” he said “And right now we are working together. So now is not the time to focus on hypothetical scenarios.”

Sources close to the board of supervisors say the Austin plan is something the supes will consider, but not commit to without a lot of additional study. Supe Mike Antonovich won’t even go that far. “While Men’s Central Jail is old, shutting it down without a comparable replacement threatens public safety and makes a mockery of our criminal justice system,” Antonovich said in a statement.

If the supervisors seem hesitant, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, the Probation Department, and various members of the Los Angeles judiciary haven’t haven’t taken any kind of initiative on reform. Like the Sheriff’s Department, all had the option of embracing Vera’s recommendations and chose not to—if they read the report at all. ←–

I called Peggy McGarry, Director of the Vera Institute’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections to ask her what, if anything, the sheriff could accomplish on his own without buy-in from everyone else. “There’s been a lot of focus on the sheriff and the conditions inside the jail But the reality is the Sheriff does not control the population inside the jail. It’s the rest of the [county] system. The jail is overcrowded because of the way the rest of the system behaves. Bails are determined by the judges. [Even if Baca institutes reforms, the rest of the county system] can bypass the Sheriff, which is what it’s consistently done.”

McGarry said she hadn’t yet read the Austin report, nor did she want to comment on why Vera’s findings were not put into place.

“No institute makes recommendations with the expectation they would sit on the shelf,” says McGarry. “We were hired by the county to give them advice. Not to implement our recommendations. Inaction is always a risk.”

Even so, the ACLU’s Peter Eliasberg was confident that this plan was not the second coming of the Vera study.

“When you tell everyone they need to cooperate, no one does,” he said. “When someone takes a leadership role, it’s easier to make things happen. Dr. Austin has created a path for the Sheriff to take a leadership role. And [Baca] has made it very clear that he is ready to make this plan happen.”

Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore didn’t sound so sure. “The sheriff is not committed to implementing the Austin plan,” he told WitnessLA. “The ACLU should not oversell this.”

Posted in ACLU, LA County Board of Supervisors, LA County Jail, LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca | 6 Comments »

Sheriff Baca Signs on (Cautiously) to Consider Innovative Austin Report Detailing How to Close Men’s Central Jail – UPDATED

April 10th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


Since last fall Sheriff Lee Baca has insisted to the LA County Board of Supervisors that the county needs
to spend $1.4 billion to build a state of the art jail facility, so that the notorious and violence-plagued Men’s Central Jail can be closed and torn down.

Now, however, Baca has tentatively signed on to what many are calling a ground-breaking plan that is far more progressive—and far less expensive—than his earlier building extravaganza, yet one that it is hoped will result in the closing of the decrepit and difficult to guard Men’s Central, while employing what experts describe as a fresh approach to criminal justice policy and practice.

At a Tuesday morning press conference held at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department headquarters in Monterey Park, Baca stood with nationally known corrections expert, Dr. James Austin, and the ACLU’s Peter Eliasberg and Margaret Winter, for the presentation of Austin’s innovative roadmap that charts the ways that the County’s jail population may be lowered enough to shut down CJ completely as soon as 2013.

The much-anticipated Austin report titled “Evaluation of the Current and Future Los Angeles County Jail Population,” lays out in 32 pages of intensely researched text, graphs and charts, all of the elements that its proponents say are needed make the jail closing happen, while also keeping in mind public safety. The plan also factors in the state’s AB 109 realignment plan that kicked in last October, and that is estimated to bring an influx of 7000 extra inmates into the county jail system by the end of 2014.

Among the points made in Austin’s blueprint are the following:

The biggest chunk of the County’s jail population is pretrial at 45 percent. These are people who are waiting to go to trial, but have not been convicted. (The rest are: sentenced with a pending charge, 18%, sentenced, 37%)

Most of that pretrial 45 percent are in for felony charges, about half of which are violent or sex related.

However, as Austin notes, this leaves a big chunk of people who are in jail while awaiting trial for more minor charges. Many of this group are in jail, not because they are considered a public safety risk, or a flight risk, but because they simply don’t have the money or the assets (like a house) that will allow them to make bail.

Austin estimates that, by the end of 2014, the projected jail population of 21,000 can be safely reduced by about 3,000 inmates by implementing an “innovative” system pretrial supervision—meaning certain people will get out—pretrial—without having to post bail, but they will have some element of supervision to insure that they show up for their court dates.

The blueprint also calls for some reorganization of the county’s existing facilities including the North County Correctional facility in Castaic, which would be renovated to replace the maximum-security beds lost at Men’s Central, which currently houses 4,000 inmates, and the possible utilization of
five county conservation camps to increase the number of minimum-security beds. The county’s Mira Loma Detention Center, which is presently contracted to ICE, is another facility listed as an alternative option in the Austin plan.

In addition, the multi-part strategy would include another leg that allows low-risk convicted felons to be supervised in the community if they complete education-oriented programs shown to cut down on recidivism—namely LASD’s Education Based Incarceration (EBI) program, that also happen to be Baca’s pet project. (At present, the EBI program serves approximately 1,200 inmates who receive counseling and education services in order to cut down their risk of recidivism, a strategy that statistically has been shown to be successful.) Austin estimates that the EBI part of the strategy, if properly implemented, could lower the future jails population by another 1000 inmates.

The ACLU, which paid for the Austin report, had tried in past years to get the LASD to allow Austin to study the LA County jail system and to make recommendations for lowering the jails population. Always before, Baca had declined the offer.

Then after news of the FBI investigation into jail violence broke, combined with the ACLU’s harshest jails report yet, and ongoing critical coverage by such media outlets as WitnessLA, the LA Times and others, Baca agreed to let Jim Austin in. (Baca’s cooperation was necessary in that large parts of Austin’s report is based on analyses of LASD’s internal figures.)

“The sheriff has said to us that he’s committed to the proposal, and It’s a huge step,” said Peter Eliasberg, the So Cal ACLU’s legal director, speaking about Baca’s degree of sign-on to the Austin-crafted strategy. “We may disagree about a lot things, but where we can agree, we should be able to make real progress.”

The ACLU’s national jails expert, Margaret Winter, goes even further. “That Sheriff Baca strongly supports the Austin report and these recommendations indicates a seismic shift in attitude,” she wrote this morning in a blog post, “a shift likely to reverberate and help trigger change around the nation.”

Whether Baca’s cautious sign-on on Tuesday will translate into action is something that we will continue to track.


UPDATE: SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN STEVE WHITMORE, while reiterating that the sheriff was “going to consider the Austin report,” was far less upbeat in his take than the ACLU.

“The sheriff is not committed to implementing the Austin plan,” said Whitmore. “The ACLU should not oversell this.”

Whitmore said that Baca had been exploring the pretrial release option for some time, but that it took cooperation from the court system, which the sheriff has not secured. Plus there’s a cost factor and the DA factor.”

District Attorney Steve Cooley has, thus far, not been enthusiastic about pretrial release.

So has progress been made?

For a functional answer to that question it appears that we are, once again, all going to have to…

…stay tuned.


Photo of CJ by Jay Clendenin/Los Angeles Times

Posted in ACLU, LA County Board of Supervisors, LA County Jail, LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca, jail | 2 Comments »

INTERVIEWING BACA: WLA’s Dave Lynn Talks to KPPC’s Frank Stoltze Re: the Challenges of Profiling an Embattled Sheriff

April 9th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


EDITOR’S NOTE: I’d known from chatting with KPPC’s Frank Stoltze at this or that event
that he’d been working on a profile of Sheriff Lee Baca for a while. Thus when the wide-ranging, intriguing, contradiction-filled and surprisingly poignant two-part profile of Baca ran on successive Madeleine Brand shows last week, along with an accompanying article, I wondered what Frank thought, now that the project was completed.

With this in mind, I asked WitnessLA’s newest reporter, David Lynn, to talk with Stoltze about the interview/profile process—a sort of story-behind-the-story—which you’ll find below.

(We’ll introduce WitnessLA staff additions, David Lynn and Taylor Walker, more properly in the coming days.)

But first, be sure to listen to—and read—the two-part profile (which you can find here). It’s an unusually good reminder about why so many LA people are so very conflicted about the complicated man who is Los Angeles County’s sheriff.

(And please don’t miss the stand-alone sound clips embedded in the text. The clip of Baca talking about his undocumented mother is, by itself, worth the price of admission.)

THE ART OF PROFILING SHERIFF LEE BACA

by David Lynn

Reporter Frank Stoltze covers anything criminal justice-related for Southern California Public Radio Station 89.3 KPCC. When researching his recent profile of the Los Angeles’ County Sheriff Department’s top cop, Stoltze rode along with Sheriff Lee Baca for the better part of a day in order to give Angelenos some insight into a man who, at least indirectly, plays a large role in their lives.

Baca’s LASD has its share of troubles right now-–an ever-widening FBI investigation, a huge, class action lawsuit from the ACLU, a citizens commission appointed to examine the problems in its jails, and now an audit by the county’s auditor-controller into alleged multimillion dollar irregularities in one of the department’s aircraft contracts. Given the controversies, we wanted to know the challenges Mr. Stoltze faced in reporting on the sheriff.

Stoltze said that he wanted to do this story on Baca because, despite his high profile and the recent scandals, the sheriff doesn’t get the amount of press one would expect.

“With the Sheriff under fire, the LAPD still gets more attention. It was a story that was long overdue. Often, even when he’s up for re-election, there’s not much coverage,” Stoltze said.

With all of the problems surrounding the LASD, it’s a tricky time for the Sheriff to be doing interviews. Stoltze made several requests over many weeks before he was finally granted access to Baca in the form of a six-hour ride-a-long.

“We started at an event he was doing for kids at a school. Then he had his driver take us through his old neighborhood. He wanted to humanize himself. He was sitting in the front passenger seat and I was in the back seat with a shotgun microphone attached to my recorder, asking questions,” said Stoltze.

In reading and listening to Stoltze’s profile of Baca one is struck by a sense of paradox surrounding the sheriff who comes across personally as a reasonable and caring man. Yet he is, after all, at the helm of an organization that is under scrutiny for being brutal and corrupt.

“What I tried to do in this piece is to show how, on one hand, you have this thoughtful intellectual who professes deep humanity and caring for the less fortunate, and on the other he has allowed brutality in the jails to the extent that it caught the attention of the FBI,” Stoltze said.

Interestingly, one of the difficulties Stoltze faced in putting the profile together was finding critics of the Sheriff.

“I talked to people like [LASD civilian watchdog Merrick] Bobb and Connie Rice. Bobb may know the Sheriff’s Department better than the Sheriff. He’s been watching them since 1992. Rice is a long time civil rights attorney and sheriff supporter. But groups like ALADS (the LASD union) refused to do an interview,” said Stoltze.

Even some of those who agreed to comment on the Sheriff seemed to have mixed feelings about having their personal thoughts on the record, says Stoltze.

“He’s a powerful politician and people want to be on the right side of him, but I also get the feeling that they are genuinely conflicted. They’ll be critical of him in reports, but when interviewed they’re not as harsh. The same people who grill him at a Board of Supervisors meeting try not to be too hard on him in interviews,” said Stoltze.

When asked why this attitude of critical reverence towards Sheriff Baca is so prevalent., Stoltze offered some insight.

“Some people thought Darryl Gates was a disaster. Even with all the trouble in the Sheriff’s Department, you don’t hear the same concern about Baca. He’s an intellectual guy who talks about progressive principles, transparency and accountability,” Stoltze said.

So how transparent did Stoltze believe the sheriff was during the interview?

“He was very forthcoming,” Stoltze says of Baca. “The only thing that he seemed particularly reluctant to talk about was his challenging Sherman Block for the office.”

The sheriff was also very forthcoming with his feelings towards the media. Stoltze said the Sheriff took a couple of shots at the media, one of which was directed at Stoltze himself.

“I was asking a series of tougher questions about the jails and politics when he asked, ‘Did someone put you up to these? I thought you were a nice guy.’ I just said, ‘Well, you know how ornery I can get,’” said Stoltze.

Some details of the interview were left out of the finished profile, for editing reasons one of which was Stoltze giving Sheriff Baca some good-natured ribbing over his relatively light security detail.

“The LAPD chief always has a few uniformed guys with him. Baca only has his driver and he’s in plain clothes,” said Stoltze. “Baca doesn’t even carry a gun. I said, ‘You never carry a gun!’ Baca said, ‘No, no, I have a gun. I also have my Sam Browne [police gun belt] and 9mm in the trunk.’”


The pre-fiddled-with photo of Sheriff Baca by Grant Slater/KPPC

Posted in LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca, Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

AERO BUREAU – PART 2: IRREGULARITIES… Tales of Safety-Risking Policies, Loyalty Oaths, Falsified Records & Take-home Helicopters

April 2nd, 2012 by Celeste Fremon

(


When 31-year Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
veteran Lieutenant Edison Cook came to the LASD’s Aero Bureau in June of 2009, he was genuinely thrilled about the assignment.

Cook’s last two postings had been the department’s Palmdale station for a number of years then Catalina Island where he led a swift crackdown on what the department felt was a growing gang problem on the idyllic resort island. The crackdown made national news, which caused local officials to fear that the negative publicity would drive away vacationers from tourist-dependent Avalon.

Yet Sheriff Baca was reportedly pleased with Cook’s work and asked him where, if he had his druthers, he would like to be stationed next.

Cook told the sheriff he’d like to become a helicopter pilot at Aero bureau.

He was by no means confident his wish would be granted. Most people who transferred into Aero were reportedly hand-picked by its commanding officer, Captain Louis Duran, who was, as he liked to mention, an old friend of Undersheriff Paul Tanaka. (Some said it was his wife who was the older Tanaka friend. But no matter, the principle is the same.) In any case, since Duran’s arrival at the bureau, the majority of Aero transfers were from from Region II, which featured the hard charging stations like Lennox and Century, to which Tanaka was partial.

Still, in short order, Cook was surprised to find that his transfer had been arranged, presumably by the sheriff. He was going to Aero Bureau.

Ed Cook had no inkling of the firestorm that was to come.


AERO Bureau, as the name implies, is an elite LASD division that oversees the department’s aircraft—mostly helicopters. The bureau has a fleet of more than a dozen single engine light helicopters, Eurocopter AStars, that are used primarily to support law enforcement work on the ground throughout Los Angeles County. In addition to the air support fleet, there are the 2-engine Sikorsky Sea Kings (soon to be replaced by Eurocopter Super Pumas) operated by the department’s Rescue 5 pilots. These are the sturdier search-and-rescue aircraft we often see in footage on the evening news performing dramatic back-country life-saving missions. The department also owns a Beechcraft King Air turbo prop, that can seat up to eleven people and is used for specific kinds of personnel transport needs, like if, for example, a couple of detectives need to speak immediately to an inmate in the state prison at Pelican Bay, where there is no big commercial airport nearby, the King Air is the most time and cost efficient way to get the detectives there and back.

When Cook arrived on the job, according to sources who watched his transition to the new assignment, he was well regarded by the deputies under him from the beginning. “You could see he was a straight arrow,” said one source, “but he was also this very approachable kind of guy. People liked him.”

Cook’s performance evaluations prior to his transfer would tend to support that assessment. In addition, to year after year of Outstanding ratings, the comments that accompanied the ratings indicated an unusually responsible and ethical officer with “exceptional interpersonal skills, and “splendid oral communications skills.” Judging solely from the last 9 years of work-place evaluations, the cumulative impression is of a capable, ethics-driven supervisor who also inspired confidence in those below him.

Cook was so approachable, in fact, that as time went along, he was reportedly the supervisor to whom deputies who had some concern or other about the bureau came to confide. “They felt they could be honest with him,” said one bureau veteran. “With Ed, they weren’t afraid of repercussions.”

As the months wore on, the deputies’ complaints and concerns reportedly began to group themselves into three main categories: the distribution of overtime assignments, the alleged falsification of work records by others in the bureau, including overtime records, and the concern that assignments and schedules were being deliberately manipulated to create missed service calls that would, in turn, give the impression that the bureau needed more overtime, but which raised some clear and troubling ethical issues.


THE MATTER OF OVERTIME

After economic crash of 2008 forced both the sheriff’s department and the LAPD into angst-causing budget cuts, the issue of overtime—the time-and-a-half-paid work that many law enforcement personnel coveted as a source of extra income, and which allowed more deputies to be available at times of high need—was one of those areas targeted for cutting by both of LA’s law enforcement agencies.

The LASD in particular was pressed to make deep cuts after a 2009 audit found that the department had exceeded its annual overtime budget by an average of 104 percent, or $83 million a year, in each of the previous five years.

As a consequence, Sheriff Baca reluctantly imposed a severe overtime diet across the department.

It was in this context that, in the spring of 2010, deputies told Cook that what overtime the bureau was allowed was not being distributed fairly. Cook decided to check into the matter himself. “He went and pulled up the time sheets,” explained a source. “Cook allegedly found that a cluster of deputies and a couple of sergeants at AERO seemed to be getting a lot of more of the lucrative overtime than the rest of the bureau’s personnel.

In a year’s time, these assignments translated into significant dollar amounts—even, surprisingly, in spite of the department-wide overtime diet.

For instance, one pilot, a deputy, who was perceived to be one of those most favored with assignments, made $81,816 in overtime in addition to his base pay and benefits in 2009. A sergeant made $70,178 that same year. Another sergeant made $56,641 in overtime in 2009.

In 2010, when most LASD were making close to zero in overtime, county records show this same cluster still made between 30 and 40 percent extra on top of their base salaries, amounts that were unusual even in the good years. In the belt tightening years, “it was unheard of.”

Even weirder, the super-overtime pilot made another 57 percent in overtime income on top of his salary in 2010.

During the next supervisors’ staff meeting, Cook brought the matter up to Captain Duran, explaining that he was fairly sure that overtime was being abused, and asked how matters could be rectified. According to Cook, rather than questioning him further to get to the bottom of the matter, Duran’s response was, “Who’s the snitch?”

“With Louie, everything’s all about loyalty”—said one source, referring to Duran. “When you first come to Aero Bureau he actually gives you a loyalty lecture, and he’ll ask, ‘Are you loyal to me? Are you loyal to me?’ And you want to say, ‘Dude. I’m loyal to the bureau, but I don’t want to swear loyalty to some guy, even if you are the captain.’ But you can’t say that, of course.”

“After that, a group of deputies filed complaints with the union,” said another insider. “But nothing seemed to change.”


MANIPULATING SERVICE CALLS TO PRODUCE OVERTIME

The deputy’s complaints kept on coming.. Early in the fall of 2010, guys began telling Cook that some of the supervisors had instituted a plan to “manipulate service calls for the purpose of seeking overtime funding for Aero Bureau personnel.” The deputies allegedly said that their sergeants had directed them to “slow down” on service calls—-in order to be busy when other requests for their services came in, thus generating more missed calls on their log. The missed calls would then in turn be reported up the line to sheriff’s headquarters as evidence that more overtime funding was needed for Aero Bureau.

Deputies also told Cook that “in-service reports”-–the daily logs that designated where personnel and equipment—were being falsified so that some airships (helicopters) were written down as being in the air and working—making things appear that the unit was working to capacity—-when in fact those birds were on the ground and not in service at all.

This pretense reportedly generated even more missed calls to add additional fuel to the overtime scheme.

Another wrinkle in the reported overtime garnering strategy occurred on or around October 7, 2010 when Cook arrived to work at the Long Beach flight facility where Aero Bureau keeps most of its planes. Right away one of his deputies approached him and told Cook that he’d not been assigned to a helicopter for his shift, and wondered why. Cook simply fixed the matter by adding another flight-ready ‘copter to the “in-service” list put himself on as a pilot, taking the man as his tactical flight deputy. (Both positions were needed for every flight.) One of Captain Duran’s inner circle, and also one of the overtime favorites, Sergeant John Haughey, approached and, according to Cook, became “very upset.” Minutes later, as Cook and his deputy were in the midst-of their pre-flight safety checks, Duran himself came out to the helicopter to talk and, according to Cook, began reciting the now-familiar overtime mantra. “We don’t want to field too many ships,” he allegedly told Cook, “because then it would look like we could get along without overtime.”

Cook said he explained to Duran that the deputy was scheduled to work, but was not on the “in-service” list, so he’d simply corrected the matter as it was a waste of manpower to have a him sitting around. Finally Duran relented and agreed to let them fly.

WitnessLA spoke to other sources inside Aero Bureau who gave us their own versions of the allegations. “We were told, ‘We need to miss these calls,’” said one pilot. “When we’d volunteer to fly so that we wouldn’t miss calls, we were told not to, ‘Because we want to show that we have a need.’”

Instead pilots reported that they often sat behind desks during their shifts, with nothing relevant to do. And once a week we do ‘special projects,’ explained a pilot. That means we wash cars and aircraft. And on those very same days, calls are dropped due to “Air 23 overtime redirection.”

Of course, as the direct and unavoidable consequence of dropped calls officers on the ground did not get the back up they needed.

“It’s a fragile thing covering a large area like LA County with a small asset [meaning Aero Bureau’s pilots and fleet],” one of the bureau’s pilots explained. “We’re good at it. But if we even lose one helicopter we have to decide what areas are not going to be covered. Then if you hobble us further, it’s hard to accommodate anybody properly.’

The missed call may be something minor, he said. Or it could be a call where the lack of air support is crucial, “something like an officer involved shooting, or a foot pursuit, or a jail escape.”

A patrol veteran went further. “Not having air support can be a safety issue. When they play around with dropped calls like that they have no idea which time it’s going to really matter.”


CARPING ABOUT CARPING

Cook soon discovered one more piece of the puzzle of the alleged overtime-generating scheme that had to do with a then-new LASD policy called CARPing.

CARP is a department program that was first introduced in 2009 as a strategy to cut down on the need for expensive overtime hours. CARP—which stands for Cadre of Administrative Resource Personnel—operated on a simple principle: all administrative personnel, including supervisors, would work 4/5ths of their workweek—or 32-hours—at their regular job. Then they’d work the remaining eight-hour shift on a “CARP” assignment, in which they would cover a frontline vacancy where more uniformed bodies were particularly needed, like at say a patrol station, a jail facility, a courthouse or, in the case of Aero Bureau, a shift as a pilot or observer, so that more aircraft could be manned and in the air. Even Sheriff Baca very publicly did a patrol shift. At Aero Bureau, the extra help was most likely to be needed at night, when largest number of the emergency service calls generally came in.

The first irregularities Cook noticed with CARP came in early October of 2010 when he gave one of his sergeants the task of preparing the weekly CARP report, which listed who had worked what shifts on what days and times. As the Sergeant compiled the report, he learned from various deputies that there were supervisors in the bureau who had reported working the requisite CARP assignment on certain days, but who had, in fact, not worked at all.

Matters got worse in mid-October, according to Cook, when an email went out from the bureau’s Operations Sergeant, whose name was Casey Dowling, to all Aero Bureau supervisors and managers. It read, “Supervisors that are CARPing need to CARP on days, no more night CARPing. “ Since the biggest volume of service calls came at night, Cook feared this was yet another strategy designed to generate more missed calls—-and thus make a stronger case for still more overtime. In fact, Dowling’s email reportedly stated as much. “If we go short and calls are missed,” Dowling wrote, according to Cook, “we need to record the missed calls and provide our executives with the paper records so they can fight the good fight.”

The “good fight” being getting money to pay for yet more overtime.

WitnessLA’s sources echoed Cook’s allegations. Several reported having seen the Dowling email. They also told us of instances they’d witnessed of manipulating the CARP system by a sergeant or deputy, instead of filling in where the need was greatest, in reality simply moving to a desk one desk over from their own, and marking themselves down for taking a CARP shift.

“We’d see people down for CARPing on shifts when they’re not present,” said one source. In other instances, said sources, a deputy or a supervisor would be listed as taking a pilot’s shift during a high traffic period when calls were likely to be missed, “but we could see by the records, that the helicopter didn’t fly during that time period.”

Infuriated by what seemed to be a blatant and regular manipulation and/or falsification of CARP and other work logs, in addition to Cook’s note taking, some Aero deputies began to keep their own records.


FALSIFYING TIME RECORDS

Both Cook and others inside Aero Bureau with whom we spoke, talked about their perception—often backed by first-hand observation— that, apart from the CARP problems, a cadre of insiders routinely changed time records to reflect work times that were false.

Unlike at some work places where a punch-in system electronically records time in and time out, thus making cheating difficult, at Aero Bureau the time sheets are manually recorded.

According to sources, it used to be that monthly time reports—showing all Aero personnel’s hours worked, overtime, and sick or vacation time—were printed out and distributed to everyone so that each bureau employee could double-check their own times, and see when the others worked. The transparent method provided a fail-safe of sorts, so that if someone wrote down the wrong time, or claimed to have worked a shift he or she did not actually work, others would see it and could mention the error. By the same token, if someone felt they were not credited for time they worked, they could make that correction too.

“The system wasn’t perfect, but it worked,” said one pilot.

Reportedly, however, after Cook first took the matter of the inequitable overtime assignments et al, to Duran, all at once the monthly reports were no longer distributed. Moreover, reportedly a cadre of Aero Bureau people—specifically those perceived to be part of Duran’s inner circle—no longer had their names in the “in-service” lists that specified daily assignments.

“Suddenly everything got secretive,” said a source.

Unhappy at the information blackout by their captain, many Aero Bureau deputies still found ways to ferret out who was cheating, which to them also meant who was being protected.

“Duran always tells people he’s protected by Tanaka,” said an Aero bureau source. “That’s who he wants to be like. He protects the people who are loyal to him, and let’s them get away with things, because. in return, he knows they protect him.”


ERRANT AIRCRAFT

Another of Cook’s allegations had to do with questionable use of some of the county’s aircraft, in particular the Beechcraft King Air turboprop purchased by the department in 2001.

The King-Air is used by the Sheriff for trips to Sacramento, and by department investigators to fly to remote California prisons, or by other department executives at times of professional need when its use is practical and cost effective. The LAPD also has a King-Air that it uses for similar purposes.

The plane requires two pilots and reportedly costs the department approximately $700 to $1000 per hour to fly, depending upon what costs are factored into the equation.

Cook began to notice that Captain Duran and some of his inner circle took the King Air to conferences and the like although, according to his calculations, commercial flights would have been far cheaper. One of the trips that Cook flagged took place in mid July of 2010, when Captain Duran decided to take the turboprop to an event in Tucson, Arizona, a yearly conference sponsored by ALEA, The Airborne Law Enforcement Association.

The conference was admittedly good for networking, and for examining the array of new flight-related gew gaws displayed by the many venders who had booths at the event. Plus it was fun. But this particular year, travel plans—commercial flights or otherwise—would have been unlikely to have gotten the necessary approval by higher-ups because, a month before, the LA County Board of Supervisors had voted to suspend all county-funded travel to Arizona “unless the county’s chief executive determines that county interests would be seriously harmed.”

(Sources assured us that missing an ALEA conference for one year would not “seriously harm” the county’s interests.)

So, to get around the prohibition, Duran allegedly simply approved his own trip and took the King Air, reportedly asking the plane’s pilots to mark it down as a “training exercise.”

“Even though we never do training exercises by flying out of state,” said a source.

Another example of a King Air flight that caused bureau eyebrows to be raised, occurred in December of 2008, some months before Cook arrived, when Duran reportedly flew the plane to Bridgeport, Connecticut, to visit the Sikorsky helicopter factory. According to several sources familiar with bureau flight logs, the flight to Bridgeport on December 15, took 7.6 hours. The return flight on December 18, was another 14 hours. “They hit head winds,” a source said, explaining that the King Air is a small plane ideal for flights within the state or for a hop one state over. “They aren’t meant to be flown cross country.”

In any case, the Long Beach to Bridgeport round trip amounted to 21.6 total flight hours.

At $700 an hour, this means the flight alone cost $15,121. At $1000 an hour the cost would be …well you can do the math. Whereas to fly a commercial airline on an unrestricted ticket is less than $1800 round trip, even at today’s high fuel prices, $7200 if four people went. “And you don’t need four people,” said a source. “You need one or two at most. Four is just Louie traveling with an entourage.”


THE TAKE-HOME HELICOPTER

In addition to the questionable King Air trips, three sources have reported to WitnessLA that one deputy, an experienced pilot named Dale Ryken, occasionally flies a department helicopter home. Or to be more precise, the observers allege that Ryken flies from where he works in the main facility in Long Beach (and where most of the aircraft are hangared), to a small satellite Aero facility at the Pitchess Detention Center, which happens to be very close to the deputy’s home in Santa Clarita.

“We’ve had an unmarked patrol car up at Pitchess since 2009,” said one of the sources who reported they had observed Ryken’s take home helicopter patterns. “So he just drives that county car home and parks it in his garage.” In the morning, Ryken reportedly drives back to Pitchess, climbs into the take-home aircraft and begins his shift.

In at least one case, Ryken reportedly kept the helicopter over the weekend.

“The rest of us get in our cars after we finish work, and fight traffic,” said a source. “after we’ve just watched Dale take a helicopter.”

Reportedly the take-home helicopter flight was not a daily or even a weekly occurrence. But it happened often enough that several at Aero Bureau claim to have kept written records documenting the incidents, (although WitnessLA has not seen them).

As to whether others had been allowed a take-home aircraft in times of personal need or professional convenience, our sources say no.

“Except for Dale,” said one pilot, “I’ve never seen it happen.”

Our sources also said that many at the bureau were dismayed that the practice had been allowed to continue without any seeming consequence for Ryken, whom they named as one of those high on Captain Duran’s favorites list. This is the same list of people sources claim were repeatedly assigned a disproportionate amount of overtime—a noticeable proportion of which, according to several sources, he may not have actually worked.

Indeed, county records show that Deputy Ryken’s overtime earnings for 2009 was $81,816, the highest in the unit. In 2010, the year in which overtime was cut department-wide to almost nothing, Ryken still pulled in $69,364 in extra pay on top of his base salary of $121,188 plus benefits.


THE HANGAR ONE CONTRACT

Cook happened to arrive at Aero Bureau right around the time the sheriff’s department was beginning the process of obtaining bids for and negotiating the purchase and outfitting of a fleet of new helicopters. In watching the bidding process, and the further negotiations for and delivery of the 12 new helicopters, Cook began to notice things in the bidding machinations and in the contract itself that seemed alarmingly out-of-whack to him. As he researched further, Cook—like Richard Gurr (see WLA’s earlier report)—gradually became convinced that Aero Bureau supervisors had colluded to rig the bidding process so as to exclude all but one vender, the comparatively inexperienced, Carlsbad-based Hangar One Avionics.

He further concluded that the resulting Hangar One contract was loaded with huge overcharges, double charges, and the purchase of equipment that was either excessive or unnecessary, or both—all amounting to millions of dollars of expenditure by which, Cook alleged, someone other than the County of Los Angeles was assuredly benefiting.

[More on this in Part 3]


KILLING THE MESSENGER

As Cook noticed more instances of what he believed to be misconduct—or worse—he reported what he had observed to his superiors through the appropriate chain of command, going as high up the department food chain as Chief Michael Grossman. In some instances Cook went so far as to request a criminal investigation. According to the statements made in his lawsuit, each time he attempted a report, he was rebuffed and told, in so many words, to sit down and shut up.

When Cook did not shut up, he was removed from his duties as supervising lieutenant at the main Aero Bureau facility in Long Beach and transferred to one of the bureau’s satellite facilities in Palmdale, with no supervisory duties at all.

Ed was still a pilot so he decided not to worry about the change. But while Cook was stationed in Palmdale, Captain Duran reportedly upped the ante. According to Cook’s lawsuit, Duran “initiated a rumor that [Cook] was moved out of the Long Beach facility for substandard performance,” and then was directed by Duran to retire. If he didn’t retire, Duran allegedly told him, Cook would be transferred out of Aero Bureau and lose his flight pay. Duran further informed Cook that he was going to be investigated for improprieties, namely taking his “girlfriend” for flights in a department helicopter.

Cook—who is in a long-term marriage and reportedly did not have a girlfriend, then or now,—-responded by telling Duran, in essence: bring it on. “I want you to initiate and IAB investigation,” Cook reportedly said. “In fact I’m asking you to do it.”

According to Cook’s attorney, Greg Smith, no such investigation was ever initiated.

“But,” said a source, “they kept on with the character assassination anyway.”

And, Cook kept on with his examination of what he believed to be a growing list of improprieties—and possibly illegalities—hoping he could eventually get higher-ups in the department to wake up and look into what he was alleging.

Instead, according to his lawsuit, Cook was transferred punitively to a jail assignment, and then was “constructively terminated,” when he was told he must retire “or face continuing retaliatory acts, which could lead to his termination.”

Reportedly, it was Undersheriff Paul Tanaka who personally approved the order for Cook’s transfer.

It was then that Cook found a lawyer.

“Ed Cook is probably the most honest man I know in the department,” said one bureau insider. “He’s super nice guy. And he’s honest and ethical. That’s why the rumors they pass don’t hold water. In a way, that’s his failing. He’s honest to a fault.”


FURTHER INVESTIGATION

Subsequent to Cook’s reports about alleged wrongdoing, ICIB, the LASD’s criminal investigative bureau, and the LA County’s auditor-controller’s office, each opened investigations into some of the Hangar One allegations.

As WitnessLA previously reported, according to Sheriff’s Department Spokesman Steve Whitmore, both investigations found Cook’s allegations to be “without merit,” yet the case was passed along to the Los Angeles District Attorneys office for possible further investigation.

In the meantime, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky told his fellow supervisors last Tuesday that he wanted a more comprehensive audit by the County Auditor Controller, whose initial audit he described as narrow.

More specifically, according to some who have read the approximately six-page confidential report from the auditor-controller’s office, the report suggests the audit investigated very little, and it gives almost no details about its methods or processes. (By the way, no one has a good explanation as to why the thing is confidential, except that the Sheriff’s Department insisted that it needed to be confidential, a choice that it would be helpful if the Supervisors would override.)

IAB, the department’s other investigative arm, is reportedly doing its own probe.

Yet, according to all those with whom we spoke inside and close to Aero Bureau, not one of the many investigators has talked to anyone in the bureau save Captain Louis Duran and a handful of his inner circle—who are precisely the people who are accused of wrongdoing.

“We’re all waiting for someone to ask us what we know,” one source told me last night. “But no one has. We didn’t even know there was an ICIB investigation.”

With all of the above in mind, WitnessLA would like to respectfully suggest that LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau investigators, and those investigating for the Office of Independent Review, would do well to talk to all of the ordinary deputies and pilots in the bureau.

“Anyone who doesn’t bother to come to talk to the rest of us,” said another pilot, “is by definition not serious about finding answers. It’s just another whitewash.”


POST SCRIPT: On Tuesday of last week, March 27, the day WitnessLA and the LA Times both ran stories about Aero Bureau and the Hangar One contract, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka reportedly called Lt. Robert Wheat, Sergeant Casey Dowling, Sergeant John Haughey and Sergeant Howard Fuchs (formerly of Aero Bureau, now at Century) into his office for a closed door meeting. These four are the core of Duran’s inner circle. This is also the group that reportedly worked on the Hangar One bid and contract, in particular Dowling and Fuchs.

All four are reportedly also long-time Tanaka loyalists.

That same morning, Captain Duran was called in to meet with Lee Baca. It is not clear, however, whether or not Duran was invited to the Tanaka meeting.


EDITORS NOTE: To check for yourself the salary, overtime, et al, of any county employee, go here for 2009, here for 2010.

In the meantime, here are the figures for three of Aero Bureau’s highest overtime earners:

Deputy Dale Ryken 2009: Base salary – $121,188, Overtime $81,816

2010: Base salary – $121,188 Overtime $ 69,364

Sergeant Casey Dowling 2009: Base salary – $99,982, Overtime – $70,178

2010: Base salary – $105,557, Overtime $35,411

Sergeant John Haughey 2009 – Base salary: $100,896 Overtime: $56,641
2010 – Base salary: $109,739 Overtime: $43,888

Posted in LA County Board of Supervisors, LA County Jail, LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca, THE LA JUSTICE REPORT, law enforcement | 115 Comments »

AERO BUREAU – PART 1: THE CONTRACT. Did the Sheriff’s Department Over Pay Drastically for Work and Equipment on Its New Fleet of Helicopters?

March 27th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


EDITOR’S NOTE: It seems that the LA Times has acquired an LASD internal report that WitnessLA had also obtained and has been investigating for several weeks.

The report, by LASD Sergeant Richard Gurr, formerly of Aero Bureau, alleges that a $29 million Board of Supervisors-approved contract to do completion work on the LASD’s 12 new helicopters, may be loaded with overcharges and unnecessary equipment to the tune of up to $11 million. In addition, it alleges that some Aero Bureau supervisors colluded to rig the bidding process.

The story below is a part of our larger investigation, still to come, yet it is an important first step. Part 2 and Part 3, to follow.


A DOZEN NEW HELICOPTERS….AND A BUNCH OF RED FLAGS

On May 11, 2010, The LA County Board of Supervisors was asked to approve the purchase of 12 new helicopters to replace the existing but aging fleet of 12, plus two extra helicopters, to be purchased, pending the sale of a certain number of the old fleet.

Law enforcement is hard on aircraft thus the replacement cycle reportedly occurs about every 7 years. The old fleet went into service in 2003. So it was time.

According to the document given to the Supervisors for approval, (and obtained by WitnessLA), the new fleet was to be delivered over a period of around 8 months, meaning that one helicopter would be completed about every 3 to 6 weeks.

The base price of each “green” helicopter—meaning the no-frills aircraft that comes straight from the American Eurostar factory in Texas without the additional finish work and equipment that law enforcement requires—was to be $1,969,161 per aircraft.

The cost of doing the completion work that the department required was listed at $2,085,250 per helicopter. An avionics company located in Carlsbad, California, won the competitive bidding process for the $29 million aftermarket outfitting job. It was comparatively new firm named HangarOne Avionics that reportedly got its FAA certificate in December of 2007.

It is this second part of the purchase process, the $2 million plus per helicopter covered by the HangerOne contract, that is analyzed in a highly critical internal report that WitnessLA has obtained. The report echoed, albeit with a far more detailed analysis, some very similar allegations made by a former Aero Bureau supervisor, Lt. Ed Cook, in a whistle blower lawsuit.

The internal report, which features around 30 pages of collateral material, lists “four areas of concern” that it contends support “initiating an investigation for violations of Department Policy” and “County Purchasing Code.”

(The report also alleges that Aero Bureau supervisors helped manipulate the bidding process for HangerOne. However this allegation is a story all its own that we will get to later.)

The four reported “areas of concern” are as follows:

1. Excessive labor costs,

2. The purchase of extra equipment outside the scope of what was approved by the Board of Supervisors, and often with hefty mark-ups attached

3. Standard equipment purchased in excess of what was required.

4. Charges for installation of basic equipment that conventionally should have been installed at the factory as part of the price of the aircraft.


EXCESSIVE LABOR COSTS

The first area of concern alleged has to do with the $350,000 fixed labor costs for the completion of each aircraft.

In a previous service contract between HangarOne and the LASD, the report notes that HangerOne set its labor price at $90 per shop hour—reportedly the high side of the industry standard, but still well within the bounds of usual prices. Thus, noted the report, if that same hourly rate was used for the aircraft completion, then that would mean the department was being charged for 3,888 shop hours—which, using an 8-hour work day and a five day work week, would equate to 24 months worth of shop hours per aircraft.

Since the purchase approval document approved by the LA County Board of Supervisors, called for the helicopters to be delivered to the Aero Bureau from HangerOne at a rate of at least one aircraft per month, this meant the department was allegedly over-paying for labor by hundreds of thousands per heliocopter. (In speaking to sources inside Aero Bureau, we learned that the helicopters were delivered at a rate of one aircraft every two months, which is reportedly a normal speed. )

“Even at three months, (480 shop hours),” states the report, “the labor cost would only amount to $43,200 per aircraft.” This would mean more than $300,000 in excess charges per helicopter—X 12.

(WitnessLA is still investigating the labor overcharging issue, as it is a complicated matter and there are some other potential variables that we are told could come into play. We’ll have more shortly.)


THE PURCHASE OF EXTRA EQUIPMENT NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS-APPROVED HELICOPTER ACQUISITION

Certain equipment is considered to be a part of the proper outfitting of an aircraft for law enforcement work (just as, when the department buys a fleet of patrol cars, there is a range of equipment—lights, siren, radio, floodlights, et al— that is considered standard. ).

However, according to the report, there was $1,716,156 worth of extra items purchased that were not installed in the helicopters but were shipped directly to Aero Bureau, reportedly at LASD Aero Bureau’s request.

An example of one such item is a FLIR Star Safire HD priced at $749,816.

The FLIR is a high definition thermal imaging system that, according to the company’s list of clients, is primarily used by the military, some border patrol agencies, and maritime search and rescue.

We are told the Star Safire is a swell gadget, as you can see from the video below, but according to those familiar with Aero Bureau equipment, it is a long way from necessary—especially at a time when the Sheriff was regularly in front of the Board of Supervisors asking for additional funds for overtime and other real necessities. Moreover, its price places it well above the monetary threshold that, if it was not bundled questionably into the price of the completion, would have required board approval.

To go with the FLIR Star Safire, is a companion item, the FLIR Ultra 9500, an infrared camera that cost the LASD $356,775. The two items together total $1,106,591.

According to the report, there were 15 more extra items that allegedly should not have been part of the helicopter completion price.

In addition, the report states that many of these extras were purchased at a ferocious mark-up. For instance, in the report’s supplementary material it shows the GSA price ( U.S. General Services Administration) on the FLIR Ultra 9500 to be $185,996 instead of the $356,775 paid by the LASD.


“STANDARD EQUIPMENT” REPORTEDLY NOT NEEDED OR PURCHASED IN EXCESS

Another allegation the report makes is that, even with the standard equipment delivered with the aircraft, much of it was bought in inexplicable excess, or simply wasn’t needed in the first place.

For instance, the contract calls for the purchase of 42 pairs of night vision goggles at $491,473.

“Aero Bureau has 10-12 NVG goggles which are sufficient to support any LASD mission,” the report states. ” …Very few additions would be required.”

The report notes similarly high numbers of items such as binoculars, helmets and a list of other types of equipment that it contends the department already has.

Additionally, the report notes some odd items like 14 personal locator beacons, of the type used by backpackers and mountain climbers. When I asked one experienced Aero Bureau source when such a device might be used in the course of department work, he said the only possible application would be if the aircraft crashed in a remote area and the crew had to hike out over a long distance. (There’s already a locator on the helicopter that activates in the event of a crash, so to use these 14 items one would have to leave the aircraft.) I asked if, to his knowledge, a pilot and observer had faced such a situation.

“To my knowledge? Never,” he said.


EQUIPMENT THAT ALLEGEDLY SHOULD HAVE COME WITH THE AIRCRAFT FROM THE FACTORY

The helicopters, while stripped down when they leave the Eurocopter factory, still must be “flight ready,” we were told. “After all, they had to be flown from the factory in Texas to us,” explained one of the bureau’s pilots.

However, according to the report we obtained, some of the items that would normally have been installed at the factory, were instead part of the HangarOne charges, which the report deemed an “area of concern.”

The report lists $3,619,813 in “factory associated” equipment that instead turned up as HangarOne charges.

For instance, the report lists “windshields,” for $59,232,

“Obviously the aircraft can’t be flown back from the factory without a windshield,” said another Aero Bureau source whom we asked about the charge. We also asked if law enforcement aircraft require special windshields.

“No,” he said. “The windshield that comes on the aircraft from the factory is what’s on it now.”


As we reported previously, the allegations contained in the report have been passed on to the D.A’s office for consideration although they were audited by the County Auditor Controller as well as investigated by the department’s own criminal investigative unit, ICIB. Both those probes found the allegations to be “without merit.”

Several sources inside Aero Bureau or those familiar with its workings have concurred with all or parts of this internal LASD report.

Given the radical disagreement that has surfaced thus far about the HangerOne contract and the allegations surrounding it, and given the amount of money at stake, WitnessLA hopes that the Supervisors will consider calling for a full forensic audit by an entity entirely independent of the county or any of its agencies.


Next up: AERO BUREAU – PART 2

Posted in LA County Board of Supervisors, LASD, Sheriff Lee Baca | 88 Comments »

« Previous Entries