Dornan on Benefit

* On Oct. 27, from Washington, I spoke to a Times reporter denying I was part of any committee to greet Laurence Powell on his return home after serving his prison sentence. According to your reporter, the Dec. 14 “Welcome Home Fund-Raising Dinner” listed my name as a member of the host committee. I clearly stated that I was not part of any “host committee,” and that I could not be attending a dinner of which I had no knowledge. Isn’t that clear English?

I stated to The Times that I had spoken to Powell’s father only once, relevant to his son’s legal circumstances, and that I told the father I would do what I could to help prevent the “triple jeopardy,” which could beset Powell if the U.S. Supreme Court, as demanded by Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, upholds a liberal judge who wants to add more time to Powell’s now-served prison sentence, thereby sending him back to jail. But as a consequence of poor reporting, I found my name in a Times headline as a “co-host” of a Powell event--even after specifically telling your reporter I was not.

Then, The Times has me saying that I was “against [Powell] spending a day in jail.” A major point was omitted. He was tried in a court of law and acquitted. At that point, the LAPD Ethics Board was about to decide Powell’s fate. Punishment undoubtedly would have been severe and certainly would have ended his career. My statement, if it had been reported correctly, would have reflected that I am opposed to “double jeopardy” and, therefore, I am obviously opposed to “triple jeopardy.”

I clearly said (and I have two ear-witnesses) that “a police officer having his career destroyed is sufficiently severe punishment.” Why wasn’t my statement used?

REP. ROBERT K. DORNAN

R-Garden Grove