Bratton OK With Police Panel Secrecy

L.A. Police Chief William J. Bratton said Thursday he supports the Los Angeles Police Commission’s decision to end a 25-year policy of making public the names of officers in reports evaluating department shootings and other uses of force.

Bratton said state law appears to have forced the commission’s hand, and he said the information was not something the public was clamoring for to begin with.

However, he acknowledged it does not look good to withhold information that has been available for a quarter of a century.

“It’s an unintended consequence of an effort to be more transparent,” Bratton said. “I feel badly for them [commissioners] because their intentions were to give more explanations to the public as to how they were arriving at decisions and why they were making decisions. So it’s unfortunate.”

The chief said he attended the commission meetings where the panel discussed the issue and its legal ramifications.

“My understanding, at least from the discussions I was privy to, is that they are following the law,” the chief said. “If you don’t like the law, get up to Legislature and change it. But, the commission does not have the ability to circumvent the law. Nor do I.”

City Council members and community activists have criticized the Police Commission for voting in closed session in December to withhold the names of officers from public reports in which the chief and commission evaluate the actions of officers.

The commission last week affirmed the decision then defended the policy Wednesday at a special meeting where community activists said withholding officers’ names undermines public trust in the Los Angeles Police Department.

It’s fine for opponents to have that opinion, Bratton said, but the opinion commissioners “got from the city attorney is that they would be violating criminal law if they gave that [information] out.”

He downplayed the effect on the public.

“Whether or not the public has access to those names, in the long run, doesn’t change the disciplinary processes or the work of the commission,” Bratton said. “The reality is that in the last five years there have been some 800-odd requests for information relative to the names of officers, almost none of them from the public. Almost all of them are from you in the media.”

Bratton also said the public is well represented by the civilian Police Commission members, who have access to the names of officers and weigh in on whether officers’ actions comply with policy.

“They are the representatives of the public,” Bratton said.