NOTES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Why are we under attack?

Have you wondered why you hear so much about the FOP and other law enforcement unions being raided by AFL- CIO or other unions that have broken away from the AFL-CIO, like the Teamsters and SEIU. Well if you haven't figured out why, let me give you a hint………….its called 'Give me the Money'. We are all familiar with the term "Show me the Money", but the Teamsters, IUPA, CWA and a host of other unions don't want you to show them the money they want you to give them the money.

This is not something new; it has been in the works for a few years now. The AFL-CIO and the other trade unions have been losing membership for years now. This did not hurt them money-wise because as membership dropped, dues were increasing at the same time. However, they realized that had kept on top of the membership and worked to keep it up they could have been farther ahead in the money game.

When they did start to look for ways to build up their membership again, one pot of gold that was out there for them to reach for was Law Enforcement. Now that's not to say that some Law Enforcement Officers weren't part of AFL-CIO already, but the small Law Enforcement membership numbers they have is nothing compared to what is out there untouched by them.

As you know, if you have looked into the AFL-CIO, they will eat their own if it will benefit them. For example IUPA likes to say that they are the only sanctioned AFL-CIO law enforcement union out there. But how can that be when the big boys in the AFL-CIO have let other unions recruit and continue to recruit law enforcement into their ranks. We all know that the Teamsters, CWA, SEIU and AFSCME, just to name a few, have recruited and continue to recruit law enforcement, so much for IUPA being the only sanctioned union for law enforcement.

Now for the part that you may not have heard about, there was an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times titled "L.A. gang members go union May 21, 2007". A rising number of gang bangers are moving into well-paid futures as members of the region's building trade unions. Sam Quinones, Times Staff Writer, talks about how the unions are now reaching out to the gangs for membership……….give me the money………..they don't care from where they get it, just give it to them.

Read this article (www.latimes.com) "L.A. gang members go union" it ran in the paper on May 21, 2007 and think about this:

(continued from page 1)

Anyone can promise you that golden egg but beware; I doubt they are the hen that can lay that golden egg. Truck drivers, electrician, plumbers, warehouse workers and other trades have their own unions; this is because they know what is best needed for their members. So doesn't it make sense that we should have our own union for the same reason?

National News
FOP'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BILL PASSES HOUSE!
07/17/2007

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed today's passage of H.R. 980, the "Public Employee-Employer Cooperation Act," on a 314-97 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The FOP and our friends at the International Association of Fire Fighters have been working to pass this legislation for more than a decade," Canterbury said. "Because of our joint efforts and our bipartisan approach, we scored a tremendous victory this afternoon. Together, we'll work to get it through the Senate and then onto the President's desk."

The legislation, introduced jointly by Representatives Dale Kildee (D-MI) and John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN), would recognize the right of public safety employees to bargain collectively over hours, wages, and working conditions. The legislation currently has two hundred and seventy-eight (278) cosponsors, more than a majority of the House. The bill was favorably reported by the Committee Education and Labor in June on a 42-1 vote.

"As law enforcement officers, we take our oath and commitment to protect and serve very seriously," Canterbury said. "Public safety occupations are unique, and their labor relations need to reflect that. Ours is not the traditional labor-management relationship. In our line of work, the bottom line is the safety of the public and of the officer."

The legislation now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

Cop lobby flexes its muscle
The cop lobby uses its muscle to shut down public oversight of bad officers.

STEVEN GREENHUT Sr.
editorial writer and columnist

"The Brotherhood" - members of California's various police and law enforcement unions - showed up in force at the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee hearing Tuesday morning in Sacramento. There were perhaps hundreds of them in attendance - mostly big, burly white men, dressed typically in sport coats that were emblazoned with pins from the cop agencies and government unions they represent.

Continued on page 3

Continued from page 2....

Quite frankly, they strutted around like they owned the place, which is pretty accurate given that they basically do own most of the legislators.

The front rows of seats in the audience at the committee are reserved for legislators and are occasionally used by their staff. But Tuesday, while the committee considered a Senate-passed proposal that would allow the public to learn about police officers who are disciplined for abusing their power or breaking the law, those seats each were reserved with a notebook piece of paper stating, "For guests of Chairman Solorio." Jose Solorio is the Santa Ana Democrat who chairs the committee and he held those seats for his special, invited guests - various law enforcement lobbyists.

The legislation at issue was Senate Bill 1019, which would overturn a state Supreme Court decision last year that destroyed the state's longtime policy of openness by granting all law enforcement a special layer of police-state-like secrecy when it comes to police wrongdoing. Previously, Speaker Fabian Nuñez - who, ironically, had made strong public comments criticizing police tactics and misbehavior after the Los Angeles Police Department thuggishly cleared MacArthur Park after immigration protests May 1 - had removed from the committee Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who supports police oversight, and failed to replace him. Perhaps symbolically, one member of a diverse group supporting the bill tried to sit in one of the reserv ed seats but was shooed away.

And, so, before the meeting even started, anyone paying close attention to the room's dynamics could see that the fix was in. Leno was gone, the cop lobbyists sat in the front as special guests. Solorio, at the behest of both parties' leadership, shoved public concerns out of the way for the benefit of one influential interest group. That group's members were cocky about this win, as the cops sitting around me laughed and joked as supporters of the bill told their stories. "Get a haircut," one of them said rather loudly to some laughter as a pony-tailed backer of the bill explained his support for it.

It wasn't funny to me, but this level of disrespect for the public summed up the entire meeting. This was as close an example in Sacramento of a vote as one will find pitting the public's interest against a particular interest group. Sacramento watchers shouldn't be surprised that the special interest won.

It's a hallmark of a free society that government officials, especially those who have life-and-death power over others, need to be held accountable. For decades, there was at least a system of open records in dealing with abusive officers. All government employees face public disclosure of their on-the-job misbehavior. All members of the public face public disclosure after they are, say, arrested - before a conviction or acquittal is granted. Yet law enforcement, after last year's decision, gets a pass. An officer can mistakenly arrest you, can beat you, can even kill you and then the public (including victims and their families) will learn nothing about the investigation or whether that officer is disciplined. The public now is forbidden from learning about the background of officers who repeatedly use excessive force.

Continued on page 4

Continued from page 3

"Ultimately, this bill is about the public's right to know, about the public's ability to hold government accountable," said Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, a liberal Democrat and author of SB1019. In a previous statement, the conservative Sen. Tom McClintock, a Thousand Oaks Republican and a co-sponsor, agreed: "The police exercise the ultimate of official power - and that ought to be tempered by the ultimate of public scrutiny. Unfortunately, because of a combination of bad law and a bad court decision … the police have the least public scrutiny."

Terry Francke, speaking briefly on behalf of his First Amendment organization, called California Aware, said, appropriately, that "no other organization insists on total secrecy for the worst among them." At the hearing, the mother of a girl killed when a police chase went awry, explained: "Things should be found out. What they do wrong should be corrected. The way things are now, we will never know [what happened]." Exactly. Organizations cannot oversee themselves. Free societies err on the side of openness, because openness leads to justice and to improved policies. No one wants additional oversight for themselves - certainly not members of a government union - but that's where legislators need to step in and put the public first.

Solorio gave a bizarre, rambling speech complaining about the rapper Ice-T, about rap-music lyrics in general, worrying about the effect of open government on police recruitment efforts and claiming that police already are vilified by the public. (Actually, they seem to be treated like heroes and given every benefit of the doubt and every possible protection, but that's an argument for another day.) He then offered Sen. Romero the chance to withdraw her bill. She defiantly refused and demanded a vote. None of the committee members had the guts to offer a motion to vote on the bill. They all sat around looking po-faced, and then the bill, for all intents and purposes, died. It was an act of cowardice by Solorio and his fellow members. "We come to Sacramento to vote, not remain silent," Romero rightly complained.

The arguments from Solorio and the cop lobby were mostly deceitful. Opponents claimed that the bill went too far. Yet Romero and her supporters amended the bill so it didn't go nearly as far as the original. SB1019 would let municipalities decide whether or not to have open disciplinary hearings, and it created a special protection by allowing a police chief to allow certain information to be secret because of its sensitive nature. The chairman claimed that he didn't like the bill because it allowed cities to set their own standards and that he preferred a statewide standard. Yet Solorio opposed the previous bill also, which included those exact standards he now said he wants. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland, where words don't mean anything in particular, but rather are spin to excuse a preordained conclusion.

As far as wanting more amendments, a frustrated Romero told the committee: "I introduced this bill months and months and months ago. … Not one amendment has ever been offered to me. Not one paragraph, not one sentence, not one word, not one syllable." What was offered from two leading police organizations: a direct threat to legislators that the groups would oppose term-limits reform (that's hitting below the belt, given that legislators desperately want to stay in office longer) if this legislation ever becomes law.

Backers of the bill assembled a wide range of supporters. The list of opponents consisted entirely of police organizations, unions and government groups.

Continued on page 5

Continued from page 4

What is it they fear? The Orange County Sheriff's Department was represented at the hearing, and opposed the legislation, as was the Orange County District Attorney's Office. Ironically, opponents argued that SB1019 isn't needed because cities already have civilian oversight of law enforcement. Yet O.C.'s sheriff and D.A. also testified at the county Board of Supervisors meeting in opposition to civilian review.

They don't call it the Secrecy Lobby for nothing.

What a disgusting outcome. In a free society, the law should tilt in favor of oversight, in favor of the public's right to know. In all the discussions at the hearing, the voice missing from the debate, Romero pointed out, was the public's. "The people were absent."

Our voice is still missing, but it's never too late to raise it.

Contact the writer: sgreenhut@ocregister.com or 714-796-7823

Letters: Police also want truthful investigations of wrongdoing

Letters to the Editor for July 8

Sunday, July 8, 2007

I am writing in response to Commentary columnist Steven Greenhut's angry and contemptuous column, "Cop lobby flexes its muscle" http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1749155.php [Commentary, July 1].

If critics would differentiate between errors and misconduct, perhaps police officials would be less apprehensive about divulging information and admitting mistakes.

Police are widely criticized for virtually everything we do. Lack of knowledge and a general misunderstanding of how and why we do what we do lead to grossly exaggerated accusations that often treat unfortunate mistakes the same as willful misconduct.

Many of the people we deal with have a vested interest in lying about our actions to create suspicion about our truthfulness. Is it not understandable that this results in wariness and caution on the part of police about releasing evidence and information prematurely? We are also bound by laws and policies that prohibit us from discussing or disseminating certain facts until the conclusion of legal proceedings.

Continued from Page 5

When mistakes happen, our actions are evaluated and critiqued - not only by our fellow officers, but by our supervisors, administrators, city and county officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, suspects, community organizations and the ever-diligent media.

It not only makes sense that some cops have left the street to become political activists in order to protect the rights and reputations of their fellow officers; it would be political suicide not to have lobbyists combating those who defend the rights of criminals.

Too often, civilian oversight committees are lead by anti-police zealots who bring political aspirations and agendas to their investigations and are more interested in blaming cops than finding truth.

Despite Greenhut's assertions, most police welcome the shining light of truth on our actions. Our organizations should always strive to do a better job of evaluating mistakes so they occur less often. But logic, tempered with educated perspective, and not emotion, should be used to evaluate whether those mistakes result from honest attempts to take preventative action or wrongful misuse of the power entrusted to us by the people and bestowed upon us by the Constitution of the United States.

Doug Woodward of Garden Grove http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1756363.php