Ron,
Andrew
Smith here from the Police Department. I saw your piece today and I
wish you had called me first. While I would never suggest to you on how
to write your editorial pieces, I think it is important that you had
the facts about my attendance.
You
may not be aware that I frequently attend the Animal Services meetings
because I am involved in many issues surrounding animals here in LA. My
main reason for being there yesterday was to give out copies of the
Voice for the Animals-Rescued by the LAPD Calendars featuring animals
rescued by LAPD officers. I am featured on the calendar with two of my
rescued cats (March, and the cover) and I wanted to give copies to the
Commissioners and Director. You can see one of the calendars on the
seat next to me in the nice photo you posted.
You
should also be aware that I am also working with Jim Bickhart, the
Commission, and several animal advocacy groups on animal issues
including posting signs about illegal animal sales, animals on Venice
Beach Boardwalk, and shutting down a pet store that may be selling
illegal animals in the Fashion District. I have been working on these
and many other animal related issues for decades, because, frankly I
care about animals here in LA.
There
were two General Services police officers in the meeting, and until I
watched Mr. Guss at that meeting and then read you blog, I was only
vaguely aware of the concerns about Mr. Guss and his safety.
To
say I was sent there by the Chief or anyone else, or that I was trying
to intimidate someone or infringe on anyone’s 1st amendment rights is
just plain wrong. I know that you care about being accurate in your
reporting, and that is the reason for my note. I hope you can correct
your story to reflect the reason for my attendance. With regard to my
use of the Blackberry, I was responding to work related issues and not
“playing” on my phone.
Thanks,
Andrew
Ron,
Thanks for posting the Commander’s clarification. I think that you often fly off the handle with some of your comments before doing some real investigation (like this time) but and very happy to see that you immediately posted the correct version of the story.
It is amazing how media people and reporters often make assumptions and then report it as fact.
Commander Smith,
This is a bit long, but it’s not an easy issue.
Thanks for writing in to this blog, which I have just recently become familiar with. I don’t want to address this post except to say that I really appreciate what Ron Kaye is doing here and the fact that he’s covering Occupy L.A. so well. I also understand the point he’s making about intimidation toward people trying to effect social change. With the Defense Act just passed, things look grim for those who would engage in civil demostrations–which have become the only way for regular people to be seen or heard, in a system that’s broken, maybe beyong repair. If you don’t think it’s broken, it may be because the mainstream press doesn’t portray or dwell on the parts that are broken. I understand these are the folks you work with every day. Nevertheless, the press, as a rule, is not reporting or focusing on issues that are of crucial importance right now–they are more focused on entertainment and keeping their access to public officials.
But about busting up Occupy L.A., which is the real reason I feel compelled to write to you here… The wrist-binding, the humiliations dished out even to an 80-year-old woman, the hours spent waiting on buses, the sadistic practice of telling people they could go, if they went over here–only to arrest them—the way protesters were jailed on misdemeanors–these things do not even seem to be lawful. I saw you on the television before it all went down and you seemed to honestly be saying that protesters would be treated with respect.
In my years living in L.A. I have had no personal complaints about the L.A.P.D.
But to treat these Angelenos as one would treat out-of-control criminals was shocking to me, despite the fact that it’s happening all over the U.S. I thought L.A. would be different, and indeed, with the things the Mayor and the City Council were sayaing, it did appear for a while that Los Angeles might be different.
It’s the understanding of the law that’s causing such problems here–and the minimization of the importance of the Constitution is a deceptive trick used all over the country to insinuate that the protesters have been “breaking the law.”
The problem is that once you start to learn all the things the news media doesn’t focus on, you start to see the entire picture in a different light–including who is doing the most harm with their lawbreaking.
Consider the fact that the city of L.A. has lost, according to the Controller, 200 million dollars over the last two years, to fraud. Two hundred million of our money, yours and mine, as taxpayers. Fraud is illegal. It is against the law. Those who are stealing from taxpayers are the criminals, and they run banks.
The city refused to consider a Responsible Banking plan which would have pulled city money out of those banks. The City of L.A. is suing these banks, and yet still lets them have its business. City officials would have you beleive that if the city tries to find an alternative to this, the banks will ding them by tens of millions in withdrawal fees. But is this really true? If public opinion played a part, what alternate scenarios might be possible? Nevertheless, the City Council dropped the Responsible Banking plan which Occupy L.A. was trying to promote.
As police officers, understanding what criminal behavior is and who is doing it is an essential part of your jobs. You see the physical and violent crime in the streets, but what protesters are upset about is the white-collar crime that gets swept under the rug.
They are not the criminals. The criminals are those in authority who allow serious crimes to go unchecked, while police forces provide the muscle to beat down anyone who protests these civil crimes.
A politically-aware, informed and socially responsible police force is something we desperately need. When those in authority don’t understand the nature of which abuses are worst, how can rule of law really prevail?
As Julian Assange said at Occupy London last fall, “This movement is not about the destruction of law, but about the construction of it.”
You, as police, are part of us, part of the 99 percent.
You and your colleagues are one of the most important groups at play as we American citizens proceed toward the future. We all face similar problems that have to do with the breakdown of rule of law, whether it’s dealing with criminal rejection of health care by insurance companies, or the massive theft of taxpayer money.
Speaking to you about it when your men are holding guns and weapons will not work. You represent the law-abiding people here—at least, you’re supposed to. And it is an essential part of your jobs that you understand the true nature of where rule of law is breaking down.
The night of November 30th and December 1st were dark days for Los Angeles. Those were days the LAPD did not protect and serve the law-abiding, conscientious people who dedicated their time, money and civic pride to stand up for rule of law at City Hall. The cruelty with which these folks were treated is disgusting.
I doubt this post will make a difference, but I felt I had to say something.
I think Cmdr. Andy Smith needs to clarify the remark he made in the note to you that reads: “I was only vaguely aware of the concerns about Mr. Guss and his safety.”
Question: What does that mean? Does Mr. Guss need to worry about his safety while attending the meeting of the Animal Services Board?
James McCuen
Second general question: Why were two General Services Officers present at the meeting? Did someone from the Commission ask that they attend?
They need to have two General Services Police officers because of the crazy animal nuts that threatened past Animal Services GMs and employees. No City employee should be threatened while doing their job!! I love animals. I have three dogs and a cow (which I do not plan on eating) but some of those activists are CRAZY.
“The criminals are those in authority who allow serious crimes to go unchecked, while police forces provide the muscle to beat down anyone who protests these civil crimes”.
Cindi Burkey, you nailed it. This is the real America.
WHAT? NO BRUNO?!!!!!!!!!! BRUNO THE DOG FOR MAYOR OF L.A.!!! WUF WUF!
To Anonymous on January 12, 2012 9:33 PM:
It seems like you are a story teller – Just making things up that have nothing to do with any meeting of the Commission.
As Ron pointed out there was no threat in the past. The room was empty and officers were called in only after Daniel Russ acted as a whistle blower by exposing corruption of one or more of the commissioners.
Here is a link to a photo of the room from Ron Kaye’s article: http://ronkayela.com/2012-01-10%2011.43.40.jpg
If the General Services officers just started attending meetings only after Mr. Guss presented evidence (obtained through a public records request) that one commissioner asked for a received a favor from another (to clear her of fines for not registering her animals) and if the GS Officers were called in by the commissioners involved in this action, then this could be construed as an abuse of power and retaliation.
WTF?? I give huge credit to Cmdr. Smith because as I said he’s a great guy. To Jim McCuen who states, “Does Mr. Guss need to worry about his safety while attending the meeting of the Animal Services Board? If Cmdr Smith didn’t know there was an issue with Guss concerned about his safety was he supposed to be a mind reader? To the long ass post from the Occupy person you should be questioning why you had no support from the People of LA and read all the negative postings on media blogs and blogs about how Angelenos were fed up with Occupy LA. You didn’t change a thing and wasted time. You could have really made a difference. As to the LAPD actions interesting you fail to post your protesters were throwing rocks and bottles at officers and it was learned the Occupy LA protesters had ready made weapons to use on police officers.
I’ll take Commander Smith’s word over Kaye’s or Guss’s any day, especially when he talks about finding out the facts before going off half-cocked.
I don’t think Guss or Smith are inaccurate. One’s truth doth not cancel out the other’s.
Cindi Burkey, too bad most of your Occupy LA partners never cared about that stuff and were just in it because it gave them a stomping ground to smoke weed, do yoga, and steal food from people trying to enter City Hall.
I’m surprised Lil Wayne hasn’t popped in here and complained about how LAPD has turned his lily white enclave of Encino into a third world country. He must’ve taken his meds today.
Other than that, it’s nice to see Ron get his hand slapped for making shit up to smear civil servants and muckrake. Which is basically how this blog operates. Can’t wait to see who he smears tomorrow. $100 says it won’t be Trutanich.
8:42 a.m. we like the blog just fine. You have freewill–don’t read it.
Even if Occupy L. A. had a clear vision of how to go about making a difference in the corrupted politics of L. A. most people would have not known what was going on. Most citizens are nothing else than zombies that have no clue of how they are manipulated. They are so brainwashed that they cannot see how the stream media is rigged and only writes or broadcasts the news their masters allow them to publish. As for the police they need to remember that they are (and their families) the 99 % and the most important thing is they have to keep their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and not the political criminals that keep on robbing the wealth of this city and country.
The uniform (police and army) has the POWER without the uniform you have no power.
Occupy L. A. needs to have a lawsuit against Villarraigosa, Zine and Garcetti who told them they could stay as long as they wanted.
I’m angrrrrrry!
Where’s a doggie cop when you need one?
What’s Venice got that the Valley doesn’t?
I have a lot of experience being walked along streets and parks, and the numbnuts my sister and I run into all the time have off-leash dogs that like to go after me.
This scares my sister, who yells at these rude owners to put their dogs on leashes. They look at her like she nutz, when they’re the ones who are crazy loons thinking that what they’re doing is okay.
They laugh while she’s getting pains in her neck and back trying to pull me away from these rampant mutts.
Not once has there been a cop around to protect her and put the fear of god and fines into these thoughtless scofflawers.
Maybe we should take our walks in Venice. I wonder where Lu takes her ugly little cur walking, or does one of V’s cops do it for her? Bet there’s no leash law problems there, just more ripping off tax payers like my mom!
What do you think, Bruno?
Your pal,
G.
Daniel Guss here…
Commander Smith, could you please provide dates of your other appearances at Animal Services Commission meetings? I’ve been going for 12 years, and have never seen you there once.
Moreover, I asked to speak with you for a moment, and you refused. If you were unaware of my concerns, what was your reason for refusing to speak?
And finally, can you please explain the presence of the other two officers? There hasn’t been ONE officer there for years. Suddenly, when I start to expose the corruption of a commissioner, who is connected to the Mayor’s girlfriend, THREE officers show, including you?
As to you attendance, you were there for 3.5 hours. What exactly did you do during those 3.5 hours? The photos show you on your iPad and cellular phone. What city business did you conduct during this time.
I have nothing against you personally. I have heard good things about you. But your explanation for attending a meeting for 3.5 hours with two other officers doesn’t pass the smell test.
I look forward to your providing the dates of your past appearances at commission meetings.
Dan
What city business did Commander Smith conduct during these three and a half hours?
Did Commander Smith also have his iPad with him? What city business did he do on his iPad?
Did Commander Smith make any public comment during this meeting? When the meeting minutes are posted, we will be able to see.
RON, YOU SHOULD DO A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST OF THE MAYOR’S OFFICE AND THE LAPD TO FIND OUT WHY SPECIFICALLY COMMANDER SMITH WAS THERE. There was no Venice Boardwalk item on the agenda.
Oh what a tangled web!
Ron:
Check the meeting minutes to see if, and how much, Andy Smith participated in the meeting.
If the minutes do not reflect his participation, you’ve got him in a lie in his role as a representative of the LAPD.
Nail him on it.
I like this blog too.
It has a number of conversations that should be had at a higher profile—stuff that occurs to me when I read the L.A. Times…stuff that I think, “OK, I’ll see this on the Op Ed page…” –and then it never shows.
Someone thinks this town isn’t badly in need of muckraking? I can hardly see the mountains for all the muck. All those foreign journalists who beg American journalists to “do your jobs” at those Press Club dinners? This is the kind of stuff they’re talking about! Here’s to muckraking, by God!
A radio show would be good.
9:32, I like this blog because it’s entertainment. Stupid people engaging in political discourse is funny.
9:57 thinks LAPD’s goal is to uphold the Constitution because he can’t tell the difference between local and Fed government. If that’s the case, why stop at the Feds? Might as well blame the LAPD for not upholding the Geneva convention.
12:19 thinks civil servants are only allowed to attend PUBLIC meetings if they have an agenda item up for board discussion or are making public comment. That’s another good one.
Dan Gus missed the part where Cmdr Smith said he was there to hand out calendars to the commissioners, probably because he has poor reading comprehension. Gus is also unaware that responding to govt email on a BB is work related. He thinks if Smith is sitting in the audience at a board meeting, he should be working nonstop instead of you know, listening like the rest of the audience. He thinks one photo represents what someone will do for the next 3 hours. He assumes if someone doesn’t want to talk to him, it’s because he must know everything about him. He also thinks he’s so important that there’s a local govt conspiracy out to get him. Meanwhile, this whole conspiracy is predicated on association fallacy, that since the board member is the mayor’s girlfriend’s cousin’s sister’s uncle’s roommate from college, everyone related must be in on it.
This is funny stuff. Keep up the good work!
Just briefly, the question I have is whether any of the police officers were “assigned” to the meeting and, if so, whos decides the times and numbers to be deployed?
And the initial post had the question posed “What kind of enforcement of our policies in the animal regulation area exist to be resistent to favored treatment to the over-seers who are “making the rules” for the rest of us?
———————————————
That seems to be what’s not cured here, but as to the particulars on police presence:
I must have missed it, but Commander Smith’s presence at the meeting was entirely his own decision. If so, was he on the clock?
Again limited police services from all law enforcement agencies in the city make it reasonable to conssider if the deployment is done in the most usefu cost-effective manner.
I don’t think that there should be skimping on safety, but maybe a change for meetings where better notification of backup needed, as in court rooms, could be created to reduce the need for an constant staffing of meetings, assuming a risk is present.
I would think, and maybe this is to complicated for the city hall people to solve, that there is a way for a system that would get whatever security level into a location by some panic button or one-button speed dial.
ASIDE- none of this takes into account having security people that are not sworn officers, i.e. private security, that I think might be less expensive for staffing. And what would be the savings there (not to slight protection afforded employees to save a buck)?
HOW many actual incidents could be handled that way to free up the sworn GSA and LAPD to cover other needs during that time? Is there a real need to post that number of people for an entire meeting? Who decides?
Unions opposition to the changes is another story and city council, being the tough negotiators that they are (sarcasm) should fix that. Of course, after they tend to condoms in the porn industry, as priorities dictate, this might be something to look into.
What about that (the security deployment approaches) area for potential cost impact, Wendy Greuel?
Or do the unions involved have a death grip on it all?
2:49 p.m., try therapy till it weans you off blogs you hate and into other sources of entertainment. If that doesn’t work try again till they get your dumb ass leached of smart ass.
Calling Andy Smith!
Calling Andy Smith!
How about answering the question? After you presented the calendar, what did you do with the rest of the 3 1/2 hours? Did you speak or have any input on any of the other items? Did you leave your seat for any other issue? The meeting minutes will tell.
To January 13, 2012 6:55 AM:
Let me try to keep this simple to make it easier for you to understand.
First I don’t have a dog (or cat) in this fight.
Second, I can accept Cmdr. Smith’s explanation on his use of a Blackberry. It makes perfect sense that he was responding to business-email or at least he was reading his “work” email.
Mr. Smith’s reason for being at the meeting to give out calendars of Voice for the Animals is also plausible.
But his statement “I was only vaguely aware of the concerns about Mr. Guss and his safety.” makes no sense in the context of the probable story that one or two of the commissioners called out the General Services Officers because of Mr. Guss.
James McCuen
4:51, sorry my presence ruins your little pity party for
- white conservatives from the west valley who act like they live in South LA
- white conservatives who blame Mexicans and Persians for all their problems
- the 3 people who visit this site because it gives them an opportunity to pretend they’re dogs
- people who still think Trutanich is the best thing since sliced bread
- people that swallow every word Ron Kaye writes even though he’s always been too lazy to do his due diligence and get his facts right
If this bothers you, maybe you should leave
Andy, you also had your iPad.
Did you bring it because you were expecting a long day at Animal Services? Or do you always carry around you iPad while on duty?
All legitimate questions, along with what ELSE you were there for for 3.5 hours. You didn’t participate or make a presentation on any of the agenda items. In fact, you never left your seat.
Looking forward to your response.
DG
DG, since you’re going all Guantanimo Bay on a non-elected official, maybe for fairness sake you should also interrogate the thousand other citizens and civil servants who attend board meetings solely because they want to stay informed about department issues
Just like you, he doesn’t need to be on an agenda item to attend a public meeting. And once again you missed the part where he said he was there to drop off calendars. Perhaps you’d rather he interrupted the board meeting and throw it ff schedule just to hand out some stupid calendars
TO January 13, 2012 8:50 PM
We do have a right to question a public officer on duty, through their Management (the police commission and by filing complaints if warranted).
10:07, and you know for a fact he was on the clock… how?
This can all be resolved by Commander Smith coming out of the shadows to answer these questions
1. Other than handing out his calendar, what other agenda items was he there to listen to for 3.5 hours? (He did not participate in any of the discussions or presentations
2. Why did he decline to speak with Dan for a minute?
Smith’s “hit & run” style of explanation is suspect. It probably cost the LAPD & General Services $700-$1000 per hour to be there, so I think we are entitled to an explanation of how & why this $3500 was authorized, or whether it was used as a ruse to suppress someone from coming forward with information about a corrupt official; her corrupt girlfriend; and their connection to the woman who takes her panties off for Antonio Villaraigosa.
7:42- just as a point of clarification on the accuracy represented by the manner chosen for identificaton of the mayor’s paramour- “…and their connection to the woman who takes her panties off for Antonio Villaraigosa.”
First, there’s the presumption that the woman actually WEARS PANTIES.
Second, the implication- in light of the extensive delay in deciding to make the order to clear the City Hall lawn of protesters- that the woman is singulary the one wearing the panties in this pairing.
Regardless, Commander Smith can fill in the answers and very simply resolve the mysteries posed – about his attendance, that is, not about the mayor’s situation here referenced.
7:42- just as a point of clarification on the accuracy represented by the manner chosen for identificaton of the mayor’s paramour- “…and their connection to the woman who takes her panties off for Antonio Villaraigosa.”
First, there’s the presumption that the woman actually WEARS PANTIES.
Second, the implication- in light of the extensive delay in deciding to make the order to clear the City Hall lawn of protesters- that the woman is singulary the one wearing the panties in this pairing.
Regardless, Commander Smith can fill in the answers and very simply resolve the mysteries posed – about his attendance, that is, not about the mayor’s situation here referenced.
7:42- “…and their connection to the woman who takes her panties off for Antonio Villaraigosa.”
Ugh–I’m a visual being and that really ruined my weekend.
To January 14, 2012 12:50 AM:
In response to your comment: 10:07, and you know for a fact he was on the clock… how?
From Smith’s letter above where he said in part “With regard to my use of the Blackberry, I was responding to work related issues…”
By California law, Cmd Smith was as you say “on the clock.”
8:34, on the clock means you’re on duty and getting paid. Responding to work email on a smartphone doesn’t mean you’re on the clock. Try again
OMG ENOUGH Get a life and move on people
Or what? What are you gonna do? Throw a longer tantrum? lololololol
I will repeat it – From Smith’s letter above where he states: “With regard to my use of the Blackberry, I was responding to work related issues…”
WORK RELATED ISSUES
What part of work don’t you understand?
He was in uniform, conducting City business, being paid or receiving comp time – That by any definition is “on the clock.”
Consult any California labor lawyer or the Police Protective League.
So if a cop is in uniform during his lunch hour and decides to check his email, you think he’s on the clock? Try again buddy
Now who is acting foolishly? How can you compare a lunch break to 3.0 hour of community outreach time?
What is the purpose of trying to make a false claim that Smith was not being compensated for his time attending the meeting?
Why is that so important to you?
Paid or CTO accrual – Smith was compensated.