Bill on Police Accountability

In response to your editorial, “Undermining Police Accountability,” Feb. 20:

I voted for Assembly Bill 2067 because I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement officers do tough and valuable work. I also believe that those who abuse their authority should be held accountable. I was vocal about the Rodney King beating. I also made my position clear last year when I repeatedly called for an independent investigation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department after a series of controversial shootings. Law enforcement in Los Angeles County has its share of problems and is in need of reform, but in our zeal to identify and prosecute the bad apples we should not erode an officer’s rights to due process.

AB 2067 addresses the issue of due process. Those who voted for AB 2067 were supporting an officer’s right to have an attorney present during questioning, an officer’s right to administrative appeal, as well as other basic rights of due process.

I am deeply concerned that your editorial was written in such a way as to imply that The Times not only opposes Assembly Bill 2067, but also opposes “minority” legislators.

By naming and emphasizing the ethnicity of the six “minority” legislators who voted for the bill, you imply that no white legislators supported the measure. The truth be known, on Jan. 30, 69 members of the California Assembly voted aye on the measure, not four blacks and two Latinos, but 69 members--Republicans and Democrats--the majority of whom are white males.

Why were black and Latino legislators singled out? Was it because they represent districts within the city of Los Angeles? This can’t be the answer since you failed to mention numerous white legislators who also supported AB 2067 and who also represent areas within the city of Los Angeles. Or was it because they were, as The Times emphasized, “all minorities”?

RICHARD G. POLANCO, Assemblyman, D-Los Angeles