Chief Butts Responds to Police Coverage

March 13, 2001

Dear Editor,

I read your article entitled, "Caught by Surprise: Should Top Officials Have Known About Charges Against Officers?" Your continuing bias against the Santa Monica Police Department and the women and men who valiantly serve this community is apparent.

The issue is very simple, and our reasons for handling notifications in the manner and timetable that I did were explained in detail to you by Captain Gary Gallinot. I and the Captain also gave statements to your assistant reporter, Teresa Rochester. You were provided direct and unambiguous information. Collectively and repeatedly, you were informed of the following four simple points:

1. We have been engaged in a long-term and intensive investigation of officers suspected of filing fraudulently for Workers' Compensation benefits.

2. The District Attorney's Office makes filing decisions based upon their review of the investigative materials provided them.

3. The DA's office filed on two employees, and they surrendered themselves and were processed for booking. The employees were released OR (Oral Recognizance) pending trial, which is common in these types of cases.

4. The Department is investigating other potential case(s) of fraudulent application for Workers' Compensation benefits and intended to do so without informing the Council of these already completed arrests.

While the arrest of a City employee may be public record, neither the City nor the Police Department are required to publicize an arrest. As a matter of courtesy, it has been my practice to notify City Council Members of an arrest of an employee when we have knowledge that an arrest will be publicized. It should be noted that a filing and arrest are not a conviction of a crime. As explained to you, we are pursuing other related matters, and our hope was that these arrests would not be publicized so as not interfere with a successful conclusion of these matters. Unfortunately, this did not occur.

In the instant case, the City Manager was notified when I received confirmation that the individuals had surrendered themselves. Due to the volume of the anticipated arrests (it is unusual to arrest more than one officer), it was my intent to notify Council Members at the conclusion of our investigations. In any event, I would never notify Council Members prior to the conclusion of any related ongoing criminal investigation(s), unless we became aware that the information was going to be publicized. In that case, confidentiality and its investigative advantage would be lost and, as stated earlier, Council would be briefed.

It was my intent to brief members of the Department and Council at the conclusion of our investigations. When it became clear to us that the arrests would become public, I wrote a memo to the Department earlier than intended and copied City Council Members. Council Members who read their e-mails were actually briefed prior to Department members. Your article's statement that when I communicated the officers were arrested, the Council Members were caught by "surprise," is another example of news creation as opposed to reporting. You knew from us that it was our intent to not report such information since we have related ongoing investigation(s). At any point where Council Members are to be told of an officer's arrest, be it simultaneously or months later, it is logical to conclude that they would be surprised since they are not privy to any criminal or internal investigation in progress.

As it pertains to criminal investigations in progress, only the involved investigators, their supervisors, assisting law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, are allowed such information. This is done for two primary reasons. The first is to prevent the leakage of information that would forewarn the subject of a criminal investigation. When a suspect has sensitive knowledge regarding the status of an investigation, it affords a guilty suspect the opportunity to obstruct justice by the coaching or intimidation of witnesses and/or by destroying or concealing evidence that might otherwise be found. The second reason is to protect the reputations of the innocent. A number of criminal investigations terminate without the filing of charges and prosecution of any parties.

In your article, you failed to note one of the primary reasons for the dearth of Workers' Compensation investigations and prosecutions is that these are extremely difficult and time-consuming matters to pursue. I feel that these investigations, though time-consuming and difficult to prove, are well worth the effort. As I told Ms. Rochester, individuals who make false application for such benefits defraud the citizens of Santa Monica of vital police protective services, while simultaneously forcing co-workers to work with less than optimal staffing.

Your article stated in closing, "If the case against the three defendants will call attention to Workers Compensation fraud, it will also likely shine the light on the City's 200 officer police force, which has been hit with the February 2000 arrest of Kenneth Scott... and the May 1999 conviction of Linda Brown..." Let me provide some illumination for your insinuation that somehow that light will be negative for the Santa Monica Police Department.

In every instance of an officer arrest that your article noted, the Santa Monica Police Department has discovered or received the information incriminating the employee, followed up ourselves, or turned the incriminating information over immediately to the agency of proper jurisdiction. We vigorously investigate, discipline and prosecute, where called for, the misconduct of our employees. Our employees support my efforts to maintain a high level of self-policing. The vast majority of the members of this agency are law-abiding, dedicated servants of this City and its residents.

Additionally, the screening process to become a Santa Monica Police Officer is rigorous, thorough and detailed. Some police officers in any department will fail to follow policy and break rules or the law. However, the reality is that if you don't look for misconduct or criminal activity, you seldom find it. The fact that we do so, shines a very positive light and reflects well upon our institutional integrity.

I was encouraged to note the comments of Council Members McKeown and O'Connor, who demonstrated collectively by quoted comments their insight and understanding of these situations and faith in the Police Department. I was contacted also by Council Member Holbrook who expressed his dismay at the arrests, but 100% support for the SMPD employees who serve the community and for our zero tolerance for employees who break the law. I was also contacted by Council Member Bloom, who gave his sympathies to the Department.

It would be refreshing if your publication sought to provide the balance of positive coverage experienced by City police departments in the South Bay. There are a number of public safety accomplishments that should be noted:

Crime in Santa Monica at the end of the year 2000 is down 57% over the past 7 years.

Crime is at its lowest level in 37 years.

Crime in Santa Monica fell 4% in the year 2000 vs. 1999, while crime in surrounding jurisdictions increased 12% during the same year. Crime in the South Bay cities collectively increased 1.4%.

Of equal importance to crime control are the commitment and involvement of the community in the Department and vice-versa, as represented by our Citizens Police Academy (both English and Spanish versions), The Police Activity League center, our substations, and other community programs.

Clearly, collectively as a community, there are still public safety mountains yet to be climbed. We remain dedicated to working in collaborative partnership with citizens we protect and serve in ensuring the safety of all.

In closing Jorge, it is my opinion that your article was clearly an attempt to "make news" as opposed to reporting the news. It most certainly distorted facts known to you. It is also clear that you selectively used and discarded quotes to convey the aura of a covert "cloak and dagger operation" you knew did not exist. This is not the first time you have done so, nor do I expect it will be the last. It is my request that you attempt to accurately and fairly report.

Sincerely

JAMES T. BUTTS, JR.
Chief of Police