Los Angeles, CA. According to Hank Hernandez, chief legal counsel of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), the City of Los Angeles entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the police union four years ago. And now the City is attempting to change the agreement that was negotiated in good faith. Hernandez says the Police Commission's vote to require gang and narcotic officers to disclose their personal finances is "unacceptable."
The FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK® presents an exclusive eleven minute Video News Blog featuring Hernandez, a former LAPD Lt. who has served for over 20 years as the legal counsel to the Los Angeles police union. He describes the Federal Consent Decree as the reason the Police Commission voted to require financial disclosure. Among the disclosure requirements for gang and narcotic officers, to be implemented within ten days of the vote are:
- List of assets, investments and liabilities, even if jointly owned.
- Proof of bank accounts and mortgages with statements.
- Individual financial disclosures to be reviewed and questioned.
- Positions could be denied based upon the review.
Hernandez also describes how the LAPPL is advising the officers whether or not to comply and suggests the perils when an employer requires employees to turn over their personal information.
Viewers are asked to participate in an online opinion survey and to post their comments for discussion. Here are the survey questions:
- Elected officials don't have personal financial disclosure requirements. Should police officers?
- Do you think the financial disclosure requirement will deter quality officers from working gang or narcotics units?
- Or do you think the Federal Consent Decree has gone too far?
Known as "the news behind the news" Full Disclosure Network® cable television programs are featured on 45 cable systems and the Internet since 1992 and produced by host Leslie Dutton and Producer T. J. Johnston. In 2002 the Full Disclosure® special series "L. A.'s War Against Terrorism" was recognized by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences with a local Emmy Award for a public affairs, informational series. Channels and airtimes can be found on the website at www.fulldisclosure.net.
Comments to date: 56. This is page 1 of 6.
Sal Nesrevi Los Angeles, CA
Posted: 02:55 pm [PST] on May 04 2009
The officers do not feel there is anything wrong with disclosing their financial status, but why drag the spouse, children and associates. Just give new hires a polygraph exam and let it go at that.
Dom Orange County
Posted: 12:10 am [PST] on April 26 2009
This disclosure will not prevent corruption. It will only violate the rights and privacy of Law Enforcement personnel.
Joe Banana So. Cal.
Posted: 09:45 am [PST] on March 22 2009
If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding? Face it, the temptation will always be there, and we all know cops aren't "boy scouts", and all cops know when it comes to their word, against some drug lord's, which way the ball roll's. And since its legal to steal from drug dealers, what's to say, "hey, help yourself" doesn't apply? And with "asset forfeiture", someones gonna wind up with it anyway.
In actuality, NOT keeping close tabs on this activity, is a crime against the people. But, since the same agencies that investigate this, are the same ones involved, what's the problem?
Billy Joe North Hollywood Division
Posted: 10:58 pm [PST] on March 02 2009
I believe most if not all Officers and their supervisior will leave their units and find work elsewhere. Leaving the citizens unprotected.
ZimZam LA
Posted: 11:47 am [PST] on January 07 2009
The past has proven that these disclosure will not work and are fraught with problems. A former Assistant Chief filled one out every year ans lied, while helping his son launder drug money.
Tim From WeAreChangeLA Los Angeles
Posted: 02:30 pm [PST] on October 07 2008
The problem is, since the Los Angeles Police Department must be required to disclose personal finances, should not the elected representative do the same? The City Council scream full-disclosure, but the same is not required of them. It's hypocritical to demand the police to be transparent to the commons, yet the same city council remains in the dark. If the City Council reads this, we are the commons. You have an obligation to be transparent and to be that proverbial beacon in the night. Don't oppress the men and women for whom our tax money pay, while facts of your finances is kept in the dark. You scream about exposing the truth, but lie when it's your turn. Ask Forever21. Oh, I'm sorry the South Central Farmers.
JZ Los Angeles
Posted: 12:30 pm [PST] on August 25 2008
This is redicules. If you beleave someone is corrupt; investigate as you would any criminal. They certainly deserve the same right we all do.
Leslie Dutton Los Angeles
Posted: 11:00 am [PST] on July 23 2008
Chris: Please view our video news blogs #26 and #46 covering the subject of the conflict on the Federal Consent Decree and let us know what you think: At the top left hand side of this page there is a link to our Video Blog Index, or here are the URLs' to those short videos:
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/VideoBlogs/VideoBlog26.php
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/VideoBlogs/46.php
Chris LA County
Posted: 09:59 am [PST] on July 23 2008
Full Disclosure needs to study why the federal consent decree is nothing more than a money making machine for the private comapny that runs it..why would it be a benifit for themto report were in compliance. How much does Ed get paid to be involved in it...takes payers should know.
Tim Los Angeles
Posted: 01:41 pm [PST] on July 18 2008
No. Until the federal government
discloses information from corporations like Blackwater USA, a private corporation using taxpayer money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Los Angeles Police Department nor any of the law enforcement agencies, paid for by the commons be it city, county, state or federal should also be subject to the same rights