Blogger makes a photo galleryThere's been some back and forth in recent days between the Los Angeles Times and Michael Gennaco, the chief attorney for the county's Office of Independent Review who sent around a letter yesterday accusing the Times of mischaracterizing his comments about Sheriff Baca. Now, the LAT's editor on that story responds.
Dear Mike,I understand that you feel your comments were mischaracterized in our story, particularly when we summarized your position as being that the “department does not have a policy against special treatment for campaign contributors.” I disagree.
The point you made in your letter was that the department has a policy against ordering “special treatment such as an early release from jail, the inappropriate dismissal of a ticket, etc.” but not against “requesting detectives to investigate any allegation of criminality” because the Sheriff is free to order an investigation into any case.
Two issues arise here. First, would a reasonable reader be confused about what we meant by saying that the “department does not have a policy”? The Oct. 26 story that we’re discussing was a follow up to a story of the previous day that described how Sheriff Baca had ordered an investigation into a man who was involved in a civil dispute with Ezat Delijani, who has given significant political contributions and personal gifts to the Sheriff. The Oct. 26 story contained a summary of the previous day’s report. Given the context, I think it would be clear to almost any reader that we were not talking about policies involving traffic tickets or jail release, which pertain to anyone, not just donors; we were talking about policies involving investigations.The second issue is whether our words mischaracterized your statement that “there is no LASD policy prohibiting the Sheriff from requesting his detectives to investigate any allegation of criminality, no matter who the requestor is.” In this case, the requestor was a campaign contributor. The investigation that was ordered took place in the city of Beverly Hills, i.e., outside the Sheriff’s normal jurisdiction. It was ordered despite the fact that the Beverly Hills police department already had looked into the matter and had concluded that no criminal conduct was involved. It’s hard to argue that those facts, which have not been challenged, describe something other than a potential case of “special treatment for campaign contributors.” Since your position is that no department policy governs that conduct, it seems to me that our statement was a fair paraphrase of what you said.
As for your complaint that we omitted the word “unfortunately” before a quote from you saying an unequal society is unavoidable, Robert’s notes do not show that you used that word. Even if you had, we do not believe its omission makes your quote read as though you are endorsing an unequal society. It reads as though you are simply describing a reality that exists.
Sincerely,
Matt Lait
Times Law Enforcement Editor