L.A. to Release Document on Withholding of Officer Names

The Los Angeles City Council agreed Tuesday to release a confidential legal opinion that was the basis of a Police Commission decision to withhold names of officers from shooting reports, a policy change that drew a strong rebuke from several council members.

The vote to make the opinion public sets the stage for an 8:30 a.m. commission meeting today at Parker Center to discuss the legal and policy issues involved in the decision to end a 25-year practice of including officers’ names in reports evaluating officer-involved shootings.

“What we are doing today is making sure the public understands why and how the commission made the decision,” said Councilwoman Wendy Greuel during the 40-minute discussion.

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo had refused to release the opinion, citing attorney-client privilege, but the council -- which, along with the commission, is considered the client -- voted 14 to 0 to waive that privilege.

Although two assistant city attorneys repeatedly requested that the council confine its discussion to release of the legal opinion, given that the police union has threatened a lawsuit over the disclosure of names, much of the debate was on the merits of the commission’s decision.

“To me it’s very disturbing that it was done in closed session,” Councilman Ed Reyes said.

“And it has such a huge impact on our quality of life, and especially those communities who have a pattern of being victimized by that type of indiscretion and abuse of power,” he said.

Added Councilman Tom LaBonge: “I want the Police Commission to come here and tell me why this is so important, what is the reason we are doing this, why are we changing this policy after 25 years of an existing policy.”

Councilman and former Police Chief Bernard C. Parks said replacing the names of officers in shooting reports with Officer A and Officer B “does not create the confidence that I think the community is looking for.... I was shocked when I saw the [news]paper as to what occurred on this issue.”

Councilman Jack Weiss criticized the assistant city attorneys for repeatedly trying to limit discussion to the legal opinion.

“I respectfully disagree with your decision to ask council members to pipe down, because they had every reason to pipe up,” Weiss told the attorneys.

“When a government restricts publicly available information and it does it secretly for secret reasons, it is offensive to the public and the public interest,” the councilman said.