WHY WON’T LA COUNTY DISCLOSE THE REAL $$ COST OF DEFENDING THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AGAINST ALL THOSE LAWSUITS?
Thursday afternoon the ACLU of Southern California and civilian watchdog, Eric Preven, filed a lawsuit demanding that Los Angeles County and the Office of the County Counsel release invoices detailing the exact dollar amount billed by private law firms in each of the lawsuits filed against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and its personnel.
They are particularly interested in the cost of defending the lawsuits that the LASD and the county loses.
This new ACLU/Preven lawsuit speaks to a question a number of us have been discussing for some time.
We know that, during the fiscal year 2011-12, lawsuits against the LASD cost the county taxpayers $37 million.
We also know that, for the first six months of FY 2012-2013, the $$ paid out for lawsuits against the department have already come to around $25 million (a figure that obviously does not suggest anything good about what the 2012-2013 totals will look like).
But, of course, what the ACLU/Preven lawsuit rightly points out is that the $37 million total we have been given for last year is not, in fact, the real total. It’s not real because it doesn’t include the money paid to the private attorneys hired to defend the county in lawsuits filed against the sheriff’s department—suits like the recently concluded Willis case that we wrote about here.
Willis v. Rodriguez is the one where, after a week-long trial, a federal jury unanimously found Sheriff Lee Baca personally liable for punitive damages in relation to the brutal beating Mr. Willis received from deputies when he was a guest at Men’s Central Jail. (The jury also found 4 other present and former department members liable for damages as well.)
Willis’ attorney, Sonia Mercado, told me that originally Willis wanted to settle, that he wasn’t interested in punitive damages. He simply wanted his doctor bills and injury-related expenses paid for.
But the county’s hired gun lawyers refused to settle. Instead they pushed for a trial. And guess what? They lost resoundingly at trial. Now, we’ve been told that Baca intends to appeal—which means a brand new round of attorneys’ bills.
And, as with every other case filed and eventually settled against the sheriff’s department, we, the taxpayers, will pay the tab for all of it. Unfortunately, we don’t have a clue how much those tabs are really costing us.
Why don’t we know? (I know that I’ve inquired after some of those figures a couple of times in the past and gotten nowhere. But admittedly I didn’t keep at it.) Eric Preven has persistently filed California Public Records act requests asking for the information, and gotten next to nothing back.
“We are asking the officials of Los Angeles County to be transparent and tell taxpayers how their money is being spent on private attorneys to defend deputies accused of savage beatings and other illegal actions,” said the So Cal ACLU’s legal director, Peter Eliasberg, who has also been trying to get the information.
According to the ACLU’s statement announcing the lawsuit, here is what Eliasberg and Preven were told in return:
John F. Krattili, county counsel, responded to the CPRA requests saying that billing records that document the tasks and time for which private firms were billing the County are exempt from disclosure.
Horse-pucky.
Not if we’re paying the bills, dearie.
“The County is paying out millions of dollars to private law firms, and when we, the people, ask to learn more about how that money is being spent, the answer is ‘none of your business!’ Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.” said Petitioner Eric Preven. “We’re demanding an end to the secrecy around practices that may well have cost the taxpayers far more than they’ve saved.”
“The County has no valid legal basis to keep these records hidden from the public,” said Jennifer L. Brockett, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. “The County should turn the records over, not defend withholding records that the law does not permit them to withhold.”
Damn straight.
SENTENCING 101: IF A CONVICTED LAWBREAKER IS GIVEN A SENTENCE OF 5 YEARS IN PRISON, HOW LONG WILL HE OR SHE REALLY SERVE….AND WHY? AND WHO GETS TO DECIDE THESE THINGS?
In a wonderful essay from the LA Times Editorial Board, Rob Greene answers these questions and more.
Here are some clips:
Did Dr. Conrad Murray get out early?
The short answer is no. Murray, the doctor who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson, had served nearly two years of a four-year sentence when he was released from Los Angeles County Jail just after midnight Monday. That’s only half the sentence, but it’s also the full amount of jail time provided for by law.
How is that not getting out early? Since when does four years equal just under two?
It’s complicated.
And it’s important — not because Murray is any different from most California inmates, but rather because he is so typical — and because his high-profile sentence is a window onto the state’s convoluted and misleading sentencing rules.
It would be simplistic to say that those rules alone are what caused the state’s current criminal justice crisis, with the prison system under federal receivership and a court order looming to require the release of more than 8,000 convicted felons by late February. The sentencing rules are, rather, one especially vexing result of years of so-called tough-on-crime laws fueled by fear, anti-drug frenzy and political opportunism.
It’s not merely that sentences were lengthened during those years; they were lengthened haphazardly, one by one, crime by crime, responding to particular incidents, with no comprehensive examination of the state’s sentencing system and with few questions asked about the purpose of prison time. Often the same Legislature that adopted longer jail and prison terms undermined them by requiring more good-conduct credits — and later reversed itself by revoking or limiting credits. The result is a mish-mash that conditions time served not merely on what crime was committed, but when it was committed, when the sentence was handed down, when it was to be served, and where. Courts have had to interpret apparently conflicting sentencing statutes, and trial judges are often unable to figure out how much incarceration time to order without the help of a computer…..
[BIG SNIP]
It would be more honest if the sentence on the books, and the one sought by the prosecutor, handed down by the judge and reported by the media, were called a two- to four-year term rather than a four-year sentence. As it is, the public is led to believe that felons are routinely let out “early,” which in turn suggests, incorrectly, that punishment in California is lax, even in an era of tough sentences.
That’s something an Assembly select committee should keep in mind next month at its hearing on state sentencing. For sentencing reform to work, the public must have confidence in the criminal justice system and must recognize that “early release” isn’t necessarily early at all. Lawmakers can go a long way toward restoring that confidence by allowing an independent commission, de-linked from the political process, to review and revamp sentencing….
Read the rest here.
And, yes, an independent sentencing commission. Please. We’d like that very much.
AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE SUBJECT OF COMMISSIONS…DO WE NEED A PERMANENT CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT?
Loyola law professor Laurie Levinson says yes—and explains why in an Op Ed in the LA Times.
Here are some clips:
It is time to seriously consider a civilian oversight board for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider such a proposal next week. If approved, it could be a big step toward remedying some of the ongoing problems in our county jails.
The last few years have been tough for the department, which has been plagued by jail scandals, committee inquiries and even a federal investigation. Despite the efforts of committed professionals within and outside the department to monitor abuses in the jail system, the problems have continued. Meanwhile, the public has only been invited into the process once the situation has reached crisis dimensions…
[SNIP]
For years, I have taught law students about our county jail system. We seem to be caught in an endless loop of crises. It begins with revelations of problems in the jails and the board’s criticisms of the sheriff. Then follows a promise of reforms, but these reforms do not include any mechanism for the public to monitor their implementation or efficacy. The next the public hears of the jails is another round of criticism and another set of reform pledges.
The Board of Supervisors is in the process of selecting an inspector general for the Sheriff’s Department. It is hoped that individual will have the expertise to investigate allegations of improper conduct by the department. But this will not break the cycle. Rather, for public confidence to be fully restored, there must be civilian overseers who will not only react to allegations of misconduct but also be proactive in making reforms. And such a board must have the power to ensure that its members’ voices will truly be heard.
Yes, well, therein lies the rub. Without some kind of legislation, no civilian commission will have the power—and the independence—needed to make any kind of difference.
This is why we at WLA are still undecided about the idea of such a commission unless its creation is accompanied by an appropriate change in the law.
It will be interesting to hear what the Board of Supervisors have to say on the matter next week.
I’ve been asking the same question since Christ was a corporal. All this behind the scenes ‘legal’ dragging and delaying with the meter running is expensive and dishonest. Even worse, it’s like one of those J.G. Wentworth commercials, except these law firms are singing, “were stealing your money, now! All of it!” Who’s the genius responsible for this mess? The ‘stupes’ are knee deep in these shenanigans. They keep approving these payments on the advice of counsel, then paying for the advice, and no one is the wiser. We should be tarring and feathering a few ‘county’ birds instead of turkey this Thanksgiving. Perhaps, a few days in Leroy’s jail would give them a better perspective. Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up.
So all of a sudden the ACLU is concerned about the taxpayers of LA County having to foot the bill for lawsuits? Come on now. Didn’t they threaten to sue the county a few years back over that all important, number one issue on everybody’s radar, the cross on the LA County seal?
Forgive me if I’m somewhat skeptical that the ACLU is truly concerned about how taxpayer money is spent.
WLA asks: “Do we need a permanent civilian oversight board to keep an eye on the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department?’
The answer is no because we already have an oversight board: a well-informed electorate.
The Sheriff is an elected official, and if the electorate doesn’t like his policies then it can change those policies by electing a new Sheriff, a process that we are now witnessing.
Crucially important, however, is that the electorate must be “well-informed.” We are, right now, eye-witness to the fact that there are forces at work to keep that from happening, as evidenced by another headline from WLA: “Hiding the….”
A well-informed electorate obviates a need for a watch-dog, but there are obvious forces at work right now to keep this from happening, and that’s where the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of a Free Press comes in….
So long as WLA & the LAT can do its work unhindered there really is no need for a permanent oversight board; that can be done by the voting public.
Better idea, as a society let’s stop shelling our $$ to scumbags for lame lawsuits.
Come on now…totally agree. I shudder to think how much tax payer money over the years the ACLU has been awarded for it’s clients over the years. In fact, I think the whole jail overcrowding case from the 80’s is ACLU v Block, ACLU v Baca, etc. If they cared so much about tax payer money they should stop suing the county to claim it! Though I think our Department needs alot of improvement, I sincerely believe the ACLU is not to be considered a “partner” in this process. I hope Baca, for all the kissing up he did to the ACLU, finally realizes this. It’s like that pitbull you think you have tamed, even consider it your friend, until one day you find it’s killed your kids in the back yard!
So, here is another article about the wonderful leadership at the Department’s top end. I have been pondering a question since the decision to hold Baca financially responsible, but have been so baffled by all that has been happening, my head has been swimming!
Does anyone think Baca will really (REALLY?!) pay this $100K? If so, please do tell because I think most of us believe he is going to skate on the backs of his LA County constituents as he always does. Does the citizenry really think he cares about them? If he does, why wouldn’t he pay the amount he has been ordered to instead of incurring more legal fees that will have to be paid out of tax dollars? And I have a question for the BOS…. Are you, as the overseeing entity of the County going to allow this sham of leadership to continue? Are you going to allow Baca to get off scot-free and have that $100K come out of County funds? Are you going to hold him accountable? Finally??? If not, maybe it is time for all of you to go, as well. Although I am not a huge fan of Molina, at least she had the fortitude to come out publicly & disclaim any support of Baca. My hat goes off to her for that!
And here is another aspect of money paid out to folks by the Department and/or County – how much did the Department pay out in lawsuits filed by personnel in the 2011 – 2012 year? How about 2012 – 2013? WHY does Baca insist on firing people, who then sue, then are reinstated and then win a monetary decision against the Department? WHY does Baca, when told the Department has no way in hell to win a case, push forward with these firings, knowing the deputy or whomever will win their case and receive a settlement? Does this sound like the “compassionate” man that is portrayed in public? The behind the scenes BS would shock those who still seem to think Baca is in control or a good guy. He is not a man of compassion; he only wants to interact with those who he believes can help him in his quest for another term… or to live to be 100.b
One needs to wonder why the BOS, ACLU, ALADS, County Counsel, DA, LAT, OIR, PPOA, State AG and all the other letters of the alphabet took so long to get wise to Baca and Tanaka? I don’t include WITLA because WITLA hasn’t been around long enough. I guess all these lawyers, politicians want us to believe they didn’t know. What lies! All these groups have known about Baca’s lies and who his henchmen were. For years many people from all these groups were told about the crimes and illegal behavior by Baca. But, as long as Baca continued to spill out all that crap laden “LIBERAL DRIBBLE!” no one bothered to check up to see if any of the crap was actually was being done. I recall so many times where Baca would come back to the office laughing on how he “finessed’ all these groups without ever having to do anything. As long as certain people were getting paid from the taxpayer tit no one had anything to report.
Like many others I too don’t particularly for the ACLU. However, I did respect them for looking out for the little guy, regardless of how perverted their view was. But, now I wonder what was the motive to turn their backs on the criminality that was obvious inside the jails and why(even after finding out the truth)didn’t the ACLU act? Come on Ms. Rice tell us the truth, what happened? Surely, the ACLU is not suggesting that it took them 15 years to figure out the Baca was LYING and Tanaka was just carrying out orders?
In 2002 Pat Gomez went so far as to hold a press conference to warn about the poor medical conditions inside the jail. And not one of the organizations sworn to protect us or paid to report news did their jobs! What awful coincidences for all these organizations to fall asleep all at the same time and all for so many years!!?? BS! They all knew! Or they are that stupid!
I prefer that the ACLU keep it pithy and stop trying to be Baca’s buddy and do what they were chartered to do! It appears that money and politics overcome integrity and justice every time!
With all the corruption of money and politics why would anyone want a permanent commission to sit on Baca’s lap??
Answer: We need a new sheriff who will bring back integrity and be surrounded by people of a like mind! Regardless of the building we put up, the law we pass, another policy or procedure it won’t matter if we re-elect a person who is without any moral direction. I.E. Baka and Tanaka!
C: Ask the heads from all these organizations if they support Baca for sheriff and report the findings. Look at their eyes and you’ll see what money and political corruption does to the human spirit! I see Zombies!
What taxpayers, the BOS and FBI haven’t caught on to is that Sheriff Baca, former Undersheriff Tanaka and most other executives have been giving it to the taxpayers on a regular basis. If one were to do a forensic accounting of contract city minutes and unincorporated area minutes, those mentioned would have to answer tough questions. The lawsuit judgements are a tip of the iceberg compared to the daily raping of taxpayer dollars via the shell game that is contract minutes. A few examples: Deputies working light duty positions at a desk, forced to log on as a field unit in order to eat up contract minutes even though they never left the desk; Carp Detectives logging on as field units then never handling calls for service as their car sits in a station parking lot while the contract minute meter runs (bogus calls often cleared by the desk); County cars handling contract city calls, being told to immediately show 10-98 then create an observation in the county reporting district so as not to give away minutes even though they aren’t in a county area; Contract city cars handling county calls, being told to immediately show 10-98 then create an observation in the contract city reporting district so as not to give away minutes even though they aren’t in a contract city; “Ghost logs” created to eat up contract minutes.
#7: “One needs to wonder why…?”
In an earlier post (#3) I wrote that a well-informed electorate was the best remedy for bad practices in the Sheriff’s Dept. because the Sheriff is an elected offical and a remedy is simple: elect a new Sheriff.
Now I am wondering: has the electorate–the voting public–been purposefully kept in the dark?
Inasmuch as Freedom of the Press is a Constitutional Guarantee the answer to that question scares the living daylights out of me.
@ #8 Yet the department seems to have endless funds and resources for EBI…..
J. Loser London – Sorry you didn’t get promoted. Actually I am not. You are the type of spineless brass that we don’t need. Why don’t you come out from behind your computer and walk into the door of all these organizations that you want to do something about the way the department is run? You claim you heard Baca laughing about deceiving all these groups. Why didn’t you confront him? Would you confront a deputy violating policy? I am sure you would because that deputy can’t keep you from a promotion. You sold your slimy soul for the promotions you have received. You will climb back into your hole after the election is over, with no further promotion or soul.
#8, those are such blatant criminal violations. Yes, criminal as those contract cities are being ripped off to the tune of millions of dollars collectively. I certainly hope Special Agent Marx, of the FBI knows of this. I’d love to see her generate an “obs,” right on the 4th floor of SHQ. A fabulous investigative lead foe WLA. “Cooking the Books, by Chef Leroy Baca.”
@11 Please.
Exactly. These guys never step up like Mr. Tanaka did. As soon as Mr. Tanaka was in the inner circle and found out all the scandalous stuff the sheriff was doing, he stepped right up and confronted him. Right? He didn’t keep his mouth shut about it and just go along to get along, so he could be the next sheriff. No sir. As soon as he realized Baca was nuts, he spoke right up. Remember the press conference he held to let the world know that Leroy was crazy and out of touch with the day to day operations of the sheriff’s dept.?
Okay. Enough sarcasm.
I’d rather see Tanaka as the sheriff every day of the week than Baca, and twice on Sunday. But this crap some of you guys spout about “stepping up” and confronting the problems” are out of line, WAY out of line. Your man sat there and kept his mouth shut for years, because he was promised the big seat. And hey, while he waited for it he was really in charge anyway. So Mr. Tanaka kept quiet about Sheriff Baca. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it. Let’s not be hypocritical because we would like to see Sheriff Baca beaten.
Perhaps Captain Shaun Matthers, who was recently transferred out of the LASD’s Civil Litigation Unit, can explain how his wife, an attorney, had a number of law suits assigned to her firm? I understand her firm has made a chunk of change to settle cases. Conflict of interest? I’m just saying. This crap just has no limits and that culture comes right from the top. Love to see this exposed.
It continues to amaze me how many folks think you can “confront” the man in charge of a paramilitary organization successfully. How does that exactly work, Mr. Please? Do you barge into Baca’s office and start barking? Do you entertain the notion that nobody has ever suggested to Moonbeam that he needs to get back to Planet Earth?
Let me break the news for you, gently. There has been a parade of individuals who have gone to the sheriff’s office to advise/warn/plead/demand that he do something about all the corruption and antics of his unethical undersheriffs, including Tanaka. That is a fact. As a matter of fact, not just individuals but groups of individuals have tried that, both within and outside of the department. All fell on deaf ears, because Baca believes himself to be all knowing and all seeing, and everything is beneath his concern for a greater cause.
Don’t be alarmed if one day he shows up to work wrapped in a toga, Jesus style…
(Laughing at Sheriff Baca)
For years it was the the dirty little secret. Everybody in the inner circle knew it. How could they not? They all made a conscious decision not to go public about it. They all made a conscious decision to keep working for him. Loyalty? Was that their sole reason for keeping the secret? Or did the fact that they had a great job, with a lot of power and benefits come in to play? Why would they be loyal to a man that they watched day by day do things that made the very organization they claim to love the laughing stock of law enforcement? The media ignored it because “He cared” and was “warm and engaging”. Or did he get a pass from them because he appeared to be a progressive?
Slowly the dirty little secret got out. Due in part to Baca’s inability to keep his mouth shut, and his uncanny ability to leave a crowd of law enforcement officials looking at each other and asking: “Is he nuts”? just about every time he spoke in public.
Then the crap hit the fan. He did what politicians do. He denied knowledge. “I didn’t know” became his mantra. Finally, slowly, for a myriad of reasons that different entities found in their best interest to expose, they no longer chose to keep the secret. Now they’re all screaming about the scandals, his incompetence, how he is “disengaged”, cronyism, conflicts of interest, etc.
They’re screaming for him to be held accountable now.
Better late than never I guess.
The irony is that some of the very same people and organizations that are so outraged now, were accomplices by the fact that they chose to remain silent and help keep the secret all these years.
Only in politics. It’s a dirty game. None of those who play it can come away untarnished.
Some who comment on this blog need to quit insulting our intelligence by suggesting that any of those who served in his inner circle are untarnished.
#15 – I will tell you how to confront someone in a paramilitary organization. First, J. London needs to grow a spine. After that he should confront someone in a paramilitary organization just like you would confront someone in a military organization, which I served in combat while J. London shuffled copy paper between fellow admin pogues. J. London has claimed on several occasions that he personally witnessed policy and legal violations by the Sheriff.
If he was too timid to point this out to the Sheriff, OIR, the FBI, the DA, the ACLU or any other oversight group in writing and be willing to testify to it, he should have quit. Only a burnt out bootlicker would stay in his exec spot and go to EPC meetings looking for his next promotion while doing nothing about the activity he claims he saw. I am sure he had no problem burning deputies who violated policy while watching fellow execs do the same or worse while he collects an exec check and looks for another promotion before he retires. Do I need to explain any more?
Please, okay, we got the part where you think your spine is bigger than everyone else’s, but you still haven’t answered the question:
Then what? Retire on principle? Baca’s still laughing about that one…
Too funny!
@17 Please. I can tell you factually, a number of “executives” have gone into Baca’s office and closed the door. Each of them laid it right on the line, face to face with Baca, exposing Tanaka. The empire building, unethical behavior, screaming and yelling, to include his overreach into Division Chief’s area of responsibility regarding assignments and promotions. I will even include Olmsted speaking to Baca twice about Tanaka and all the problems at MCJ before the shit hit the fan. I can tell you factually, each and every time, Baca would react virtually the same way. Absolute denial. He didn’t want to hear it, he didn’t want to believe it he didn’t acknowledge it. No matter what the problem brought to him about Tanaka, he did not want to hear it. No matter what injustice Tanaka did, Baca didn’t want to hear it. This is not a spin, this is not twisting facts to make a point, this is exactly what happened.
So save your muy macho crap about growing a pair or take a spine pill, Baca is the Sheriff and he wouldn’t say shit if he had a mouth full. Everything this man does, points to an individual who has been suffering extreme emotional and deep rooted psychological issues. He thinks his intellectual capacity has no boundaries, he is reminded by his army of boot lickers he is the most intelligent person in the room, all of his wacky ideas and actions are brilliant, progressive and ground breaking. His mind’s ability to build a wall of denial around everything he doesn’t want to believe is worth of medical study. So what do you do when you tell Baca “bad news” and he simply blows you off? Ask Chuck Jackson and John Scott where that got them, besides a happier life? Remember, Sheriff Baca’s PhD dissertation at USC was on “The Decriminalization of Incest.”
The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing that will bring LASD back is a new Sheriff. And when you look at the program, Olmsted is the only choice. If you think otherwise, then settle in for 4 more years of the last 16 and put on a happy face.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Dear “Please,”
Kindly desist with the direct ad hominem attacks. You’re welcome to argue with other commenters all you want, but the elementary school name calling is at an end. That is why I deleted your most recent comment.
For future guidance I recommend that you read the above Ten Rules for Commenting,, in particular Rule #1.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
C.
The ACLU should be more concerned about the good hardworking citizens of L.A. County and not the scumbags piece of dirt that are in the jails. Not that everyone in jail is a true hardened criminal. We should put all the lawyers who work for the ACLU in a jail setting to see how much these scum of the earth attempt to get away with everything. Maybe they would realize how hard it can be to take care of grown jerks that try to take advantage of anything and everything. These criminals that get paid out, should have to give the money to those who they have committed crimes against.
A bit of advise to those who are making personal attacks. Bullies hit and run. If you are that firm in your convictions, sign your name. I might also add: ” Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk ”
John O’Brien
Here’s my name. Shoot away if you like, My generation of deputies came with elephant- thick skin.