Anti-Corruption Unit Thru PBSO?!?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/07/17/0717countyethics.html

I posted a link to an article that came out in the Palm Beach Post above. Is possible if such a unit were to be created, will we be the leading agency running it? Would it be in a form of a taskforce? Different Investigators from different municipalities so it won't show any influence from the outside. I think it would be a great idea! We could handle it. The Unit would directly report to the SAO through the supervision of the Sheriff directly. They could also facilitate a class for the investigators in the areas of ethnics, campaign state laws, and so on.

the only corruotion is the double dippers

.

MOD 582 Writes: This article is related to a grand jury recommendation following the latest corruption involving former PBC Commissioners. Recommendations include, "...create an Office of Inspector General...to ensure that public funds aren't squandered for officials' private gain."

If you are going to post accusations or inferences the Sheriff or others in his agency have committed such corruption, you must provide specific, factual information, you identify yourself and or the source of the information, or the issue involved is a public record, or I will not allow it to be posted.

Violations of the Terms of Use will result in suspension.

Let's be careful out there.

Let me see now. Are there anymore out there that we owe jobs to? Betcha this won't get formed until after the next election....that way those jobs can be promised and the rewards given for a 'job well done'. Yesiree, then the WAR ON CORRUPTION can begin lead by RB AND MG and the new-hires...........no problem, we tax-payers will cover that. Can it get any sicker?

When will the minimum allowable campaign contribution be published in order to qualify for a position of CORRUPTION FIGHTER under the experienced leadership of the Sheriff?

RIC BRADSHAW and the Sheriff's office investigating public corruption. What a frikin joke. It's like the FOX guarding the HEN HOUSE. :P

For the poster attacking the Sheriff and his staff, find corruption, report it and hold him accountable. Making snide, accusatory and inflammatory statements that have no basis, ring true to the individual who continously posts anonymously for his/her own personal reasons and gain.

The Grand Jury recommendation is a good idea. Do we have the capacity through the Sheriff's Office in providing the invesigators or creating a multi-jurisdictional taskforce? If they aren't going to get the investigators from us, where would they get them from since the possible formation for such a unit would be through the Commissioners, right? Would the unit be able to handle other cases like the Prinicipal at Palm Beach Gardens High mis-using school funds?

I would think the Inspector General position would probably be given to someone at the State Attorney's Office or perhaps a civilian. I am sure the unit would have a liasion from FDLE attached to it. The point is to restore public trust and confidence knowing such a unit is keeping tabs on the city and county officials activities including School Board, etc. It's well over due.

An "Inspector General's Office" (IG) will not answer to the Sheriff's Office or the State Attorney's Office. The office must be free of any influence by any agency. Benchmark with other areas that have similar operations and you will see they operate indepently from the influence of agency heads in the county they serve.

http://www.lacity.org/oig/isgig1.htm


Mission Statement
The mission of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is to provide strong, independent and effective oversight of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and to ensure that the LAPD, its officers, and employees act with honesty, integrity, dignity, and respect towards the public, as well as ensuring that both the OIG’s as well as the LAPD’s responsibilities under the Federal Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice (Consent Decree) are being met. In addition, the OIG conducts community outreach to educate the community about the OIG, the Police Commission (Commission), and the LAPD on a periodic basis, but especially in the wake of high-profile use of force incidents and other newsworthy developments of particular interest to the community. The OIG carries out its mission through three discrete sections: the Complaint Section, the Audit Section, and the Use of Force section. The responsibilities and objectives of each section are described below.

Complaint Section
The OIG’s Complaint Section does the following:

Assists members of the public as well as LAPD employees in filing complaints of misconduct involving LAPD employees.

Assists LAPD employees in matters involving allegations of retaliation and other workplace concerns, as well as monitors LAPD’s investigations into such matters to ensure that both the employee’s rights as well as LAPD’s legitimate business interests are protected.

Ensures that other complaints of misconduct are properly handled and are thoroughly and objectively investigated.

Prepares quarterly reviews of the Chief of Police’s (COP) imposition of discipline during that quarter which are presented to the Commission to assist them in assessing the appropriateness of the COP’s actions in imposing discipline, and which assessment is considered by the Commission in conducting the COP’s annual evaluation.

Prepares an annual review and assessment, to be presented to the Commission in public session, of LAPD’s investigations into and handling of complaints of retaliation by LAPD employees.

Conducts independent investigations into sensitive and/or high profile matters involving the LAPD, either at the request of the Commission or of PSB.

Audit Section
The OIG’s Audit Section has two main responsibilities:

To review specified LAPD audits, assessing their completeness, quality and findings. Specifically, the Audit Section conducts in-depth reviews of the following LAPD audits:

i. Complaint Investigations Audit;
ii. Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Stops Audit;
iii. Warrant Application and Supporting Affidavit Audit;
iv. Confidential Informants Audit;
v. Non-Categorical Use of Force Investigations Audit;
vi. Arrest Booking and Charging Reports Audit;
vii. Gang Enforcement Detail Selection Criteria Audit; and
viii. Sting Audits of LAPD Personnel.

To audit higher-risk Complaint Investigations and Non-Categorical Use of Force Investigations, focusing on transcriptions/summarization of recorded statements, the proper collection and analysis of all available evidence, and/or the proper adjudication of complaint investigations. Additionally, at the request of the Commission or at the OIG’s discretion, the Audit Section conducts risk-based audits of other areas within the LAPD.

Use of Force Section
The OIG is involved throughout the investigative and adjudicative process of every Categorical Use of Force (CUOF) incident (e.g., an officer-involved shooting, a head strike with an impact weapon, an in-custody death, a law enforcement related injury involving hospitalization, etc.) involving an LAPD employee. The OIG’s involvement in these matters include:

Being immediately notified by the LAPD Command Post of a CUOF;
Being present at the scene of a CUOF observing the investigation in progress.
Reviewing Force Investigation Division’s (FID) investigation of the CUOF;

Attending LAPD’s Use of Force Review Board:
Reviewing and assessing the Chief of Police Memorandum to the Board of Police Commissioners regarding the CUOF; and

Preparing an evaluation and assessment for the Commission of FID’s investigation, as well as providing recommendations to the Commission as to how the OIG believes the Commission should adjudicate the CUOF incident.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Background

The creation of an Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) within the Los Angeles Police
Commission was first proposed in 1991 by the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles
Police Department (“Christopher Commission”) that was formed in the aftermath of the Rodney King incident. Voters of Los Angeles adopted the Charter changes necessary to implement this proposal in 1995, and the Police Commission appointed the first Inspector General (“IG”) in 1996.

Additional Charter changes, which substantially clarified the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General, were adopted in 1999, and became effective in 2000. Among the Charter amendments concerning the OIG were two significant changes. First, the IG now reports directly to the Police Commission. Previously, the IG worked under the direction of the Executive Director of the Police Commission. Further, the IG now has independent authority to initiate any investigation relating to the Police Department, subject to the Police Commission’s ability to direct that an investigation not be commenced or that an ongoing investigation be stopped. Prior to the amendment, the IG’s authority in this area had been subject to challenge.

Two recent events have highlighted the importance of the OIG. The first is the Rampart
corruption scandal. The Department convened an internal “Board of Inquiry” which reviewed a wide range of management practices and policies. In response to community demand for an independent, external review of Department operations, policies, and procedures, the Police Commission appointed a broad-based Independent Review Panel which issued its own report and recommendations.

The OIG, together with the Executive Director and Police Commission staff, organized
and coordinated the work of this Panel. The gravity of the Rampart corruption scandal and the resulting reports and recommendations underscored the need for strong and independent civilian oversight by the Police Commission and the OIG.

The second significant recent event is the Consent Decree between the City of Los Angeles
(“City”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). In response to allegations of widespread civil rights violations by LAPD, the DOJ advised the City in May 2000 of its intention to bring a federal court action to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern and practice of misconduct. Negotiations between the parties resulted in a consent decree, which was approved by a United States District Court judge in June 2001. The Consent Decree includes provisions for the appointment of an independent monitor and regular reporting to the court to oversee compliance with the terms and conditions of the Decree. The Consent Decree, with its heavy emphasis on monitoring and auditing, further defines and expands the role of the OIG with respect to governance of the Department.

Evolution of the Role of the Inspector General
The main duty of the Inspector General, as envisioned by the Christopher Commission, was to “oversee the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) disciplinary process and to participate in the adjudication and punishment of the most serious cases.” As finally enacted by the 1995 Charter Amendment, the duties were both broader and more circumscribed. The creation of theOIG did not alter the exclusive power of the Chief of Police over disciplinary matters, and hence, the OIG was not intended to replace the function of Internal Affairs in investigating or adjudicating complaint investigations, or to decide punishment in particular cases. On the other hand, the OIG was authorized to “perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Board.”

Within six months of the appointment of the first Inspector General, the Police Commission issued a statement defining the duties and authority of the Inspector General. In addition to restating the IG’s duties as set out in the Charter, the Board also specified that the Inspector General was to have: complete and unrestricted access to all LAPD records, reports, and audits; direct and prompt access to any LAPD employee; the power to subpoena witnesses; and the authorization to make available to appropriate law enforcement officials any information or evidence relating to criminal acts.

The Police Commission then engaged the services of Merrick J. Bobb, Deputy General Counsel to the Christopher Commission, to lead a group in evaluating the Department’s progress in implementing the reforms proposed by the Christopher Commission report five years after its release. In May 1996, Bobb’s report, Five Years Later: A Report to the Los Angeles Police Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department’s Implementation of Independent Commission Recommendations (“Five Years Later”), reiterated the importance of the five major functions of the OIG in strengthening the Police Commission’s effectiveness in overseeing the LAPD. That report pointed out that both the IG’s and the Commission Executive Director’s authority is as broad as that of the Police Commission itself. Bobb recommended that the Police Commission support the
OIG actively – providing staffing, physical and technological resources, and, to “support the Inspector General should there be any resistance to the unprecedented level of scrutiny that he or she will necessarily undertake.”

In January 1999, the Police Commission adopted a second motion regarding the IG that reiterated the language of its earlier statement. In June 1999, the voters approved another Charter amendment strengthening the role of the OIG. The amendment specifically granted the IG the same access to Department information as the Police Commission and conferred the authority to initiate any investigation of the Department without prior Police Commission authorization, but subject to a Commission directive not to commence a new investigation or not to continue an existing investigation. The amendment also resolved the reporting relationship between the Police Commission and the Executive Director by clarifying that the IG would report directly to the Commission.

Following the Charter amendments, the Police Commission again took up the issue of creating “work rules” governing the OIG. Because the Charter broadened the investigative authority of the OIG, the City Attorney and the Police Commission believed that rules or protocols should be promulgated with respect to such investigations. As the OIG evolved from an office that performed largely an audit function to one equipped with greater investigative authority, there was a concern that rules needed to be promulgated to address the issue of potentially duplicative or overlapping investigations by the OIG and the Department.

In November 2000, after consultation with the City Attorney, the Commission passed a resolution, which implemented a comprehensive set of work rules. These rules codified the Charter changes and various City Attorney opinions, and provided for the following:

· The Inspector General shall report directly to the Board of Police Commissioners.
· Employees of the Department have an affirmative duty to cooperate fully with the
Inspector General and to provide complete, unrestricted and prompt access to inspect
and/or photocopy all records accessible to the Board.
· The Inspector General shall have prompt access to any employee of the Los Angeles
Police Department, subject to limitations imposed by law or collective bargaining agreement.
· The Inspector General shall maintain the confidentiality of complainants and witnesses
unless disclosure is unavoidable in order to investigate an allegation effectively or is
otherwise required by law.
· The Inspector General has the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take
testimony, and compel the production of relevant books, papers, records or documents.
· The Inspector General is empowered to initiate and conduct investigations of the
Department without limitation as to the type of activity of the Department, unless
specifically directed by the Commission to cease the investigation.
· The Inspector General is not required to provide access to the Department of files of the Office of the Inspector General unless ordered to do so by the Board or required by law.

This statement of duties and responsibilities of the IG reflected the expanded role of the OIG, except in one material respect: Under the new rules, the OIG is not permitted to refer criminal matters to outside law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies. If the OIG believes a matter should be so referred, it must first advise the Chief of Police, and ultimately the Police Commission.

These rules, for the most part, have worked to the satisfaction of all involved. The direct reporting relationship to the Board allows the IG to bring to the Board issues and concerns without having to go through an additional layer. In routine matters, the OIG has been able to access the necessary documents and information to perform its duties. Thus, obtaining relevant materials for completed personnel complaint investigations and officer-involved shootings is usually not problematic. However, when the OIG has requested access to materials in non-routine matters, some obstacles have arisen. There have been disagreements over access to matters that the Department considered “pending” or “active” rather than closed, and as to matters which the Department considers sensitive or highly confidential. Substantial delays in receiving a response are common. On occasion, restrictions have been placed as to the time, place, or manner of reviewing materials, such as being required to review a document under the direct supervision of a
Department employee, or at a particular location. Our view, emphatically, is that unfettered access to Department records is critical to carrying out the Inspector General function effectively.

Please.....
If there is an anti-corruption unit here, #2 will make sure that he run's that his own way. Free from him falling under the microscope.

.

MOD 582 Writes: This article is related to a grand jury recommendation following the latest corruption involving former PBC Commissioners. Recommendations include, "...create an Office of Inspector General...to ensure that public funds aren't squandered for officials' private gain."

If you are going to post accusations or inferences the Sheriff or others in his agency have committed such corruption, you must provide specific, factual information, you identify yourself and or the source of the information, or the issue involved is a public record, or I will not allow it to be posted.

Violations of the Terms of Use will result in suspension.

Let's be careful out there.


Amen MOD, keep up the good work!!!

Now is the time for us to begin firing information to the Commissioners encouraging this Anti-Corruption Entity but certainly allowing PBSO to have anything to do with it would be like the 'wolf guarding the hen-house' - not because of the overwhelming majority of the good and honest working men and women but because of what we all know but are unable to articulate due to the "politics" and all the crud that it drags into the Office of the Sheriff. This is the time for boldness. Many of the 'protected' 'in-crowd' whether through the PBA or knowing where the skeletons are buried are going to get very nervous but it is going to take this gnashing of teeth and the Agency will feel some pain until we can clean ourselves up....starts at the TOP. Like pulling an abcessed wisdom tooth. Wow, once it is out and gone and the gum heals...what a new day. [Deleted]

.

MOD 582 Writes: Although I attempt to edit rather than deleted a posting so it may be in compliance with our Terms of Use, many times this is not possible. On sensitive subjects, I give Advisory Warnings and Information. We encourage your participation in all of our forums, but the Terms of Use are our rules and ask you to consider them when posting on our threads.

This is not a SLAM site and the Forums should be used constructively. Messages (anonymous or not) accusing anyone (including political candidates) of wrong doing (and/or criminal accusations) without substantial proof or reference are subject to deletion. Use your REAL name unless the need for an Anonymous Message is warranted. Messages not requiring Anonymous status, but being abused, are subject to deletion by Moderators. Anonymous Messages are not granted the same right to exist that properly identified Messages are. Failure to comply can result in Message deletion and/or access blockage.

Here's an opportunity to voice your opinion, ask questions, become more informed, make a stand or engage in a healthy debate.

Oh yeah... i forgot to put in that pbso doing anti-corruption investigations is absurd. it's like letting congress vite on their own pay increases. of course they are going to do what is in their best interests. I would list an example but surely it would be deleted from the site from mod 582 because it goes against the agencies better interests.

IA does not onduct criminal investigations. They routinely hand the investigation to detectives or agents, but I assure you that the case is investigated. We all know that there are investigators, supervisors and administrators that just want the allegation to disappear so the agency doesn't get some bad press. People complain about the Blue Form and tracking system, but I can tell you that patterns have emerged with problem employees and its generally not a surprise when someone is sustained or arrested in an investigation. PBSO has the authority, personnel and resources to conduct these types of investigations. Simple fact is I associate a Corruption Squad with that of a unannounced drug screening; I just don't worry about it because I have no intention of crossing the line. It's simple, bad apples in any organization forcast their behavior and when you look into the background of any "Dirty" politician, gov't official or Cop, you see the pattern that has emerged in their career that brought them to a point of termination or arrest. I can assure you the SAO will nail you to the cross if you're dirty. Just look at the jail hospital duty investigation for example. The posters that have the negative comments about corruption investigations clearly show they have never had to conduct one of these cases. I doubt seriously that any law enforcement agency will jeopardize Federal oversite sanctions much like what happend to LAPD. The SAO has a Special Prosecutions Divison so don't be surprised when something happens because there is more going on than these young, inexperienced posters know.