\video projects\ocsd\erica hill.wmv
...\ex-deputy gets a break.wmv
...\Jaramillo reindicted.wmv



Social contract between public & police
 Public relinquishes authority to police
...in exchange...
 Demands that officers be properly guided
Span of control: number of subordinates
 Field sergeants often too few, results in
oversight rather than supervision
 Officers are often not candid
Developing expertise
 Rising through the ranks takes years
 LAPD: Officer (multiple levels) Sergeant Lieutenant  Captain 
Commander Deputy Chief Asst. Chief
 To become an executive one must avoid prolonged street-level assignments,
limits technical expertise


Sheriffs departments traditionally less
professionally-oriented than police

Political role

Sheriffs have great statutory latitude in selecting their
top subordinates
Custody role can limit the development of law enforcement skills

Policing is a craft learned through practice and experience

At each promotion deputies tend to go back to custody

Deputies who choose to stay in the field can’t promote
▪ Those least experienced in policing are in charge of policing

BUT - in the eastern U.S., sheriff’s departments have separate job
classifications and career tracks for custody and patrol deputies

Difficulties of leading a policing organization



Obtaining and keeping resources

Police usually half or more of local budget

Must take a hit in recessionary times

To get resources and retain their jobs must be politically savvy and
influential
Reconcile competing interests


Everybody likes a fireman (nature of policing)
Community groups, political leaders, private businesses, police unions
Assure quality services

Controlling policing is very difficult (oversight v. supervision)

Must remain bonded to all levels of the organization



Appointed position
 Under supervision of Mayor or City manager
 Function makes oversight problematic
 Job security varies; traditionally tenures are brief
▪ L.A. City Charter was amended following the 1992 riots
▪ LAPD Chiefs now have five year terms, can be reappointed once
Selection - California
 Traditionally from within the ranks or from nearby agencies
 Calif. does not require that chiefs complete a California academy
 Disturbances and police-community issues led L.A. to reach outside
▪ 1992-1997: Willie Williams (outsider - denied reappointment)
▪ 1997-2002: Bernard Parks (insider - denied reappointment)
▪ 2002-2009: Bill Bratton (outsider - reappointed 2007)
▪ 2009 : Charlie Beck (insider)
Other States are more open to outside Chiefs
LAPD Chiefs, 1950 to present
Career
Concerns & Emphasis
Environment
1950-1966
William H. Parker
Joined 1928
Brought in to fight
corruption
Professionalization
Political intelligence
Anti-terrorism
Radical movements
Domestic terrorism
1965 Watts riots
1967-1969
Thomas Reddin
Considered an interim
Chief
Community policing
concept
Drug & gang violence
1969-1978
Edward M. Davis
Joined 1948
Political intelligence
Vice and prostitution
Basic car plan
Drug & gang violence
1978-1992
Daryl F. Gates
Joined 1949
Disciple of Parker
SWAT, CRASH, DARE
Operation Hammer
Drugs & gangs
1992 Rodney King Riot
1992-1997
Willie L. Williams
Prior Philadelphia PD
Commissioner
Denied reappointment
Repair relations with
minority communities
1996-1998 Rampart
scandal
1997-2002
Bernard C. Parks
Career LAPD officer
Denied reappointment
Integrity & discipline
Rampart scandal
Crime drop begins
2002-2009
William J. Bratton
1970 - Boston PD ofcr
Chief, Boston & NY
Compstat
Community relations
Political climate
Crime drop continues
MacArthur Park
2009 -
Charlie Beck
1975 - Joined LAPD
as reservist
Admired “cop’s cop”
Streamline mgmt,
consolidate special units,
return officers to field
Crime drop continues
City financial crisis




Elected political position, usually also coroner
Lack meaningful supervision
 California: subject to oversight by County Board of
Supervisors
▪ But -- Boards are very reluctant to exercise that authority
 Only real oversight is through the County budget process
 Sheriffs have wide authority to select and appoint subordinates; can be
abused
▪ Example -- Carona’s appointments of Jaramillo and Haidl
Historically less professionally skilled than police chiefs
 Loose experience requirements (need only be a peace officer)
 No structured hiring process
 No significant educational requirements
In the East some Sheriffs are now appointed by County administrators






In charge of larger organizational units
 Geographical operational divisions
 Administrative components
Normally supervise employees who are themselves supervisors
Distance from the actual work can promote ignorance
 Of the workplace environment
 Of how the job is actually performed
 Of the qualities and reputations of field employees
Everyday tasks may be relatively trivial
Dispersed nature of policing affects middle managers’ ability to influence
outcomes
Middle managers styles may influence supervisor and officer behavior




Caught between management and the field
 Officer demands
 Management expectations
Limited ability to select or influence subordinates
 Quality of “raw material”
 Supervision is really “oversight”
▪ Depends on officers telling the truth & voluntarily complying
Exercising control problematic
 Discipline can threaten bond with employees
 Managers may not back up potentially expensive or controversial personnel
decisions
Supervisory styles said to influence officer decisions
 Pro’s and con’s of “active supervisors” who lead by example

Formal communication

Expected, sanctioned interactions

Flow three ways:
▪ Down, as policy, directives, supervision,
evaluation and training
▪ Laterally, between peers or units
▪ Up, as reports and verbal feedback

Informal communication and the “grapevine”

Where policy meets the workplace

Used for venting

Not always accurate; can be malicious

Not always lateral: much informal communication between first-level
supervisors and subordinates




Authoritarian setting

Discourages free exchange of information

“line” vs. “staff”; superior -v- subordinate
Structure of policing

Most critical task is done by those lowest on the totem pole

Supervisors seldom in position to observe, depend on being told
Situational contingencies

Insufficient time for adequate communication

Insufficient time for reflection
POV - “Point of View”

Different environments  different pressures and constraints on the actors

Individual differences

Strained interpersonal relationships



Free, unhindered exchange of accurate information (not just what
someone “wants to hear”) is crucial
 Leads to better, well-informed decisions at all levels
 Helps bond employees to managers and dept. goals
Personal styles of managers and executives are crucial:
 Bernard Parks - aloof, cerebral, haunted by past slights
 William Bratton - brusque, preferred to deal with managers,
emphasized performance measurement
 Charlie Beck - warm, oriented to street cops, less
enamored of the number-crunching Compstat approach
What might be the consequences of these differences?
 For the organization?
 For the community?





Computerized pin-map
Frequent meetings to evaluate impact
 Shift resources quickly in response
to changes in local crime trends
 Short-term fluctuations can deceive
 “Rapid focused deployment” unrealistic without surplus personnel
Claimed effects highly questionable
 Crime declines have been experienced everywhere since the mid-1990’s
 Reductions in crime influenced by social and economic factors
 Pressures of Compstat might distort reporting
Using Compstat to evaluate subordinates
 “Relentless follow-up and assessment” creates heavy pressure to
demonstrate quantifiable results
 Is quality easily measured? Is one rewarding “yes-men” or the most
competent?
Police Issues: Liars Figure





Police Issues: Not All Cops Are Blue
The original suit, filed in May 2009 by a Hispanic
lieutenant and four officers – a female Hispanic,
a male Hispanic, an Armenian and a Black – characterized the department as “an
insider’s club where if you aren’t white, male and heterosexual you had better keep
your mouth shut and play along with the bigots or suffer the consequences.”
White cops and the former chief are accused of subjecting minority officers to slurs
and slights, passing them over for desirable assignments and promotions and
unfairly disciplining them.
According to the lieutenant he was harassed for hiring a qualified, openly gay female
and was busted back to patrolman for reporting officer misconduct, with the chief
going so far as to arrange his demotion with the police union.
A sixth officer filed a separate but nearly identical suit four months later. Excepting
one of the original plaintiffs, whose cause of action was recently dismissed on
technical grounds, the cases remain on track.








Police Issues: Not All Cops Are Blue
Lawsuit filed in January 2010 on behalf of four current
and one former Glendale officers of Armenian ancestry, including two
sergeants. Alleges a pattern of hostile treatment and discrimination.
Examples of bias include the removal of a plaintiff from his position as GPD’s chief
spokesperson, allegedly because he testified for another plaintiff, who was fired
and was suing for reinstatement.
There are also examples of derogatory comments and of failed attempts to gain
transfers and promotions. And if Glendale really doesn’t discriminate, why do they
have so few Armenian cops?
City argues that few Armenians apply to join the force and there are few vacancies.
Glendale insists it’s trying to do more, posting an announcement for an Armenianfluent officer several months before the lawsuit.
In February 2011 six Glendale cops were placed on paid leave over complaints
including alleged off-duty road rage and taking a police car to Vegas. Then in
March two more were taken off the street, one for harassing a colleague to join an
ongoing lawsuit, another for soliciting sex. It’s supposedly part of a new “zero
tolerance policy” by Chief Ron de Pompa.
In April 2011 the officers who took the car to Las Vegas were fired.







Newport Beach Daily Pilot
In September 2010 two retired NBPD lieutenants filed a claim
against the city saying they were harassed, reassigned and not
promoted because they didn’t go along with violations of personnel rules.
Apparently the former chief and city manager had agreed to let officers retire,
then return to fill their prior positions under contract.
Six retired officers came back this way, saving money (the city didn’t have to
pay benefits or contribute to retirement) but denied opportunities to others.
The city attorney later ruled that the agreements were illegal.
There were other problems
 A retired officer was brought back as chief without being subject to outside
competition, which was also supposedly illegal.
 A lieutenant won a lawsuit claiming that he had been passed over for
promotions because of false rumors he was gay
An Irvine PD commander hired to investigate concluded that although
integrity had been “marginalized,” favoritism hadn’t figured in promotions.




Differences in outlook
 A “job” or a “calling”?
Differences in backgrounds
 Culture, class, race and ethnicity
 Education
 Military and life experience
Differences in orientation
 Craftspersons -v- career minded
 Clashes between patrol and specialized units
 Competition for influence
Promotion issues
 Lack of opportunities in smaller agencies
 Subjectivity of the process
 Cliques and friendships



Federal
 Criminal investigators (GS-1811)
cannot join “unions”. Can join
associations but no right to bargain collectively.
 No Federal employee can strike or engage in a work action.
State
 Police unions OK, can collectively bargain
 Cannot strike or engage in work actions
Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL)
 Powerful political force
 Traditional foe of LAPD chiefs on matters of pay and discipline
 Decisive factor in denying Parks a second term
 Helped pass California bill that makes police disciplinary hearings private
 Suing LAPD for prohibition on wearing helmets during a demonstration on
1/10/09. An officer was hit on the head with a sign and injured.





In the Presidential race (election 11/09) Bratton
endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primaries, then
Obama: “Democrats are much more supportive on
policing issues. Republicans are just not good on local policing...”
 Bratton comes from New York City, where there is strict gun control
In the L.A. County 2nd. District Board of Supervisors race (election 11/09)
endorsed Mark Ridley-Thomas over ex-police chief Bernard Parks: “I endorse
[Thomas] not because I consider him to be my friend – I support Mark RidleyThomas because I respect him and what he has accomplished...”
In the L.A. City Attorney race (election 3/3/09) endorsed Councilman Jack
Weiss: “Nobody has worked harder...on issues of gangs, terrorism and
forensics testing....It is important to have somebody who doesn't need to have
on-the-job training and has a good relationship with other law enforcement
agencies and works well with them...”
In the L.A. Mayoral race (election 3/3/09) Bratton endorsed Villaraigosa
Meanwhile, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca earned the moniker “The Full Baca”
for endorsing two in the same race: Weiss and Carmen Trutanich (a guy)



L.A. Times commentary
In 1991 the Christopher Commission was formed to make a thorough review of
the LAPD in wake of the Rodney King beating. Its chairman was Warren
Christopher, later U.S. Secretary of State.
One of its conclusions:
 “The Independent Commission recommends that the Chief of Police not
endorse candidates for public office...Because the chief's office is inherently
powerful, it is unseemly for the Chief to use that position to influence the
political process...It is particularly ironic to create a system to insulate the
Chief from improper political pressure, and then have the Chief use that
protected position to campaign on behalf of politicians who thereby become
indebted to him. Such activity politicizes the Chief, and ultimately the
Department.”



L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca issued official-looking “Homeland Security Support
Unit” photo ID cards to political donors. Baca defended the practice by saying that it
could save lives.
Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle issued badges to members of an “Executive
Council” – actually, 17 persons who contributed to his re-election campaign. He said
that members of the group had translated Arabic documents on two occasions. Two
members of the group flashed the badges at law enforcement officers – one to get
through airport security and onto the tarmac, another when police served a search
warrant at his business on unrelated matters.
California law prohibits issuing realistic-looking police-type badges and ID cards to
non-peace officers.

March 6, 2012: According to the Los Angeles Times L.A.
County Sheriff Lee Baca’s political chums didn’t just get
reserve badges – a few also got take-home cars

Sheriff Capt. Patrick Maxwell said he personally saw one
well-heeled contributor park his LASD car by his businesses
for years.

Sheriff’s Captain Phillip Hansen is in charge of the reserves. He was brought in to
“clean up” the program after charges that politically-connected persons were getting
badges by taking pretend classes at resorts.

When Capt. Hansen heard that some reserves were getting cars he worried that the
program would get ridiculed. But when he called area commanders to find out he
was told that who got the cars was confidential – even from him: “I basically got
nicely told I really wasn't authorized to have that information.”

In 2011 the LASD refused to release information about take-home cars of four
reserves who had supported Baca’s campaign. The reserves refused to talk to the
paper. Baca then pulled the cars.



A federal grand jury subpoena seeks records from the Mike Carona Foundation.
In connection with an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, a Federal Grand
Jury issued a subpoena for all financial records held by a non-profit charity
established by Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona shortly after his election.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the foundation supposedly raised only $22,000
between 1999, the year Carona took office, and 2000. But in 2001 it allegedly raised
$625,050, giving $15,000 to the Hispanic Education Endowment Fund. In 2002 it
reportedly raised $100,000, gave away $199,800 and declared an ending balance of
$484,159. Stated benefactors in 2002 include the Hispanic endowment fund, the
O.C. Rescue Mission and others.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating allegedly illegal
contributions made to Carona in 2002. Evidence suggests that a business associate
of Carona’s ex-assistant, George Jaramillo, laundered a $200,000 contribution to
Carona by pretending that it came from multiple donors.

George
Jaramillo
Ex-Garden
Grove cop,
left under a
cloud and was
hired by his
then-buddy
Mike Carona
to be his
number two
man.


In 2004 OCSD Assistant Sheriff
George Jaramillo was charged with
multiple felonies for conflict of
interest and misusing deputies,
sheriff’s patrol cars and a helicopter for
private gain. While employed as a consultant for CHG
Safety Technologies Jaramillo promoted a car immobilizing
device, staging demonstrations for the OCSD and other
agencies.
Sheriff Mike Carona said that he had warned Jaramillo
about a potential conflict of interest should he accept a
position with CHG. Carona said that Jaramillo never
brought it up again.
He later fired Jaramillo.
Jaramillo eventually pled no contest to a felony and served
six months. His sister-in-law, Erica Hill, supposedly was
given a job with CHG as part of these shenanigans.




In November 2005 Erica Hill went public, charging
that she had sex with Jaramillo as a teen-ager. She
also said that she had sex with Sheriff Carona four
times in exchange for a promise to make her
husband a deputy.
Carona never hired the husband. For obvious
reasons, the husband and Erica Hill separated.
Hill’s allegations were revealed when her Grand Jury
testimony in the case against Jaramillo was released.
Both Hill and Carona asked the California Attorney
General to investigate.
Hill’s allegations ultimately went nowhere. After all,
it was her word against “America’s Sheriff.” Who
would you believe?

O.C. Sheriff Mike Carona’s grant of police powers to 86 friends,
relatives and campaign supporters was revoked by the State
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, which
ruled that they were either unqualified, untrained or had not
passed necessary background checks. Those who got badges
and guns included an assortment of doctors, lawyers and
businessmen who hosted fundraisers and contributed funds to Corona’s campaign.
Several others were friends and relatives of the person who established the reserve
program, former Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl, whose son was recently convicted of
rape.

Despite an official finding that these reserve “deputies” lacked necessary training,
Sheriff Carona tried to get them reinstated. He didn’t succeed.






Carona, the Orange County Marshal, was
elected Sheriff in 1998, then re-elected
twice. OCSD Lt. Bill Hunt ran against him
in 2006 and was demoted after he lost.
When he first took office Carona brought in Jaramillo from GGPD as Assistant Sheriff
for operations. He also placed Donald Haidl, a businessman with no law enf.
experience in a sworn, unpaid position as Asst. Sheriff for the reserves.
2004: Carona fired Jaramillo when the latter got in trouble for conflict of interest. In
the same year Haidl resigned when his son was convicted of rape.)
In March 2007 Haidl and Jaramillo were secretly indicted on tax charges, Haidl for not
declaring business funds he spent on his son’s defense, and Jaramillo for failing to
disclose cash and other gifts he got from Haidl.
Haidl and Jaramillo ratted on Carona, accusing him of selling his office by accepting
cash and gifts from Haidl and doling out badges and gun permits to contributors.
In October 2007 a Federal Grand Jury returned a multi-count indictment against
Carona, his wife Deborah Carona and his mistress Debra Hoffman. (Charges against
the women were later dropped.)





On 1/16/09 Carona was convicted on one count of
witness tampering, for coaching Haidl. He was
acquitted on one count of conspiracy and three counts of mail fraud by depriving
the public of the honest services of a public official.
 Jurors said they disbelieved the prosecution’s main witness, former Assistant
Sheriff Don Haidl, who testified that he gave Carona cash payoffs, but that a
secretly taped conversation between the two was enough to convict Carona for
trying to get Haidl to lie to the Grand Jury.
On 4/27/09 Carona got 5 ½ years. His appeal was eventually rejected and he
reported to Federal prison on 1/26/11.
On 9/15/09 Jaramillo got 27 months in Federal prison. According to the judge he
didn’t accept enough responsibility.
Haidl is to be sentenced in March 2010 on his plea to filing a false tax return. No
prison time is expected.
Police Issues: Carona Five, Feds One