Art Critical of Police Defaced : Vandalism: Names of slain officers are placed on two bus-bench protests against shootings by San Diego police.

At least two of the 25 bus-bench artworks aimed at protesting the deadly-force policy of the San Diego Police Department turned up defaced Wednesday, in ways that one of four artists who designed the ads characterized as “pro-police.”

The bus bench at 15th Street and Broadway--in the shadow of San Diego police headquarters--now carries within the ads the names of two officers killed in the line of duty, as well as replicas of two badges.

The bench at 14th Street and Broadway--in the same block as police headquarters--now bears a graffito that, in large white letters, reads, “Kops Are OK.” After the words, “America’s Finest?,” someone has spray-painted two large exclamation points.

Asked about the ads, Harry Eastus, a member of the San Diego Police Officers Assn., said: “Is it defacing? It probably could be. It probably could be vandalism. . . . I don’t know.”

Eastus and Ronald Newman, president of the association, said they do not knew who defaced the ads. Newman, who represents about 1,750 police officers, said he knows of no one “who likes the ads,” but added, “It wasn’t that big a deal yesterday (Tuesday), and it’s not that big a deal today.”

Nevertheless, Newman said he was “100% upset” about the cost of the ads--more than $3,600--having been funded through federal tax dollars in the form of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

“I don’t like the fact that it’s our tax dollars, too, and it’s going to criticize us ,” he said.

Newman said he had considered the possibility of the officers’ association obtaining funding from the NEA to do a counter-ad but then dismissed the idea.

“I talked to a number of officers about it, and the opinions run pretty varied,” he said. “Some think it’s just another unwarranted shot at people who have a very tough job, and others think it’s all pretty comical. Most don’t care about it.”

Deborah Small, one of four artists who conceived the protest and designed the ads, said Wednesday that she considers the so-called defacement of the ads “just another form of public expression,” although in her words it is clearly “pro-police.”

Jerry Hartley and Robert McPherson were officers killed in the line of duty, whose names were inscribed on the bus-bench ad at 15th and Broadway. Small said it was her understanding that one of the officers died in 1929, “which puts kind of a funny spin on it.”

Asked what she meant, she said, “Well, that was an awful long time ago.”

Small said she was most upset about a picture of a bus-bench ad that appears on a bulletin board somewhere within the San Diego Police Department. Small said that, on the picture, someone has drawn an artist’s palette within one of five shooting-range targets. She called the picture “reprehensible.” (No police spokesmen could be reached Wednesday for comment or confirmation.)

“There you have a hostile picture in an in-house display,” she said. “And, as for the tax-dollars’ issue, we use such dollars to support a police department with no accountability. It seems as though anyone who criticizes police in our free society may end up themselves as potential targets.”

The art work she helped design features the outline of seven human bodies silhouetted in black against a blood-red background. Within each figure is a target, similar to those at police shooting ranges. Within one target is a trowel, within another a baseball bat, within another a garden stake. A pair of upraised hands and a question mark are drawn within others.

She said the ads were in response to the 23 people who have been shot by San Diego police, nine fatally, in so-called deadly-force shootings since the beginning of the year. Among those killed were men wielding a baseball bat, a trowel and a garden stake. Another man was unarmed.

She said the artists were hoping to provoke a “fiercer public dialogue,” in the absence of what they consider an adequate police review board--namely, one with subpoena powers.

The artists donated their time to create the ad but said the cost to produce the displays and rent the space--$3,662.50--was paid out of a $12,500 grant awarded in 1989 for the funding of social-protest art.

Given that the NEA has become an embattled federal agency because of such controversial projects, Small said the risk, in this case, was worth it.

“Ultimately, San Diegans have to decide whether they want free expression, or whether they don’t,” she said. “If there’s a backlash against other groups that receive NEA funding, well, I don’t think that bodes well for democracy, now does it? If so, we’re stifling everyone. What are we trying for here, an environment in which there’s no criticism, no dissent, a city where the only point of view is the police point of view?”

On Tuesday, Police Chief Bob Burgreen said that, although he hates the ads and considers them a “cheap shot,” he would “go to war” to protect someone’s right to free expression.

“The chief and I don’t always agree,” Ron Newman, president of the police officers’ association, said Wednesday. “But I’ll also defend anyone’s right to free speech. I just think these artists are a bunch of wackos, the same screwy bunch of people, the warped-mind set, if you will, who go off on tangents that have no basis in reality.

“I will tell you straight out that this community supports its police officers. The number of shootings this year are no higher or lower than they have been in previous years. But, somehow, the media are all involved in it now. They’re making it a big issue.

“But, eventually, I think the ads will have a good effect. I think, by and large, the community is fed up with this kind of protest, this abuse against police.”

Newman said he had called Arlan Renfro, the president of Coast United Advertising in Commerce--the company that reproduced the ads under contract with the artists--and asked him “hypothetically” if he could move one of the bus-bench ads from near the police station, so as not to offend officers.

“He said he would review the contract and get back to me, but he never did, and it doesn’t matter, because it isn’t that big a deal,” Newman said. “Those people are entitled to say what they want, and besides, it’s backfiring on them anyway.”