ACLU of Santa Cruz County, CA

These news articles were compiled by board member Don Zimmerman concerning the recent rejection of SB 1019.

Over a hundred police union representatives descended on the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 26 to urge opposition to Sen. Gloria Romero's SB 1019, the bill which would overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Copley Press and provide limited access to information about police misconduct complaints. Rather than challenge the unsubstantiated claims by the police associations that the bill would somehow impact the safety of the police and stand up for transparency, when Senator Romero asked for a vote, committee members sat silently and therefore no vote was taken on the bill.

The hearing began with powerful testimony from SB 1019 proponents who highlighted the strong public interest in restoring openness and transparency around police complaints - processes that had been in place upwards of 30 years in some places prior to the Copley Press decision. After Senator Romero introduced the bill, the first three witnesses - Tom Newton from the California Newspaper Publishers Association, Newark Police Chief Ray Samuels, and Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor and Director of the Office of Independent Review for the Los Angeles Sheriff Department - spoke eloquently about the need for public access to good police-community relations and public trust.

They were followed by United Farm Workers Co-Founder Dolores Huerta, who recounted the beating she received at the hands of the San Francisco Police in the late 1980s, and Letica Rodriguez, whose daughter was a bystander, killed in a high-speed chase. Their testimony was riveting and the audience listened attentively to their testimony, hanging on every word..

Unfortunately, most committee members were non-responsive to their stories and those who did speak, gave only lip service to their concerns. Instead, committee members sided with the phalanx of police union lobbyists who repeated their mantra of the day: "SB 1019 will endanger officer safety and the safety of their families."

This assertion - repeated by dozens of police union reps - was completely unchallenged by even a single member of the committee, including Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. Not a single Assembly member pointed out the obvious: that in the over 30 years of public oversight in California, there is not a single example of a police officer being physically harmed because of the public release of information about misconduct complaints and discipline. The vast majority of other states release more information to the public than California and the police associations have also failed to provide any similar examples from those states as well. The bill also has specific provisions that allow information to remain confidential where there are officer safety concerns.

After the testimony was over, Assemblywoman Ma and Chair Jose Solorio made some statements about concerns they had with the current legislation. Their concerns, however, were all over the map and neither Ma nor Solorio put forward any suggestion about how the bill could be changed to meet their concerns. Solorio, for example, lamented the fact that the bill did not provide for statewide standards and allowed for choice a local level. However, Solorio also refused to support legislation previously introduced by Assemblyman Mark Leno that would have done just that.

Following these comments, Senator Romero asked the committee for an up or down vote on the bill. Members avoided going on the record with a vote and SB 1019 is now being held in committee. While Senator Romero has requested the bill be reheard on July 3, Chair Solorio has refused to schedule the matter. The bill is effectively in limbo.

San Francisco has loudly and broadly supported SB 1019. It is supported by a unanimous Police Commission, a super-majority on the Board of Supervisors, The Democratic County Central Committee, Sheriff Michael Hennessey, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Assemblyman Mark Leno, and Senators Carole Migden and Leland Yee.

Assemblywoman Ma, who, like other committee members, did not call for a vote on the bill, claimed that she had concerns about the legislation, but also expressed concern about the current state of affairs. If she is really interested in moving toward greater openness and transparency, she should at least vote the measure out of committee and urge that her concerns be addressed prior to a floor vote. By staying silent, Ma showed support for the police union lobby over the interest of San Franciscans.

Tell Fiona Ma that transparency and accountability are San Francisco values, result in better policing and make everyone safer. You can call her office at (916) 319-2012 and urge her to support SB 1019 and call on Chair Solorio to allow a vote on SB 1019.

In an incredible show of force, the state’s police unions packed the Assembly Public Safety Committee Tuesday and effectively stopped Sen. Gloria Romero’s bill to shine a moderate beam of light on police discipline practices. Here is the Modesto Bee’s Mark Vasche with a pre-hearing piece to set the stage; a blog filed by Orange County Register’s Steve Greenhut just after all six members of the Committee refused to grant Romero’s request for a motion on the bill ; and, an editorial from the Los Angeles Times entitled Bullies in Blue, which aptly describes the chokehold law enforcement has on the term-limited legislators as well as the impact of their inaction on civil society.

Although Romero received a public commitment from committee chairman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) to allow the bill to be reconsidered by the committee, CNPA learned last night that Solorio has reversed his decision and has informed the Senator he will not allow the bill to be heard during the committee’s Tuesday, July 3 hearing. Solorio’s decision, if it holds, effectively kills the bill for the year.

Finally, here is a column by The Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters discussing the potential link between the police union threat to oppose term limit reform if SB 1019 passes and the committee’s inaction on the bill.

When Democratic leaders -- especially Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez -- launched their drive to modify legislative term limits, they painted big targets on the backs of their well- tailored suits.

A fundamental political tenet is that when someone really wants something, he or she cedes leverage to others, and Núñez really wants to change term limits because otherwise he and Senate leader Don Perata, among others, would be forced to give up their seats next year. Thus, the squeeze is on.

An obvious example is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's unsubtle threat to oppose the measure changing term limits unless Democrats place redistricting reform on the same Feb. 5 ballot.

A business-labor-political coalition is seeking signatures on an initiative that would allow Núñez and other lawmakers facing term limits to spend as long as 12 years in one legislative house, modifying the current limit of six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. With Schwarzenegger's popularity roughly twice as high as the Legislature's in recent polls and with term limit change drawing lukewarm support from voters, the prevailing political wisdom is that Schwarzenegger's opposition could be fatal.

Schwarzenegger, however, is not alone in squeezing Núñez, et al. An even more blatant threat came from the Professional Peace Officers Association, an umbrella group for rank-and-file police who bitterly oppose a bill that would allow public access to police disciplinary proceedings.

The measure, Senate Bill 1019 by Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, cleared the Senate but was stalled in the Assembly after John R. Stites, president of the police association, sent messages to legislators that were the bill to be passed, the union would oppose the term limit modification and added ominously, "Ensure that it be understood that this will only be the beginning." Thereafter, the Assembly Public Safety Committee held the bill without a vote -- an action that had to have leadership blessing.

Legislative leaders doubtless cringe at the vision of having their term limit measure denounced in television commercials by uniform-wearing cops. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union that represents prison guards, contributed to Núñez's term limit drive, but he angered union leaders by helping Schwarzenegger enact a prison construction-reform program.

Finally, the fear of big bucks opposition to the measure plays at least a tangential role in the Assembly's acceptance of new compacts with four casino-owning Southern California Indian tribes after blocking approval for months at the behest of unions, which wanted more union-friendly provisions. Núñez and other Assembly leaders endorsed the Senate-approved compacts after some "side agreements" were ginned up to provide political cover, leaving the unions fuming about betrayal.

The tribes had dumped several hundred thousand dollars into Sen. Jenny Oropeza's contest with Assemblywoman Laura Richardson for a vacant Long Beach congressional seat, leaving little doubt that the compacts were their true reason.

Richardson, backed by Núñez and unions, won the duel this week, but the Oropeza contributions, coming after a tribe-financed advertising campaign critical of the compact stalemate, were widely seen as a warning about the tribes' willingness to spend heavily, perhaps in opposition to term limit changes.

Late Thursday, the Assembly approved the compacts after hours of private meetings among Democrats torn between their labor allies and pressure from the tribes, earning more denunciations from the unions. "The Legislature chose to stand with wealthy employers over the workers who create their prosperity," California Labor Federation chief Art Pulaski said.

Fiona Ma Fails to Move Police Accountability Bill

THE SLOW DEATH of a worthy bill being discussed in Sacramento offers powerful evidence of what happens to a state when it comes under the control of its police. State Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), the author of SB 1019, has done her best to right a wrong. Outraged by the closure of police disciplinary hearings to public scrutiny, she introduced her bill to allow cities to reopen those proceedings. For Los Angeles, where such hearings had been open for decades before being closed in the wake of a badly reasoned state Supreme Court decision last year, Romero's proposal offered the opportunity to reassure the public that its police were under control. That's no small message, especially in light of the May 1 melee in MacArthur Park that reignited concern about the LAPD's propensity to violence.
We have consistently supported Romero's bill, as have many leading government officials and civil liberties organizations. But from the moment the bill was introduced, police unions have fought dirty and disingenuously to defeat it, throwing around their political weight in order to protect their members from legitimate scrutiny.
The first sign of that was an extraordinarily ham-fisted e-mail from John R. Stites, one of the unions' leaders. Stites baldly threatened members of the Legislature who supported Romero's bill by vowing to oppose a term-limits measure, adding: "This will only be the beginning." Locally, leaders of the Los Angeles Police Protective League told this newspaper that they would support a bill that would reopen disciplinary hearings, then, once they were out of the building, announced their opposition.
The union thuggery continued this week as representatives testified that Romero's bill would embolden criminals and undermine safety. Nonsense. In a final insult, the Assembly's Public Safety Committee, host to that testimony, turned off the TV camera, preventing the public even from watching a debate over public access.
Police officers wear their names on their badges for a reason. They are public servants, paid by taxpayer dollars. They conduct their business in the most public of forums, and the public has every right to scrutinize their work. Recognizing that, Romero hopes to bring back an amended bill next week; she acknowledges that the odds are against it. As long as members of the Legislature are cowed by police unions, she's right. And we all suffer for their cowardice.

Police Transparency Bill May Be Dead Without Even a Vote in California Assembly Committee

By Frank D. Russo

California Progress Report

June 27, 2007

The Assembly Public Safety Committee room and the hallway outside were packed yesterday as hundreds of Californians stood in line to tell the committee whether they supported or opposed SB 1019 by Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero that would have restored public access to police disciplinary hearings. There was not a single seat vacant.

Romero's bill had passed the Senate on a 22 to 11 vote after some fireworks involving an email threatening political retaliaton sent by a lobbyist representing some police officers opposed to the bill. The email made reference to the separate issue of a ballot propositon on term limits. Only one Democratic Senator voted against it.

Romero lined up an all star cast of witnesses including United Farm Worker icon Delores Huerta, who told the committee that in a former life she had been a deputy sheriff. You could have heard a pin dropped as she detailed how in 1988 she was severely beaten by a San Francisco police officer while disbursing from a rally. Even though police records were open at the time of Huerta’s beating, her advocates experienced difficulty in getting all pertinent information on the case and they also had to battle to ensure nothing was hidden from the public.

Other witnesses provided the committee with detailed information on the bill, including Ray Samuels, the Police Chief for the city of Newark and Mike Gennaco, the Chief Attorney with the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review.

But when it came for a vote, there was silence. There was not even a motion for the bill. Openess and the public's right to know what they have a right to know in so many other professions, such as about attorney discipline by the State Bar of California and actions against physicians by their licensing board has been killed here unless the committee somehow passes the bill next week at its July 3 hearing before our national holiday.

“I am disappointed that not one member of the committee made a motion to allow for a vote on the bill,” Senator Romero said. “We come to Sacramento to vote – not remain silent. I would have had more respect for committee members had they voted up or down and not let the bill die in silence."

SB 1019 would overturn the Copley Press v. Superior Court decision of 2006 which prohibits police commissions, civilian review boards, personnel boards or civil service commissions from releasing any disciplinary information on misconduct cases.
Specifically, SB 1019 would:

• Allow cities, counties and local government entities and state agencies to follow the practices followed prior to the Copley Press decision. The practices to be followed may not provide for greater release of information than was allowed prior to the Copley decision.

• Create added peace officer protection by allowing the Chief Officer to certify in writing that the release of information in a certain case may jeopardize officer safety or operational security and that threat overrides the right of public access to the information.

• State that it is the intent of the legislature to overturn the Copley Press decision and restore the public’s right of access to meetings and hearings as it existed prior to the Copley decision.
Members of the committee include Jose Solorio, it's Democratic Chair, fellow Democrats Hector De La Torre, Fiona Ma, and Anthony Portantino, and Republicans Greg Aghazarian and Joel Anderson. There is one vacancy on the committee, which Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez has the power to appoint an Assemblymember to and that is a Democratic seat.

While this bill, to survive, must do so on the basis of Democratic votes, it has the backing of a wide array of organizations and elected officials from arch conservative Republican Senator Tom McClintock, to Antonio Villaraigosa, the Mayor of the largest city in the state, Los Angeles. It was heavily lobbied by law enforcement organizations, although it has the support of many within the law enforcement community.

What are the six members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee hiding from and hiding from us? Why doesn't the Speaker of the Assembly fill the vacancy on the committee with someone who will at least make a motion so we know where they stand?

Effort to open files on police thwarted

By Patrick McGreevy

LA Times

June 27, 2007

SACRAMENTO — Faced with broad opposition by law enforcement groups, legislation to reopen disciplinary hearings and records of police officers to the public stalled in a key state Assembly committee Tuesday, failing to get a single vote and virtually ensuring that the bill would not pass this year.

"Would somebody turn the lights out in this room, please," bill sponsor Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) said angrily after Assembly Public Safety Committee members refused to move for a vote on the bill.

The legislation passed the state Senate 21 to 10 this month, but Tuesday it drew opposing testimony from dozens of police officers from Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Fresno, Berkeley, Modesto, Anaheim, San Bernardino and Riverside. Many of them warned that disclosure of officers' personnel information would jeopardize their lives.

"We still consider it an anti-law enforcement bill," Ron Cottingham, president of the Police Officers Research Assn. of California, told the committee. "It will endanger our officers. It will endanger their families."

Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana), the committee chairman, raised several issues, including concern that the legislation could hamper police recruitment and that it would allow each city and county to decide what information to release.

Solorio also talked about the potentially lethal danger that police officers face.

"It's a real threat that many folks face," he said. "I'm very concerned about maintaining the privacy of police officers and their families."

Romero introduced the bill after a Supreme Court decision last year — Copley Press vs. Superior Court of San Diego — that police agencies interpreted as prohibiting them from disclosing disciplinary records and from opening disciplinary hearings to the public because they are considered confidential personnel records.

Hearings such as those held by the Los Angeles Police Department disciplinary boards had been open to the public for decades before the decision. The issue took on new controversy after disclosures that an LAPD board cleared an officer of wrongdoing in the 2005 fatal shooting of 13-year-old Devin Brown, but never announced the decision.

The legislation, SB 1019, had sparked a heated clash between police officer groups and organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which are demanding more transparency.

The head of the Professional Peace Officers Assn. recently threatened to oppose a relaxation of term limits for legislators if the Romero bill passed.

Romero said she thought the threat over term limits was an undercurrent at the hearing.

"Clearly, when you have this kind of silence, this kind of nonaction, this is a pretty strong signal that the Assembly does not want to see this in their house," Romero said. "It makes it very unlikely it will happen this year."

The inaction means the bill is stalled in committee, along with similar legislation by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) that was held up earlier this year.

Romero said she would not give up, even if it meant revisiting the bill next year.

"This issue is not going to go away because this is about democracy, this is about sunshine on government, this is about the public's right to know," she told the committee during a 90-minute public hearing.

About 40 people spoke in favor of the legislation, including Andrew Antwih, a representative of Los Angeles city government.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief William J. Bratton said earlier this year that they supported reopening police disciplinary hearings and records to the public, but neither official appeared at the hearing Tuesday.

"I'm very disappointed in the leadership in Los Angeles," Romero said. The mayor did not return calls seeking comment; the chief said it was "unfortunate" that the bill did not pass.

Everett Bobbitt, who represented several police groups, voiced concern that documents and hearings would be opened to the public when an allegation was sustained by a police agency, not later when adjudicated with the possibility of being overturned.

Other opponents who spoke Tuesday included Orange County Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson, who objected to the bill on behalf of Sheriff Michael S. Carona.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League said criminals could learn personal information about officers who were cracking down on them by filing unfounded complaints and then gathering information at a public hearing.
"Keeping such personnel matters private also allows for hearings to be focused on the facts of a case and not driven by media or public frenzy," the league said in a statement.