LAT20170111

A10 WEDNESDAY,JANUARY11, 2017 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

B

oth the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department and the Los
AngelesPolice Department may
soon make changes to theirdisci-
plinary processes— but the pro-
posals for thetwo agenciesare moving in op-
positedirections.The sheriff is seeking some-
thing more like what the LAPD has while the
police union and some self-styled police re-
formerswant something more like the seri-
ouslyflawed s ystem usedto discipline sher-
iff’s deputies. That phenomenon ought give
the City Council at leasta modicum of pause
before movingahead witha police discipline
measure for theMay ballot.
At the heart of the issue is the degree to
whichciviliansshouldbeempoweredtoup-
hold oroverturn disciplinary decisions made
by each department’s top commander (the
electedcounty sheriff and the appointed
LAPDchief).For manyyears, police unions
saw civilian participation as an unwanted in-
trusion into the clubby domain of law en-
forcement.
The Los AngelesPolice Protective League
—the union thatrepresents rank-and-file
LAPD officers— adamantly opposeda rec-
ommendation by the Christopher Commis-
sion in1991 to includea civilian among the
high-ranking officers on the Board of Rights.
That’s the panel thatrules on the chief’s re-
quest for discipline.Voters adopted the mea-
sure over the PPL’s objection.
Much to the surprise of union members,
however, civilians ended up being more leni-
ent than their sworn law-enforcement
counterparts— an outcome echoed ina re-
cent city study. It turned out that Board of
Rights’ members drawnfrom within the de-
partment had littletolerance of misbehaving
colleagues, who arguably tainted the entire
agency. On reflection, that standsto reason:
As with mostlaw enforcement agencies, the
LAPDmodels its discipline proceedings on
military tribunals, which are not known for
beinggentle with uniformed personnel who
defy orders or commit other improper acts.
The civilian added to each Board of
Rightsto be the public’s eyes, ears andvoice
was more likely than officersto oppose the
chief’s discipline reco mmendations. The
PPLgrew to appreciate the civilianpresence

—to appreciate it somuch, in fact, that last

year it lobbied thecouncil andMayor Eric

Garcetti to eliminate LAPD personnelfrom

Boards of Rights altogether, in fa vor of all-ci-

vilian boards. Garcetti supports the proposal

and the council isexpectedto vote Wednes-

day to order city lawyersto start drafting bal-

lot language.

Up the street, SheriffJim McDonnell (a

former LAPD second-in-command) is strug-

glingto weed outa subculture of dishonesty

thatgrew under his predecessor and eroded

morale in the entire Sheriff’s Department.

To his credit, McDonnellhas imposedtough

penalties on deputies and others for making

false statements in policereports and other

misconduct.

Under the county’s structure, though,

fired sheriff’s personnel can appealto the all-

civilian Civil Service Commission, which also

hears appealsfrom othercounty employees

such as clerks, graphic artists, data analysts

and nurses. AsMcDonnell hasfired deputies,

the commission has returned many of them

to work — in part by relying on the previous,

lower discipline standard thatwas set under

then-Sheriff Lee Baca.

That putsMcDonnell in the position of

trying to raise standards —as the public

rightly demands— yet being thwarted by a

panel of civilians thatcompels himto keep

paying taxpayer moneyto deputies he deems

unfit to wear a badge, car ry a weapon or pa-

trol the streets or jails.

Neither the sheriff’s nor the LAPD’s sys-

tem is perfect or irredeemable. The LAPD

chief must essentially ask permissionto fire

an officer who he deems unfitto serve — but

at least his process acknowledges the differ-

ent impact on the public of an erring but

armed law enforcement officer and an erring

clerk or graphic artist.

Meanwhile, thecounty Board of Supervi-

sors has belatedly but appropriately ordered

proposals for better training of their appoint-

ees to the Civil Service Commission. It is pos-

sible thatreformsin both departmentscould

bring improvements.

It is possible— but not inevitable. The in-

dividual adjustmentsto thecounty Civil

Service Commission, and the details of selec-

tion and training of civilianBoard of Rights

members, may be mundane but are of enor-

mous importance. That’s something that

should be kept in mind by a City Council —

and a Board of Supervisors— that thrive on

campaign contributionsfrom law enforce-

ment unions, and by thevoters whocount on

themto act in the public’s best interest.

Who polices the police?

Thosewho supportreforming the

LAPD’s disciplinary process should

be carefulwhatthey wishfor.

G

ov. Jerry Brownsounded a bit
like abrokenrecordTuesday
when hereleased his proposed
spendingplan for nextfiscal
year, preaching prudenceeven
as the economy seemsto be booming. That’s
what he said lastyear. And theyear before
that. Even t he charts look the same.
But Brown has solid reason for hisfinan-
cial caution. The downturnhe’s been predic-
ting foryears seems to be, if not already here,
then on its way. Although tax rev enue is still
up over l ast year, it’s consistently been com-
ing up shorter than expected in recent
months — particularly personal income tax
receipts, which make up 70% of the state’s
general fundrev enues.
Then there’s the Donald Trump factor.
Although state officials are planningto ac-
tively oppose many of Trump’s initiatives,
the state is banking on$105 billi on in federal
funding next fiscal year. That includes about
$17 billionto pay for theMedi-Calexpansion
in the Affordable Care Act, which Trump has
pledgedto repeal.If and when thatrugwill be
pulled out from under California is unknown.
“This isgoing to be a rough ride,” Brown
saidTuesday duringa briefing on the high-
lightsof his budget proposal. “We can’t tell
where we will be ina few months.”
So a little caution seemsto be entirely ap-
propriate at the moment. As such, thegover-
nor is reco mmendinga modestly larger
budget— $179.5 billion intotal — that keeps a
lid on new spending and makesa few reduc-
tionstoo, including phasing out middle-class
scholarshipsfor the state university system
and funding public schools at the bare min-
imumrequired by Proposition98. Without
thisevasiv e budgetary action,Brown sai d,
the state would have a $1.6-billion deficit in
the fiscal year that beginsJuly 1.
Legislators weren’t thrilled with the
spending plan outlined by the governor. Re-
publicansgriped about the cost of building
the high-speed rail line and thetwo Delta
tunnels while the state’s roads crumble, and
Democrats grumbled that Brown is not
spending as much as the state needsto fulfill
its obligations to the public.
“The governor’s opening budget proposal
is typically cautious, with someexpected is-
sues and also some areas of concern,” As-

sembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Pa-

ramount) said in statement. Specifically,

Rendon is concerned about Brown’s propos-

al to cut the Coordinated Care Initiative pro-

gram, which serves poor and disabled Cali-

fornians. Rendon suggests itcould be fixed

rather than scrapped altogether. OK, that’s

something that can beworked out when

budget hearings begin later this year.

But if Democratic lawmakers don’t like

the governor’s “extremely cautious budget

proposal,” as California Senate President

Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles)

called it, there is something they can do be-

yond fight over the scraps. They canfind

more meatto go around in future years by

using their rare supermajority to push

through a restructuring of the state’s tax sys-

tem to make it a more dependablerevenue

source.

Because the state’s budget relies heavily

on personal income tax and capitalgains tax

revenues that rise and fall with alarming un-

predictability, it must be cautiouseven when

the economy seemsgood. That’s why we and

otherconcerned Californians have been urg-

ing a reform in the state’s taxing structure for

years. (Another brokenrecord.)

Fundamental tax reform is hard to

achieve because such a majorchange inevi-

tably creates winners and losers. Beyond

that, it’s been little more thana pipe dream

because new tax lawsrequire a two-thirds

vote, which in pastyears has meantcompro-

mising with Republican legislators whose

onlyinterest in taxeswas in cutting them.

But Democrats’gains in the last election

have given thema two-thirds majority in

each house, enabling themto overha ul the

tax code without a single Republican vote.

No longer ableto stymie the Democrats, Re-

publicans mayfinally be motivatedto work

with the other side ona bipartisanreform

proposal.

Democrats may betempted to use their

supermajority to jam more spending into the

next budget— and deal with the uncertainty

and deficits later. But thatwould be achingly

shortsighted, potentially exte nding new

servicesto vulnerable Californians onlyto

slash them when times got tough. If there

was ever a momentto update the state’s un-

stablerevenue picture, this is it.

Gov. Brown’s cautious budget

Streep is a dependably

fine actress whose list of

stellar movies is amazingly

long. Judging by her inter-

views, sheappearsto be

informed and intelligent.

There are a number of

other fine celebrities who

are equally articulate.

However, beingrecog-

nized for one’s craft does

not necessarily qualify one

as “political philosopher

nonpareil.”I respect

Streep’s rightto share her

political views, but itwould

have been more appropri-

ately done withoutexploit-

ing an appearance at the

microphone on the na-

tional TV broadcast of

Sunday’s Golden Globe

Awards.

Today is another day,

and now Streep is back

among thereal folk, whose

opinions are also remarka-

bly well formed. If she is

truly open-minded and

intelligent, she should

consider somedivergent

perspectives.

Vilma Kennedy

Pallette

Santa Clara

::

What is “elite” about

respecting the disabled?

What is “elite” about call-

ing outa person who

makes fun of someone with

adisability? Is it“talking

down” to people by stand-

ing up for somebody who

has been unfairly picked

on?

What Streep did was

stand up for the value of

each single human being.

Jerry Small

Venice

::

Streep “overrated”?

She’s been nominated for

19 AcademyAwards and

won three. She’s been

nominated for30 Golden

Globes andwon eight. She

has receivedcountless

other awards and honors

from the critics,her peers

and the public at large.

Some people may not

like her work, and theyare

welcometo say so. Butto

call heroverrated isjust

wrong.

Art Verity

Sherman Oaks

Moral, economic

outrageat UC

Re “UCtech jobs go to

India,” Column,Jan. 8

Iwas appalledto read

Michael Hiltzik’s column

aboutUniversity of Cali-

fornia system information

technologyjobs going to

migrantworkers from

India.

What message does it

send that UC believes so

little in the skills of its

American IT employees

that it not only puts profits

above integrity, but also

weakens our California

economy with unnecessary

and unwarranted layoffs of

skilled individuals? This is

an outrageous abuseof the

federal H-1B visa program

thatmightbeacceptable in

the for-profitworld but not

UC.

Ihave sent three chil-

drento UC schools, and I

am outraged by this. The

university’s move is the

epitome of economic and

moral blindness.

Sheila Goldman

Woodland Hills

::

Hiltzik is appalled that

UC is usinga visa loophole

to fire Americanworkers

and replace them with

lower-paid immigrants.

This action by UC

should not be surprising in

view of the fact that it

admits illegal immigrants

as students andeven al-

lows ones who live in Cali-

forniato pay the lower

tuition rate reserved for

state residents.

In both cases, UC is

flouting federal immigra-

tion law and putting the

interests of immigrants

ahead of those of Ameri-

cans.

Jeff Duncan

Sherman Oaks

Te sting kids: how

theFinns doit

Re “The wrong and right

business lessons for

schools,” Opinion,Jan. 8

Like Samuel E. Abrams,

Isubscribe more to the

idea that merit ratings and

pay undermineteamwork

and to the educational

practices in Finland than

to the deedsof Betsy De-

Vos.

DeVos, Trump’s nomi-

nee to be the next secretary

of Education, is unquali-

fied. Shewas a poo r man-

ager ofcharter schools in

her home state of Michi-

gan. Asa part-time Michi-

gan resident,I have wit-

nessed firsthand the dam-

age done by DeVos.

When I ran the inner-

city K-8 Federation of

Boston Community

Schools in the1970s, we

administered high-quality

examsto smallgroups of

students,just as the Finns

do now. Teachersdid not

teach to the test, and stu-

dentsreceived a well-

rounded education. The

success of these parent-

controlledcommunity

schools was documented in

the1974 Ford Foundation

report “Matters of Choice.”

Philip S. Hart

Los Feliz

::

Abrams’fifth “business

lesson” for schools isto

stoptestingeverystudent

but use only“high-quality

exams administered to

smallgroups of students,”

as is done in Finland. Re-

search by education psy-

chologist David Berliner

and hiscolleagues sup-

ports thisrecommenda-

tion:More testingdoes not

result in highertest scores.

We can do this now

using theNational Assess-

ment of Educational Prog-

ress, a highlyrespected

standardized test given to

smallgroups of students

whoeach take a portion of

the test everyfew years.

Results are extrapolated to

estimate how larger groups

would score, and the NAEP

is usedto compare our

achievementto that of

othercountries.

Let’s find out if the

NAEP tells us whatwe

needto know about per-

formance and whether the

time-consuming and ex-

pensive tests we currently

give studentsadd any

usefulinformation.

Stephen Krashen

Los Angeles

The writer isa professor

emeritus of education at

USC.

Puttingseniors

out on the street

Re “‘Old Lives Matter,’ say

seniorsfightingeviction,”

Column,Jan. 8

It is nothing less than

despicable thatWater-

mark Retirement Commu-

nities is cavalierlyevicting

nearly 200 seniors in order

to replace them with

wealthier seniors ina more

lucrative facility.

My 91-year-old mother

has lived at thecompany’s

Vintage Westwood Hori-

zons for more than seven

years. When my father

passed away, my mother

was devastated.Like many

seniors, sheresisted mov-

ing to a retirement facility

where she knew no one.

It is traumaticenough

to have to move an elderly

parentfrom herown home.

It is another traumato

uproot heragain after she

has adjustedto this new

environment.

Vintage Westwood

Horizons is much more

than an apartment build-

ing; it isa community and

the lifeblood for many

seniors who have no other

reasonable residential

alternatives.Watermark

should rescind theeviction

notices and allow these

elderlyresidentsto contin-

ue living in this unique and

affordablecommunity. It is

the right thingto do.

Debra Tauger

Los Angeles

::

My mom, Sergee Sum-

mer, was a well-loved fix-

ture at Vintage Westwood

Horizons for11 years. When

even the modestyearly

rent increases outpaced

her ability to pay, the man-

agement— then under

private ownership— froze

her monthly payment.

Iwill forever be grateful

for thiscompassionate

gesture, fardifferentfrom

today’s corporate owner-

ship.

Alison Mayersohn

Los Angeles

Pay-to-play is a

good investment

Re “City Hall’s pay-to-play

culture,” Editorial,Jan. 6

In 2014, the Los Angeles

City Councilgranted $

million in tax breaks to the

Westfield Group in support

of itsboutique shopping

mall, the Village, inwell-to-

do Woodland Hills for no

tangiblereturn.

Seen in that light,West-

field’s recentgifts totaling

nearly $1 millionto causes

spearheaded by Mayor

Eric Garcetti are less than

a2% cut of the money that

the city is already provid-

ing Westfield through tax

abatement. It is easyto see

how that cyclejust keeps

going — because it is self-

sustaining.

We are actually footing

the bill forWestfield’s

bribes.

Siegfried Othmer

Woodland Hills

No more tweeting

Re “Trump vs. Hollywood,”Jan. 10

President-elect Donald Trump deludes himself in

dismissingMeryl Streep’s reactionto his mocking of a

disabledreportedasmereHollywoodliberalism.Streep

voiced theconcerns of millions of Americans whofind

Trump offensive most profoundly on thegrounds of

character, before even considering his politics or

emerging policies.

Trump’s tactic of disparaging anyone who criticizes

him or whocounters his views is primary evidence of a

seriouscharacterflaw. His inability to take responsibility

for his utterances and theirreal impact, along with his

spinning of hiswords as “fighting back” (in some

imagined ongoing battle?),constitutes further evidence

of such a flaw.

Aweek before the inauguration,we face the prospect

of the presidency being trivialized by Trump’s habitual

pettiness. Perhaps his handlers should shut down his

Twitter account, lest his onlycontributionto this

hallowed office be as disparager in chief.

D. Keith Naylor

South Pasadena

HollywoodForeign Press Assn.

MERYLSTREEPwas deemed an “overrated”

actressbyDonald Trump after she criticized him.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ANDPUBLISHER

Davan Maharaj

News

MANAGINGEDITORS

Marc Duvoisin, Lawrence Ingrassia

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

ColinCrawford, Megan Garvey, Scott Kraft

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Christina Bellantoni, Shelby Grad,

Mary McNamara,Kim Murphy, MichaelWhitley

Opinion

NicholasGoldbergEDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Juliet LapidosOP-EDANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR