Complaint Against OPS

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES

SECURITY SERVICES DIVISION

DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT

DATE: June 15, 2005

To: Honorable Members of the

Los Angeles City Council

Council District’s 1-15

From: Concerned Employees of

The City of Los Angeles,

Department of General Services

Security Services Division

SUBJECT: DISCRIMINATION WITHIN SECURITY SERVICES DIVISION

To Whom It May Concern:

The events and incidents outlined below are a chronological account of events that have occurred within Security Services Division (SSD) since October 2002. This document depicts unethical and unfair hiring and promotional practices that have occurred in the past three years and continue to take place even today. While it may be hard to believe, it cannot be misunderstood that there is conspiracy, collusion, corruption and ethical improprieties at the higher levels of City management, as it relates to General Services’ Security Services Division. Employees have described the working conditions and race relations as being “similar to how things were before Tom Bradley was Mayor.” Within Security Services Division exists a covert hostile environment that employees are apprehensive to discuss. One of the primary contributors to this environment is the fact that, there have been no African Americans promoted under General Services Police Chief Gary Newton since December 2002. Nor have there been any African Americans selected for any special assignments or administrative positions. This is the case, despite the fact that there are approximately 100 police and security personnel employed within this Division (many of them African American) and despite the fact that there have been numerous promotions, appointments and assignments within this three year period. It is worth repeating that none of these promotions, appointments or assignments were filled by African American employees. This hostile environment has been further perpetuated by a combination of favoritism, cronyism, good-ole-boyism and institutionalized discrimination. The African American employees of General Services-Security Services Division are demanding a thorough investigation into the events and allegations outlined below. The information described below in precise detail.

The Security Services Division (SSD) of The Department of General Services employs both police and security officers within their Division. Security Services Division (SSD) is responsible for providing both police and security functions for City of Los Angeles facilities. We are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of City employees who work at these facilities as well as the visitors and vendors who conduct business at these facilities. These facilities include but are not limited to City Hall, City Hall East, City Hall South, San Pedro Municipal Building, Marvin Braude Municipal Building, and the Los Angeles Constituent Services Center. We also provide security for various City Council members, City Council Chambers and the Mayors Office. The police officers employed by the Division are recognized as sworn, armed peace officers in the state of California. Peace officers employed by the Department of General Services are employed under the following City of Los Angeles job classifications: Special Officer (Police Officer), Senior Special Officer (Sergeant), Principal Special Officer (Lieutenant) and Chief Special Officer (Chief and Captain).

In October of 2002 the Department of General Services hired a new Chief to oversee the Security Services Division. Prior to this, Security Services Division had been under the direction and management of LAPD for approximately two years. Chief Newton was a sworn peace officer and had joined the Department with previous experience as a former City of Los Angeles Park Ranger (where he was a supervisor and had served as “acting” Chief) He also had approximately one year experience as a Henderson Nevada Deputy Sheriff. Chief Newton is also a graduate of LAPD’s Reserve Academy and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Reserve Academy. Prior to appointment Newton initially declined the position, however he later accepted. The former Chief, Ronald P. Spurlock was an African-American who had retired from the Los Angeles Police Department as a Lieutenant. He was on extended sick leave and in the process of suing the Department for alleged discrimination when LAPD was brought in to manage the Division. After the 9/11 attacks, the City Council requested LAPD oversee and manage the daily operations for Security Services Division until a new Chief could be hired. LAPD Lieutenant’s Joel Justice and John Incontro were overseeing operations within the Division prior to a new Chief being hired.

In November of 2002 shortly after his arrival to General Services in September 2002, Chief Newton began an interview and selection process for three new Sergeants within the Division. As a result of these interviews a well-qualified, 15-year veteran of the department was subsequently passed over for the position. The officer was denied the promotional opportunity although he had held the position of Sergeant as an emergency appointment for over a year prior to his promotional interview. While under the Civil Service rules of Three Whole Score system his denial of a promotion may have appeared appropriate to some. Many employees of the department felt that the failure to select or promote this officer to a Supervisory position was unjust, unfair and unreasonable. Additionally the officer was clearly more qualified than one or more of the candidates selected for the position. This officer had scored an overall score of 93% on the supervisors’ exam (promotional list). The candidates that were selected had scored significantly lower than this officer. Some employees in our department feel that the failure to select this officer was politically motivated and was in retaliation for his past union involvement. Ironically, in February 2003, the officer promoted to a Supervisors position outside of the Department General Services (although within the same job class). He now works for Los Angeles Airport Police. While apparently, not qualified to be a supervisor within his own department, he was however qualified to be a supervisor in another separate department.

Also in November of 2002, Chief Newton introduced a new organizational chart to the Division. He assigned Lieutenant Gerry Perez the Officer in Charge (OIC) of Administration and Lieutenant Mario Patrick was placed in the position of Officer in Charge of Operations. Chief Newton indicated to several employees (during a staff meeting) that he was going to open up Professional Standards Unit (Internal Affairs) in order to allow for promotional opportunities within the Division. This would allow for a Sergeant to be the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Professional Standards Unit. However in November of 2002 shortly after selecting three new Sergeants, Chief Newton arbitrarily selected and appointed Sergeant Raymond Ingal as the OIC of Professional Standards. Sgt. Ingal was arbitrarily “hand picked” or “hand selected” to this position without any formal, open and competitive selection process. Sgt. Ingal’s appointment to this position was unexpected given the fact he possessed limited training or experience in this area. Ingal had only been on the department approximately two years. Most of this time had been in an administrative capacity. Prior to his promotion, Ingal was the Division Training Coordinator. He had no supervisory experience and no Internal Affairs experience. He had minimal field experience, minimal public contacts and limited interactions with outside agencies, when compared to other qualified personnel who were not given the opportunity to interview for the position (as the Chief had previously indicated). Based on discussions with other supervisors Ingal was described as a “mediocre officer at best.” Ingal had not developed a level of work related knowledge and experience, in various law enforcement disciplines, that would allow him to objectively form opinions based on his training and experience. In his current position he has consistently sought advice and direction from other personnel in the division. This lack of experience is directly related to his potential ability to objectively form opinions in situations were allegations of officer misconduct may arise from work related field activity. Furthermore, he had no experience in taking personnel complaints from the general public, as did other qualified employees. Furthermore, he possessed limited experience and knowledge of Internal Affairs operations. Despite these facts Sgt. Ingal was selected for this position as the OIC of Professional Standards. No other supervisors were even considered for the position. His lack of investigative skills is evident by the various questionable background investigations he has completed. His selection to this position allowed employees who had prior history of disciplinary action or integrity issues to join or be hired by Security Services Division. Ingal went from an administrative office position directly to an administrative supervisory position in Professional Standards. Up to this point, Ingal had no supervisory experience since he had never supervised any employees within the Division, nor had he ever been placed in a position of leadership. He would later go on to supervise two or three employees in an administrative capacity.

Once again it should be noted that other qualified employees were not afforded the opportunity of this position in Professional Standards, given the arbitrary and unfair selection process. As a result, employees were denied a fair selection process and an opportunity to compete for the position. This is a direct violation of City Equal Employment Opportunity Policies.

The promotion of Raymond Ingal to the supervisory ranks created a vacancy at the position of training coordinator. This was the position previously held by Ingal prior to his promotion.

***Despite his lack of related supervisory experience Raymond Ingal was later promoted to Lieutenant in July 2005. Many believe this promotion was based on his favored relationship with GSD Chief Newton. Ingal was promoted over more qualified, capable and experienced African American Sergeants. While serving in the capacity of a Sergeant, Ingal has never supervised Police or Security personnel in the field nor in an operational capacity. Ingal went from an administrative office position (training coordinator) to an administrative supervisory position (Officer in Charge of Administration) to a Lieutenant (Watch Commander). Ingal did not possess more knowledge, training or experience than other more qualified candidates, who happened to be African American. (See attached memo dated July 14, 2005 announcing Ingal’s promotion to Lieutenant.-Addenda #17)

In January of 2003, in order to fill the vacancy created by Ingal’s promotion, Chief Newton requested that a friend and former co-worker of his, from the City of Los Angeles Park Rangers be allowed to transfer to General Services-Security Services Division. In February of 2003 Senior Park Ranger Raymond Lucas was administratively transferred from the Park Rangers to General Services-Security Services Division. The Park Rangers although sworn peace officers are unarmed and were not a P.O.S.T. affiliated agency when Lucas transferred to Security Services Division. The California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training ( P.O.S.T.) is the state agency that sets the standards, regulates and oversees training and guidelines for peace officers in California). While under the City Charter the 1014 transfer, at face value, appears legitimate. However, Raymond Lucas was transferred under false pretenses. General Services Management and Personnel Division were lead to believe that Lucas possessed basic skills that no one within our Department possessed. It appeared as if Chief Newton had indicated that no one within the Department was capable of doing background investigations (on new employees) and no other options existed. On the contrary, there were at least three Sergeants in the Department with such experience (Sgt. Henry Dominguez, Sgt. Fred Mendoza and Sgt. Victor Dial).

It was stated in writing that Lucas possessed POST certification in conducting backgrounds investigations although his previous agency, LA City Park Rangers, were not a POST Certified agency at the time of his transfer. (See attached memo dated December 13, 2003 Addenda Item# 1).

In fact Lucas did not receive his actual BASIC POST Certification until March 3, 2004 (14 months after arriving at General Services). Furthermore Lucas was required to attend a three-week POST re-qualification course to “update” his reserve POST certification after being employed at General Services.

Once the transfer of Lucas was completed he was immediately “appointed” to the position of Senior Lead Officer of Professional Standards (a highly sought after and promotional position). Lucas had no experience within Security Services Division as he came from an outside agency. Lucas was not qualified to be immediately appointed to a Lead Officer position. He had little if any knowledge of the daily functions and operations of Security Services Division. He possessed no experience as a General Services Police Officer, yet was “given” a lead position within Security Services Division. He was under the supervision of Sgt. Ray Ingal. Again, there was no competitive selection process to fill the position that Lucas was appointed to. There were other employees both supervisory and non-supervisory that desired this position but were not given an opportunity to compete for the position. Lucas was the only employee that Sgt. Ingal supervised. It should be noted that the 1014 transfer Lucas received was the first such transfer of its type involving a Park Ranger transferring to General Services. No similar transfers into Security Services Division had ever made. Between February 2003 and February 2004 Ingal and Lucas were assigned to the Professional Standards unit. During this time they conducted and completed several background checks on employees. Some of these background checks (pre-employment verifications) can be described as questionable. This was based on the nature of the background checks, conflicts of interests and the quality and caliber of the employees selected for employment. Two such conflicts of interests occurred when Lucas conducted or was involved in background checks of at least two of his former co-workers (Yin Wong and Larry Guillen-both former Park Rangers). Other questionable background checks are outlined below (See Officers Ahlmier and Musquiz).

In December of 2003 Chief Newton indicated that he would be interviewing and promoting one new Lieutenant and one new Sergeant within the Division. He indicated that the new Lieutenant would be in charge of Administration, Operations or Professional Standards. (See attached memo from Chief Newton dated December 19, 2003-Addenda item #2.) He did not indicate where the new Sergeant would be placed once selected. Once the interview and selection process was completed Chief Newton announced his selection for the new positions during a staff meeting on January 29, 2004. He advised those in attendance that Lieutenant David Bomer was the new temporary Lieutenant and that Raymond Lucas was the new “temporary” Sergeant. He indicated that Lt. Bomer would be assigned to Morning Watch (in direct contradiction of his own issued memo issued on- (See attached memo Addenda #2). He also stated that Lucas would now be in charge of the Divisions Professional Standards Unit.

***During this same meeting Chief Newton indicated that he was “promoting people who think like him.” This sent a message to those in attendance that if you don’t think like the Chief, if you disagree with the Chief, if you have a dissenting view or a difference of opinion with the Chief you are therefore not promotable.

On February 8, 2004, almost one year to the date after arriving at General Services-Security Services Division, Chief Newton promoted Senior Lead Officer Raymond Lucas to a temporary Sergeants Position. (See attached memo dated January 29, 2004-Addenda item #3)

***A major conflict of interest arose during the selection process for the temporary Sergeants position. It was based on the fact that Chief Newton conducted the interviews for this position and he was the only person that sat on the interview panel. This act itself seemed to contradict the City standard for conducting interviews. It seems that an interview of one’s friend and former co-worker would constitute a conflict of interest. Due to a second person not sitting on the interview panel, it also appears as if the interview process would lack objectivity and neutrality. As a result of these interviews, Chief Newton put himself in a position to interview his friend and former co-worker (Raymond Lucas) for the supervisory position. Lucas was promoted to the position of temporary Sergeant although under the City job bulletin for a Senior Special Officer, he did not posses the minimum qualifications of two years experience as a Special Officer. Additionally Lucas was promoted to the temporary position over employees with the required level of experience that also met the minimum qualifications of the City job bulletin. Additionally, Lucas was promoted even though a current City list existed for Sergeant. Lucas was not on this list due to not having taken and passed the Senior Special Officer Exam. He was promoted over employees who have taken and passed the City exam and were also on the existing Civil Service Supervisor’s List. All of the employees on the Sergeant’s list that Lucas was promoted over were either Black, Hispanic or female. Lucas and Chief Newton are both white. The City of Los Angeles Personnel Department or General Services Personnel Division can verify this list and the dates of its existence.

***According to conversations with current and former Park Rangers and Recreation and Parks employees, they have indicated that this has been a familiar practice for Chief Newton. He has in the past, promoted employees with limited time on the job to supervisory positions over other qualified employees.

As a result of his promotion Sergeant Lucas was placed in charge of Divisional training, Professional Standards (Internal Affairs) and Backgrounds. (This was the position previously held by Sgt. Ingal) These three key positions are a significant part of our Department and are the nucleus and lifeblood of any department. The Supervisor in charge of these three units has the final word of who ultimately passes their background investigation and could ultimately determine who gets hired and who doesn’t. Additionally, as the OIC of Professional Standards, Lucas also oversaw all complaints against departmental personnel and is ultimately responsible for their adjudication. Lucas was also the OIC of training division where he is allowed to have input and influence over who gets to go to training and who doesn’t. Lucas has been given carte blanche and overwhelming influence within the Division although he only has a year and a half on the job. He had a year on the job when he was promoted to Sergeant over other “qualified” and tenured employees. Lucas’ position within the Department (both past & present) as well as his promotions and special assignments have all come at the hands of Chief Newton.

As part of Chief Newton’s second re-organization in 18 months Lt. Gerry Perez was removed from the OIC of Administration position and placed on Day Watch as the Watch Commander. Lt. Mario Patrick was removed from the position of OIC of Operations and relegated to the position of Night Watch- Watch Commander. And as previously stated Lt. Bomer was placed on Morning Watch. These rotations were in direct contradiction of a previously written memo. (See attached memo dated December 19, 2002- Addenda item #2) Sgt. Ingal was then “appointed” to a second position. This time to the OIC of Administration and Sgt. Lucas replaced Ingal as the OIC of Professional Standards, Training and Backgrounds. Once again Sergeant Ingal was handpicked for a position for the second time in 18 months. No other employees (supervisors) were allowed to apply for or compete for the positions that Lucas and Ingal were subsequently appointed to. This time Ingal was assigned to replace Lt. Perez in Administration. Once again, there was no competitive selection process for these positions.

Ultimately, when the Officer in Charge of the various Divisions (Administration, Operations, Professional Standards and Training and Backgrounds) was slated to be held by Lieutenants, Chief Newton implemented a formal and competitive interview process. When it was determined that Sergeant Ingal would be the OIC of Administration and Lucas would be OIC of Professional Standards there was no formal or competitive selection process. But rather they were handpicked and put into these positions. (These series of events went through the General Services grievance process and were denied at every level.) As a result of these changes, Lieutenant’s Perez, Bomer and Patrick were denied the valuable experience that comes with being a ranking officer of such key units (Operations, Professional Standards, Training and Backgrounds). Other supervisory personnel were denied the ability and opportunity to apply and interview for the position of Officer in Charge of Administration.

In July 2004 Personnel Division lowered the minimum qualifications needed to promote to Lieutenant, from, two years experience as a Sergeant to one-year experience as a Sergeant (See attached Job Bulletin dated June 18, 2004-Addenda item #4). Many within the Division believe that these qualifications were lowered with a specific objective or intent in mind. The only employees within our Division that did not meet the previous existing minimum qualifications, of two years experience were, Sgt. Lucas and Sgt. Ingal. The previous minimum qualifications stood as the standard for the City for several years. During a staff meeting, on June 15, 2004 Chief Newton was asked,” Why the minimum requirements were lowered from two years experience, as a Sergeant, to one year?” Newton replied, “I don’t know.” It seems illogical that Personnel Division would make such drastic changes to a City job specification, without the knowledge and/or consent of our Division Head (Gary Newton). It would appear that this change was made without cause, without reason and without a request to do so. Such a change would have to be approved by either Mary Fletcher (Director of General Services Personnel) or Maggie Wheland (Director, City of LA Personnel Division). Maggie Wheland was also a former administrator from City of Los Angeles Recs & Parks (Park Rangers). In her previous position at Recreation and Parks Maggie Wheland had worked with Gary Newton. It appears as if many of the changes and decisions that have been made are being approved or “rubber stamped” by Personnel Division and GSD Human Resources.

Between January 2003 and July 2004 several employees of our Division have received favorable treatment from Chief Gary Newton. This favorable treatment is believed to be as a direct result of Chief Newton’s past personal relationships with several employees. This treatment can be directly linked to Newton’s prior relationships with select employees at the Park Rangers. Employees from the Park Rangers were recruited and selected by Newton only to have Lucas and Ingal conduct their background checks prior to employment. These persons and are now employed as General Services Police Officers. Several “new” employees that have not passed City probation or POST probation have been selected and promoted to key positions within the Division. These employees have limited experience within the Division. Employees of the Division that have received favorable treatment as well as other employment practices of Chief Newton that are considered to be discriminatory in nature are outlined below:

Temporary Sergeant, Raymond Lucas (former Park Ranger)-(Hire Date: December 15, 2002. He was on loan to Park Rangers until February 2003) “Upon entering the Division” he received an immediate 5.5% pay increase for being appointed to a Senior Lead Officer position. He was assigned to Professional Standards as a Senior Lead Officer (a desirable administrative post) without a fair, open and competitive process. This position is also exempt from the Division’s mandatory rotation policy. Personnel assigned to this unit work Monday –Friday and have weekends and holidays off. He received a second 5.5% pay increase for being assigned as a “temporary” Sergeant effective February 8, 2004. This friend and former co-worker of Chief Newton has not received any field training within our Department as mandated by POST. He has not worked one day nor held one assignment outside of an Administrative office assignment. It seems as though an officer transferring from another department would need to have some working knowledge of how the Department runs in order to make administrative decisions related to that given agency. Most recently he was left in charge of the Division while Chief Newton was on vacation from July 16, 2004 through July 26, 2004. (See attached email dated July 16, 2004- Addenda item #5). Even though he is not a bona-fide supervisor and more experienced and higher ranking personnel were available. This was in direct contradiction of the recent Principal Special Officer Bulletin (See job bulletin dated June 18, 2004 ( Duties Section) -Addenda item #4).

After holding the position of temporary Sergeant for approximately one year Raymond Lucas took and passed the Principal Special Officer’s exam. He finished ranked number one with an over all score of 94. The written test he took consisted of four essay questions. Chief Newton helped to develope these test questions and the test was subsequently graded by Chief Newton. It seems to be a major conflict of interest that a Chief Newton had such a close working relationship and past history with Lucas, Newton not excuse himself from the selection process for Lieutenant. Chief Newton again interviewed Lucas for a promotional position (Lieutenant). As was previously stated on page 5 (Paragraph 4) of this document Chief Newton had originally interviewed Lucas for his temporary Sergeant’s position. The only difference this time being there was a two-person interview panel. It should be noted that Gary Newton promoted Lucas to the position of Lieutenant even though Lucas had never completed the Sergeant’s examination process. In addition to this Lucas never held a “permanent Sergeants position prior to being promoted to Sergeant. Lucas took the Sergeant’s test only after taking the Lieutenants exam. It was as if he were testing in reverse (as if preparing for a demotion). And Lucas did not complete the Sergeants exam/interview process.

A rather ironic event occurred a few weeks later when Lucas was interviewed for the Captain’s position as part of the exam process. Two Captains from other departments conducted this interview. Lucas finished last in the rankings for this position. Scoring a 72. The irony in it is that Lucas used to be a Captain for the Park Rangers prior to coming to General Services. Yet he scored first on the Lieutenant’s exam that was written and graded by Newton and last on an exam where Newton had little influence or input.

(See attached memo dated March 4, 2005 announcing Lucas’ promotion to Lieutenant-Addenda item #13)

Officer Yin Wong (former Park Ranger)-(Hire Date: February 23, 2003) After joining the Division in February 2003, he was assigned to patrol. He left the Department in order to transfer to LA Airport Police on January 11, 2004. After working for LA Airport Police for approximately 6 weeks, he returned to General Services on February 22, 2004. Upon returning to General Services he was immediately reassigned to the Park Rangers (as the Acting Chief). It should be reiterated that Wong was an entry-level officer when he received this position. Again, no other personnel were offered the opportunity nor considered for the position. He was considered on temporary loan to the Park Rangers as the Acting Chief Park Ranger in order to facilitate the consolidation of the Park Rangers and General Services Police. In order to facilitate this move the current Chief Park Ranger (David Aguirre) was removed from his current position as Chief Park ranger, without cause, and the position was eliminated. Wong’s transfer was supposedly at the request of the Mayor’s Office. This request came at the insistence of Chief Newton. It seems contradictory that Aguirre’s position was eliminated but yet Wong was appointed as his replacement. If the position was eliminated and there was no need for a Chief Park Ranger then why an Acting Chief would be created and placed in this position? Wong is also a former co-worker and academy classmate of Chief Newton’s.

In June 2005 Yin Wong was named as the permanent Sergeant at Arms for City Council. (See memos dated June 2005-Addenda item #14) Again this is a desirable position as it comes with a set schedule of Monday through Friday with weekends and holidays off. It also comes with a 5.5% pay increase. Wong was promoted over a female African American employee with several years experience as a courtroom bailiff for the LA County Sheriffs Department. This experience is very relevant as it relates to the position of City Council Sergeant at Arms.

Officer Gabriel Mayorga- (former Park Ranger)- (Hire Date: February 22, 2004) He joined General Services, Security Services Division after working for Airport Police for approximately 12 months (5 months in the Rio Hondo Police Academy). After joining the Department in February 2004 and working less than 4 months with GSD/SSD he too was promoted to a Senior Lead Officer (SLO) Position in Administration, given a 5.5% pay increase and assigned to the Transition Team to help facilitate the merger / consolidation with the Park Rangers and other City Security Departments. (See attached memo dated June 4, 2004-Addenda item #6). Additionally the Consolidation Proposal had been submitted months before Mayorga arrived at Security Services Division. This position is also exempt from the Division mandatory rotation policy. Personnel assigned to Administration work Monday –Friday and have weekends and holidays off. Additionally he had not yet completed his probationary employment period when appointed to this position. It appears as if Mayorga possessed no special knowledge or expertise for this position other than being a former co-worker and academy classmate of Chief Newtons. In April 2005 he interviewed for and received a reassignment to the training coordinator position. This was the position vacated by Officer Dinapoli in March 2005.

Officer Larry Guillen (former Park Ranger)- (Hire Date: August 26, 2003) Appointed to a Field training Officer position over other equally trained and qualified officers. He also received a 5.5% pay increase. He too was a former co-worker and academy class mate of Chief Newton’s. (See attached memo dated July 9, 2004-Addenda item #7)

***On May 18, 2005 a memo was distributed indicating that Larry Guillen was a newly appointed Range Master for the Division. (See attached memo dated May 18, 2005-Addenda item #15) The duties of Range Master include developing training techniques on firearms as well as teaching officers range safety and firearms tactics. This position would also require teaching, implementing and developing policies and procedures on firearms usage. On May 18, 2005 the same day the memo was issued Officer Guillen had a negligent discharge inside the Security Services Division office. This negligent discharge occurred as a direct result of Guillen “playing” with his weapon. He unholstered a loaded weapon and pointed it at a wall and fired a round directly into a wall inside the gun cleaning room. The round disintegrated upon impact. This incident occurred in front of Park Ranger Joe Tafoya who just happened to be hanging out at the station with Guillen that day. Tafoya immediately left the station although he was a witness to a negligent discharge. This incident was not reported to the on duty Watch Commander (Lt. Perez). Although, Lt. Perez was only a few rooms away, giving a training class. The shooting occurred inside the gun cleaning room which is a sound proof vault with steel walls. In fact the negligent discharge or accidental shooting was investigated (or covered up) by Sgt. Ingal and Officer Musquiz. Guillen remains in his position of Range Master despite this negligent shooting and the disposition on any discipline remains unknown. Many division employees have speculated that Musquiz’ and Ingal’s recent promotions were a direct result of their attempt cover for Guillen (also a former Park Ranger) while downplaying this incident and ensuring it received as little exposure as possible.

Officer Livanios Pilitisis- (Hire Date: October 14, 2003) While still on probation he received a promotion and reassignment along with a 5.5% pay increase. He was reassigned to Administration Section, as a Training Coordinator in order to assist both Lucas and Musquiz with departmental training needs. (See attached memo dated May 7, 2004-Addenda item #8) This position is also exempt from the Division mandatory rotation policy. Personnel assigned to Administration work Monday –Friday and have weekends and holidays off. Pilitsis, who only had approximately six months of employment with General Services, did not initially apply for the position when an opening came available in May 2004. Sgt. Lucas, later recruited Pilitsis, for this position. Lucas subsequently interviewed Pilitsis for the same position, for which he was recruited. On August 5, 2004 Pilistsis was removed (demoted) from this position, also without cause. Some believe he was removed from this position because of disagreements with his immediate supervisor, Sgt. Lucas. Others believe he was removed from his Senior Lead position because he was unwilling to conform to the disparate treatment many in the Division were receiving or because he frequently questioned training inequities that arose. Officer Pilitsis is now employed by the Los Angeles Port Police (310-732-3500).

Officer Enrico Dinapoli- (Hire date: February 9, 2004) He was a probationary police officer with approximately six months of employment with General Services. He was chosen to replace Officer Pilitsis as the training coordinator (See attached email dated August 6, 2004-Addenda item #9). He apparently ranked second on interdepartmental interviews held by temporary Sgt. Lucas. Dinapoli apparently out interviewed and out scored other qualified officers for the position. Other officers that possessed more experience and training related to Departmental practices. Dinapoli also received a 5.5% pay increase along with a promotion to the position of Senior Lead Officer. This is also an administrative assignment with a schedule of Monday-Friday, weekends and holidays off. He later left this position in March 2005 for unknown reasons.

Officer Kevin Ahlmeir- (Hire Date: September 30, 2002) He was a probationary police officer when he promoted to a Field Training Officer with six months of experience as a General Services Police Officer. This was in direct violation of POST guidelines. He was given a 5.5% pay increase for being promoted to a Field Training Officer. All the while, there were other experienced officers qualified and capable of being Field Training Officer’s that were overlooked. He was also selected to be the Departments armor while on probation. Although there were other qualified and experienced employees who applied for the position. (The armor is responsible for repairing Divisional weapons). Officer Ahlmeir while on probation has had two inter-departmental complaints brought against him. These complaints have yet to be investigated. Both complaints deal with integrity issues in report writing and recovery of evidence. In addition to this he has been given two written reprimands from two different supervisors relating to two separate incidents where he failed to follow supervisory instructions. These write-ups were prior to being promoted (while on probation) to Field Training Officer. Office Ahlmeir was disqualified from both the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and the LAPD background processes for integrity issues. These issues dealt with not passing a polygraph test (LASO) and failure to disclosure pertinent information related to the LAPD background process.

Ahlemeir was also promoted to a Range Master position along with Officer Guillen on May 18, 2005. (See attached memo date May 18, 2005-Addenda item #15)

***Ahlemeir is known to have a confederate flag tattoo on his upper left arm. Ahlemeir served in the US Military (US Air force) and is a military veteran. Yet, to the best of my knowledge he does not have a tattoo of the United Stated flag but rather a confederate flag with wings on either side of the flag. This is unique because most law enforcement agencies tend to disqualify candidates who have controversial tattoos or tattoos that would be offensive to the community or considered gang related. For example you wouldn’t find officers with swastikas tattooed on their arms. Nor would you expect a police officers to have Nazi SS lightening bolts on his arm.

Subsequently, Chief Newton promoted Ahlemeir to Sergeant in July 2005. (See attached memo dated July 8, 2005-Addenda #16)

Officer Richard Musquiz- (Hire Date: September 22, 2003) Officer Richard Musquiz received a promotion to the position of Senior Lead Officer and was also assigned to an administrative position. Although Musquiz had not completed his 18-month probation, he was given a 5.5% pay increase and reassigned from Patrol/Operations to Professional Standards. Musquiz had only worked for the Division for four approximately months when he received his promotion and reassignment. He was promoted and assigned over tenured employees who were also qualified for this position that had successfully passed City probation. He is currently working on the Security Services Division Manual although his experience within the Division totals less than eight months. Officer Musquiz had a questionable background upon joining General Services. This is based on a termination from Huntington Park Police Department. His termination (for excessive use of force) and subsequent appeal is a matter of case law. Case #(1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 876,255 Cal. Rptr. 817 Musquiz v. City of Huntington Park. (See attached case information-Addenda item #10) Musquiz is currently assigned to Professional Standards (Internal Affairs). Not only did our Department hire an employee with such a questionable employment history and background. He was subsequently promoted into Internal Affairs, where he currently serves. This is a sensitive position in which he conducts background checks on future employees and assists with Internal Affairs investigations. Sergeants Raymond Ingal and Raymond Lucas conducted Musquiz’s background check.

***Also in July 2005, Musquiz was promoted to the position of Captain. He was promoted directly from the rank of officer to the rank of Captain. Musquiz never held the rank of Sergeant or Lieutenant within General Services. Musquiz was promoted over other qualified African American supervisors who held higher ranking positions within the departments than Musquiz possessed. Additionally Musquiz had only worked for General Services for 22 months and had completed his probation period while assigned to administration. Musquiz worked in the field as a patrol officer for approximately three months before being assigned to “Admin” where he completed his probation. (See attached memos dated July 8, 2005 and July 14, 2005-Addenda #16 & #17)

Security Officer Danilkevich- He was a probationary security officer, with approximately four months of employment with the department. He was promoted to a Field Training Officer Position. He also received a 5.5% pay increase and a reassignment to Administration as a Contract Liaison officer. Other qualified Security Officers that had passed City probation were passed over for the position. Danilkevich no longer works for GSD.

Chief Gary Newton- (former Park Ranger) (Hire Date: September 8, 2002) Prior to his appointment to the position of Chief, Gary Newton did not meet ALL of the minimum qualifications for employment as a Chief Special Officer, prior to accepting employment with General Services. The Chief Special Officer job bulletin clearly states that candidates are “required” to possess a current Basic POST Certificate issued by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training “ prior to appointment.” (See attached Chief Special Officer Job Bulletin dated July 13, 2001-Addenda item #11)

The fact of the matter is that Chief Newton did not receive his BASIC POST from the state of California until April 12, 2004. (A full year and a half after his appointment date with General Services) This lends to the fact that Newton accepted the position without meeting the criteria and the basic minimum qualifications of the job position.

(See attached Addenda item #12 related to P.O.S.T.-The California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.)

Chief Newton’s appointment to this position and the mere fact that he accepted the position under false pretenses, by not meeting the minimum qualifications, is in and of itself unethical.

(Example: This is the equivalent of a Candidate indicating they possess a Masters or Bachelors degree and the candidate is hired for a particular position based on beliefs or implications. Only to later discover that the candidate possesses no such education. This candidate was ultimately hired over more qualified candidates who actually possessed the minimum qualifications and met the basic requirements for the job).

It appears as if exceptions were made and special arrangements or privileges were granted to Newton in order for him to be selected for the position. This is based on the fact that he did not meet the minimum requirements of the position. Newton was hired over qualified and capable candidates who had the required training and experience. These other candidates also met the “minimum employment qualification” for the position of Chief Special Officer.

The above-mentioned promotions and appointments of personnel relate directly to Chief Newton’s decision-making skills, his lack of good judgment and his inability to manage personnel. All, while failing to abide by City Policies and Procedures. Many of the above mentioned promotions, key assignments and pay raises have come at the hands of Chief Newton. He is truly “looking out for certain people.”

***It should be duly note that ALL personnel mentioned above (highlighted in bold) are all NON-BLACK. No African Americans employees have received any promotions selections or special assignments since December 2002. December 2002 was the last time a black was promoted within Security Services Division. In December 2002, two African American officers were promoted to Sergeant by Newton. These promotions were most likely, at the recommendation of LAPD Lt. Joel Justice. Who was at that time, acting as the interim Director for Security Services Division. Additionally, there are no African American Security or Police Personnel assigned to the Administrative Section of Security Services Division. Administration Section is where many of the policies and procedures are developed and implemented. Administration Section is also where decisions are made as to the direction and goals of Security Services Division. Furthermore, the administrative staff is not a reflection of the racial diversity that exists within our Department (which is a key goal of the City’s Equal Employment Policies). Additionally, Administrative positions are desirable assignments because of their fixed schedules, regular work hours (as GSD is a 24 hour operation). These positions are not subject to the Departments Mandatory Rotation Policy and there is no cap as to how long an officer can be assigned to “Admin”. Many of the assignments include increases in responsibility, as well as a 5.5% pay increase. Moreover, these key changes that are being made in the way of promotions and assignments are not being made because of a lack of knowledge of the City Equal Employment and Opportunities policies and procedures, but more so because of a total disregard for them. It appears as if special arrangements and special privileges are being granted for certain employees of the Division. A practice of “systematic” and “institutionalized” discrimination is underway and beginning to thrive within Security Services Division. Many of the employees receiving promotions, key assignments and pay advancements are former Park Rangers as is Chief Newton. The current system of promoting and assigning employees further perpetuates the perception that promotions and appointments are not based on the conventional testing and selection process. The civil service process in the City of Los Angeles established this system. The system in place in Security Services is not based on merit and qualifications, but rather on the basis of the favored relationships or commonalities specific employees share with Chief Newton. It also provides ample proof that Chief Newton promotes people that “think like he thinks”. In effect, Chief Newton is creating an agency within an agency, where people who garner his favor are placed in positions of authority and supervision over those who are not in his favor, regardless of their rank, abilities or qualifications. Merit is not an issue for consideration when it comes to promotion within Security Services Division. Only those that the Chief likes receive promotions. It goes back to what Chief Newton said in January 2004He is promoting those that think like him. You may be the more qualified of a candidate but if you don’t agree with Newton or you don’t think like him you are not worthy of promotion.

Note: A consolidation is being considered by the Los Angeles City Council. If approved the Park Rangers and other City Security Departments would be merged with General Services’ Security Services Division. It is believed by those employed by General Services that if the proposed consolidation is implemented that it would not be in the best interest of individuals currently employed by General Services. This belief is based upon the manner in which Chief Newton has promoted and appointed personnel who were previously employed as Park Rangers. It is believed that Chief Newton will continue to appoint and promote in the manner that he has demonstrated (Park Rangers), although there are highly qualified individuals currently employed by General Services

***It is in the best interest of the City and all concerned employees that an injunction or delay be placed on this Consolidation effort, at least until an independent outside entity (Police Commission, Council Committee or Mayoral Commission) can look into the situations and allegations outlined in the complaint and they can be either substantiated or disproved.

***Many of the employees of our Division who share similar views are apprehensive to speak up, go to their unions or file grievances. They fear retaliation, retribution and denial of future promotional opportunities (Newton had already indicated he was promoting people who think like him). Many of these same employees of the Division used to believe whole-heartedly in the Civil Service process. The unfair and inequitable treatment that employees have received in Security Services Division, since Gary Newton has taken over as Chief, can only be described as blatant discrimination. General Services Personnel Division has attempted to justify these unfair promotions and assignments by stating that management has the right to assign and appoint personnel using their own discretion. We understand that management has discretion when it comes to managing a City department. However, in the case of General Services-Security Services Division, this discretion has crossed the line into discrimination. Favoritism, cronyism and good-ole-boyism are as much a form of discrimination as sexism and racism. As a result of this blatant disregard for equal opportunity, the work efforts of tenured and experienced employees has been marginalized and ignored. It is because of situations such as this that Equal Employment Policies and Laws were created.

The employees that are willing to come forward and discuss these issues are not disgruntled City employees; many of them have no recent or previous disciplinary problems. They have no motives for retaliation against anyone within our Division. They are all qualified, capable and viable employees that are proud to work for the City of Los Angeles. Their only motivation is the unjust and unethical treatment many within the Division have received. Many of the employees adversely affected by the current condition of the Division, have genuine concerns. These concerns are linked to unfair treatment, favoritism and discrimination, which eventually affects employee moral.

***The Civil Service Process is being subverted in order to create an inner circle within the agency. This ultimately helps to create an agency with an agency (those who are within the inner circle and those who aren’t). Those who dissent or disagree are not in the inner circle. The methods and practices taking place within Security Services Division can ultimately establish a culture where corruption and wrongdoing thrive. There are ethical consequences of creating a department where a chosen few control the direction of the entire agency. This is an agency where no dissenting views are allowed, an agency where no checks and balances exist to maintain an ethical and corrupt free environment. Security Services Division is becoming a corrupt organization. Not in the LAPD-Raphael Perez sense. But it is becoming administratively corrupt.

We ask of you, the reader, this question: If previously accepted rules, policies, procedures and standards are being violated and ignored. For the mere sake of creating a practice of hiring, promoting and assigning employees arbitrarily and with biasWhere is the line drawn?

Many of the involved employees of the Division were not advised that this complaint was being initiated. They were not notified in order to protect them from reprisals and the possibility of retaliation. The following employees that can be contacted for additional information to substantiate information provided in this letter are as follows: Security Officers: Mervin Douglas (LAWA), Ronald Drones; Police Officers: Harold Phillips, Timothy Bradley, Donald Taylor, Carlos Lopez, Larry Dominguez, Michael Johnson, Michael Robertson and Joe Barret. Police Supervisors: Robert Payan, Mario Patrick, Dennis Wildy, David Bomer, Victor Dial and Susan Kapoh. Former General Services Police Officers: Mark Kapoh and Janet Cook (LA Airport Police-818-989-1747) and Livanios Pilitsis (LA Port Police). Retired Police Supervisor: Fred Mendoza. General Service’s employees can be reached at 213-978-4660 or through City of Los Angeles Personnel Division. Additional contact can be made through Local 777 Union Attorney Victor Gordo at 213-380-6678. You can interview every African American Police and Security Officer that works for Security Services Division to verify and substantiate the info in this complaint. Names of other personnel to be interviewed are likely to arise during a subsequent investigation.

If allegations contained in this complaint are substantiated. And it is discovered that persons received favorable treatment in the form of promotions, pay raises and preferential assignments as a result of discriminatory practices and favorable treatment. It is requested that ALL employees that benefited from such treatment and practices be removed from their current positions and returned or reverted to their previous City positions prior to being hired by or receiving promotions within Security Services Division. We are also requesting that probationary employees no longer be eligible for promotional positions. Additionally, we request that an unbiased third party from General Services Department-Personnel Division conduct all future promotional and re-assignment interviews. We are further requesting that additional guidelines be set and followed as it relates to promotions and appointments to all future and current positions. These guidelines should meet with the approval of the involved unions and be further outlined in Departmental Policy as well as the employees MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). And finally we are demanding “Civilian Oversight.” Either in the form of Police Commission oversight or an independent commission or committee be developed by the Mayor’s Office that will have immediate and direct oversight over day to day operation as ell as the internal hiring and selection process within Security Services Division.