Block Gives Testy Formal Reply to Criticisms : Kolts report: Sheriff’s 289-page response says most recommendations had already been adopted. But he voices resistance in some key matters.

Sheriff Sherman Block on Wednesday sent to county supervisors an ostensibly conciliatory but often quite critical 289-page formal response to the July Kolts report that found a “deeply disturbing” pattern of excessive force and brutality by deputies.

Block told a news conference that even before the report was released he had implemented 111 of the 180 recommendations made by the group headed by special counsel James G. Kolts. Since the report’s release, he had put into effect another 26, would like to implement 19 if he had the money, and is refusing to implement only 24, he said.

But Block’s response included resistance to key recommendations. And there were so many partial objections that Block’s total number of references to disagreements exceeded 24.

The sheriff expressed agreement in principle with Kolts’ recommendations for stricter discipline, more diversity in hiring and greater civilian oversight. But many of his responses contained reservations, partial disagreements or statements that budgetary constraints prevent action in the near future.

At his news conference, Block also voiced a number of criticisms of the report, characterizing it at one point as being put together by a group of lawyers who were trained from their first days of law school to reach conclusions first and delve into the facts later.

Portions of the report were absolutely biased, the sheriff said.

“They talked about numbers of citizen complaints,” he said. “(But) they ignored the fact that during the approximately six-year period that they studied . . . the department dealt with 11 million calls for service or officer-initiated activities.

“I think there has to be some perspective put on. While they focused, and properly so, on the abusive conduct of some of our personnel during those six years, they ignored the fact that we had some 3,000 assaults against deputy sheriffs . . . and in that six-year period in this county, 30 law enforcement officers lost their lives.”

Block said he expected that next month the Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing on the report and his response that will include questions posed to him.

Meanwhile, Kolts said he has been told the hearings may take place Nov. 17.

Kolts, a retired Superior Court judge, said he will assemble the report staff Monday to review Block’s response. One option, a staff member said, is for the Kolts group to issue a comment in writing on Block’s positions.

In a separate statement, officials of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, who frequently criticize Block, expressed concern that his response “sidesteps, dances around or avoids many important and critical details and problems that pervade the Sheriff’s Department.”

Block’s written response is milder than some of his news conference statements. Like the Kolts report, the sheriff’s response was compiled by a sizable staff, but Block was listed as the author.

“The Kolts report does not reflect awareness of many key aspects of the department’s past, present, or proposed efforts to develop and maintain the highest level of professionalism,” Block said in his preface.

“Many policy enhancements, programs and operational changes suggested in the Kolts report were in place or in the planning stages prior to the appointment of the Kolts staff,” he added. He called the omission of such prior progress “disappointing.”

The sheriff used conciliatory language but often disagreed on key points:

* He took issue with a statement in the Kolts report supporting charges that victims of dog bites by sheriff’s K-9 units are primarily Latinos and African-Americans. “The Department adamantly disagrees with the premise . . . that an institutional bias exists to deploy canines against African-Americans or Hispanics,” Block said.

* The sheriff also said his department “agrees with the intent of a majority of the Kolts recommendations regarding the disciplinary process, although the department does not agree with all the statements made about the current practices of the department.”

For instance, he denied that there has been any “pattern, accepted practice or tacit approval . . . of discouraging citizen complaints.” While agreeing to a recommendation that all deputies give a personal business card to anyone on request, he disagreed “with the inference that deputies refusing to identify themselves is a widespread practice.”

* Block said recommendations to add personnel to the bureau that investigates deputy misconduct could be implemented only when the Board of Supervisors allocate additional funds.

An appendix to the report said it would cost an initial $3.5 million to implement all of the recommendations with which the sheriff would like to comply. Maintaining that implementation would cost $4.2 million each year, the report said.

On officer-involved shootings, for instance, Block said the department recognizes the importance of investigating shootings by deputies in which no one is hit “in a consistent manner and will begin to do so as soon as budgetary constraints allow.” Similarly, he said that sending investigators to “all force cases requiring emergency room treatment is not practical.”

And he said he disagreed with recommendations to include district attorney’s investigators at the side of Sheriff’s Department investigators at the earliest stages of shooting inquiries.

* On 62 “problem deputies” that the Kolts report said had been investigated for shooting or force allegations five or more times between 1986 and 1992, Block said he had been unable to ascertain who these deputies are, and the Kolts staff could not identify them for him.

“Some of the 495 investigations attributed to this group of 62 deputies undoubtedly involved unfounded allegations,” Block said. “By their very nature unfounded allegations should not be used as indicators of performance.” But, he added, “The department intends to continue its existing effort to take appropriate disciplinary action when necessary.”

* To the recommendation that the Sheriff’s Department should track all use of force by deputies on a written form with a force scale, Block said, “The department agrees in general with the intent of this recommendation; however, this issue requires further study.”

Later, he added, “The department disagrees with the recommendation to retain investigative files for over five years.”

* Block also disagreed with a series of Kolts recommendations that would reduce the time new deputies spend at county jails, and even interrupt those duties periodically to work at social institutions where deputies might get a less jaundiced view of society.

At his news conference, Block took very sharp issue with a Kolts recommendation that he said would allow punishments of deputies for misconduct to be increased when they appealed. He called this “ludicrous, really a denial of due process.”

But Kolts responded later that there is no such recommendation in his report.