Police Commissioners

!TY OF LOS ANGELE FRANK T. MARTINEZ Office of the City Clerk CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK Council and Public Services KAREN E. KALFAYAN Room 395, City Hall Executive Officer Los Angeles, CA 90012 Council File Information - (213) 978-1044 General Information - (213) 978-1133 When making inquiries Fax: (213) 978-1040 relative to this matter refer to File No. CLAUDIA M. DUNN ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA Chief, Council and Public Services Division MAYOR 02-1720

May 17, 2006

Councilmember Zine Councilmember LaBonge City Administrative Officer Councilmember Padilla Police Department Chief Legislative Analyst Board of Police Commissioners

RE: FEASIB.I.LrrY OF ASSIGNING UNIFORMED OFFICERS ON OVERTIME STATUS TO WORK AT CITY AND PRIVATE VENUES

At the meeting of the Council held May 12, 2006, the following action was taken:

Attached report reconsidered and re-adopted as amended ...... __---=-X~-- Attached amending motion (LaBonge - Padilla) adopted ...... __---=-X"--- Attached resolution adopted ...... ______FORTHWITH ...... ------Mayor concurred ...... ______To the Mayor FORTHWITH ...... ~~~~~- Motion adopted to approve communication recommendation(s) ...... ______Motion adopted to approve committee report recommendation(s) ... ______Ordinance ~dopted ...... ______Ordinance number ...... ·------

PLACE IN FILES

City Clerk er

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER File No. 02-1720

TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Your PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE reports as follows: Yes No Public Comments XX

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the feasibility of assigning uniformed officers on overtime status to work at City and private venues.

Recommendation for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Zine - Miscikowski):

APPROVE the assignment of uniformed Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers on an overtime basis to work at City and private venues, substantially as outlined in the LAPD's report dated November 29, 2005, * with the understanding that the program be fee supported through the Contract Services Section of the LAPD as opposed to the General Fund (* Parks - Garcetti).

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the LAPD or the Board of Police Commissioners (Commission). Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Summary:

On August 7, 2002, Council referred Motion (Zine- Miscikowski), relative to allowing off-duty LAPD officers to work, in uniform, as security for the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), to the Public Safety Committee for consideration. The subject Motion reports that one way the City can help keep a diversified economy moving is through the protection and service the men and women of the LAPD provide to residents, visitors, and businesses of the City. In particular, the various BIDs, that the City helps to form could be more successful by making the shopping experience the safest possible through the presence of LAPD officers as security.

Motion (Zine - Miscikowski) further asserts that the formulation of a BID is used as an economic recovery tool for a certain area that has stagnant or no business life. Many Bl Ds hire their own security force to protect themselves and visiting clients. Unfortunately, the hired security does not deter some criminal elements. Many BID managers believe the use of off-duty officers, in uniform, as security would actually deter crime and help bolster the confidence of consumers to shop in their area.

Motion (Zine - Miscikowski) requests the Commission to consider implementing a policy to allow off duty LAPD officers to work, in uniform, as security for the BIDs. The Motion further recommends that the Board report back to Council on the feasibility of implementing such a policy.

On September 30, 2004, the Office of the Chief of Police submitted a report entitled, "Supplemental Report to Uniformed Off-Duty Officers as Security for BIDs." The correspondence addressed how other law enforcement agencies' policies allowed uniformed off-duty officers to work at various locations within their respective jurisdictions. The correspondence listed several reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the City and the LAPD to allow uniformed off-duty officers to work as security guards at BID locations.

Further, the report recommended that the LAPD conduct further research to examine the liability and prudence of continuing to allow uniformed off-duty officers to work directly for private entities such as the Hollywood Bowl, Los Angeles Coliseum, Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles Sports Arena, and Staples Center, etc. On May 10, 2005, the Office of the Chief of Police submitted a report to the Commission, entitled "Evaluate the Feasibility of Assigning Uniformed Off-Duty Officers to Work at City Venues and Special Events." The report addressed the issues and proposed a method in which the LAPD could create a new section or augment an existing section to implement and oversee contracts with non-LAPD entities for supplemental uniformed off-duty officer services. These contracted uniformed off-duty officers would be completely under the direction and supervision of the LAPD, not that of the private entity. At that time, the Commission approved the idea of contract policing in concept only, and forwarded the report to Council for review.

On June 6, 2005, the Public Safety Committee directed the LAPD to provide additional information regarding the procedure for requesting supplemental LAPD service and the LAPD's response(s) thereto.

In its transmittal dated November 29, 2005, the LAPD reports that an entity desiring to hire its officers would contact its Contract Section. A supervisor from the Contract Section would then meet with the private entity and determine if the entity meets the LAPD's criteria for approval or denial. They would also discuss the deployment needs and the specific duties that the officers would perform. The supervisor would determine the number of officers and supervisors needed, and would thoroughly explain the fees and the supplemental law enforcement contract with the entity.

Upon execution of a contract by both parties, the supervisor would give the entity a copy of the contract. The supervisor would ensure the contracted-assignment job opportunities were listed on the LAP D's Website indicating the specific date, time, and nature of the assignment. The notice would also include information as to when personnel are to contact the Contract Section to sign up for the event. The Contract Section would develop a written action plan, detailing the contracted officers' responsibilities for that event and create a daily work sheet. A copy of these reports would be provided to the involved officers and concerned Area watch commander.

The LAPD concludes that the assignment of uniformed officers on an overtime basis to work at City and private venues would enhance public safety and increase the presence of uniformed personnel throughout the City. This would benefit the LAPD, the City, and the people who work, live, and visit the City of Los Angeles.

At its regular meeting held April 24, 2006, the Public Safety Committee considered this matter and recommended that Council approve the recommendations of the LAPD, substantially as outlined in the LAPD's report dated November 29, 2005, and as initiated by Motion (Zine - Miscikowski). This matter is now submitted to Council for its consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

MEMBER VOTE WEISS YES /) • t!,.;2_ Ao&EPTEo SMITH YES \t€..~~""-"-e.ic. ~ PARKS YES ~ A S - A Mt.rill~ ZINE MAY 1 0 2006 REYES 1:~ENTfrADOPTED M 04126/06 #021720.wpcl MAY 1 2 2006 LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

LOS*~~ ANGELES CITY COUNCIL • ~ A \..la d2. e .rL fY\~ VERBAL MOTION

I HEREBY MOVE that Council AMEND the Public Safety Committee report reconsidered from Council meeting of May 10, 2006 (Item No. 13, CF 02-1720) relative to the feasibility of assigning uniformed officers on overtime status to work at City and private venues to DIRECT the Los Angeles Police Department, with the City Administrative Officer and Chief Legislative Analyst, to meet with the venue managers of Staples Center, Hollywood Bowl, Greek Theater, Convention Center, Kodak Theater, Coliseum, Sports Arena, etc., in connection with the proposal.

PRESENTED BY~~~~~~~~~ TOM LABONGE Councilmember, 4th District

SECONDED BY~~~~~~~~~- ALEX PADILLA Councilmember, 7th District

May 12, 2006

CF 02-1720 ~ Mo~ ADOPTED MAY 1 2 2006

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

O:\Docs\Council Agendas\mk\02-1no.motwpd COUNCIL VOTE May 12, 2006 12:39:20 PM, #8 reconsideration of Item 13 from May 10, 2006 Agenda Adopt as Amended CARDENAS Yes *GREUEL Yes HAHN Yes HUIZAR Yes LABONGE Yes PADILLA Yes PARKS Yes PERRY Yes REYES Yes ROSENDAHL Yes SMITH Yes WEISS Yes WESSON Yes ZINE Absent GARCETTI Yes Present: 14, Yes: 14 No: O COUNCIL VOTE May 12, 2006 12:34:51 PM, #7 Reconsideration CARDENAS Yes *GREUEL Yes HAHN Yes HUIZAR Yes LABONGE Yes PADILLA Yes PARKS Absent PERRY Yes REYES Yes ROSENDAHL Yes SMITH Yes WEISS Yes WESSON Yes ZINE Absent GARCETTI Yes Present: 13, Yes: 13 No: 0 Please fill this fonn out beforee you leave. It will be picked up from this table after the discussion. Thank you, Staff

SPEAKER LIST DATE:_~,__/;._'Z-_/o_f__ ITEM#: ------

NAME DEPT. POSITION

C /J?L)ll- f:l.aft1G A ,QP.!) o~~

/',A;Jr, -:::T"J,A,,1 l'AJ-~/_t:;f.. LAA/J ~ ~/l,,,J, CIT'' 'lF LOS ANGELES SPEAKEr ~ARD

Council File No., Agenda Item, or Case No. 13

I wish to speak before the ____~__ u_· _N_C_\_L______Name of City Agency, Department, Committee or Council

Do you wish to provide general public comment, or to speak for or against a proposal on the agenda? ( ) For proposal ) Against proposal ) General comments Name: AL P-..i'V Pt LCA-6 /),- IV\O\ZTL ~A cf(L I A l Business or Organization Affiliation: f

Address: -~lO=-\.::.._,·a""'------"--2_\__\._c__N_;___~___::;___---'-M_l_,,__~-----"' _.,,__A;---+-=J'----\,\J=--t....:.-,~~==--=--Cvt:"'---J-----q--=-----o-----',e:;~_ Street City State Zip Business phone: ______Representing: (

Client Address: ------c------c------Street City State Zip

Please see reverse of card for important information and submit this entire card to the presiding officer or chairperson. COUNCIL VOTE

May 10, 2006 10:33:05 AM, #4 ITEM NO. (13) Voting on Item(s): 13 Roll Call CARDENAS Yes GREUEL Yes HAHN Absent HUIZAR Absent LABONGE Yes PADILLA Yes PARKS Yes PERRY Yes REYES Yes ROSENDAHL Absent SMITH Yes WEISS Absent WESSON Yes ZINE Absent *GARCETTI Yes Present: 10, Yes: 10 No: O Please fill this form out before you leave. It will be picked up from this table after the discussion. Thank you, Staff

SPEAKER LIST

DAIB: ITEM#: _l_·~-~,-:·__ ~lm/o~(

NAME DEPT. POSITION - ft (( \d'11\tD Ji~ POv\c& ComM~ G; L) I (Z_,

::17/'V( /?__/1-U",I If',t.... ,t'A '.f." LA-tf/A I"AJ T.iiii!I.- -

r .. .. • J . } L .i

---...----· ·_.,------...... RGClllflr:1i,11m.,rzcrrCJ:L ACIIOR · ·counaL1 · 1'1J.• lfo. :: 09--i1riJ· · . .[!] COUI\Ci.1 Kub.ea: ( s) - D Mayor (vi~vithout ~ile) (Ka.J.1 St:op 310) City Administrative Officer (Mail st.op ·t:30) .00.. D 'C:Lt.f AUWmey /c,11 A-r7 wjot-'1€ .S-tt6Sr" (Mail .,1:op L~O) ~· Cb.le~ t,eg-ia1at1ve AmLtrst (Ka.11· Stop ~-3.f J D ~ntu:o11er · (Kail 8'1:op 183 J D (Kail S~p 392.J (Ma.U S1:op 400) .CZI .. [l] SO«.i:'4 o~ Poitc• C01md.~sioi;ie2:s (~ail. S~p· 4'00) D (Ma.11 Stop 250) ·[:].· (Mail St:.op ·iSQ)...

(Kail. . Stop. 2.05) D·. \ . . ··· .• (Ha.U s~cip i,os) .. ·D . . . (Me.LL Stsop .il.S J q . ao,_m of su11•1 and. ~,i-.tr cc~sLoa.e.t:S Cffa:11 S~p 2.1sJ· BUl1dJ.nq: Ad.Vi.-0):i' .lg>p"1 80i.J:4 · ... 0...... Dfi;,a.cb~ of S00:1&1 SenLcae ··~ (ttd.~ ..st9p .,ooJ D ' ...... :., ...... ' Boa.,:d._. ot Social 8'41:Vl~ ~at1,to\1en D....,.. . ." .. . . ~ ., ...... D ...... t.. . . t • . . . . ·, : . II ... ,DI J. • • • " I 5 ' ; • I 1 ...... - LOS ~ --~GELES POLICE COMMI _ :ON

BOARDOF RICHARD M. TEFANK POLICE COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ANDRI: BIROTTE, JR. JOHNW.MACK INSPECTOR GENERAL PRESIDENT

ALAN J. SKOBIN EXECUTIVE OFFICE VICE PRESIDENT SUITE 144-150, PARKER CENTER ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA 150 N. Los ANGELES STREET SHELLEY FREEMAN MAYOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN ANTHONY PACHECO {213) 485-3531 PHONE

JULIE WALTERS {213) 485-8861 FAX COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II

December 7, 2005 BPC #05-0424

~; Honorable Public Safety Committee City of Los Angeles c/o City Clerk's Office City Hall, Room 395 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Attn: Sharon Gin:

RE: AN EVALUATION ON THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSIGNING UNIFORMED OFFICERS ON OVERTIME STATUS TO WORK AT CITY AND PRIVATE VENUES

At its regular meeting of the Police Commissioners held Tuesday, December 6, 2005, the Board APPROVED the Department's report relative to the above matter.

Very truly yours,

BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS ~~/)1~~ CARMEN MONTGOMERY Commission Executive Assistant

Enclosure f)EC 2 0 2005 c: Chief of Police PUBLIC SAFElY

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Recyclable and rmde from recycled waste I <1<· /;)u {)S--{)fc) r INTkADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONQ.l!,1~CE r: 7t

November 29, 2005 RECEIVED 3.3.1 NOV 29 2005 POLICE COMMISSION TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners .~.1fJ- •r lsofoi FROM: Chief of Police

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSIGNING UNIFORMED OFFICERS ON OVERTIME STATUS TO WORK AT CITY AND PRIVATE VENUES - REVISED

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. That the Board of Police Commissioners approve this report.

2. That the Board of Police Commissioners transmit this report to the City Council, Public Safety Committee.

DISCUSSION

Background

On September 30, 2004, the Office of the Chief of Police submitted an Intradepartmental Correspondence to the Board of Police Commissioners (Commission) entitled, "Supplemental Report to Uniformed Off-Duty Officers as Security for Business Improvement Districts (BID). "

The correspondence addressed how other law enforcement agencies' policies allowed uniformed off-duty officers to work at various locations within their respective jurisdictions. The correspondence listed several reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the City and the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) to allow uniformed off-duty officers to work as security guards at BID locations.

Lastly, the correspondence recommended that the Department conduct further research to examine the liability and prudence of continuing to allow uniformed off-duty officers to work directly for private entities such as the Hollywood Bowl, Los Angeles Coliseum, Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles Sports Arena, and Staples Center, etc.

On May 10, 2005, the Office of the Chief of Police submitted an Intradepartmental Correspondence to the Commission, entitled "Evaluate The Feasibility OfAssigning Uniformed Off-Duty Officers To Work At City Venues And Special Events." The report addressed the issues and proposed a method in which the Department could create a new section or augment an existing section to implement and oversee contracts with non-Department entities for The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page2 3.3.1 supplemental uniformed off-duty officer services. These contracted uniformed off-duty officers would be completely under the direction and supervision of the Department, not that of the private entity. At that time, the Commission approved the idea of contract policing in concept only, and forwarded the report to the Public Safety Committee for review.

On June 6, 2005, the Public Safety Committee (PSC) directed the Department to provide additional information regarding the staff report outlining the Department's Evaluation ofthe Feasibility ofAssign.ing Uniformed Officers on Overtime Status to Work at City and Private Venues. The following information is provided in response to that request.

Response to the Public Safety Committee's Request for Additional Information

How will Contract Section operate?

Contract Section would be the Department entity responsible for managing and coordinating the staffing of contracted officers and ensuring the proper application of the Memorandum of Understanding. This Section would be authorized to coordinate contractual supplemental law enforcement services for the Department.

The proposed staffing of Contract Section would require newly authorized positions to consist of one Lieutenant II, two Sergeants II, three Police Officers III, one Senior Clerk Typist, and one Clerk Typist. The supplemental law enforcement services contract will fund these positions via an administrative fee. The Office of the City Administrative Officer will generate a report upon conducting an analysis and evaluation in determining the appropriate administrative fee.

The Section would analyze and deploy the appropriate number of contracted officers for each event. The contracted officers would be under the Department's chain of command and direction. Thus, the officers would enforce all laws and ordinances without fear of retaliation from the venues' management. The Department's supervision of the contracted officers would protect the City and the Department from liability issues and ensure the professional conduct of the contracted officers.

The Department would effectively monitor the deployment, mission, supervision, and the amount of overtime contracted officers work at these venues. In this fashion, Los Angeles Police Officers' duties will not be limited to only security, traffic, or crowd control. The supervisory staff of this Section would be responsible for meeting and finalizing contracts with private entities that desire supplemental uniformed officers to be present during their events. The contract would clearly indicate the following:

• The Department will determine the numben>f officers anctsupervisors1o be-deployed· ,. ... ,, ·· ·-···-· at the event; • The officers will have a predesignated· action plan to be ·determined by Contract Section; -- -· · --- ·· · .. • The private entity is not financially responsible for any injury and/or liability to the officers or City equipment; • In the event the Department is unable to provide the agreed upon officers to work the event, the contract will be altered or voided upon agreement with the private entity and the Department; • In the event the contracted entity or the officers must request additional Department resources to secure adequate public safety, the private entity may be held fmancially liable for the associated expense of the additional resources; and, • Upon billing, if the entity desires to contest any fees associated with the Department's services rendered, the entity must notify Contract Section in writing within 48 hours of the conclusion of the event. Failure to notify Contract Section would eliminate any further challenge to dispute the associated fees. If the entity did contest the fees in writing within 48 hours, a hearing regarding the fees imposed would be conducted within 36 hours or at a time agreed upon by both parties.

In addition, the Contract Section would be responsible for:

• Ensuring that the contracted-employment opportunities are listed on the Department Website in a timely manner, instructing officers/supervisors of when they may contact the unit to sign up for the assignment; • The development of a written action plan and work sheet for each contracted officer assigned; • Ensuring the proper deployment of officers and/or supervisors at the specific event; • Ensuring that each assigned contracted officer and on-duty watch commander, in the concerned Area, received a copy of the action plan and work sheet; and, • Coordination with Fiscal Operations Division, regarding billing for services.

The supplemental law enforcement services shall be rendered by regularly appointed full-time peace officers (as defined in Section 830.1 of the Penal Code). Duties performed by Department personnel shall encompass only law enforcement duties and not services authorized to be provided by a private security operator (refer to Business and Professions Code Section 7582.1 ). Supplemental law enforcement services rendered shall not reduce the normal and regular ongoing service that the Department normally provides.

Los Angeles Police Department Manual Section 1/270.30 delineates the Department's criteria for prohibited activities that include, any employment, activity, or enterprise for compensation which is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with or inimical to, duties as an employee of the Department or with the duties, functions or responsibilities of the Department. The following criteria will be utilized to approve the venues for supplemental law enforcement services: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page4 3.3.1

• The location must be within the City of ms.Angeles; • The location must be open to the public; • The event and the location must comply. with all appropriate City, County, State and Federal laws, regulations or ordinances; __ . . • The event would impact public safety} -:-: ·- . . ... • The presence of additional police resources, at the location, would benefit the event, the surrounding community, and the City; • The event/location is not involved in a labor dispute; • The event is not a political party event or fundraiser; • The event is scheduled as a seasonal or special event at the location; and, • The theme of the event is not prohibited by City or Department policy.

On April 18, 1978, the Commission approved a policy governing uniformed off-duty employment for Department employees. Paragraph II (under "Prohibited Activities") defines situations prohibiting the use of the badge, uniform, prestige, or influence of an employee's official position. An exception to the prohibition is allowed in specific cases when a determination has been made by the Commission that the employment is in the best interest of the City. promotes the Department's interest in pubUc safetv. and the duties are substantially the same as those that would be performed if the employee were on duty.

Venues that have been approved by the Commission for uniformed off-duty officers to work pursuant to the above policy are:

• Dodger Stadium • Grand Olympic Auditorium • Greek Theater • Hollywood Bowl • Kodak Theater • Los Angeles City Commission Hearings • Los Angeles Coliseum and Sports Arena • Los Angeles Convention Center • Motion Picture/Television Film Picture Locations • Movie Premiere locations • Public and private junior and senior high schools within the City of Los Angeles • Staples Center

The above venues predominately entertain a large number of attendees on specific dates and for a fixed period of time. By allowing these venues and other private entities the opportunity to contract with the Department for supplemental police service, the deployment of contracted officers would be under the control of the Department, not the private entity. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page5 3.3.1

Explain the chain ofcommand/supervision ofcontracted officers.:.: .. : :. : . .. . _:::. :~. .-.. ·; ::.::.~

• The recommended span of control will be as follows:-when there are.eight or less contracted officers assigned to an event, the wncemaj Area.wotlld.bexesIK?.nsible for~upervising the conduct of the contracted officers .. The concerned Area.supervisor(s} would respond to any contracted officers' request for a supervisor, and will be required to handle discrepancies in the contracted officers' duties, personnel complaints, use of force investigations, and any other occurrence in which a supervisor would nonnally respond. Concerned Area watch commanders will be notified of contracted officers working in their Area.

For every event that requires an excess of eight contracted officers, a contracted supervisor would be required. For every assignment requiring a minimum of 24 contracted officers, 3 contracted supervisors, and 1 contracted lieutenant would be required.

Would hiring contracted officers conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

• No, when an officer has accrued 96 hours of overtime, any overtime hours worked thereafter must be compensated in cash. If the officer has not exceeded the 96-hour threshold during a deployment period, on the average, the officer may work from 11 to 15 hours for compensation time. Any overtime hours worked beyond the 11 to 15 hours must be compensated in cash. In addition, on-call court and straight time do not affect the 96-hour threshold. Thus, there is no conflict with FLSA as the contracted officers would be compensated at time and a half cash. Moreover, contracted officers' salaries are compensated by the entity that contracted the supplemental police service.

Would having contracted officers work for private entities unnecessarily drain Department resources?

• No, officers assigned to work the details will be off-duty, not depleting from on-duty personnel. Contracted officers working at venues within the City would effectively reduce radio calls for service and crime at and/or near those venues. The additional presence of contracted officers would enhance the public perception that there are more police officers deployed in the City. The community cannot distinguish if the officers are on or off duty. Since the private entity would primarily pay for the officers' salaries, the City would benefit through the reduction of crime and radio calls for service, thus freeing patrol officers to handle calls for service more related to the day-to-day needs of the community.

Address the concern that with the implementation ofsupplemental police service, there could be a negative public perception that only wealthy businesses would be able to finance such services.

• The opportunity to contract for supplemental police service would be available to any approved private entity within the City. Supplemental police service of contracted officers would not affect the normal deployment of any Area/division. In addition, increased safety The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page6 3.3.1

at these venues would impact all :visitors and participants from all.communities. within the· City.

In 1978 the City and County of San Franct$CO- ~~ted.Section 1OB -of.the:Administrativ.e-Code~: _ .. - .:.::. · -:· ~-:: = which established the Police Law Enforcement Services Program; .This se:etion authoriz_e$ the--_--~------~---·· ...._._:::: Chief of Police to provide police services to private individuals and companies, as well as to public entities for a fee. The contract between the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the entity requesting the police services states the entity shall comply with the provisions of Section lOB.1 through lOB.5. Administrative Code Section 10B.2(e) requires the entity shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend said City and County of San Francisco, SFPD, and all the officers, agents and employees of either, from and against all liability, judgements or claims for personal or bodily injuries, false arrests and false imprisonment caused by or purportedly caused by such personnel in the rendering of such services. The Indemnification Clause is contained in the contract.

The hiring of contracted SFPD officers by private entities is referred to as the "JOB Program." Each of the ten districts within SFPD has a JOB Coordinator. Private entities contact the lOB Coordinator at the station that has jurisdiction where the event is to be held. The private entity enters into a contract with SFPD's Police Law Enforcement Services. Officers are paid an hourly salary of time and a half. The entity is billed at the officers' salary at time and a half plus a city administrative fee of 14. 70 percent. The city administrative fee goes into a separate fund for the city. The hourly salary at time and a half rate is placed into the SFPD's overtime fund from which the officers are paid.

The 1OB Program contract contains an Indemnification Clause that holds the private entity liable, not the City of San Francisco or SFPD. Injuries are covered in the same manner as if they occurred while on duty.

The Department would adopt an Indemnification Clause/liability Policy similar to the SFPD model. The Office of the City Attorney will present this in a separate report.

Procedure for a Typical Request for Supplemental Los Angeles Police Service

An entity desiring to hire contracted officers would contact the Contract Section. A supervisor (a lieutenant and/or sergeant) from Contract Section would meet with the private entity and determine if the entity meets the Department's criteria for approval or denial. They would also discuss the deployment needs and the specific duties that the officers would perform. The supervisor would determine the number of officers and supervisors needed, and would thoroughly explain the fees and the supplemental law enforcement contract with the entity. Once the contract has been agreed upon and signed by both parties, the supervisor would give the entity a copy of the contract. The supervisor would ensure the contracted-assignment job opportunities were listed on the Department's Website indicating the specific date, time, and nature of the assignment (similar to LAX uniformed overtime assignment opportunities). The notice would also include information as to when personnel are to contact the Contract Section to sign up for the event. Contract Section would develop a written action plan, detailing the . .

The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page7 3.3.1

contracted officers' responsibilities for. that.event ~4 c~~ie-a ~ajly work sh~.~,~. A.~.9.PY.

. - :- ~• The assignment of uniformed officers: Qn ail ~vertime b~i~.: to w9rk. at :City m;!

If you have any questions, please contact Captain James H. Cansler, Commanding Officer, Planning and Research Division, at (213) 485-4111.

Respectfully, I

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2005

ROOM 1010-CITYHALL-10AM 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBER CINDY MISCIKOWSKI, CHAIR COUNCILMEMBER EDP. REYES ~ COUNCILMEMBER BERNARD C. PARKS v COUNCILMEMBER JACK WEISS ~ COUNCILMEMBER DENNIS P. ZINE V'

(Adrienne Bass- Legislative Assistant 11-213-978-1073 or email - [email protected])

Note: For information regarding the Committee and its operations, please contact the Committee Legislative Assistant at the phone number and/or email address listed above. The Legislative Assistant may answer questions, provide materials, and provide notice of matters scheduled before the City Council. Assistlve listening devices are available at the meeting; upon 72 hour advance notice, other accommodations, such as sign language interpretation, and translation services will be provided. Contact the legislative Assistant listed above for the needed services. TDD available at (213) 978-1055. · ·

FILE NO. SUBJECT

(1) ( 04-2253 / / . . "I General Services Depart nt (GSD) rep6rt relative to status of perimeter and infrastructure security technol upg;ades· in Department of Animal Services facilities.

Fiscal Impact Statement submjtred: / DISPOSITION _____/_,,_,,.,. __ l_. ----'---'1'--_{:____ -.-- _____._ ~ ·2~~SD ~o-..~C~ .(2) .. ~ ~ ~) o..-l~ 02-1720 Ca:>M t\\. lS s (."'"""" I~-~ e.....th::-. 6-e. Los Angeles Police 1'epa1 t, 1re11t (LAPD) report in response to-Moticm (Zine-Miscikowski) _n ·- _ _ relative to assigning uniformed officers on overtime status to work at City and private ~ • venues.

Fiscal Impact Statement submitted: No ~ ,.... l tL-?+- ~ ~ d-'---,Q_ ,

DISPOSITION t) 0 rJ e. 1~ z;cA e..._A:° . ·- 1 Q V '. ?-') ~~'f C.A,~ ~ 1-,..:.>~ ·1 _fl ~c/' yY _ +o~ ~ -t-o~ ~/ (-f 2'lj:!D/ ~ ~-~~4on-b '-J.j{ '/ ~.( 0--&.,t:- ~ ~·-f~~ . ~ ~ • 'PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~;r- Monday,June6,2005 ~ )

'3 ~ Nf rJ-- ~ve (L ~ ~0-.0. ~. ,.i, I ~1') N~-- ~(c. ir'v-- ~ p ~ . TRA TAL

TO DATE · COUNCIL FILE. No. " .'

THE COUNCIL 1 _MAY 23 2005 ' -

FROM COUNCiL DISTRICT THE MAYOR

TRANSMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. PLEASE SEE ATIACHED. From: June 1.agmay Leg. Coord'r, Mayor ·l . JAMES K. »AHN MAYOR MAY 2 5 2005 PUBLIC SAFETY I LOS ~GELES POLICE COMMI: ON

BOARDOF RICHARD M. TEFANK POLICE COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ANDRE BIROTTE, JR. DAVIDS. CUNNINGHAM, Ill INSPECTOR GENERAL PRESIDENT

ALAN J. SKOBIN EXECUTII/E OFFICE VICE PRESIDENT SUITE 144-150, PARKER CENTER JAMES K. HAHN 150 N. LosANGB..ES STREET CORINA ALARCON MAYOR LosANoaes, CA 90012 RICK J. CARUSO ROSEOCHI (213) 485-3531 PHONE JULIE VALENZUELA (213) 485-8861 FAX COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT U

May 12, 2005 BPC #05-0138 #05-0138A The Honorable James K. Hahn Mayor, City of Los Angeles City Hall, Room 303 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Attn: June Lagmay

Dear Mayor Hahn:

RE REQUEST AN APPROVAL REGARDING THE EVALUATION AND FEASIBILITY OF ASSIGNING UNIFORMED OFFICERS ON OVERTIME STATUS TO WORK AT CITY AND PRIVATE VENUES OR AS AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54069.3

At the regular meeting of the Board of Police Com.missioners held Tuesday, May 10, 2005, the Board APPROVED the Department's report and Executive Director's report relative to the above matter.

The Board requests that subject to your approval, this matter be fotwarded to the City Council for their approval.

Respectfully,

Commission Executive Assistant

Enclosure

c: Chief of Police Public Safety Committee Attn: Adrienne Bass

.ti EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY -AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Recycable and made ~.pc-~05-013iA ~1+ < • INTRJ~~ ~PARTMENTAL CORRESPONDF,_. _,E RECEIVED MAY o·s 2005 May 5, 2005 1.0 POLICE COMMISSION

TO: Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

FROM: Executive Director, Board of Police Commissioners

SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENT EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSIGNING UNIFORMED OFFICERS ON OVERTIME STATUS TO WORK AT CITY AND PRIVATE VENUES

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. That the Police Commission adopt the recommendations included in the Department report.

2. That the Police Commission request the City Attorney to provide guidance as to the legality of the Department's recommended action.

3. That the Police Commission direct the Commission Investigation Division, in concert with the Department, and other stakeholders to review the current practice of off duty/retired motor officers staffing City :filming locations.

DISCUSSION:

I concur with the recommendations of the Department in tlns report. I have had the opportunity to provide input to the Department based on my past experience and knowledge in this area.

The report needs to be evaluated in two parts; First, "off-duty'' police officers working and being compensated directly by a private entity and secondly, uniformed off-duty and retired motor officers at City :filming locations.

· The Department's report addresses the viability of providing the opportunity for Business Improvement Districts (BIDS), along with other currently approved public and private entities to contract for dedicated police services with the Los Angeles Police Department. I believe the current list of Department approved entities can be expanded to include commercial shopping venues, com.t;nercial events, and other venues identified by the Department as being appropriate in the interest of public safety. The current practice of requesting the services of"off-duty" Los Angeles Police Officers, employing fi?.e officers, and compensating them directly for their services is, in my personal knowledge and experience, not an acceptable ''best practice" in California. , Honorable Board of Police nmissioners • Page2 1.0

The Department report addresses the various issues and provides the appropriate rationale to change the process of allowing for the contracting of dedicated law enforcement resources. 'Fhi.s process allows for those entities that have an identified need to be provided the opportunity to obtain those resources, while not placing a burden on the rest of the community serviced by the respective area. Officers are compensated at their normal rate of time and one-half pay, along with an administrative fee. ·

The only issue is the acceptance of liability on the part of the City in entering into contract arrangements either through the acts of the officers or in the event an officer is injured and a workers compensation claim is made. I believe the current practice of the "off-duty'' police officer wearing the Department uniform, badge, and service weapon present a far greater liability since they are not, at the time of service, an "on-duty'' peace officer.

As to the second part of the report that deals with the issue of uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers at City filming locations, there are several different issues that need to be evaluated.

Since Commission Investigation Division (CID) is tasked with regulating Private Security Operators, I recommend that this issue be assigned to CID in order to evaluate, along with the Department and various stakeholders, the ''best practice" model that is contemporary into today's law enforcement environment.

Separating the issues will allow the Department to work with the various stakeholders in developing the necessary policies, procedures, and resources to implement a plan for the contracting of law enforcement services. This will also provide the City Attorney's Office the opportunity to consider the various legal issues in concert with the Department.

Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Executive Director efCAtO~_,c,~ INTRA.u~PARTMENTAL CORRESPONDL~,CE ~i+1

April 29, 2005 3.3.1 RECEIVED .. -·- .. ~ TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners REWEWEDMAY. ·o 2 2005

FROM: Chief of Police . , . ' , ~LIC~SSI~ .

~~~.. ··~:·· ... "'\~ SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF ASSIGNING UNIFORMED OFFICERS ON OVERTIME STATUS TO WORK AT CITY AND PRIVATE VENUES

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS .

1. That the Board of Police Commissioners approve this report.

2. That the Board of Police Commissioners transmit this report to the City Council, Public Safety Committee.

3. That the Board of Police Commissioners approve, in concept, private entities contracting with the Los Angeles Police Department to provide supplemental law enforcement services for venues, special events, Business Improvement Districts, or occurrences that take place on an occasional basis as authorized by Government Code Section 53069.3.

DISCUSSION

On August 7, 2002, Councilmembers Cindy Miscikowsk:i and Dennis Zine, of the Public Safety Committee (PSC), presented a motion asking the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners (Commission) to consider the implementation of a·policy that would allow uniformed off-duty1 Los Angeles Police Department (Department) office~ the opportunity to work "security" for Business Improvement Districts (BIDS). The PSC requested the Commission cause research into the aforementioned policy and forward the recommendations to the PSC when completed.

On May 4, 2004, the Department presented its initial policy recommendations lo the Commission. After studying the recommendations prepared by Personnel Group, the Commission requested that the Department conduct additional research into the feasibility of allowing private entities, that are potential targets for terrorist attack, the opportunity to hire uniformed off-duty officers during heightened security levels of alert.

1 "Uniformed Off-Duty" is defined as officers who work private venues during off-duty time, while in uniform, who are compensated directly by the venue. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page2 3.3.1

In response to the above request, on September 30, 2004, the Department submitted an Intradepartmental Correspondence to the Commission entitled, "Supplemental Report to Uniformed Off-Duty Officers as Security for Business Improvement Districts." The correspondence included other law enforcement agencies' policies regarding uniformed off-duty officers' employment at various locations within their respective jurisdictions. The correspondence listed several reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the City and the Department to allow uniformed off-duty officers to work as security guards at BID locations. Lastly, the correspondence recommended that the Department conduct further research to examine the liability and prudence of continuing to allow uniformed off-duty officers the ability to work directly for private entities such as the Hollywood Bowl, Los Angeles Coliseum, Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles Sports Arena, Staples Center, etc. (Addendum 1).

This report not only addresses the above issues, but it also proposes a policy change that would allow private entities to contract for supplemental police services. Discussion of a method in which the Department can create a new section, or augment an existing section, to implement and oversee contracts for uniformed officers on overtime status2 to provide supplemental police services is included.

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION

The information in this report was obtained from the following sources: Former Department completed staff work regarding off-duty employment and special events, a " best practices" search conducted by Special Projects Section, Planning and Research Division (PRD), and several interviews of Department and outside law enforcement personnel regarding the planning of special events (Addendum 2).

The following Department documents were reviewed. Copies of the documents have been retained by PRD and are available by request.

• Cost of Special Events Report for the Office of the Mayor-Supplemental Report Fact Sheet, prepared by Emergency Services Division, dated December 13, 2004; • Supplemental Report to Uniformed Off-Duty Officers as Security for Business Improvement Districts, from the Chief of Police to the Board of Police Commissioners, dated September 30, 2004; • Cost of Special Events Report for the Office of the Mayor Fact Sheet, prepared by Emergency Services Division, dated August 2, 2004; • Entertainment Industry Development Corporation Fact Sheet, prepared by Office of Human Resources, dated June 15, 2004; and, . • City of Los Angeles Interdepartmental Correspondence Special Events :Permit Process Report, prepared by the Chief Legislative Analyst and City Administrative Officer, dated November 18, 2003.

2 Hereafter referred to as contracted officers. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page3 3.3.1

METHODOLOGY

The following six areas of concern were the focus of this feasibility study:

• Identify the 11 venues currently authorized for uniformed off-duty employment and the criteria utilized to approve these venues for uniformed off-duty employment. Determine if sufficient criteria can be applied to other sites and events; • Compare and contrast the benefits of assigning regular-duty officers3 versus the current process of using uniformed off-duty officers at City venues; • Assess the feasibility of including the BIDs as an approved venue for contracted services; • Assess the feasibility of incorporating the regulation, assignment, and staffing of uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers at City filming locations; • Analyze several other law enforcement agencies whose policies regarding working off-duty in uniform include contracting for supplemental police services; and, • Determine the feasibility of establishing a Contract Services Bureau to manage and coordinate the staffing of contracted officers at City venues. Secondly, address the staffing needs and budget requirements. Lastly, evaluate if coordination for these activities should come directly from the Department or another City Department.

FINDINGS·

Identify the 11 venues currently authorized to deploy uniformed off-duty officers and the criteria utilized to approve these venues for uniformed off-duty employment. Determine if sufficient criteria can be applied to other sites and events.

• On April 18, 1978, the Commission approved a policy governing uniformed off-duty employment for Department employees. Paragraph II (under "Prohibited Activities") defines situations prohibiting the use of the badge, uniform, prestige, or influence of an employee's official position. An exception to the prohibition is allowed in specific cases when a determination has been made by the Commission that the employment is in the best interest ofthe Citv. promotes the Department's interest in public safetv. and the duties are substantially the same as those that would be performed if the employee were on duty.

Venues that have been approved by the Commission for uniformed off-duty officers to work pursuant to the above policy are:

• Grand Olympic Auditorium • Greek Theater • Hollywood Bowl • Kodak Theater

3 Regular-Duty Officer is defined as a uniformed, Department Police Officer, who is on duty during their regular shift. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page4 3.3.1

• Los Angeles City Commission Hearings • Los Angeles Coliseum and Sports Arena • Los Angeles Convention Center • Motion Picture/Television Film Picture Locations • Movie Premiere locations • Public and private junior and senior high schools within the City of Los Angeles • Staples Center

·The above venues predominately entertain large members of the public on specific dates and for a fixed period of time. By allowing these venues and other private entities the opportunity to contract with the Department for supplemental police service, the deployment of contracted officers would be under the control of the Department, not the private entity.

The Department would analyze and deploy the appropriate number of contracted officers for each event. The contracted officers would be under the Department's chain of command and direction. Thus, the officers would enforce all laws and ordinances without fear of retaliation from the venues' management. The Department's supervision of the contracted officers would protect the City and the Department from liability issues and ensure the professional conduct of the contracted officers. Moreover, the contracted officers would have the same City benefits as if they were working their regular-duty assignment. This would relieve concerns regarding the contracted officers' court attendance and/or issues associated with injuries sustained during the performance of their contracted duty.

Contracted officers would have the capability to communicate directly with patrol personnel and watch commanders via the ASTRO radio. In addition, watch commanders would be aware of contracted officers working in the Area/division and be able to provide additional resources if needed during a tactical emergency/unusual occurrence.

Moreover, the Department could effectively monitor the deployment, mission, supervision, and the amount of overtime contracted officers work at these venues. In this fashion, Los Angeles police officers' duties will not be limited to only security, traffic, or crowd control.

Planning and Research Division conducted research regarding the approval process utilized by the Department authorizing uniformed off-duty officers to work at the 11 listed venues. Several significant concerns regarding officer safety and ethical dilemmas were raised and are addressed later in this report. Legal issues were also raised, and a meeting with the City Attorney's Office is pending to resolve those issues. The' Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page5 3.3.1

Compare and contrast the benefits of assigning regular-duty officers versus the current process of using uniformed off-duty officers at City venues.

It is important to note that the Department is currently understaffed. At the present time it is not possible to deploy regular-duty officers to the 11 venues authorized to hire uniformed off-duty officers. The following addresses the various issues associated with utilizing contracted officers.

Would contracted officers be security guards?

• No, the current practice consists of officers working as uniformed security guards for the venue/private entity. Contracted officers would be deployed under the direction of the Department, at the private entity's expense.

• Contracted officers would be held responsible and accountable to adhere to all Department policies, procedures, and to enforce all laws and ordinances. The contracted officers would complete a Daily Field Activity Report, Sergeants Log, and/or Watch Commanders Log, along with any other necessary reports such as crime reports, Field Data Reports, traffic citations, etc. Upon completion of their assignment, these reports will be submitted to the on-duty watch commander of the concerned Area for processing.

Would the arrests made by contracted officers be as a private person or as a police officer?

• Contracted officers will be representing the Department while working in a uniformed on duty overtime capacity for the City, and would make all arrests as police officers. In the event a contracted officer makes an arrest, the concerned Area patrol officers would transport and process the arrestee and/or evidence in accordance with existing Department procedures. The arresting contracted officers would remain at the venue. The contracted officers shall ensure all related reports have been submitted to the concerned Area watch commander, as soon as practicable. In the event a contracted officer must work beyond the contractual end of watch, the circumstances necessitating this "overtime" should be reviewed to determine appropriate billing, and existing Department guidelines will be followed.

If contracted officers receive a subpoena from contracted-overtime assignments, would the contracted officers attend court on their personal time or on City time?

• The Department would compensate the contracted officers for any overtime related to the contracted-overtime assignments, including court appearances. The contracted officers would have the same benefits as delineated in the current Memorandum of Understanding for lieutenants and below. It is important to note these are crimes within the City and are under Department jurisdiction. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page6 3.3.1

The chain ofcommand/supe111ision ofcontracted officers.

• The recommended span of control will be as follows: When there are eight or less contracted officers assigned to an event, the concerned Area would be responsible for supervising the conduct of the contracted officers. The concerned Area supervisor(s) would respond to any contracted officers' request for a supervisor, and will be required to handle discrepancies in the contracted officers' duties, personnel complaints, use of force investigations, and any othet occurrence in which a supervisor. would normally respond. Concerned Area watch commanders will be notified of contracted officers working in their Area.

Would hiring contracted officers conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

• No, when an officer has accrued 96 hours of overtime, any overtime hours worked thereafter must be compensated in cash. Ifthe officer has not exceeded the 96-hour threshold during a deployment period, on the average, the officer may work from 11 to 15 hours for compensation time. Any overtime hours worked beyond the 11 to 15 hours must be compensated in cash. In addition, on-call court and straight time do not affect the 96-hour threshold. Thus, there is no conflict with FLSA as the contracted officers would be compensated at time and a half cash. Moreover, contracted officers' salaries are compensated by the entity that contracted the supplemental police service (see chart on page 8 for hourly salary).

Authorizing contracted officers to work for outside entities would expose the City and the Department to unnecessary liability.

• Under the proposed process, contracted officers would receive the same benefits as regular duty officers. Thus, if the contracted officers acted within the scope and duty of their assignment, the City would be obligated to defend the officers in any judicial or civil proceedings. If the contracted officers became injured while performing their duties, the officers would receive the same medical benefits as any other regular-duty officer.

Would having contracted officers workfor outside entities jeopardize officers ' safety? In addition, would contracted officers have adequate means to communicate with patrol officers and/or have Department resources available during an emergency?

• The deployment of contracted officers would be planned prior to the event to ensure adequate staffing.

• Prior to the event, the watch commander of the concerned Area would be provided with a copy of the contracted officers' daily work sheet and their mission for that event. The watch The·Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page7 3.3.1

commander would also receive the address, duration of the event, and contracted officers' Queen Unit designations and ASTRO assignments.

• If necessary, prior to arrival at the event, the assigned contracted officers would obtain the necessary Department equipment required for their assignment (ASTRO radios, etc.) from their respective Area/division of assignment. At end of watch, the contracted officers would return the Department equipment to the respective Area/division or as directed by their commanding officer.

Would having contracted officers work for private entities unnecessarily drain Department resources (i.e., if contracted officers become involved in a use offorce that would cause on-duty supervisor(s) and/or personnel from Force Investigation Division to respond)?

• No, allowing contracted officers to work venues within the City would effectively reduce radio calls for service and crime at and/or near those venues. The additional presence of contracted officers would enhance the public perception that there are more police officers deployed in the City. The community cannot distinguish if the officers are on or off duty. Since the private entity would primarily pay for the officers' salaries, the City would benefit through the reduction of crime and radio calls for service, thus freeing patrol officers to handle calls for service more related to the day-to-day needs of the community.

• The presence of additional uniformed officers, the reduction of calls for service, and the reduction of criminal activity at and/or near events outweighs the concern that additional Department resources would be unnecessarily utilized. Another benefit is in the event the Department needs additional resources for a tactical alert or an unusual occurrence, the Department could immediately redeploy the contracted officers to meet the Department's needs.

With the implementation ofthis supplemental police service, there could be a negative public perception that only wealthy businesses would be able to finance such services.

• The opportunity to contract for supplemental police service would be available to any approved private entity within the City. Supplemental police service of contracted officers would not affect the normal deployment of any Area/division. In addition, increased safety at these venues would impact all visitors and participants from all communities within the City. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page8 3.3.1

How would the contracted officers working at approved venues be compensated?

• The salaries of the contracted officers would be paid by the entity desiring the supplemental police service. The following is the proposed hourly rate for the rank of Police Officer II through Lieutenant II. The hourly rate was derived by averaging the hourly salaries of each category:

Rank Hourly Rate X Time & Yi + 5% Associated Fees = Cost Police Officer II Police Officer III Detective I 41.06 61.59 3.08 64.67 Sergeant I Sergeant II Detective II Detective III 46.34 69.51 3.48 72.99 Lieutenant I Lieutenant II 54.42 81.63 4.08 85.71

How would the Deparlment bill the private entities that desired supplemental police senlice?

• Once the entity agreed to the number of officers and the associated expense, a contract between the Department and the entity would be signed. After the supplemental police service was provided, Fiscal Operations Division would bill the respective entity. A separate account would be established for supplemental police services.

Assess the feasibility of including the Business Improvement Districts (BIDS) as an approved venue for contracted services.

• A BID is a geographically defined area within the City of Los Angeles in which enhanced City services are paid for through a special assessment from specific members of local businesses within the district. Currently, the Department is understaffed. The patrol divisions frequently have difficulties meeting their minimum patrol requirements. However, ifBIDs desired to increase uniformed police presence within their business area, they could contract for additional uniformed off-duty officers with the Department. Business Improvement District programs in other states hire contracted police officers on an overtime basis (i.e., the Downtown St. Louis Partnership pays into the overtime account).

An existing City Attorney Opinion regarding aspects of this project raised concern should Bills become an approved venue. The Department is currently waiting for an updated City Attorney Opinion on this issue. IfBIDs become an approved venue, the same conditions would apply as to other approved private entities. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page9 3.3.1

Assess the feasibility of incorporating the regulation, assignment, and staffing of uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers at City filming locations.

Each day there are approximately 160 film permits submitted to the City. Two-thirds of these locations require a minimum of one uniformed officer to be present during the filming shoot. When a production company requires the presence of a uniformed off-duty/retired motor officer at a filming location, the production company contacts a "wrangler." The wrangler, an independent contractor, contacts a uniformed off-duty/retired motor officer and offers them the opportunity to work the assignment. If the off-duty/retired motor officer accepts the assignment, he/she is hired.

There are approximately 125 uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers working at filming locations on a daily basis. However, there is no direct Department oversight in the regulation, assignment, and staffing of uniformed off-duty motor officers and retired motor officers at these filming locations. 4 Thus, it is assumed that the uniformed off-duty/retired motor officer will adhere to all the provisions of the work permit such as uniform standard and enforcement of the City's permit regulations. The Department provides no direct supervision to those motor offic~rs, but a spot check is occasionally conducted. The public perception is that motor officers are working for the City, responsible for enforcing all laws and working under the same policies and procedures as a regular-duty officer; when in fact they are actually working for the production company.

There appears to be a conflict of interest with the uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers receiving their mission and salary directly from the production company. For instance, if the production company desired to continue filming past the permit time, the uniformed off duty/retired motor officer has no incentive to enforce the permit. If the uniformed off duty/retired motor officer adhered to the permit regulations, then the off-duty/retired motor officer would run the risk of not being contacted by the wrangler for further assignments. Furthermore, the uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers are paid by the hour, thus if they allowed the production company to continue filming past the permit time, the off-duty/retired motor officers would be compensated for their time and likely be contacted by the wrangler for future assignments. The concern exists that uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers are not enforcing all laws and ordinances at filming locations. Moreover, retired motor officers do not have police powers and are subject to the same constraints as other citizens.

Presently, a uniformed police officer and a police motorcycle are required when a production company films any type of moving vehicle, commonly referred to as a "moving shoot." However, production companies prefer to hire uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers with police motorcycles for all filming, as they view a parked police motorcycle as an additional deterrent to crime. Production companies pay approximately $50 extra per shift for the presence of a police motorcycle.

4 A sergeant assigned to Special Operations Bureau is tasked with monitoring all film permits and inspection of filming locations within the City. However, one supervisor is unable to inspect all film permits and film locations. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page 10 3.3.1

• If the Department regulated the assignment and staffing for movie shoots, similar to the earlier proposed method, then any contracted officer could participate in these venues, provided when necessary, the officer responded to the location with a black/white police vehicle. The police vehicle would serve the same function as the police motorcycle. At this point it is unknown if a sufficient number of off-duty personnel would be interested in working these venues and if the Department has a sufficient number of black/white police vehicles available to deploy at these :filming locations. Once the Department is authorized to contract for supplemental police service, the Department will be in a position to judge the interest of officers to work these venues. In addition, upon meeting with the production companies, it may be possible to substitute black/white police vehicles with dual-purpose vehicles when black/white vehicles are unavailable.

If this procedure was implemented and the Department was unable to staff the filming locations with contracted officers, the following options could be considered:

• Retired motor officers could be utilized as a reserve pool to staff the filming locations. • If the Department does not regulate the assignment and staffing of filming locations, the retired motor officers would be required to wear a different uniform, distinguishing them from regular-duty officers. • The Department could prohibit uniformed off-duty officers to work movie locations, and instead have the Entertainment Industry Development Corporation (EIDC) handle the staffing oflocations with security guards.

Prior to the implementation of any decision regarding the Department's ability to regulate, assign, and staff uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers at film venues, the Retired Officers Association should be contacted for any concerns they may have, as traditionally retired officers have filled these positions.

Filming Permit Approval

In order to film within the City, a production company must request a film permit with the EIDC. Once EIDC completes the film permit application, they facsimile (fax) the permit to Special Operations Support Division (SOSD).5 If SOSD does not respond to EIDC's request within four hours with their approval or denial of the filming permit, then EIDC assumes the permit is approved. The volume of permits received daily at SOSD coupled with limited staffing, make it impossible for SOSD personnel to review each permit within the four-hour time period. However, in the event SOSD becomes aware that a permit requires a uniformed officer and one is not present, SOSD will contact EIDC and inform them that an officer is required at the filming location. Traditionally, EIDC has been responsive and has deployed uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers at the :filming sites upon request.

5 The Special Events Permit Unit was transferred out of Emergency Services Division and into Special Operations Support Division in January, 2005. e The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page 11 3.3.1

Currently, the Department has no written policy for approval or denial of filming permit requests. In addition, the Department and EIDC have no written policy for the staffing requirement of uniformed off-duty/retired officers at filming locations. Both the Department and EIDC deploy uniformed off-duty/retired motor officers at filming scenarios that would draw public attention (i.e., street closures, shots fired, pyrotechnics, car chases, stunts, rolling shoots etc.). Regardless if the proposed policy is approved, policies and procedures will be developed.

Analyze Several Other Law Enforcement Agencies whose Policies Regarding Working Off Duty in Uniform include Contracting for Supplemental Police Services

Other law enforcement agencies' policies regarding the deployment of contracted officers for private entities are summarized below.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD)

Los Angeles County Sheriffs deputies are allowed to work contracted assignments under the direction of their Department. Private entities requesting to hire contracted deputies make their request at the station that has jurisdiction where the event is to be held. The private entity enters into a contract with the LASD's Contract Law Enforcement Bureau, which bills the entity at a rate of time and a half plus 3 percent for liability. The private entity pays the County for the contracted deputies' services and the County pays the deputies. The contracted deputies are considered "on-duty'' employees. They are provided liability and injured-on-duty benefits, and they are also provided with the required equipment.

San Francisco Police Department (SFPD)

The hiring of contracted San Francisco Police Department officers by private entities is referred to as the "lOB Program." Each of the ten districts within·SFPD has a lOB Coordinator. Private entities contact _the 1OB Coordinator at the station that has jurisdiction where the event is to be held. The private entity enters into a contract with SFPD's Police Law Enforcement Services. Officers are paid an hourly salary of time and a half The entity is billed at the officers' salary at time and a half plus a city administrative fee. The city administrative fee goes into a separate fund for tlie city. The hourly salary at time and a half rate is placed into the SFPD's overtime fund from which the officers are paid.

Inglewood Police Department (IPD)

Inglewood Police Department officers are allowed to work contracted assignments under the direction of their department. Private entities desiring to sponsor an event apply for a permit with the City of Inglewood. The Permit and Licensing Committee reviews the application The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page 12 3.3.1

and a determination is made as to how many contracted officers will be required to staff the event. The Finance Department has established overtime billing rates and bills the private entities via the permit process fee or invoice for recurring events. Officers are paid an hourly salary at time and a half from the City of Inglewood. Officers have full on-duty protections and equipment is provided.

Anaheim Police Department (APO)

Anaheim Police Department officers are allowed to work contracted assignments under the direction of their department. Private entities desiring to sponsor an event must apply for a permit with the City of Anaheim. Strategic Services Bureau, APO, determines how many officers will be required to staff the event. The private entities are billed via the permit process fee or invoice for recurring events. Officers are paid an hourly salary at time and a half from the City of Anaheim. Officers have full on-duty protections and equipment is provided.

Anaheim Police Department has several ongoing supplemental police service contracts involving large venues. At Disneyland, uniformed officers are deployed at an APO sub station. A portion of these officers' salaries are compensated by Disneyland, via the City of Anaheim. Contracted officers are also deployed at the Anaheim Convention Center, Angel Stadium, and The Pond on an overtime basis and under the direction and supervision of their department.

San Jose Police Department (SJPD)

San Jose Police Department officers are allowed to work uniformed off-duty assignments, for a private entity, provided the officer has a current off-duty work permit on file with their department. Private entities sponsoring an event must submit an application for approval to hire uniformed off-duty officers with SJPD. The Secondary Employment Unit (SEU), SJPD, regulates all officers off-duty employment permits. Officers are paid at their top step salary rate, as determined by the terms of their current employee Memorandum of Understanding. Officers are paid directly by the private entity at the conclusion of the event, unless other arrangements have been made through the SEU.

The City of San Jose purchased a Law Enforcement Professional Liability Insurance Policy. The policy protects the City of San Jose, the officers, and the secondary employer. The private entity is required to sign a Secondary Employer Indemnity Agreement. The City of San Jose pays the annual premium and participating officers pay a pro rated share of the premium. Injuries sustained during off-duty assignments are reviewed on a case by case basis. The· Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page 13 3.3.1

Determine the feasibility of establishing a Contract Services Bureau to manage and coordinate staffing of contracted officers at City venues. Secondly, address the staffing needs and budget requirements. Lastly, evaluate if coordination for these activities should come directly from the Department or a City Department.

• Currently, Special Operations Bureau (SOB) is responsible for the planning of all uniformed services performed throughout the City. Special Events Permits Unit (SEPU) is under the command of SOB. This Unit is responsible for the planning and deployment of major City events such as the Academy Awards, American Music Awards, Hollywood Christmas Parade, Los Angeles Marathon, and the Triathlon. In addition, SEPU is responsible for overseeing all production companies' filming permit requests.

• If this new policy is approved, a Department entity would be required to serve as the authorizing agency to ensure appropriate documentation with private entities that desire to contract supplemental law enforcement services from the Department. The necessity to create a bureau is unlikely, as this function would be handled more efficiently by either a newly created unit, or by augmenting an existing division. The Department would establish that entity, and determine staffing for it, when appropriate.

• The supervisory staff of this proposed entity, hereafter referred to as Contract Section, would be responsible for meeting with, and finalizing contracts with private entities that desire supplemental uniformed officers to be present during their events. The contract would clearly indicate the following:

• Contracted officers are under the command and supervision of the Department; • Officers assigned to the specific event will enforce all laws and ordinances; • In the event of an emergency, tactical alert, or unusual occurrence, the Department may redeploy the officers without notice and the private entity would not be financially responsible for the duration of the officers' absence; • The Department will determine the number of officers and supervisors to be deployed at the event; • The officers will have a predesignated action plan to be determined by Contract Section; • The private entity is not financially responsible for any reasonable injury and/or liability to the officers or City equipment; • In the event the Department is unable to provide the agreed upon officers to work the event, the contract will be altered or voided upon agreement with the private entity and the Department; • In the event the contracted entity or the officers must request additional Department resources to secure adequate public safety and/or peace at the venue, the private entity may be held financially liable for the associated expense of the additional resources; and, The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page 14 3.3.1

• Upon billing, if the entity desires to contest any fees associated with the Department's services rendered, the entity must notify Contract Section in writing within 48 hours of the conclusion of the event. Failure to notify Contract Section would eliminate any further challenge to dispute the associated fees. If the entity did contest the fees in writing within 48 hours, a hearing regarding the fees imposed would be conducted within 36 hours or at a time agreed upon by both parties.

In addition, the Contract Section would be responsible for:

TYPICAL REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE SERVICE PROCEDURE

An entity desiring to hire contracted officers would contact the Contract Section. A supervisor ( a lieutenant and/or sergeant) from Contract Section would meet with the private entity and determine if the entity meets the Department's criteria for approval or denial, as prohibited activities are delineated in LAPD Manual 1/270.30 (Addendum 3). They would also discuss the deployment needs and the specific duties that the officers would perform. The supervisor would determine the number of officers and supervisors needed, and would thoroughly explain the associated fees and the supplemental law enforcement contract with the entity (see chart on page 8 for 5 percent associated fee). Once the contract has been agreed upon and signed by both parties, the supervisor would give the entity a copy of the contract.

Within a timely manner, the supervisor would ensure the contracted-assignment job opportunities were listed on the Department's Website indicating the specific date, time, and nature of the assignment (similar to LAX uniformed overtime assignment opportunities). The notice would also include information as to when personnel are to contact the Contract Section to sign up for the event.

Contract Section would develop a written action plan, detailing the contracted officers' responsibilities for that event and create a daily work sheet. A copy of these reports would be provided to the involved officers and concerned Area watch commander.

The contracted officers' respective Area/division would be required to supply the contracted officers with ASTRO radios and any Department equipment as reasonable and in accordance The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners Page 15 3.3.1 with the action plan. Additional Department equipment (TASER, shotgun, etc.) may be checked out from the kitroom of the Area of the event, if necessary.

Immediately upon completion of their assignment, contracted officers would submit a completed Daily Field Activity Report, Sergeant's Daily Report, and/or Watch Commander's Daily Report, and any other related reports (i.e., crime reports, Field Data Reports, traffic citations, field interview cards, etc.), to the concerned Area watch commander in which the event took place. In addition, the contracted officers would return all Department equipment to the Area from where it was obtained. The concerned Area watch commander will be responsible for reviewing, storing, and processing the involved reports and verifying that all Department equipment has been returned.

Contract Section would then forward a copy of the contract and services provided with the recommended fee to Fiscal Operations Division, who in tum would bill the private entity for the supplemental uniformed police service rendered.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Commission approve, in concept, private entities contracting with the Department to provide supplemental law enforcement services for venues, BIDS, or occurrences that take place on an occasional basis as authorized by Government Code Section 53069.3 (Addendum 4). Once approval in concept is obtained, meetings will occur with the appropriate stakeholders to identify and develop the appropriate policies, procedures, and resources necessary to govern supplemental law enforcement services.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Assistant Chief Sharon Papa, Director, Office of Support Services, at (213) 485-4018.

Respectfully,

Attachments .ADDENDA.· INTl '')EPARTMENTAL CORRESPONI' '.;E

September 30, 2004 2.3

-TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

FROM: Chi~f of Police

SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO UNIFORMED OFF-DUTY OFFICERS AS . SECURITY FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS

· Honorable Members:

It is requested that the Board of Police Commissioners review.and accept this report regar~g the feasibility of uniformed off-duty officers working as security for Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).

Background

On.August 7, 2002, Councilpers9ns Zine and .Miscikowski:(Publi~ Safety Committee) presented . a·motion requesting that ·the Los Angeles Police Co•ssion consider implementing a policy that would permit off-duty, uniformed Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers to work · s~urity for BIDs. ·The Public Safety Committee requested that the Police Commission cause research to be <:9nducted and forward a recomn;iendation concerning this issue. ·

On May 4, 2004, the Department presented its initial findings and recomm~ndations to the Police· Commission. At that time, the President of the Police Commission requested that the · Department provide additional analysi~-regarding the Public Safety Committee's request. - Additionally, Commissioner Rick Caruso req~ested that research be conducted co.q.ceming. the feasibility ofhiringuniformed off-duty·officers as temporary security for locations considered·to be specific targets for terrorist attack. This would only ~ur during·heightened levels of alert. This report also addresses those &pecific concerns.. ·

Business Improvement Districts {BIDs)

A BID is a geographically defined area within.the City of Los Angeles in which services, · · · activities and programs are paid for through a special ass~sment of all members (local .. businesses) within the district. ·The City's primary role ~ to levy the assessm~nt. The City Clerk's Administrative Services Division, through the Special Assessments Unit, manages the BIDs. Revenue is collected to recover a portion of the salaries and other expenses directly related to managing th~ BID ~rogram. The City·absorbs all other costs ao.d·retums the remaining revenue to the district To ensure that the assessment is utilized according to the intentions of the

Addendum 1-A The Honorable Board o lice Commissioners Page2 2.3

business community, the City is also responsible for monitoring and auditing the BID's financial activities and may deny funds. Business Improvement Districts are not permanent institutions and may be dissolved under certain conditions defined by law.

Approved Off-Duty Employment in Uniform

On April 18, 1978, the Board of Police Commissioners approv~ a policy governing uniformed off-duty employment for .Department employees. Paragraph Il (under "Prohibited Activities") ~efines situations prohibiting the use of ~e ba_dge, uniform, prestige or influence of an employee's official position. An exception to the prohibition is made· in "specific cases when a . detemiination has been made by the Police Commission that the employment is in the best · interest of the City, promotes the Department's interest in public safety, and the duties are substantially the same as those which would be performed if the employee were on-duty.". ·

Venues that have been approved by the Police Commission, which allow off-duty officers to ~rk in uniform pursuant to ~ policy are:

• Los AngeJes Coliseum and Sports Arena • Greek Theater • Grand Olympic Auditorium • ·Los ~geles Convention Center • Public and private junior and senior high schools within the City of Los Angeles (Athletic events, dances and graduations) . • Motio~ Picture/Television Film Picture Locations (fi'affic control only) · • Hollywood Bowl (fraffic_ control ·only) • Movie Premiere locations • Los Angeles City Commission Hearings .• Staples Center • Kodak Theater . . . An examination of available records surrounding ~e aforementioned approved venues for uniformed off--d.uty employment revealed no clear explanation ~r rationale as to why these venues and no others were approved.

Various Outside Agencies' Policies on Working Off-Duty in Upifoi:m

Several other California police agencies have policies regarding off-duty ·employees working in uniform at various locations ~thin their concerned municipalities. These policies vary from an outright prohibition of this practice, to very little oversight or regulation at all. Examples of these policies are outlined below.

San Francisco Police Department "(SFPD). • The hiring. of off-duty officers by the private sector is referred to as the "lOB Program." 1 • Each of the ten districts within the SFPD, has a 10B coordinator.

Addendum 1-B The Honorable Board of ice Commissioners . , Page 3 2.3

. . • Private busiµess entities are instructed to contact the local district 1OB coordinators, within their area, to get approval for unifo~ed officers to be employed by them on an off-duty basis. All requests are approved on a case by case basis. • Officers are then assigp.ed by the 1OB coordinator to work specific locations. Selections are made via a review of sign-up sheets, which are posted in the various police station roll call rooms. The 1OB coordinator first selects officers having the least amount of accrued overtime. • The private entities are charged at a time and one-half rate, plus a surcharge. '.fhe surcharge · goes into a separate fund for the city. The time and one-half rate is placed into the SFPD's overtime fund from which the officers are paid by the Department. Payment does not come · directly from the private entity_ to the individual officers.

San Diego ·Police Department-(SDPD) ·• Absolutely no off-duty w~rk in unifon,n. , ·• When working off-duty in plain clothes, officers must carry their own weapon, not a weap~m . . issued by the Department. Officers are also restricted from working off-duty within the jurisdiction that they patrol when on-duty. ·

Anaheim Police Department (AP}?) • Has a few on-going contracts involving large venues such as: ·• Edison Field (Anaheim Angels Stadium) • The Pond (Anaheim Ducks Arena) • Anaheim Convention Center • Disneyland and Disneyland Hotel · • The officers are not paid by the private entities, but from the APD's overtime account

•' Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) • Priv~te entities desiring to hire uniformed off-duty deputies make their requests with the· area station where the entity is lo~t¢. . • .Any contractual agreement is for alimited time 9nly. ~ . The.requesting entity pays the County for the deployment of these deputies and, in tum, the . . Sheriffs' Department pays the concerned deputies, which is considered overtime at time and one-half pay rate. · ·

Pasadena Police Department (PPD) • Any private entity desiring to hire uniformed off-duty officers must contract through the PPD. • . Promoters oflarge events requiring street closures make their requests for uniformed off-duty officers through the PPD's Special Events Office. · · • For·smaller events, like a dance or graduation at a private high school, organizers must · contact the nearest PPD station and make the necessary requests. • . Private.entities pay a set rate of $55.00 per hour (set by the City of Pasadena). The monies are then put into PPD's special events fund. · · • - Officers are paid from the special events fund. It is considered overtime for the officers.

Addendum 1-C The Honorable Board o lice Commissioners Page 4. 2.3

FINDINGS:

UNIFORMED OFF-DUTY OFFICERS AS SECURITY FOR BIDs

Staff from the Department's Office of Human Resources ~d the Office of the -City Attot'J;ley (OCA) met to discuss the proposed BID security detail. As a result of the discussion, it was determined that at the present time, it would not be in the best interest of the City for uniformed officers to work off-duty as security for BIDs. The reasons for this determination include the following:

Conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act

Of primary concern is whether a BID would be considered a separat~ and independent private employer, disassociated from the City, for·the purposes o( overtime compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The City Attorney opined that due to the relationship that currently exists between the·City and the BIDs, allowing officers to work in a:uniformed off-duty capacity at these locations could ·create a significant financial liability to the City concerning overtime costs. . ·

California Penal Code (PC) Section 70 permits an off-duty police officer to engage in part-time employment for a public or private employer. For a public entitx, the officer must be .off-duty · and working outside the scope of his or her regular employment Sworn Department personnel .: providing uniformed off-duty security to BIDs may conflict with FLSA regulations as the BIDs could be considered -public agencies with City oversight. Off-duty officers in uniform hired by · private agencies may not be_ indemnified by the.respective agency and would not be entitled to ··the same City benefits afforded an on-duty e~ployee.

· Upon careful conside~on ofthe Offi~ of the City Attorney's opinion, and review of the guidelines governing uniformed off-duty employment, the Department has.determined that off .duty employment in uniform for the BIDs is incompatible with 70 PC as well as current labor .and employment codes. .

· Crowd Management vs. Crime Suppression ·

Currently, Police Commission approvals for uniformed off-duty officers working have been special events (i.e. sporting events, co'ncetts, premiers, filming and graduations) .involving traffic and crowd management as the primary mission. In these instances, the chances Qf being involved in an arrest or use-of-force are greatly reduced.

In situations where uniformed off-duty officers ar~ working for ·J31D districts, their primary mission w-0uld be crime suppression. This type of work gre~tly enhances possibilities for ·the officers to encounter felony suspects. Consequently, the likelyhood of use of force. incidents would grea~y·increase. If this eccurred, several questio:11s come to IJ?-ind:·

Addendum 1-D ·The Honorable Board of· ce Commissioners Page5 2.3

• Would the uniformed off-duty officer make an arrest as a private citizen or as an on-duty officer acting within the scope of his/her duty? • If an officer is subpoenaed to testify as a result of his/her activity when employed by the BID~ who will pay the officers wages to testify? • If the officer is requested to testify while on-duty, should he/sµe place themselves off . duty from the Department prior to testifying? ·

J;ity,Liability

If an off-duty uniformed officer is involved in a situation while working for a BID that results in civil litigation, the City and.Department would likely be included as ·defendants. The plaintiff · might be able to estabµ~h a link between the off-duty officer's actions and the City via the . · Department's expressed authorization to work the venue while wearing an LAPD u,.uform. Furthermgre, if funds to pay the officers were channeled through the City payroll system, this link would be further enhanced.

The Department must also consider tb,e possibility of the officer being injured during the course . of their uniformed off-duty work. In such instances:

, WQuld the officer's medical treatment and or rehabilitation expenses be the responsibility of .the City of Los Angeles or the involved BID area? •· . If the officer were permanently disabled during the scope of his off duty employment, would the City of Los Angeles or the BID district be required to award a disability pension to the .involved officer? .Or would the offic~r be eligible for such a pe~ion at all?

Officer Safety

Uniformed officers working off-duty at venues such as the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Los Angeles Convention Center deploy in large numbers and have adequate field · supervision. This level of deployment provides for the ·quick response of additional officers should back-up be required. .

The smaller deployments of uniformed off-duty officers needed to police a BID would poteniially result in the involved officer(s) being without adequate means of communicating with on-duty police personnel in the area, or tactical support to successfully handle felony suspects. Consequently, ~ese uniformed off-duty officers are placed in a tactically unsound position, which exacerbates the volatility of the situation, rather than promote·the welfare of the community: as intended by the BIDs. In addition, this situation would likely result in on-duty response time delays and could result in injury to these off-duty officers. It should also be noted ·that the public, and potential "lawbreakers" will not see the distinction between on-duty and off duty officers working in uniform.

Logistical Loss of City Resources

-An uniformed off-duty officer involved in a categorical or non-categorical use-of-force would require on-duty police supervision .to respond and investigate the incident. This would

Addendum 1-E The Honorable Board o lice Commissioners Page6 2.3

· ~ffectively divert scarce on-duty resources, which are paid for by public funds, for semi-private use, i.e., a BID. ·

Chain of Command Issues

· If officers are allowed to work off-duty and in unifonn for BII)s, several chain of command issues become apparent. First and foremost, the question arj.ses regarding who actually · supervises the off-duty employees; (i.e., business management, an off-duty supervisor or on-duty . supervisory personnel)? From a risk management and negative public imag~.perspectives, it would be und~irable to allow business management to supervise unifonned police officers. Not only are most business m~gers unfamiliar with Department policies and procedures, they know little about the legal issues associated with police wotk.

If Department supervisors were used to supervise the off-duty employees, it ·would be preferable to do so with off-duty supervisors dedicated specifically to the BID. If on-duty supervision were utilized, this would unnecessarily drain critical resources, funded by taxpayers, for a private · security use. It al~ would logically impact supervisor ayailability to on-duty personnel.

Negative Public Perception . . .The public trust r~ that City employees avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest while discharging their professional duties. Approval of this concept, in light of existing · .Department resources, may give rise to negative percepti~n that wealthier business segments of · th~ community can p~hase extra police prQtection while more depressed business or residential areas do without these extra services because they are unable to afford them. ·

. OFF-DUTY UNIFORMED OFFICERS AS SECURITY AT BID LOCATIONS WHEN .THERE IS A SPECIFIC TERRORIST"THREAT. OR HEIGHTENED SECURITY .ALERT

· Where there is a cre4ible threat ofterro~ activity within the City, it is the Department's obligation to respond ~d meet this threat with all available on-duty resources. Having the responsibility for ~e full-spectrum of policing within the City, the community members rightly . expect ·their Dep~ent to swiftly respond with ·on-duty (and tax funded) resources. To do otherwise is tantamount to setting ·up private police fo~. ·

If off-duty resources are used to provide security at BID locations for such a purpose, t:wo negative issues arise. First, it would be unlikely that useful ·information involving the threat would flow properly froni the off-duty to on-duty personnel. Second, a timely liaison/communication with the Department's Critical Incident Management Bureau and Federal officials would be more difficult This could potentially result in key pieces of critical infermatioo being overlooked. Obvi9USly, as with the terrorist attacks.on September 11, 2001, ~e cost of such omissions could be astronomical: Tue Department can ill afford to overlook such information in these uncertain times •.

Addendum 1-F The Honorable Boai:d of ice Commissioners Page 7 2.3

Conclusion

The implementation of the previously proposed policy would likely have many actual and · perceived negative consequences. The adoption of such a policy would not be beneficial to the City, Department and most importantly, the citizens of Los Angeles.

For these reasons, allowing off-dµty employees to work in uniform at BIDs or when there is a s~ific terrorist threat or heightened alert is not recommended at this time. Furthermore, it is recommended that an in-depth investigation be conducted to determine the liability and · continued feasibility for all uniformed off-duty officers currently working for private entities for the Police Commission's review.

·Shoufcl you req~e additional information. please contact me at (213) 485-4301.

Respectfully,

WILLIAM J. BRATION Chief of Police

Addendum 1-G Addendum2

INTERVIEWS

• Executive Director, Richard Tefank, Board of Police Commissioners, (213) 485-3531; • Lieutenant I Chris Berglund, Serial No 21845, Watch Commander, Central Area, (213) 485-3294; . • Sergeant II Greg Valenti, Serial No. 23105, Officer in Charge, Legal Unit, Risk Management Group, (213) 978-8305; • Sergeant I Lisa Turvey, Serial No. 25599, Officer in Charge, Special Events Permits Unit, Special Operations Support Division, (213) 473-7390; • Sergeant II Heather Vanstone, Serial No. 30130, Office of the Chief of Staff, · (213) 485-4372; • Police Officer II Diane Alonzo, Serial No. 31031, Administrative Support Unit, Personnel Group, (213) 485-2902; and, • Senior Management Analyst, Roger Dimaano, Serial. No. V8448, Budget Section, Fiscal Operations Division, (213) 485-3836.

The following_ outside law enforcement personnel were interviewed:

• Lieutenant ·Richard Mouwen, Contract Law Enforcement Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriff's o·epartment, (323) 526-5750; • Sergeant George Carrington, Police Law Enforcement Services, San Francisco Police Department, (415) 553-9764; • Sergeant GabrieJa Garcia, Patrol Bureau, Inglewood Police Department, (310) 412-5445; • Sergeant Chris Kielich, Strategic Services Bureau, Anaheim Police Department, (714) 765-3871; and, • . Sergeant Andrew LoCicero, Secondary Einploym.ent Unit, San Jose Police Department, (408) 277-4980.

Addendum 2 LAPD-MANUAL. - LAPD-1/270, EMPLOYEE CONFLICT OF INTEREST .------Excerpt from page 87 .follows------270.30 OUTSIDE ~PLOYMENT POLICY - GENERAL. The nature of the law·enforcement task requires Jepartment employees to have the ability to work irregular schedules which are subject to change in meeting deployment needs. Additionally, it is necessary that employees have adequate rest to be alert during their tours of duty. For these reasons, and because certain activities are inherently incompatible with an employee's primary responsibility to the Department, the Department may impose conditions on outside employment or may prohibit it altogether. Determination of the degree of limitation ~ill be based upon the interest of the.Department and ensuring that the Department receives full and faithful services in return for its expenditure of.resources. ~partment employees accepting outside employment should be aware that they may nqt be entitled to legal representation, payment.of an adverse judgment, .or other benefits from the City that are usually afforded an employee while working on duty. Officers should realize that when they accept off-duty employment, they are generally be;ng hired to perform specific duties·for an employer. Thus, officers should have a firm commitment from the employer concerning any subsequent legal representation or other benefits that may become necessary as a result of the office~'s conduct in. protecting the employer's interests. The Department recognizes that Section 1126 of the Government Code establishes the ultimate control of prohibited activities in the Department's Outside ~loyment Policy. It is th~ purpose of this policy to establish specific guidelines regarding prohibited activities which incorporate the broad parameters set forth in Section 1126 of the Government Code. outside Employment Policy - Specific. An employee shall not.enter into any outside employment without having fir~t submitted a summary of proposed duties, location, and employer. Following Department review and a determination that the p~oposed outside employment is not incompatible with ·nepartment employment, an employee shall not change the nature or location· of out.side employment without having first submitted the proposed change for Department review. Once outside employment is determined to be compatible with Department employment, it shall be reviewed annually thereafter upon ·the employee's initiative. If it is determined that proposed outside employment is incompatible with Department employment, the employee shall be notified as soon as possible of such determination and that the.employment is prohibited. Continuan9e of outaide· employment that has been determined to be an in9ompatible activity shall' be considered misconduct and may result in . •isciplinary action.

------Excerpt from page 88 follows------· Determination that outside employment is.or.is not compatible with Department employment shall be made.by the concerned commandtng officer and forw~rded· to Human.Resources.Bureau for a~roval •. An employee may ap:peal·the determination of th~r commanding officer a~d Commandi~g Officer, Human Resources Bur~au, to the Chief of Police. An employe·e may appeal the determination of the Chief of Police, to.the Board of Police Commissioners for administrative review. Prohibited activities include those which: ···Involve any employment, activity or enterprise· for compensation which is inconsistent, "incompatible; in cori.flict with, or inimical to, duties as an· employee of the tos Ange.les P~lice Depar~ent or with the duties,· functions or responsibilities of the Los Angeles Police Department. • Involve, for private gain or advantage, the use of City time, facilities, equipment or supplies; or the badge, uniform, prestige or influence of one's official position. Exception: Outside employment in uniform may not be. a prohibited activity in specific cases when a determination has been made by the Board of Police Commissioners ·that the employment is in the best interest of the City, promotes the Department's interest in public safety and the duties are substantially the same as those which would·be preformed if the employee w~re assigned on duty. • Involve receipt or acceptance by the employee of any money or other consideration ·from anyone other than ·the Department for the perfoonance of an act which the employee, if.not performing such act, would be required or expected to render in the regular course or hours of Department employment or as a part of their du~ies as a Department employee." • Involve such time demands as would render performance of their duties ·as a Department employee less efficient. ·

'· •. _) : The maximum. n~er of hours. an employee may engage in outside employment shall be. twenty hours per week. The maximum hours may be exceeded upon the reconnnendation of the division connnanding officer and approval of the Cownanding OffiQe~, Human Resources Bureau, after a review of the individual's on-duty performance and the nature of the employment involved.·

Addendum 3-A • The Department may take into consideration the medical condition of any employee and the effect outside ~mployment would have on any employee's ability to perform the duties of their position. An employee shall not engage in outside employment while ·carried on sick or IOD status except by · special written permission of the Commanding Officer, Human Resources Bureau.

------Excerpt from page 89 follows------• Employees on entry-level probation shall not engage in outside employment. Commanding officers ~Y recoxmnend exception in special cases. ~opyright (c) West Group 2002 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works

/ .

Addendum 3-B CA Codes (gov:53060-53087 .5' Page 1 of 1 . 53069.8. (a) The board of supervisors of any county may contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county, and the legislative body of any city may contract on behalf of the chief of police of that city, to provide supple~ental law enforcement ser~ices to: (1) Private individuals or private entities to preserve the peace at special events or occurrences that happen on an occasional basis.

(2) Private nonprofit corporations that are·recipients of federal, .state, county, or local government low-income housing funds or grants to preserve tb.e peace on an ongoing basis, (3) Private entities at critical facilities on an occasional or ongoing basis. A "critical facility" means any building, structure, or complex that in the event of a disaster, whether natural or manmade, poses a threat to public safety, including, but not limited to, airports, oil refineries, and nuclear and conventional fuel powerplants. (b) Contracts entered into pursuant to this section shall provide for full reimbursement to the county or city of the a_ctual costs of providing those services, as determined by the county auditor or auditor-controller, or by the city, as the case may be. (c) The services provided pursuant to this section shall be rendered by regularly appointed full-time peace officers, as defined in Section.830.1 of the Penal Code. (d) Peace officer rates of pay shall be governed by a·memorandum of understanding. (e) A co~tract entered into pursuant to this section shall encompass only law enforcement duties and .not services authorized to be provided by a pri~ate patrol operator, as defined in Section 7582.1 oft.he Business and Professions Code. (f) Contracting fot law enforcement services, as authorized by this section, shall not reduce the normal and regular ongoing service that the county, agency of the county, or city otherwise would provide. . · (g) Prior to contracting for ongqing services under paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a), the board of supervisors or legislative body, as applicable, shall discuss the contract and the requirements of this section at a duly noticed public hearing~

Addendum 4

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=53001-54000&file=5... 1/28/2005 LOS , ~GELES POLICE COMMI [ON

BOARD OF RICHARD M. TEFANK POLICE COMMISSIONERS l~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

'I ANDRE BIROTTE, JR. DAVIDS. CUNNINGHAM, Ill INSPECTOR GENERAL PRESIDENT

ALAN J. SKOBIN EXECUTIVE OFFICE VICE PRESIDENT SUITE 144-150, PARKER CENTER JAMES K. HAHN 150 N. LosANGELESSTREET CORNIA ALARCON MAYOR Los ANGF.LES, CA 90012 RICK J. (.;ARUSO ROSEM.OCHI (213) 485-3531 PHONE JULIE VALENZUELA (213)485-8861 FAX COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II

September 16, 2004

Ms. Adrienne Bass, Legislative Assistant Public Safety Committee Office of the City Clerk City Hall, Room 395 Los Angeles, California 90012

SUBJECT: COUNCIL FILE 02-1720

I received your letter dated August 23, 2004, on September 15, 2004, regarding the request of Public Safety Committee relative to the Police Commission implementing a policy allowing off-duty officers to work, in uniform, as security for the Business Improvement Districts.

This issue is scheduled to come before the Board on October 19, 2005. Upon the Board taking action on the matter, I will forward their decision to the Public Safety Committee.

Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 485-351.

Very truly yours,

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY -AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Recyclable and mede from recycled waste. CITY OF ANGELES J. MICHAEL CAREY Los Offlceofthe City Clerk CALIFORNIA CITYCLERK Council and Public Services Room 395, City Hall FRANK T. MARTINEZ Loi Anaela, CA 90012 Executive Officer Council File Information - (213) 978-1043 General Information • (213) 978-1133 When making inquiries Fax: (213) 978-1 IMO relative to this matter refer to File No. JAMES K. HAHN HELEN GINSBURG MAYOR Chief, Council and Public Services Division

Council File 02-1720

August 23, 2004

Richard Tefank, Executive Director Los Angeles Police Commission

RE: SECOND REQUEST FOR REPORT

At the request of the Chair of the Public Safety (PS) Committee, I am again transmitting a copy of the Motion (Zine-Miscikowski) relative to the Police Commission implementing a policy to allow off-duty officers to work, in uniform, as security for the Business Improvement Districts, to your Office for review and recommendation.

Please transmit your completed report to the Public Safety Committee, c/o Adrienne Bass, Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Room 395, for consideration and scheduling in Committee.

Sincerely,

Adrienne Bass Legislative Assistant Public Safety Committee

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER OF ANGELES J. MICHAEL CAREY CI Los Offlceofthe City Clerk CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK Council and Public Services FRANK T. MARTINEZ Room 895, City Hall Executive Officer Los Angeles, CA 90012 Council File Information - (218) 978-1043 General Information - (218) 978-1183 When making inquiries Fax: (218) 978-1040 relative to this matter refer to File No. HELEN GINSBURG CF 02-1720 JAMES K. HAHN Chief, Council and Public Services Division (file not transmitted) MAYOR

September 11, 2002

Joe Gunn, Executive Director Los Angeles Police Commission

REQUEST FOR REPORT:

At the direction of the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, it is requested that you report on the attached Motion (Zine - Miscikowski) relative to the Police Commission implementing a policy to allow off-duty officers to work, in uniform, as security for the Business Improvement Districts.

Please submit your report within 45 days to the Public Safety Committee, c/o the City Clerks Office, Room 395, City Hall.

Sincerely, BBWa~~ Legislative Assistant Public Safety Committee

cc: Councilmernber Miscikowski Attn: Adena Tessler

Chief Legislative Analyst Attn: Holly Wolcott

City Administrative Officer Attn: Laura Guigliammo

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER AUG 01 2001 MOTION p\.)BUC Sl\fEi'l

One way the City can help keep a diversified economy moving is through the protection and service the men and women in blue provide to residents, visitors, and businesses of the City. In particular, the various Business Improvement Districts (BID), that the City helps to form could be more successful by making the shopping experience the safest possible through the presence of our Police officers as security. The Los Angeles Police Department currently allows off-duty police officers to work, in uniform, as security for motion picture film sites throughout the City.

The formulation of a BID is used as an economic recovery tool for a certain area that has stagnant or no business life. Many Bills hire their own security force to protect themselves and the visiting clients. Unfortunately, the hired security does not deter some criminal elements. Many BID managers believe the use of off-duty police officers, in uniform, as security would actual deter crime and help bolster the confidence of consumers to shop in their area.

I THEREFORE MOVE, that Council request the Los Angeles Police Commission to consider implementing a policy to allow off-duty Department officers to work, in uniform, as security for the Business Improvement Districts.

I FURTHER MOVE, that the Commission reports back to Council on the feasibility of implementing this policy.

/J.~"- , /~ • SECONDEDBY: C~ /lVIO~

BSW:CD3