Mayberry, not Maywood

WHERE DO sheriff’s deputies and LAPD officers go after they’ve been fired for abusing their authority or misbehaving on the job? According to a Times investigation published Sunday, at least a few have ended up policing the streets of the tiny, beleaguered cities of Maywood and Cudahy, densely-packed municipalities in the southeast portion of Los Angeles County.

Maywood is patrolled in part by convicted criminals, officers who expect free meals at local restaurants and others who the acting police chief said “slipped through the cracks” and helped give the 37-member force a reputation as the “department of second chances.” Even the chief has a criminal record.

Maywood’s challenges are so pervasive that no single solution -- certainly no single piece of legislation -- can turn it around. But one bill could help prevent future Maywoods from happening by restoring the public’s access to information about the people who patrol their streets. State Senate Bill 1019, by Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), is a response to the California Supreme Court decision last August that ended the ability of many cities to open officer employment and discipline records.

The bill would not instantly reverse Maywood’s problems -- even before the Supreme Court decision, officer records could only be opened via city action. But even in municipalities with higher police standards, like Los Angeles, the public needs to know what kind of people are enforcing the law and how they are doing it. LAPD officers chafe at having their personnel records subject to scrutiny, but knowledge of how they do their jobs mostly reinforces public confidence.

In “second chance” cities, officers now protected from scrutiny may truly have something to worry about if Romero’s bill becomes law. That’s as it should be. A city like Maywood must put public safety ahead of providing scrutiny-free employment opportunities to cops who couldn’t meet the standards in more reputable departments.