Thursday Meeting with Garcetti & LAPD

 Finally, Reclaim Rampart has been successful in scheduling a community meeting with Eric Garcetti, the LAPD and Prop Q Oversight Committees.

 Please join us

Thursday, April 26 / Jueves, 26 de Abril

6:00 PM

at

The Children's Institute

2117 W. Temple Street

 Los Angeles, 90026

We want to know:

• Why was the community left with an abandoned and blighted building for so long while 18 million taxpayer dollars in renovation money sat unused?
• Why has there been Zero public outreach from the LAPD in the planned re-utilization of Old rampart as S.W.A.T. Headquarters like all other Prop Q projects?
• Has Metro Division ever addressed the recommendations made after the internal investigation of the Division's 2007 shootings at May Day?
• Have former C.R.A.S.H. alumni now at Metro been investigated as recommended by the 2007 Blue Ribbon Panel report Rampart Reconsidered?    

• Porque dejaron a la comunidad con un edificio abandonado y en ruina por tanto tiempo, mientras 18 milliones en dolares para renovaciones pagados por los ciudadanos se queda en desuso?
• Porque no ubo ninguna extensión communitaria al publico de parte del LAPD en los planes re-utilizacion del viejo edificio de Rampart como cede central de S.W.A.T ( Division Especial de Armas y Tacticas), como han hecho con todos los otros proyectos de la Proposicion Q? 
• Se pregunta, si  alguna vez la Division de Metro se ha abordado a las recomendaciones hechas despues de la investigacion interna del tiroteo del  1 de Mayo del 2007 de parte de la Division?
• Han cido los alumnos del C.R.A.S.H,  quienes ahora permanecen en Metro , investigados como fue la recommendacion del panel Cinta Azul en el año 2007 segun el reporte Rampart Reconsidered?

Q & A with the AOC

The following email conversation took place April 19, 2012 with Ramon Soto, Senior Administrative Analyst II at  the Office of the City Administrative Officer  and member of the Administration Oversight Committee for Prop Q.

  

Reclaim Rampart:
I am still confused on the matter of how the decision to use Prop Q money was allocated to Metro Division for a new headquarters. Who made that decision and when?

Soto:

I actually provided information about when the decision to launch a Prop Q Phase II Program in an email I sent you on January 18. You can actually access and print City staff reports, Council Committee reports and Mayor and Council approval documents. Here is an excerpt from my January 18 email to you:

In April 2009, the Mayor and Council authorized a Phase II program for police facilities. The Council File number for that action is 09-0698. You can access the city website at www.lacity.org and click on Council File Management System. Once in, type in 09-0698 in the search criteria and you will access a number of related actions on the right hand side of the screen. When you access the files associated with the action you can read and download Council Committee reports, Council actions and Mayor's concurrences, among other data.

You will see that the Mayor and Council action adding the Phase II Program added two Police Academy Projects***, the renovation of the Old Rampart Station and the renovation of the Northeast Police Station. At that point we went ahead with proceeding with the Old Rampart Station and two Police Academy projects, but we held back proceeding with the Northeast station renovation at the request of the Police Department, who wanted to explore ways to identify additional monies to replace and not renovate that station. In recent months, we found sufficient monies to proceed with building a new Northeast station, which was approved by the Mayor and Council in July, 2011. The Council File number for that action is 11-1008.

Let me know if you're having problems in accessing those documents. If you cannot, I can print and mail you hard copies.

Reclaim Rampart:

I will re-read those pdfs but thus far none of them tell me the criteria used in deciding how the prop q phase 2 money would be used. I understand the decision was approved- but how was it arrived at? Where can i read the discussions about which stations were in need of funding etc. And the process used to determine greatest need. I may be mistaken but 09-0698 is fait accompli, non?

Soto:

Council File 09-0698 provides the written record of Prop Q Phase II approvals. If you go there, the first document in the file is a CAO report which notes the Prop Q AOC's approval of the Phase II Program, which was then forwarded to Council for its consideration. It appears that once it became clear that there were going to be significant monies available for a Phase II Program, LAPD went to the Prop Q AOC with a request to establish a new program. As far as criteria goes, Prop Q funds can only be used for Police facilities and Fire Department renovations. Why these four specific projects were proposed by LAPD (Rampart, NE Station and two Police Academy projects) was probably because LAPD determined that these were their top needs and probably a result of their internal analysis and discussions as to what their priorities were, per the funds available at the time. They then brought their priorities to the AOC (and subsequently to Mayor and Council). If you want to know why these four and not any other facilities were selected, you would probably need to speak to the Police Department about them. In sum, I think I understand what you are trying to get (the thought and selection process), but that would be with/from LAPD. LAPD brought their four selections to the policy makers and the policy makers approved them.

Reclaim Rampart:

Exactly. Thanks so so much.

***Soto insists that the Police Academy projects and Northeast are also "new" projects. They aren't. Northeast was proposed as a  renovation but it turned out the building was in such poor condition the division needed a new building. The Police Academy projects have been in negotiations since the mid 2000's, also as renovations.  Negotiations were fortuitously stalled for years over the police academy projects, netting an extra 100 mil. for Prop Q and allowing for these "Phase 2" projects. The AOC likes to claim their managerial efficiency gained them the extra dollars instead of endless foot dragging. Also, Police Academy sounds like its for the cadets but insiders call it the police country club project.

Jueves, 26 de Abril / Thursday, April 26

JUNTA ORGANIZADA POR REPRESENTANTES DEL CONSEJO DE LA CIUDAD DE L.A., LAPD, Y MÁS

MEETING HOSTED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM L.A. CITY COUNCIL, LAPD, AND MORE


Hora/Time:

6:00 PM


Fecha/Place: 

Children’s Institute

2117 W. Temple Street

Police Commission Claims No Knowledge

This morning Reclaim Rampart members attended the police commission meeting. Our goal was to request that the Freedom of Information Request we submitted in February be answered. We had gotten a letter from them in response asking for 14 days to respond due to "special circumstances." That was the last we heard. We are still trying to find out how the decision was made to use excess Prop Q funds to build a new headquarters for Metro Division at Old Rampart. So far we have been told by the AOC (Administration Oversight Committee) and the COC (Citizens Oversight Committee) that the police commission was responsible for the criteria and had made the decision about what stations would receive money. But yesterday, the police commission told our members that they had nothing to do with deciding what stations got the excess prop Q money. They hadn't found any discussions about the topic to send us because their were no discussions.

So. who decided? What were the factors in making that decision? How did Metro Division get to the top of the list of things to do with excess Prop Q money? And why doesn't anyone know?

"Have you asked Thom Brennan?" asked the commission.  We had put in many calls to Mr. Brennan in February and March. Our calls were finally returned by a woman asking us why we were calling him. She said that she would relay our information to him and that if wanted to he would call us back. We never got a phone call.

Now I am beginning to wonder whether their was any discussion leading up to the decision to spend 18+ million dollars of taxpayer money for Old Rampart's renovation at Metro Division headquarters. Everyone seems to think the other commission or committee was responsible.

Did Thom Brennan make the decision all by himself? If he did, he chose not to enlighten the COC at the meeting where we finally met the elusive head of facilities yesterday. He didn't say a word to contradict the COC when they suggested we talk with the Police Commission. Sort of unhelpful of him. One wonders why not?

Curiouser and Curiouser.

COC passes Resolutions in our favor

The COC, or Citizens Oversight Committee for Prop Q, passed two resolutions yesterday April 16th, 2012, after Reclaim Rampart members spoke with the committee. I am working on getting the exact wording but in general, the first resolution addresses the need for a community room and community services available inside the police station. The second resolution urges that the initial Prop Q guidelines for community participation in the design of the station be followed including public meetings and a community outreach.

We were especially thankful to Irene Tovar and Rick Tuttle, who expressed dismay at the complete lack of community participation thus far on this station.

Now, will anyone listen to them?

The Central Crapper?

I was recently told by the city administrators of Prop Q that the Police Commission was responsible for deciding what projects would get the extra 100 million dollars in prop Q money. How did a new headquarters for Metro Division (now located in the 431million + Police Headquarters Building) get to the top of that list when Central Division looks like this?

A brief description of a stroll around Central Division:

Quantities of human feces along a building I assumed must be abandoned. The smell horrific. The building seemed to have been designed as a toilet with private stall-like areas and then an open depression about 4' x 8' of communal waste. I actually filmed my entire walk down the block but I will spare you with this short clip. I asked a friend I was with how long the building had been abandoned. She laughed and said it wasn't an abandoned building, it was the Central Division Community Police Station!

What was most alarming were the air vents located along the building facade a few feet above all the waste.

Inside Central Division:
I entered the police station and asked the officer on duty about the building. the incredible dinginess of the interior was depressing to say the least. Then I looked up.

This is the air vent inside the building. I asked the officer if there had been any renovation in the past few years.  "No. We are always last on the list for everything."  Central was built in the early 1970's.  The interior maintenance is the responsibility of the Division but the exterior is the responsibility of Police Facilities Management who are located in the brand new PHB- Police Headquarters Building. When asked how often they clean the exterior the officer had no memory of it being cleaned.

When I talked with a group of officers about the situation and suggested they contact their union they said they didn't think it would do much good. They seemed a little horrified at the idea of going to their union and suggested I go to their union on their behalf...Well, okay. That's kind of weird but okay. I will contact their union but in the meantime: 

OSHA
 

The Issues - A Recap

Reclaim Rampart is working to give a voice to a blighted neighborhood long terrorized by gangs and the notorious  Rampart C.R.A.S.H unit. We started our movement with an occupation and clean up of the abandoned station. We now feel it is time for another public action.

Reclaim Rampart is a group of citizens who live near the old Rampart Police Station. Our goal is to participate in the city planning for the use of this building. The city secretly promised this building to the Metro Division as a headquarters. Metro is a city wide rapid response unit comprised of S.W.A.T., Mounted and K-9. Our goal is community participation in the process of deciding if we want S.W.A.T. in our neighborhood and also to be included in the planning and use of this building that the police abandoned for 5 years, allowing it to fall into decline, while collecting interest on money designated to renovate the building (some claim this is illegal, but certainly this is not part of the spirit of the proposition which mandated 7 years to complete all projects).

Many in the community want a new form of police station; one that helps the citizens of the community, works in gang intervention, and offers social services. This is at the polar opposite of The Metro Division vision. So far there has been no public input into this process, and the community has been frozen out of the process).

So this is a complex issue with two main issues. The first is that the money to renovate this building comes from a public bond - Prop Q from 2002, a bond mandated to end in 2008. It was secretly extended and one project, Rampart S.W.A.T., was added that was not listed in the voter information guide and voted on as art of Prop Q.  Metro Rampart has had NO public vetting at all. All the other projects of Prop Q had public meetings and the public was given access to, and urged to participate in, the design process all the way through construction except Rampart S.W.A.T.

Then there is the issue of Metro S.W.A.T having its own headquarters at all. In a 2008 Internal investigation of Metro, the BOI (Board of Inquiry) warned against Metro becoming "insular" because, just like Ramparts notorious C.R.A.S.H. division, special tactics divisions are prone to creating a dangerously macho culture which views itself as above the law. In fact, there are many internal reports warning of this danger and site Metro specifically. Should they really even have their own headquarters? How did Metro get on to the list for its own headquarters when there is not a single discussion in any of the Prop Q minutes concerning the choosing of extra projects to use up "excess" prop Q money? (100 million dollars extra they claim came from being efficient but really came from letting projects sit and collect interest for years instead of spending the money as the proposition mandated)

We have been trying to work with Eric Garcetti's office but now suspect he is stalling so that the Prop Q administrators can claim it is "too late" in the planning process to bring in community opinion.

But it is not too late.

We demand that even poor communities can participate in how are neighborhoods are governed and how decisions are made.

Currently at old Rampart

SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM A COMMUNITY MEMBER:

There have been some changes at the station. LAPD is again storing some equipment in the station's lower parking level -- newer items with fresh paint and LAPD badging. There are now two dumpsters on the lower level, and one on the top.

The biggest change is that construction manager Perkins + Will Architects have installed their on-site construction office at the east edge of the upper level. Their office is pretty impregnable to vandalism -- looking very much like a converted steel cargo container. The office is connected by multiple lines to the main building structure, but [as of April 2] also has its own modern generator located right next to it on the south side.

I didn't see any vehicles or on-going activity at the station. But, unfortunately, the presence of the connected and powered construction office is strong indication that P+W is gearing-up to begin the construction process.

I sure hope we get that public hearing in the very near future.

Questions without answers

The money that LAPD plans to use for the relocation of Metro Division to the old Rampart Station comes from the 2002 bond measure Proposition Q (learn more HERE). Prop Q related spending is intended to be monitored by two committees: the Administrative Oversight Committee (AOC) and a Citizens Oversight Committee (COC). Three community members were recently at a meeting of the AOC, and were able to ask a number of questions of Ramon Soto from the City Administrative Office:

1.  What steps have been taken to engage and solicit input from the residents and community?  What measures will be taken from this point forward?

RESPONSE: Not Known. Ask Garcetti.

2.  How would LAPD's plans contribute to, or conversely fail to address, the need for "community healing" from the lingering impact of the "Rampart scandal" and perceptions (at the least!) of an adversarial model of policing?

RESPONSE: Not considered. Ask Police Commission.

3.  Have LAPD examined possible models/examples from across the country of developing community service facilities out of formerly policing-only sites?

RESPONSE: No.

4. What is the status of work at old Rampart under the (Chicago-based architects) Perkins + Will master contract (asbestos now removed -- right, new floor plans already adopted)?

RESPONSE: Plans will be ready in 2 -3 months. These are submitted to the city for review that then makes any needed corrections and issues work permits. Construction to begin in the fall.

Questions about the asbestos need to be asked of Allan Kawaguchi.

5. Why is it taking so long to get the public meeting/hearing on old Rampart scheduled through Councilmember Garcetti's office?

RESPONSE: Ask Garcetti.

6. Why does Metro need a new Headquarters?

RESPONSE: Don’t know.

7. How did a new headquarters for Metro Division make it to the top of the list when you were considering additional projects to be added to Prop Q funds? (There is no mention of any discussion concerning this process in any of the minutes from COC or AOC meetings prior to a decision being made.)

RESPONSE: Don’t know.

8. Are you familiar with the recommendations made in the 2007 Rampart Reconsidered and the 2008 Board of Inquiry advising against Metro unit (or any police specialized unit) becoming “insular”?

RESPONSE: No.

8A: In Rampart Reconsidered, it states many officers implicated in the scandal went to work at Metro Division. When they requested information on these officers, it was refused. An audit was ordered but never delivered to the Blue Ribbon Panel. When I contacted the Metro Division to request this audit they did not return my emails or calls. Can you provide this information?

RESPONSE: Request this from the police commission.

8B. In the 2008 SWAT Inquiry, many suggestions are requested by the investigators. Have they been implemented? And are you aware that the report directly states measures must be taken so that Metro Division does not become “insular”?

RESPONSE: No.

9. Why was old Rampart chosen?

RESPONSE: It was cheap and available.

10. What factors make the old Rampart station the best location for this citywide rapid response division?

RESPONSE: Economics were the only factor. One other site - the jail on Avenue 19 - was considered but it was deemed too expensive.

11. Was the childcare facility located behind and adjacent to the police department notified about the “loose” asbestos problem and its subsequent clean up, if it was indeed cleaned up? 

RESPONSE: Unknown. Unaware of facility. 

[It is much safer to deal with contained and undisturbed asbestos- ie. in a solid state such as a ceiling tile. Since the water break it is  considered "loose" asbestos]

12. What steps were taken to protect the public during the “loose Asbestos removal?

RESPONSE: Unknown. Ask Allan Kawaguchi DWP, head of engineering for all Prop Q projects.