Baca Drops Plan to Give Women Preference for Patrol Jobs

Threatened with a lawsuit by unionized male deputies and a barrage of crudely hostile anonymous e-mails, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has suspended a controversial plan to assign more females to patrol even if that meant passing over equally or more qualified male deputies.

With only 233 of the department’s 917 women assigned to the sheriff’s 21 patrol stations, Baca announced last week that he intended to send 22 females who work at the jails to the next patrol school.

“As a result,” Baca wrote in a Teletype to the staff, “it will be necessary to bypass males on the transfer preference list.” But a day later, Baca was forced to suspend the order when the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs threatened to sue him. The union then posted on its Web site a batch of e-mail, which included anonymous correspondents’ raw and often sexually graphic comments opposing Baca’s plan.

The bitter response--and the sheriff’s decision to delay his plan--show that the department still is coming to grips with the issue of gender equality among the rank and file. Department watchdogs have said for years that the massive law enforcement agency is a difficult and hostile place for women to work.

“They continue at the highest level to fail to address issues like fairness and gender equality,” said attorney Dennis Harley, who recently won a court order forcing the department to promote more female deputies to sergeant positions.

Despite the criticism, Baca’s staff said Tuesday that the sheriff remains committed to increasing the number of females on patrol. They said, however, that they will first try to hammer out an agreement with critics before taking action.

“We need to attract more females to the profession,” said Assistant Sheriff Bill Stonich. “And we need to provide more opportunities to females within our department. . . . It’s the right thing to do.”

Currently, new deputies are assigned to the county’s massive jail system, where they work for months and even years before moving on to patrol. The department holds a patrol school six times a year to prepare jail deputies--usually 60 per class--for the streets.

Representatives of the powerful union said that by announcing that he was going to bypass males in an effort to promote females, Baca violated an agreement stating that deputies are sent to patrol according to seniority--and not gender.

“Our contract dictates a certain policy that they bought off on,” said union President Pete Brodie. “It has to go according to seniority, whether it’s male or female. It’s all part of the contract.”

Brodie said he learned about Baca’s plan Thursday, when a Teletype detailing the sheriff’s intentions was circulated through the department. In addition to dictating that 22 women would be included in the next patrol class, Baca wrote that women would not be allowed to transfer out of patrol to the courts as bailiffs.

Baca could not be reached for comment Tuesday. However, Stonich said the sheriff had hoped to increase the proportion of women in patrol to 14% over the next year.

“We are confronted with the fact that only 8% of our females are in patrol,” Stonich said. “Our thinking was to move females to positions that are deemed coveted. We must put the needs of the department ahead of the desires of the individual.”

Brodie said the union does not oppose promoting more women to patrol. However, he said, such a move must be negotiated with union representatives. “We have to meet and confer,” he said.

He said the union had made it clear that it was prepared to seek an injunction this week against Baca. Late Friday, the sheriff issued another Teletype to suspend his earlier order.

“Until further notice patrol schools will be filled using the normal selection criteria, as previously established,” Baca wrote. “And there will be no new restrictions on the transfers from patrol to court services.”

In the midst of the controversy, Digital City Los Angeles hosted a chat room to allow people to comment though the Internet on Baca’s plans. Union representatives then took the listing of the anonymous messages and posted it on their Web site (ALADS.org).

All but 12 of the 98 messages opposed Baca’s proposal, and some were obscene, employing sexually graphic language to describe female deputies.

“How come broads just can’t stick with chick jobs and stop complicating everything?” asked “bandit.” “HELLO?!?!?! these are MEN’S JOBS!!!!! It was a horrible mistake for men to ever allow chicks on the job. Being a cop is for men only. Always has and always will be.”

In the same vein, “fair n square” lamented that “God, broads on the job suck!!”

“Howard stern” added that “female cops are a sick joke on society.”

A handful of the messages openly applauded Baca, saying that qualified women have been passed over for male candidates and that more women were needed to assist victims of rape and domestic violence.

“Let women get a little piece of the pie!!!. God knows some of us men are screw-ups as it is. I think it’s a good move. GOOD JOB!!!” wrote a respondent who called himself “big daddy.”

“Hotrocks” wrote that the proposal “is fair and in the best interest of the department and female deputies.

“Times are changing for women for the good,” wrote “Grandma.” “Go get those jobs, girls.”

“Ra Ra Ra,” wrote “maria.” “Gracias Lee.”

Attorney Harley expressed dismay that the union posted the messages. “It’s totally inappropriate,” he said. “No wonder women take a look at their jobs and the way they are treated and talked about and say, ‘There has to be a better place than this.’ ”

*

Times staff writer Anne-Marie O’Connor contributed to this story.