You can find a good summary of the background to this post by Jasmyne Cannick on her most excellent blog or by Kate Mather writing in the L.A. Times.
Maybe you remember that former LAPD Sergeant Jim Parker was charged by the City Ethics Commission with violating LAMC 49.5.5(A) based on his release of an audio tape proving that charges of racial profiling by actress Daniele Watts were fabricated. Well, today administrative law judge Samuel Reyes issued a proposed decision in the matter, where “proposed” seems to mean that the Ethics Commission has the power to reject it if they want to. He found Parker not guilty of some of the charges, but, importantly for our purposes, guilty of violating LAMC 49.5.5(A):
Respondent1 was in possession of the audiotape by virtue of his position as an LAPD sergeant. Since he released the recording to TMZ in violation of LAMC section 49.5.3, the disclosure constitutes “misuse” under LAMC section 49.5.5, subdivision (A). Respondent released the audiotape to defend himself and LAPD against allegations of racial profiling. The release created a private advantage for Respondent, as it protected his reputation against allegations of racism.
And maybe you recall our LAMC 49.5.5(A) project, in which we are filing complaints against various City employees for what seem to us to be violations of this law, in an effort to, not only get them to stop their bad behavior, but to find ways for citizens to force City employees to do their duty by utilizing already-existing City agencies, laws, and processes rather than having to hire lawyers for everything. This is a good sign for our success, and there’s more detail on this after the break.
I kicked off the project with a complaint against Peter Zarcone for helping out his buddy-girl Kerry Morrison with her 2015 music festival by instructing the Hollywood Vice Squad not to arrest restaurant owners for violating their conditional use permits as long as they were associated with Kerry’s project. Next, I filed a complaint against CD11 chief of staff Chad Molnar for his wanton and intentional violations of the California Public Records Act. What both of these have in common with the Jim Parker case is that the advantages and/or disadvantages created by the miscreants were not financial in any way. This is, obviously, covered under the law, but it seems that it hasn’t been enforced much, if at all. It’s part of the very new ground we here at MK.Org are trying to break with our complaint-filing project, so it’s a good sign for us that this judge found that the CEC’s accusation against Parker had merit. More news soon, and I hope to hit you up with the next installment of the project by early next week.
