More madness: Second cop killer gets parole hearing

On November 4, 1978, Jesus Cecena executed San Diego Police Officer Archie Buggs.

On August 28, 2015, the onetime gang member has a parole hearing.

Cecena had been drinking beer and smoking PCP-laced marijuana when Buggs, a Vietnam veteran, pulled him and a fellow gang member over during a routine nighttime traffic stop in San Diego. After firing five shots at Buggs, Cecena pumped another round into the officer’s head as he lay dying in a gutter, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Now, despite his merciless slaughter of a man who dedicated his life to keeping his city’s citizens safe and secure, Cecena is asking the state to be merciful to him. This, courtesy of a new state law that makes it easier for criminals who committed heinous crimes as juveniles to be freed. (Cecena was four months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Buggs, who was one of a handful of black officers on the San Diego police force.)

Cecena’s case would be troubling if it stood alone. Sadly, it does not.

The state parole board freed a record 902 “lifers” this past year, far surpassing the numbers released in prior years. One of them was Voltaire Alphonse Williams, who, as we reported in a recent posting, played a central role in the brutal 1985 murder of LAPD detective Thomas Williams (no relation) in front of his six year-old son. The parole board, very quietly and without cause, freed Williams on Aug. 4, according to a detailed piece by Arnold Friedman in LA Observed. And the gang member with Cecena the night he murdered Buggs could add to the list of hardened criminals freely roaming the streets. Jose Arteaga, who was 20 at the time, likely will have a parole hearing later this year or in early 2016, according to the Times.

There is certainly room for compassion in criminal justice. But not for cop killers – no matter how difficult their childhoods were or their age when they committed the crime. There are few crimes more monstrous than murdering law enforcement officers. These killings are not just murders of individuals, they are attacks on the very foundation of our society. Law enforcement professionals – be they police or prosecutors – are on the front lines of a largely invisible but constant struggle to maintain order and protect innocent citizens against those who seek to do them harm.

To be sure, there is some cause for hope.

Last year, the parole board recommended that Cecena be freed. Gov. Jerry Brown rejected that incomprehensible suggestion, agreeing with prosecutors that Cecena remains a threat to the public and has not taken full responsibility for murdering Buggs. And a long list of current and retired law enforcement professionals vigorously oppose the release of the cold-blooded killer, including San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman. Dumanis said she will take the unusual step of attending Friday’s parole board hearing, according to the Times. We urge Gov. Brown to display the same wisdom and courage he displayed last year if the parole board again recommends freeing the callous cop killer.

But while there are glimmers of hope, there is much more cause for concern.

As evidenced by its decisions to free hundreds of lifers in the past year alone, the parole board appears to be hell-bent on emptying the state’s prisons, no matter what kind of mayhem they unleash on the state’s unsuspecting civilians. We’re also under assault from Prop. 47, which, as we have previously reported, turned a host of felonies into misdemeanors, allowing thousands of hardened criminals to be eligible for early release. Law enforcement professionals agree that the surge in crime in many parts of the state – including here in Los Angeles – is directly tied to this horribly misguided voter-approved initiative.

It is imperative that all Californians rally against the increasing tide of threats to every man, woman and child who reside in, or visit, this state. We will do our part by informing you immediately and in detail about all broad threats to public safety as we become aware of them. Today, we repeat the call that we issued earlier this month for Gov. Brown to dim the din of insanity, and fix a travesty of justice, by demanding a change in the parole board’s decision in the Williams case. If you want to contact the Governor directly about Williams or Cecena, click here.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Attorney General: Reed initiative eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension benefits

The California Attorney General has acknowledged that the scope of Chuck Reed’s initiative is to eliminate constitutional protection for the vested pension benefits for all current public employees, and subject their future salaries and benefits to a public vote.

In the  official “Title and Summary” for the initiative, the Attorney General states that the initiative, “Eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits for current public employees, including those working in K-12 schools, higher education, hospitals, and police protection, for future work performed.”   The summary also found the initiative would subject all public employee compensation to public vote.

This initiative is directed at every current public employee in the state, whether they are a Deputy District Attorney, Judge, police officer, firefighters, teacher, college professor or clerk. The Attorney General summary exposes as false Reed’s claim that his initiative is narrowly focused on pensions for future employees, not the vested benefits of current public employees.  Instead, the Attorney General analysis concludes that in addition to eliminating constitutional protection of vested benefits, it also lets voters direct the scope of collective bargaining, or disapprove agreements reached in collective bargaining.

The Attorney General was not the only public entity to provide analysis of the initiative.  We wrote about the initiative’s threat to the stability and existence of all pensions plans and its impact on disability benefits for future public employees, including police officers and firefighters.  CALPERS, meanwhile, issued a letter stating the initiative could cause IRS issues that would “affect the system’s tax exempt status;” and would “make providing death or disability benefits extremely impracticable.”

It is noteworthy that three days after the Attorney General’s “Title and Summary,” the San Jose City Council voted to ask a Judge to invalidate Reed’s 2012 Measure B — a pension initiative which devastated public safety in San Jose.  To quote a Bay Area columnist, “The city conceded that Measure B was a mistake, an error, a massive foot fault.  The council agreed to ask a judge to invalidate it, to brand it formally as incorrectly designed law.”   Unfortunately for San Jose, the damage Reed caused will take years to repair.

Reed has promised legal review of the Attorney General’s Title and Summary before attempting to collect signatures to qualify the initiative.  In the meantime, he has resorted to his familiar playbook of lies and invective labeling those opposing his initiative as “government union bosses” and repeating his false claim that the initiative doesn’t eliminate constitutional protections for vested benefits.

Please read our previous pension blogs, The destruction Chuck Reed wants to bring to California, Attention Shoppers: Don’t Sign that Misleading Pension Petition!, Your Pension is Under Attack and Fuzzy Math Continues To Drive Public Pension Hysteria.  If you want to learn more about pensions, we encourage you to visit Let’s Talk Pensions.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Announcement of Tentative Agreement for Successor MOU 7/25/15

BACKGROUND

As you know, our MOU with the County was scheduled to expire on September 30th of this year.  The Board of Directors is pleased to announce that after several months of informal discussions and formal negotiations, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys has executed a Tentative Agreement (TA) for a successor MOU with the County of Los Angeles.  The TA was executed by ADDA’s Contract Negotiation Team (CNT) on July 23, 2015 at 11:45 a.m. The Board of Directors and the CNT believes that this successor MOU is fair and equitable and recommends that the ADDA Membership vote in favor of ratification.

TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SUCCESSOR MOU

    • Term of Agreement

3 years (10/1/15 – 9/30/18)

    • Negotiated Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA)

10% over 3 years: 3%         10/01/15 3%         10/01/16 2%         10/01/17 2%         04/01/18

    • Promotional Testing

In an extensive parallel dialog with DA management, including District Attorney Jackie Lacey herself, the parties have agreed to review the existing practice and investigate alternatives to the much-despised written knowledge test component of the promotional exam process.  This portends a historic modification to what has become an onerous and disruptive ordeal. One sign of this you may have already noticed: The promotional lists were extended for a year, until June and August of 2016, while DA Management and the ADDA work out the details of the new promotional process. Further, in a virtually unprecedented demonstration of management’s good faith interest in improving this process, rather than merely asking us to trust her, District Attorney Lacey has provided a written statement of her interest in ameliorating the process with ADDA working alongside her management team. We are sharing that letter as an attachment here.

    • New Article 33 — MCLE Professional Development & Training

The ADDA agreed to a new contract provision that states in pertinent part: “… [M]anagement will grant as equitably as possible to all members of the bargaining unit paid County time to attend work-related educational programs such as conferences, workshops, seminars, or symposiums that offer approved MCLEs ….  Such approval shall not be unreasonably denied.” The long and the short of it is should any ADDA Member have concerns over the administration of what has been an exclusive management right, the matter will become subject to appeal through the previously negotiated Grievance Procedure.

    • Additional Protections

1. COLA Protection In addition the ADDA negotiated protection for ADDA Members with a Most Favored Nations (sometimes referred to as a “Me Too”) Clause.  In short, should any other LA County bargaining unit secure a more favorable general COLA, then ADDA Members shall receive the same benefit. 2. Longevity Pay Protection While the County rejected our proposals for Longevity Pay, we were able to negotiate protection for ADDA Members.  Should any other LA County bargaining unit that does not currently have this benefit secure Longevity Pay during this cycle of bargaining, ADDA Members shall receive the same benefit. 3. Other Represented County Attorney Unit Protection Additionally, recognizing that ADDA is not the only represented LA County attorney group, we negotiated protection for ADDA Members.  Specifically, any and all compensation increase(s) that the County agrees to grant to any other represented County attorneys will be extended to ADDA Members.

    • Other Terms & Conditions

Will be addressed in a separate explanatory message that accompanies the ratification ballot that will be mailed to your home address on record on August 10, 2015.  Perhaps the most important thing for you to know is that the CNT avoided any concessions or “give-backs” to the County or the DA’s Office by ADDA Members.

RATIFICATION PROCESS

To ensure Membership confidence, Haynie & Company—a highly regarded independent CPA firm with considerable experience in conducting such elections for unions—is conducting the entire ratification process.  They have agreed to make certain changes to the balloting process to eliminate any controversy as to the confidentiality of the vote. This has been a long time coming, and we appreciate your patience while we have rebuilt ADDA and simultaneously negotiated on your behalf.  We know that our work is far from finished, but this marks a great step forward for the world’s finest District Attorney’s Office.  We hope you will see that this contract confirms that your dedication and sacrifice as public servants has not gone unnoticed, and we are very proud to represent you. If you have any questions or comments, as well as to avoid circulating unsubstantiated rumors and conjecture about the details of the proposed MOU, please contact President Marc Debbaudt at (818) 489-9603 or mdebbaudt@laadda.com. I want to personally thank the Contract Negotiating Team: Vice President Michele Hanisee and our Treasurer James Evans, and the other Board Members who strongly support ratification of this agreement—Bobby Grace, Craig Gold, and Eric Siddall.  I also extend our thanks to the County’s Chief Negotiator, Maurice Cooper, and Assistant District Attorney Pam Booth with whom we worked closely.  After you read the letter about the promotional testing signed by District Attorney Jackie Lacey, please consider thanking her when you see her in the hallway. Finally, none of this would have happened if we hadn’t hired our highly experienced Executive Director & Chief Negotiator, John Rees, our subject-matter expert, Cathy O’Brien, and our Executive Assistant, Juliana Konze.  The retention of these invaluable staff members was made possible by the ADDA Members who voted to stop giving our dues money to the financial vampire known as AFSCME. Finally, I sincerely believe this agreement is proof that we were absolutely right to disaffiliate from AFSCME.  We have demonstrated that an independent ADDA could both save significant amounts of money and do as well, if not better, than anything AFSCME could have achieved. I believe the prestige and clout of your ADDA is growing and the future is promising, and the ADDA looks forward to continue to advance your interests. Thank you for your support and confidence. Sincerely, Marc

City must protect travelers at LAX through strong background checks for TNC drivers

By Michele Hanisee

On Tuesday (August 18) a committee of the Los Angeles City Council takes up the issue of allowing so-called transportation network companies (TNC) to access Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) legally. The Board of Airport Commissioners recently adopted a policy to do so and delegated authority to the Los Angeles World Airport’s executive director to implement a permit system, however the City Council asserted jurisdiction over the matter as it is entitled to do under the city’s Charter. In doing so, multiple Council members raised important issues about public safety, concerns that the ADDA share. There are other important policy issues surrounding TNC’s such as Uber and Lyft, but our focus is the issue of traveler safety.

Tourism is such a huge part of our regional economy and local residents as well as visitors to Los Angeles must have a transportation system that is safe. As TNCs become part of the growing number of airport access options, travelers should not be picked up by drivers with manslaughter, rape, identity fraud, or other serious felony convictions. The city’s taxicab regulations require taxi drivers to submit fingerprints when they apply to drive, which are then checked against the U.S. Department of Justice criminal database. Applicants with dangerous or questionable backgrounds are rejected. TNC drivers at LAX must be subject to the same finger printing and background check requirement. Sadly, the Board of Airport Commissioners was silent on this issue and it is unclear what type of background checks will be required for TNC drivers. If there are procedures that would enhance the rigor of background checks, these should be added too.

In addition, taxi drivers (as well as transit operators and limousine drivers) are screened for driving under the influence and reckless driving and are part the California Department of Motor Vehicles “Employer Pull Notice” program. Accidents, convictions, and license suspensions are all reported to the city so that they can be reviewed and taxi driver permits revoked, if appropriate. TNC drivers at LAX also must be screened through their DMV records and be part of the DMV Employer Pull Notice program. Again, the Board of Airport Commissioners did not make this a requirement.

The City Council must mandate finger print-based background checks through the U.S. DOJ, screening of DMV records, and participation in the DMV Employer Pull Notice program for TNC drivers. In addition, both the Council and the public must know what rules apply to the TNCs at LAX. This can only be achieved if the Board of Airport Commissioners adopts specific rules rather than delegating rulemaking to airport staff. This ensures transparency in the process, allows policy makers and the public to verify that adequate public safety rules are in place, and protects the millions of travelers that use LAX each year.

As such, the City Council should reject the Board of Airport Commissioners fuzzy TNC policy and require that specific rules are adopted that protect public safety. The traveling public deserves nothing less.

Michele Hanisee is Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA which represents nearly 1,000 Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.

Widow of Murdered LAPD Detective Thomas Williams Speaks Out

Our most recent blog post, “California Crazy: Conspirator in Cop Killing Paroled” was about the pending parole of Voltaire Williams who was a conspirator in the murder of LAPD Detective Tom Williams.

We urge everyone to read the powerful letter from Tom’s widow Norma and then take the time to write to Governor Jerry Brown and ask him to reverse the decision of the Parole Board. You can contact the Governor directly by clicking here and referencing Voltaire Williams, CDC number E17796.   Below Norma’s letter is a sample letter you can send to the Governor.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

 

Norma C. Williams

August 12, 2015

 

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.

ATTENTION: Legal

State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, Ca 95814

Re: Voltaire Williams (no relation)

CDC # E17796

Dear Honorable Governor Brown:

This letter is being sent to you with immense grief and sadness. I learned on August 4th that Voltaire Williams was granted a parole pending a review period of 120 days or less.

Governor Brown, I pray that YOU and your staff take the time to review all of the facts of the case.  Voltaire Williams may not have directly murdered my husband, LAPD Detective Thomas C. Williams but he was one of Daniel Jenkins’ accomplices in the murder plot.  The record shows that Voltaire Williams, at the behest of Jenkins, RECRUITED a potential assassin who backed out of the plot when he saw my husband Tom arrive at the planned location of the “hit” and suspected that the intended victim was a police officer and not a security guard as he had been informed.

As you consider the pending parole, you should also know that a murder plot against me and my children was discovered during the investigation of the murder case. It was disclosed by another one of Jenkins’ henchmen that while looking for Tom at or near the school that he had gone by our home.  A call was made to Daniel Jenkins to report that Tom was not around.  The person asked Jenkins, “The family is here – do you want me to take them out?”  That plan was obviously not carried out.

Most importantly, it is a fact that Voltaire Williams himself, only a few days before the murder, was “staked out” in front of the school in anticipation of Tom’s arrival to pick up Ryan. Tom did not show as expected. We later learned that Voltaire was there to kill Tom and in possession of a gun given to him by Daniel Jenkins. Upon hearing the news of Voltaire Williams’ pending release, my adult children and I were devastated and I hope that you will use this information to deny Voltaire parole.

You should also know that the “decision” to grant Voltaire parole pending was decided by only TWO Parole Board members – not the usual number of Board members.   If you do not personally intervene and do the right thing and reverse the decision of two people, I would like to DEMAND THAT THE FULL PAROLE BOARD review these two members’ decision and that all the facts of this case be introduced into the record.

I implore you Governor Brown to REVERSE the idiotic decision made by two people who did not weigh all the facts or take into account the real danger Voltaire poses for society.  As the record will show, after Tom’s murder, my children and I were under protection due to known and credible threats.  Voltaire is a follower and if released would resort to his old ways and associates.  He is neither remorseful nor “rehabilitated” and he has been counseled on how to “play the system” in prison.

If Voltaire Williams is released, I strongly fear that my children, my grandchildren and I will be in real danger.  That is the reason I moved out of California which was my home state and where Tom gave his life protecting others.  I am more concerned about my safety and welfare.

Please Governor Brown, do not allow the Parole Board to render this decision.  Please give me and my family peace of mind.  We always believed in the judicial system as well as did Tom. He was a wonderful father, husband and friend to many.  Tom’s memory and ultimate sacrifice should not be diminished due to prison “over-crowding” or economic reasons.  Tom was proud to be an LAPD Detective and only wanted to keep his community and family safe.  He was the son of an Army career officer and was offered an appointment to West Point. Tom turned it down by saying, “My future is being a police officer and the only department I want to join is the Los Angeles Police Department… no other.”

My children will be sending you their letters stating their thoughts. While I know that you have heard from many people in and out of law enforcement begging and pleading with you to reverse the illogical decision of two members of the Parole Board, please read their letters carefully and consider the emotional pain our family has suffered for over 30 years from a person who shows no remorse and is still a danger to the residents of California.

Sincerely,

Norma Williams

Wife of LAPD Detective Thomas C. Williams

 

 Sample Letter

Dear Governor Brown,

I am writing to urge you to reverse the decision to parole inmate Voltaire Williams CDC # E17796.

Voltaire Williams was involved in the murder of Los Angeles Police Detective Thomas Williams on October 31, 1985.

The murder of Detective Williams was carefully planned over several days and committed in retaliation against an officer who was merely performing his assigned duties, the investigation of a robbery of a movie theater manager in the act of making a bank deposit at a “night drop.”

Detective Williams was assassinated in front of his six-year-old son Ryan.  Detective Williams was off duty at the time of the murder, picking up his son from the church school that he attended.  Ryan saw his father gunned down in a hail of bullets from a fully automatic MAC-10 assault rifle.  It is astonishing that neither Ryan, who was standing less than six feet away from his dad, nor any of the other children inside and outside the school, were struck by the fusillade of bullets that penetrated the nearby classroom walls.

Voltaire Williams himself sat “in wait” to kill Detective Williams the week prior to the actual murder.  Voltaire in his 2011 Parole Board hearing admitted that he accepted the contract to kill Detective Williams for $2,000 and sat across the street from the school.  He was thwarted from the killing only because Detective Williams arrived to pick up his son from a direction different from his normal route.  That is when he decided against committing the murder himself and retained someone else to commit the murder of Detective Williams.

While the state has the requirement to reduce the population of the California Prison system under the Federal mandate, you cannot possibly believe in good conscience that releasing Voltaire Williams is a suitable way to fulfill those goals.  Please overturn the decision of the Parole Board and deny his parole!

Sincerely,

XX

California Crazy: Conspirator in Cop Killing Paroled — A Hint of Things to Come?

The headlong rush to empty California prisons of dangerous criminals who are serving life sentences has unfortunately received scant coverage by the media. Most people would be horrified to know that a record 902 “lifers” were granted parole this past year, far surpassing the numbers released in prior years.

A case in point is Voltaire Alphonse Williams, who played a central role in the brutal 1985 murder of LAPD detective Thomas Williams (no relation) in front of his young son. The goal of this assassination was to stop Detective Williams from testifying in a robbery trial. As reported in detail in a piece by Arnold Friedman in LA Observed, Williams was granted parole on Aug. 4.

Detective Williams had just picked up his six year-old son from school and was about to get into his truck when a gunman approached and unloaded 18 rounds at them. Williams only had time to tell his son to duck before being struck eight times. He was killed instantly; his son miraculously escaped unharmed.

Voltaire Williams was not the gunman. But he played a key role in attempts to kill Detective Williams so that he could not testify against Daniel Jenkins, who was about to stand trial for a violent robbery. Jenkins had hired Voltaire Williams to arrange for a hitman to murder the detective. Voltaire Williams was supervising the hitman during the first murder attempt, but the hitman backed out when he saw Williams with his son. After the hitman refused Williams’ plea to try again, Jenkins dressed in a disguise and murdered the detective himself.  The case was broken open when the hitman went to the police after the murder.

Law enforcement groups around the state, led by the  Los Angeles Police Protective League, lobbied tirelessly for Williams to remain behind bars. Their efforts appeared to have paid off. In 2014, a parole board denied parole to Williams, ruling he would not be allowed to apply again until 2017.

But this month, the parole board, on its own, suddenly granted Williams parole. There was no change in circumstances from last year, when Williams was told to wait three years to reapply. The reason for the board’s incomprehensible decision appears to be nothing more than a simple desire to empty prisons.  The magnitude of the crime, and the devastation it inflicted on Detective Williams’ family appear to be just footnotes in a move designed to free up a prison bed.

This is a parole that should NEVER have been granted. The murder of Detective Williams was a direct assault on the criminal justice system, undertaken for the sole purpose of trying to ensure that a person would not stand trial for or be convicted of a violent robbery. The justice system is ill served by the board’s inexplicable and unjustifiable reversal of course.

Why is Williams fit for parole now, when he wasn’t a year ago? How many of the 902 “lifers” who committed horrific crimes of their own were granted parole because their crimes occurred long ago and weren’t in the headlines?  On what criteria is the parole board basing its flip-flops?

The Los Angeles City Council was right in 2011 when it passed a resolution to oppose the release of Williams. Today we call on Governor Brown to fix a travesty of justice by reversing the parole board’s decision.  If you want to contact the Governor directly, click here and reference Voltaire Williams, CDC number E17796.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

Prosecutors Rely On Facts And Evidence, Not Individual Biases In Making Charging Decisions

By Bobby Grace

A recent opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times by two Stanford law professors discussed a study they conducted that purportedly documents a lack of diversity among California prosecutors.  The op-ed created a great deal of discussion among career prosecutors in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

The essential premise of the article was that criminal justice system would be fairer and more just if the local prosecutor offices were staffed with more attorneys who were of the same ethnicity or race as the communities they served.  In this claim, the authors failed.

Buried in the piece was the author’s admission their study “did not analyze how workforce diversity in prosecutors’ offices influences the outcome of criminal cases.”  Their claim that other (unnamed) researchers have found minorities receive different sentences when minorities are underrepresented by prosecutors is a non-sequitur.  Sentences are imposed by Judges, not prosecutors.  Nor was their premise of unequal treatment advance by their claim that, “respect for the law and trust in legal institutions are undermined” when prosecutors are not diverse.

I agree that diversity is laudable goal in all facets of life including the criminal justice system. Diversity is improving in prosecutor’s offices, and prosecutor gender diversity is very high.  In fact, in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office females comprise the majority of prosecutors, and the elected district attorney is an African American female.

Any lack of diversity is not the product of intentional discrimination.  Prosecutors can only be hired from one distinct population — lawyers.  Regrettably, attendance of law schools by minorities, both by color and ethnicity, is low.   African Americans and Latinos, the groups most represented as charged defendants, have low representation in the legal profession and in law schools.

Diversity is very important, but let me be clear; there is no real evidence that it affects what happens in a criminal courtroom. All prosecutors in California took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and the State of California, and have promised to seek the fair administration of justice regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. It is a promise that the residents of California should demand they adhere to, and if there is a failure to do so it must be exposed and corrected.

The authors of the Times opinion piece, Debbie Mukamal and David Alan Sklansky, offer no evidence whatsoever that prosecutors in California treat those accused of a crime differently based on race, creed, or sexual orientation. As an African American prosecutor I took the oath I described above. I chose this profession because it is important to me that my community gets the same fair and just law enforcement as any other group in California. I expect my Asian, Latino and white colleagues to ensure that happens in every courtroom in Los Angeles County.  Does it happen in every instance? No. Sadly racism exists in any large institution in America and the criminal justice system is no different.

The authors discuss prosecutors’ diversity by talking about high profile deadly force cases involving police officers across the country.   The public understandably has questions when a police officer kills a person who later is found to be unarmed and not attempting to unarm an officer.  While we can debate the justification of any individual killing, it is clear this issue is causing deep mistrust of the criminal justice system by communities of color. But the color of the prosecutor’s skin, their gender, or ethnic background does not determine if you will be charged with a crime by a Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney.  Either the evidence supports the criminal charge, or it doesn’t.

In my experience, the prosecutors within the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office rely on facts and evidence, not individual biases, in making charging decisions and handling criminal cases. I do not know of a single Deputy District Attorney that treats cases differently based on the individual Deputy District Attorney’s race, ethnicity, or gender.  I am confident that prosecutors across the state do the same.  It should be the expectation of every person living in Los Angeles County that such professionalism exists in all cases, and that every case be handled based on the facts and evidence without consideration of the gender, race or creed of the defendant.

Diversity as a goal is laudable; it is not a substitute for ethical behavior by prosecutors, which I believe the residents of California should demand and receive.

Bobby Grace is a Director of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.

The destruction Chuck Reed wants to bring to California

This past month saw verdicts rendered on San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed.  The first verdict came from the City of San Jose, where after reeling from two years of real life consequences of Reed’s 2012 pension measure, the City’s Mayor announced a settlement with police and fire unions that eliminated the substantive changes Reed had enacted.

The second verdict came in the form of an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) of the initiative Reed wants to place on the 2016 ballot.  Reed’s proposed initiative would impose pension, compensation and retiree health care changes on all public employees in California.  Reed’s changes in San Jose proved to be disastrous, but the future changes he proposes for California would be catastrophic

In 2012, Reed pushed through Measure B in San Jose, as he waged a full scale war on public employees through derisive name calling, lying about the scope of pension deficits, and a refusing to consider real pension savings of $467 million at the bargaining table.

Reed’s Measure B was draconian, cutting pension benefits for future employees, imposing crippling costs on current employees who wished to stay in the pension system, and in practice ending disability benefits for all employees.  For example, San Jose police officers who wish to keep their current pensions would have to pay nearly 41% of their pay into the pension system. 

The “disability reform” in the measure was even more drastic.  Normally an officer who is injured in the line of duty and unable to return to police work receives a disability retirement.  Reed’s measure prohibited an officer from receiving disability retirement if the officer could perform any other function in the police department (dispatcher, evidence technician, etc.) — even if there was not an opening for the other position!

Needless to say, the City of San Jose became the “place to be from” for public employees, not the place to work. A once proud police department of 1,350 officers was reduced to 850 officers, as officers retired or left for other police agencies.  Recruitment fell off the cliff-Academy classes authorized for 60 cadets averaged less than 15, with many cadets leaving upon graduation for other departments.

Community public safety suffered immediately.  With a shortage of patrol officers and detectives, the crime rate soared above the national average, as murders increased 33 percent and robberies increased 37 percent over 2004 rates.  Sex crimes detectives who remain carry caseloads approaching 60 cases.  There is one property crimes detective for the entire city.  Vehicle theft increased 61%, and with motorcycle officers cut from 36 to 10, vehicle fatalities increased 61% over 2010 numbers.  The fire department was so short staffed it could not meet their minimum response times.

In addition to the exodus of employees, the City spent millions in court in an unsuccessful attempt to uphold Reed’s initiative.  A Superior Court ruled that the imposition of pension costs on employees violated the California Constitution, but did uphold the measure’s 16% pay cut if the pension increases were struck down in court.  However, rather than impose the cuts, the San Jose City Council was forced to give large raises to employees in an attempt to retain them; as an example – 10% for police officers, 14% for fighters.

Reed’s real life experiment in the City of San Jose has been an unmitigated disaster.  Unable to admit defeat, and in a statement reminiscent of the infamous “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,” Reed claimed the settlement “protected much of the savings” in Measure B.  That statement ignores reality-any “savings” that occurred in the two year period came about because of the enormous number of vacant city positions.  As employees left, replacements could not be hired and public safety suffered as a result.

Reed’s 2016 ballot measure makes his Measure B look like a minor tweak.  The 2016 initiative is a full scale assault on every aspect of public employee benefits and compensation, NOT just a “pension initiative concerning future employees,” as he claims. 

Current employees will see their vested pension rights, known as the “California rule”, eliminated. This means that for future years of work the formula under which current employees accrue service credit for pensions could be decreased—or eliminated.  The same would apply for retiree healthcare benefits.  However, the initiative goes beyond pensions and retiree healthcare.  It eviscerates collective bargaining, allowing initiatives to direct the county as to what to offer in negotiations and referendums to overturn any collective bargaining agreement that may be reached.

Future employees fare worse because the initiative forbids new employees from joining the pension plan or even enrolling in a 401k plan unless specifically approved by voters.  Any plan they do join will be subject to modification or elimination by voter initiative at any point in their career.  Disability retirements for all employees, including police, firefighters and lifeguards, will be eliminated as those benefits are provided through defined benefit plans which the new employees cannot join. And, the new employees will see their salaries subject to change at any time by initiative or referendum.

The initiative affects retired employees as well, as it threatens the ability of every pension system in the state to accrue the funds needed to pay benefits.  The initiative prohibits pension funds from using commonly accepted financial techniques to close any funding gaps that may arise as a result of plan changes imposed by the initiative.  An internal analysis by CALSTRS released this week confirmed the fund would be put at risk should this initiative pass.

If that were not enough, local or state initiatives would be allowed to change current pension plans: those changes could include overriding state restrictions or regulations, making it highly likely plans would be destabilized or bankrupted, as well as possibly being in violation of federal or state tax requirements.

The detailed LAO analysis, the first official view of Reed’s initiative, confirms that Reed’s measure goes far beyond whether future employees may be enrolled in defined benefit plans. The LAO, after noting the initiative’s effect on current employees, disability benefits and collective bargaining, concluded that, “There is significant uncertainty as to the magnitude, timing, and direction of the fiscal effects of this measure and its effects on current and future governmental employees’ compensation,” with lengthy court battles predicted should the measure pass.

The next step before circulation of the initiative is a “Title and summary” by the Attorney General.  This, in contrast to the LAO report, will be a detailed legal analysis of the initiative.  In 2014, an accurate Attorney General analysis of a Reed pension initiative that was upheld in court prompted Reed withdraw the initiative. We will see what he does after his latest scheme undergoes legal scrutiny by the Attorney General.

Please read our previous pension blogs Attention Shoppers: Don’t Sign that Misleading Pension Petition!, Your Pension is Under Attack and Fuzzy Math Continues To Drive Public Pension Hysteria.  If you want to learn more about pensions, we encourage you to visit Let’s Talk Pensions.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.