Patt Morrison Blog
Patt Morrison for Wednesday, August 20
College presidents are saying it’s time the nation considered lowering the drinking age to 18 to stop students’ covert binge drinking. Patt asks one of those presidents, Occidental College’s Robert Skotheim, how that might work. We also see how that idea flies with LA Police Chief Bill Bratton - he’s here to answer Patt’s questions and yours on another edge-of-your-seat installment of “Ask the Chief.”
And New York’s division of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is calling for a federal mediator to step in if the negotiating team can’t hammer out a contract deal with AMPTP. While everyone is afraid of another strike, is this public disagreement making SAG appear weak at just the wrong time? Or can pressure from the east coast push negotiators closer to an agreement?
The blog is open for comments. Post away on SAG and lowering the drinking age. Got a question for the Chief? Ask it in the comments section…..we may read it on the air.
Tools
- August 20, 2008 5:27 PM by Aimee Machado
- Comments (37)
- Categories: Arts, Business/Economy, Criminal Justice, Education, Politics/Public Affairs, Society/Culture
- Tags: Amethyst Initiative, Chief Bill Bratton, Drinking Age, LAPD, Screen Actors Guild
37 Comments
Please would you ask Chief Bratton about his plans to replace the retired Los Angeles Police officers who work on motion picture shoots with off-duty active officers. This change will radically change the dynamics of filming in LA, cost the studios more money and time and will ultimately result in even more filming leaving this City. As the 3rd largest industry in this town, we can't afford to have any more runaway production.
Please ask Chief Bratton why he is trying to eliminate the Retired LAPD Officers from working movie jobs.
For the last thirty years retired LAPD officers have been providing valuable service not only motion picture, television and commericial productions but to the citizens of Los Angeles. Why does the Chief feel the system is broken? I would like to hear specifics.
With production leaving the greater Los Angeles area and California to go to states that offer tax incentives, Los Angeles needs to continue the incentives that it does have:
1. Ease of film permitting
2. A knowledgeable workforce of retired LAPD officers that allows for consistency while filming on location. Also the ability to hire add'l officers with a few hours noticed if needed and/or change their schedules at 5 AM or Midnight.
3. A wide variety of neighborhoods in a fairly compact area that offer a vast choice of architectural styles.
I am a twenty year veteran Location Manager in television and features and I value the work of the retired LAPD officers.
Please let the Chief know that the more difficult Los Angeles becomes to film in and the more jobs are lost, the less taxes are paid. And in the current economic situations our city, county, and state finds themselves in the more we need to help keep jobs local.
Let's not forget that their are over 250,000 people who owe their livelihood either directly or indirectly from motion picture/television and commercial production in the greater Southern California Area.
Thank you for listening.
Veronique Vowell
Location Manager
A few weeks ago there was yet another shooting near Chevy Chase Park in North Atwater Village. Shootings and other crimes occur in that neighborhood regularly, and the park itself seems to be the hub. What is being done to decrease crime in the neighborhood, and is there an increase in gang activity there?
Dear Los Angeles City Council Members, and To Whom This May Concern:
This letter is in response to the recent plans of the Los Angeles Police Department to replace retired police officers on film sets with active duty officers.
Retired officers have been a welcome and reliable asset to productions for a number of years. Their experience is invaluable and appreciated and they are an integral part the filming community. This proposal is something that can only prove to hinder film production in Los Angeles. With the ever-expanding tax credits being offered by other states, increasing production costs with active duty officers will only lead to more runaway productions.
Having experienced retired officers on-set has proven, time and time again, to be extremely beneficial when filming in the many sensitive areas of the city. At times, the retired officers are more familiar with specific areas and the individual concerns of the business owners and neighbors than the production company. They have always assisted in maintaining good relationships where filming occurs. By exchanging them with officers of little or no experience, an invaluable resource of first hand knowledge will be lost.
One of the biggest problems with this proposal is the scheduling of active duty officers. Both the television and film industry has, and always will be, one of change. This pertains mainly to changes in the film schedule. With the current proposal of having officers ordered through FilmLA, and the required "four day advance notice", changes to a productions schedule will now have to include "officer availability". This will quickly become nothing but a great disadvantage to filming in Los Angeles. What happens when a company has to delay its production a day or two? Will film companies be penalized by the city for cancellation? Will they not be able to film because the city needs four days to schedule another officer? With retired officers, these are all non-issues. There is never a problem calling a retired officer to assist with a last minute change, or needing an officer to work later hours if extended hours are required.
There is also the question of active duty officers being pulled away from filming for an emergency. Emergencies must always be the officers’ first priority. At the same time however, this would leave productions unassisted by police causing crippling delays at unacceptable costs. Having active duty officers will lead to problems of availability, both for the city and to production.
We need our active duty officers using their skills and training on the streets of Los Angeles protecting its citizens and ensuring our safety. Retired officers are more than capable of performing the tasks required by productions, such as holding traffic while the camera is rolling. We hope that you will reconsider this new proposal and let the experienced retired officers continue to keep the filming process running smoothly in Los Angeles.
Lets not try and fix that which isn't broken!
Respectfully,
David A. Foster
Location Manager
"Desperate Housewives"
Could you ask Chief Bratton if he or McDonnell or anyone at the LAPD has even considered the effects of his proposed changes to staffing of police officers on movie sets will have on the African-American and Latino communities in Los Angeles?
If these proposed changes are implemented, it will devastate the kinds of film projects where young African-American and Latino filmmakers--not just directors and screenwriters and producers, but all the craftspeople as well--have gotten their training for the last twenty years or so and given them an entree into the more lucrative Hollywood filmmaking arena. Most of the great young African-American directors working in Hollywood now--Antoin Fuqua, F. Gary Gray, Tim Story, Paul Hunter, etc.--"cut their teeth" in the world of low-budget short-form projects like music vidoes, commercials, promos, industrials, still shoots, and now projetcs directed at the Internet. The proposed changes in police staffing with its attendant higher costs will destroy this kind of filmmaking in Los Angeles, and it will have the greatest negative impact on the African-American and Latino communities in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the retired police officers provide a kind of on-set educational/training function for these young African-American and Latino filmmakers, a function that will be completely lost when you put active duty officers in this environment who don't have the years of experience (and patience) to perform this function. And you can't have this educational/training opportunity, unless you have CONTINUITY with the police officers. This CONTINUITY will be lost, if you have to change the officers out every eight hours.
Also, if you destroy the economic feasability of these projects for young African-American and Latino fillmakers, the projects won't simply disappear, they'll go underground. And the ramifications will be that you will have productions on the streets of Los Angeles--mostly happening in the African-American and Latino communities-- that are working without proper permits and police supervision, thus endangering not only the safety of the residents of those communities, but the film crew members as well.
I have to say that this is the most racist proposal concerning filmmaking that I have seen coming from any governmental agency in the 28 years that I have worked in the Industry.
Chief Bratton needs to rethink this whole issue.
Respectfully,
Ronald Abrams
I'd like to add my support to the comments above. I too work in the Television industry as a Location Manager and have for almost 20 years. The retired officers are not only more flexible and less costly than active duty officers, they are they local diplomats who put a face on the motion picture industry for local residents and businesses. They are often artful in quieting a volatile, angry situation on a set between a production and the public. This kind of tact, understanding, and quiet authority is essential to filming in this town.
I understand Chief Bratton wants to earn the extra income for LAPD. That's a fine goal, but let's not destroy a working system with one that clearly will be a disaster. We who are the working Location professionals are telling the Chief that this is a bad idea. I urge Chief Bratton to ignore calls for this plan by those who would seek short term power and influence at the movie industry's expense.
Dear Chief Bratton-
The recent proposal to replace retired police officers with active-duty police officers on film sets seems to result in a lose-lose for Los Angeles residents, the film industry, who would bear the increased costs for active-duty officers (not to mention the scheduling nightmare) and a major metropolitan area that doesn't have enough police officers per capita.
In a City beleagured by random gang violence, with City officials pleaing for a moratorium on shootings, how is removing active-duties from the patrol areas to go onto a film set part of a long-term plan that will reduce gang violence?
This action begs the question: how many officers will this move take off the streets, especially those areas rift with gang crime (Harbor Gateway, Echo Park, South Los Angeles, etc). Isn't having enought officers a larger concern for you than policing an industry that applies for every necessary City permit and is obligated to notify every resident within about 300' of its filming activity.
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Janet Harold
Los Angeles resident
I am also a Location Manager with over 20 years in the film industry and 11 in locations and would like to pose the following questions to Chief Bratton regarding his plans to replace the retired LAPD Officers with off-duty regular officers:
Will the LAPD have "coordinators" on call 24/7 to deal with the scheduling of officers for film shoots?
How much lead time will the LAPD need to find an officer? We in the film industry often work on a last minute type of schedule, arranging permits, locations and ordering officers the day before a shoot. How does the LAPD plan to deal with that?
Can the LAPD guarantee that active officers will be avail and on call at anytime and at any hour?
What is the LAPD's fall back position if their "roster" is empty? Can we hire retired at that point?
Additionally, who oversees this new operation, what is their annual budget and what are their salaries.
Thank you for receiving my comments. From a concerned location manager and someone who relies on these officers heavily.
Matthew Chamberlin
Location Manager
I would just like to add my voice to those who have spoken before me. I have been a location manager for 20 plus years, mainly working in feature films. Two years ago I made the choice to move to television, as all the feature jobs were going out of state due to offered tax incentives by those states. I have a family and choose to stay at home with them.
Each time a new or higher fee is imposed, it is just one more reason for production to look elswhere. Just this past year the show "Ugly Betty" left L. A. putting approx. 250 people out of work & costing the city approx. $56 million dollars in annual revenue (based on a report I heard on KPCC with Jack Kaiser of Economic development). And this is just the financial ramifications.
My collegues above do an excellent job of describing the logostical problems of staffing the film shoots.
One other thing that was not pointed out, however, is what quality of police protection will we be getting as citizens with officers working on an all night movie shoot, then going to work their regular on duty shift, many times involving life or death situations?
I look forward.to hearing the chief's response to this situation and would offer myself as a qualified voice from the film commuinity, should you or he wish to speak with someone. I will be scouting the streets of Los Angeles this afternoon for an up-coming episode, but my hands-free headset will be in my ear. My cell number is 213-712-1637.
Thank you for listening.
I also would like to ask the Chief why the need to remove the retired officers from working movie jobs. It will have a devastating affect on the officers and their families that rely on their income. It has the very strong potential to have a financial impact on the entire entertainment industry here in Los Angeles if it drives filming out of the city. The police department is already advertising a $10,000.00 bonus for lateral transfer new hires and now they want to take officers away from law enforcement duties to man filming locations. None of this makes any sense at all. Who actually stands to benefit financially if this change takes place?
Like my colleagues I urge you to ask Chief Bratton why he and the City Council believe that eliminating the use of retired LAPD and employing off duty LAPD on film and television location shoots is a benefit to the populous. I've been a Location Mgr for nearly 20 years working primarily in fast paced television production. The officers that I've hired have always been punctual, knowledgeable, polite and by the book. They've also always gone over the permit with me and discussed any possible inconveniences to the general public or safety concerns before filming has ever commenced. The retired officers are experienced professionals who aide us in providing equitable solutions to problems that may arise during filming. Please ask the Chief who appointed Chief McDonnell and who gave him the assignment to resolve a problem that doesn't exist.
Claudia Eastman
www.locationgoddess.com
818-585-1531 (M)
Drinking for young college student is all about hype... most of the student do it just to show off... making it legal is going to make it banal... and i think since it s illigal it makes it more enjoyable... plus i can not beleive that you can join the military or have a family and still dont be able to drink
I agree with lowering the legal drinking age. Since the drinking age is 21 it makes alcohol a taboo subject, this forces young adults who choose to drink to do so in secrecy. This secrecy adds to the danger because if someone at a party where alcohol is being served illegally over consumes, rather than seeking immediate medical attention and risk a reprimand/ legal action, young adults attempt “home remedies” like cold showers, coffee, drinking, or worse, letting their friend “Sleep it Off” to fix the situation.
By lowering the age young adults are given the opportunity to experiment with alcohol without the fear of negative legal and social consequences. There would be little to no need to drink at a friend’s house when there parents aren’t home or drive home while intoxicated to hide the fact they were drinking. Why go through the trouble of hiding something that is permissible? By allowing the legal consumption of alcohol at a younger age it would make drinking an open discussion with parents and other mentors instead of a secret or unthinkable talk between parents and their kids. In addition, in the event that over consumption did take place which could happen at any age not just for young adults, they could seek immediate help without negative reproductions for being underage.
I think that lowering the drinking age will lower the under-age binge drinking due to the fact that most people under 18 are still living at home with their parents. I am speaking as someone who didn't know a thing about alcohol prior to college and kinda of went crazy about it my freshman year.
Re Underage binge drinking
I propose a transition period, from 18 to 21, during which time, those individuals would only be allowed to drink light (alcohol, not calories) beer. This allows them to experience getting a buzz, but makes it more difficult for them to abuse alcohol. They would be encouraged to drink only the low alcohol beer, because it would be available in the venues where they go to party, eg bars, restaurants, places with live entertainment. Otherwise they would have to drink the regular alcohol at home by themselves.
Re: Retired vs. Active Movie Police.
I am also a location manager and a City of L.A. homeowner.
Please add to my colleagues comments and ask Chief Bratton: shouldn't our recent self-imposed cell phone tax and tripled garbage fees go to police officers on the street fighting crime instead of cops on a movie set?
Thank you.
I haven't yet heard the reasoning behind how allowing drinking on campus will prevent binge drinking. It's not the absence of alcohol that causes this type of drinking, because students are obviously capable of getting their hands on it. Binge drinking will continue to happen whether colleges allow underage drinking or not. It's not the absence of alcohol that causes it - it's because these youngsters think it's cool. Having lost my mother to a drunk driver, age 21 is young enough to allow drinking.
When I was a senior in High school, a 16 year old foreign exchange student from Denmark lived with us. He was not even aware of what the legal drinking age was in his country, because he had been allowed to drink virtually all of his life. He was also the only one of us in my circle of friends who didn't go wild with the thought of obtaining and drinking alcohol on the weekends. It was no big deal to him and when he did drink, he did so much more reponsibly than myself or the rest of us teenage Americans. He said that this was normal in his country. Our government needs to let people exercise their own judgement rather than try to do it for them.
To me the issue is not about age. That's arbitrary -- why not 20? Why not 17? What is important is a change in cultural attitudes toward alcohol. Consider southern European culture (Italy, Greece, Israel, etc.) -- alcohol is seen as a food, something you have with food. Northern European culture (Ireland, England, Germany, etc) drinking is seen as an activity -- you "go drinking" at a pub or beer garden, usually without food. Many southern European countries don't even have stand-alone bars. Compare that to many northern European countries where the bar is a place in and of itself.
Essentially, college campuses are "northern European" in their culture -- students go drinking. If we were to rethink college campuses, and attempt to transform the culture to a more southern European one, where alcohol is served with food and where it is seen not as an activity in itself, then age would be irrelevant. Alas, college campuses, like the rest of American, still views drinking as an activity in itself and bars remain an institution often separated from food (try getting even free pretzels or chips at many bars).
Like sex education, pushing abstinence without teaching responsibility is a waste of energy. Pushing alcohol abstinence before any age (whether 18 or 21) is useless. We need to teach responsible use and that can only come about with a change in cultural norms, when we become more "southern European" in our attitudes about alcohol use.
Some of the callers object to the idea of lowering the drinking age, because they question the responsibility of 18 year olds, if they're allowed to have alcohol.
The problem with this objection is that its premise has nothing to do with reality. Anyone who's gone to college in the U.S. knows that 18 year olds have ready and easy access to alcohol. There is absolutely no difficulty acquiring alcohol through older students, in party settings, and so on. This is really true even for most high school students.
So the question is: Given that 18 year olds have access to alcohol, do we want to make it illicit and unregulated and have no meaningful discourse with them about how to moderate their use of alcohol (essentially a head in the sand approach). Or do we want to have it be open and above board and open for discussion? Ultimately, social norms, not laws, regulate people's behaviors. The idea that one can simply legislate the behavior of 18 year olds is silly.
I like to post a question to the chief. Countries like Singapore has zero tolerance if you break the law. Can't Los Angeles be more strict and not be so lenient?
Please allow me to share the opinion of a current college junior who is daily surrounded by binge drinking. I have found that 21 year old students who have to worry about stumbling back to their apartments after a long night at the local bar tend to drink less and less often than younger students drinking illegally at a friend's apartment where they can get sick and pass out. Lowering the drinking age would force more people to worry about walking and driving after their festivities and would make more people drink only in moderation. Furthermore. The embarrassment of being unable to hold their liquor in a public place would prevent people from drinking to the point of physical illness. I have no statistics to support my hypotheses, but I have a more recent point of view than the people talking about protecting "kids" from the world. When my 19 and 18 year old friends return from Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should be allowed to share a drink at the bar. If 18 is old enough to die for this country, 18 should be old enough to raise a glass to those who've died
The Chief just said that retired officers with badges and guns are working on movie sets and that this is a liability and dangerous.
Please ask him if retired officers are working in any other areas and if that is also a liability?
Or are only high paying jobs a liability? Aren't they focusing on that because of the money to be made by the department?
I'm sorry, but the chief's explanation for why the LAPD is taking over movie shoots was just lame. Every reason he gave to change the system actually suggests keeping it the way it was. For example, if the overtime may include 36 continuous hours of work, then none of us want to have our active duty cops stretched that thin.
The current system makes a lot of sense, as is, and the movie studios who hire these gentlemen are exactly the ones who take the liability, so no problem for the LAPD. It sounds to me, like the LAPD is just trying to get in on some of the money.
On a few occasions when I witnessed or faced crazy drivers on the freeway, I called 911. And, I'd like to know why it never goes through. The last time I was cut off on the 110 freeway by a speeding car, I honked my horn and the maniac practically stopped on the freeway ahead of me. I was smart enough not to proceed, but who knows what may have happened. 911 was of no use.
I was a juror on the trial this week on the trial Chief Bratton alluded to in which a tape recording of the radio transmissions of the unit conducting surveillance of the accused contradicted critical testimony from a detective. My understanding is that the trial was dismissed on the authority of the prosecution who had been under the impression that there was no such recording or tape.
Given this case and the Rampart scandal, and the long periods of time between the events and the trials wouldn't the LAPD want to institute a policy of recording as much audio and video as possible in order to have some record that is not subject to the subjectivity of witness memory?
I always appreciate the Chief's level headed, calm, straight answers to anything that is asked. Any political aspirations ever ? We sure could use a good governor.
I attended an American high school in Cairo, Egypt and there was plenty of drinking at the parties. In fact our cross country team went to Munich for the Oktoberfest and celebrated in the beer tents after we were done with the competition. After high school we were pretty much done with that phase in our lives, and I don't know any of my friends who abused alcohol in college.
It is a deadly combination to be both a first time drinker and an inexperienced driver. If we push back the drinking age we get first time drinkers who have less years of experience behind the wheel.
The European approach makes a lot more sense - no drinking age - so kids can learn to be responsible with alcohol (under the supervision of their parents) long before they get behind the wheel of a car. My 12 year old son was in Greece this summer where there is no drinking age, and he had his first taste of wine, and handled it very responsibly. I think that by the time he gets to college, he is much more likely to be responsible with alcohol than his peers who haven't had previous exposure.
Dear Patt:
I hope you'll have the opportunity to talk to the Chief again about the Retired LAPD officers being summarily replaced by active off duty officers.
Subjects not covered:
1) Active off-duty officers will be replaced mid-filming-day by straight time officers. Slows the flow of filming down as "re-training" what the shots are and how the police traffic control is being handled by the "relievers" simply hobbles the "pace of play." This is an intangible cost item of no insignificant proportion. It will be a significant "dis-incentive" for filming in Los Angeles. We are subject to active off-duty officers in Pasadena, for example. This cumbersome system of staffing officers is available to us already there, and the locations are more visually attractive. Presently, we try to stay in Los Angeles precisely because the Retired officers represent consistent and "picture savvy" help in the streets. This incentive will simply disappear.
2) The "out of jurisdiction" LAPD retired officers doing traffic control in places like Burbank, Monrovia, etc. is actually a POSITIVE aspect that allows us to film in those municipalities which have smaller active police forces, and those municipalities aren't always able to supply a required/requested number of officers for safety and traffic control on a given day. They "sub contract" to LAPD retired officers to assist, which enables us to get the permits and safely film. With a restriction preventing trained LAPD retired or active off-duty officers from working on local locations that are technically "out of the LA jurisdiction," the result will be a lowered number of film days in those municipalities: we simply won't be issued the permits we need/want because of a lack of available police officers to staff our shoots. A more enlightened approach would be to create a uniform code that allows officers to wear identifying uniforms that are dis-similar to LAPD, but which represent "traffic officer" authority of a 'generic' sort, so that these officers can use their experience and supplement the municipal officers (active off duty) that make up a core authority on our sets. Chief Bratton is off base on this aspect of the region's needs for support of motion picture work in the public roadways of Southern California. We are not New York nor Boston, and our setup needs to reflect this.
3) Although he joked about it, a great number of the officers are NOT 84 years old, and in fact there is a significant number of officers nearing retirement who are caught blindsided by this change, who were planning on working movie jobs as their retirement occupation. They did not plan an alternative and are now facing a hurry-up to obtain credentialing, training or investing in alternatives to this solid option (up to now). Most of the officers are NOT geriatric, out of shape, nor are they working "up to 36 hours" (a gross overstatement on the Chief's part). They are alert and able-bodied (enough) to guide insert cars w/ cameras, crews, and actors (and stay out of the shots - an acquired skill on a motorcycle), or prevent gridlock while safely holding traffic on a moment to moment intermittent basis. This skillset is refined and time-saving for the filmmakers.
4) It will be interesting to discover later on when the new system goes into place if last-minute changes in calltimes (allowing producers to push or pull calltimes for the following day's work) will be able to be facilitated.
At present, these changes are customary and not a problem. If there are deadlines to schedule police officers and no ability to change them at the last minute, the only prudent policy on the part of the producers will be to "cover their hind ends" by over-compensating for best or worst possible scenarios to maintain flexibility at the last minute. This means ordering too many officers for too early a calltime in order to have the minimum necessary for any potential workload that they can envision, and later, on the day, "eat" the overage of having too many officers in too early as a NEW "cost of doing business." This is high in the minds of producers hearing about this upcoming change, and it certainly doesn't represent a potential "savings" of money, but quite the contrary.
Thanks for you show!
Robert Mendel
Location Scout / Location Manager / Assistant Director
I am struck by the number of responses from people in the film and TV industries concerning off duty or retired police personnel. I am not in the business and had no idea that police were essential in its day to day operations. Does no one question the need for such protection? Does the industry itself bare no onus for its necessity? What do these officers, of either sort, do, and why? Does filming in other locations demand police presence? Given the quality of today's film and TV programs perhaps it would be best to withdraw the protection and let the chips fall where they may.
Why are we talking about changing the law because people won't abide by it? This seems like the dumbest thing in the world to me.
I'm not some conservative nutcase, I'm a liberal nutcase who's tired of seeing certain acceptable practices in the lily white neighborhoods get help for breaking the law and having addictions while urban kids villanized for the same 'recreational' practices.
Can we get some officers on these campus' to arrest these 'binge drinkers' and maybe encourage America's future white collar criminals to think twice about cause and effect? That might solve a few problems. Oh, but that would affect student tuition numbers' wouldn't it? Maybe that's why the principals are talking about just changing the law.
Having lived in the hood and walked the halls of academia, I can assure that there's a lot more than 'binge drinking' going on among the freshmen and sophomore students, and the same thing is being demonized right across town. And the same thing goes on in Corporate America. And then we complain about the drug trade from brown people to the South.
Ultimately, lowering the age limit to legal drinking to 18, will cause more problems for everyone except bars and alcohol distributors. Maybe that'll create more jobs domestically; the police department will surely be hireing. By the same rational for lowering the age limit, drinking will become more "exciting" to 16 year olds. Then, should lower the law again because we then have a increased drinking problem in high schools?
Comparing cultures doesn't always work. Sure, drinking is much less fetishized in European countries, but America isn't Europe. European countries spend much less on education than America does, but they have higher test scores and produce more engineers, have higher literacy and lower drop out rates per capita. Does that mean we should spend less on Education? Why don't we get socialized health care while we're add it? Actually fix some problems if we're going to look at our peers internationally and make some comparisons.
I don't believe there's anything inherently 'right' about a 21 year old drinking limit, but "binge drinking 18 year olds on college campus'" is the dumbest reason in the world to change the law. Let's get young adults inspired to achieve more, get them inspired to contribute more to society, get them inspired to be responsible, educated, financially literate... let's get them to grow up more, and then talk about partying.
Just to clear the air, any officer past or present is currently able to work "movie jobs". All the officer has to do is complete a "work Permit" with the department and they are able to work, ANYONE! Why does Bratton have to change the system just so active duty officers can make some "overtime" (MONEY!), when they can do it NOW. Oh, that's right, he wants to charge the production companies time and one half PLUS 10% (for the city of course) right from the start; how does that save the companies money? It will take over 18 hours before the retired officers make the same amount of money as the active officers, oops I forgot the 10% for the city. Bratton says there will be a 4 hour minimum, less than 5% of the production compaines would only need the officers for 4 hours or less. (Since they would start at time and one half, plus 10% that's the same pay as a retired officer for the 8 hours. Bratton says the officers will work a 10 hour shift and then be replaced, since most productions are 12-14 hours the active officers at time and one half are far more expensive; where is the savings to the production companies? Bratton stated officers working movie jobs make as much money as he does. I would like to see over $200,000.00 in my pocket like he does!
The chief likes to exaggerate by making you believe that most of the retired work force is close to the 84 years he talked about, and so out of shape they couldn't do "police work" if they had to (by the way the LAPD doesn't want retired officers to take action, but we do). By the way, how old is Bratton, is he so out of shape he can't do "Police work"? Most retired officers still maintain a workout schedule and keep themselves in shape, better in a lot of cases than some of the active officers.
The Chief is so concerned about City liability as a result of retired officers working in the LAPD uniform. In the last 50 years how many lawsuits have been filed against the city for officers working "movie jobs"? (50 years X 100 jobs X 365 days a year, it's probably less than you can count on one hand) Now put active officers only out there, sent by the CITY on overtime, wow, now we have DEEP POCKETS to sue, you think this is less liability for the City?
Sorry your questions to the chief were so limited about this subject, and there was NO rebuttal from those in the industry.
(This ai a letter my father in-law sent to the City Counciland Mayor)
My name is Manuel Galvan Sr., I’m currently and have been for the last 30 years the President and CEO of Shamrock Base Corp., business office located at 3100 N. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90066. I’m also the member of the Boyle Heights Coalition. I’m writing this letter to express outrage over the use of some very limited and very important resources, our police officers. It came to my attention that six on-duty officers were taken from their assigned field duties to handle an event at the “Rock Walk” Guitar Store On Sunset Boulevard, because they failed to obtain Off-Duty Officers.
It is my understanding that the Police Department is planning to take over the responsibilities of crowd and traffic control at filming locations with Off-Duty Police Officers some time in the near future. If the “Rock Walk” incident is any indication of how it’s going to work, the citizens of Los Angeles will be in jeopardy.
The trash fees were raised so that more Police Officers could be hired to patrol the streets of Los Angeles, not to work on some “Movie Sets.” It is also my understanding that we (the Citizens of Los Angeles) have two new police stations, Tapanga and Olympic, that can not come into operation due to the lack of Police Officers.
Would somebody in your office find out what the Chief of Police is thinking of, with regards to the before mentioned. Remember the Police Department motto is “To Protect and To Serve” the Citizens of Los Angeles not serve on some movie set with our limited resources.
Outraged and ever vigilant
Manuel Galvan
The Chief's remark's were insulting and wrong.By his order all of us retired officer's working in the movie industry are required to qualify with our fire arm's twice a year,at our expense.And we can not use department ranges.And looking at all the over weight detective on breaking news the chief should stand in front of a mirror first before throwing rock's.
I am one of the 150 retired police officers (actually a retired Police Sergeant) who is permitted to work at film locations in the City of Los Angeles through a work permit authorized by Los Angeles Municipal Code (City Ordinance)and issued by the Chief of Police.
I would like to add to the many comments about the Chief's plan to replace retired LAPD officers with active off duty officers at film locations.
First of all, the Chief would like to give the impression that retired LAPD officers who work film locations are not within the control of the LAPD and we are a bunch of old, untrained, and out of control officers wearing the police uniform who pose a liability to the City of Los Angeles and the public when we work at these film locations.
Our work permit requires that we follow strict LAPD uniform and equipment standards through the permit process. We buy our own uniforms, firearms, motorcycles and maintenance. These standards have been approved by the Chief. We are frequently audited by an on duty active LAPD Sergeant who ensures that we follow and meet these standards. If we do not conform to these rules and standards our work permits can be revoked and we are not allowed to work at film locations. Additionally, through our own efforts, we shoot (qualify) our LAPD approved firearms bi-annually at an approve shooting range to meet the standards of the Department.
The Chief' assumption or presentation that we are unable to perform public service to the public while at these film locations because of our age is not only ridiculous but discrimatory. There have been several incidents where retired "movie cops" have assisted citizens with domestic and business disputes, exchanged information at minor traffic accidents and held criminal suspects (citizens arrest)at the scene for on duty officers to arrive. Not to mention the countless incidents of uniformed officer presence on our public streets and neighborhoods to deter criminal activity and impose traffic safety to the motoring public and pedestrians. I can't tell you the number of times that while standing in the roadway directing traffic I have seen motorist voluntarily putting on their seat belts because they saw us there.
Of course, I have a vested interest in retaining my option of working for the film industry in the LAPD uniform, but as a prior citizen of LA, it just makes more sense to me that using retired officers who are not paid by the City of Los Angeles to provide this needed service is a "no brainer". And for those of you who are not directly a part of this whole ordeal, don't let the Chief "snow" you into believing that this proposal of his will save the film production companies money and encourage more film productions in LA (and related employment and revenue).
His plan, adopted from his New York experience, will cost the production companies alot more money. His plan will pay off duty officers at the rate of 1.5 times our regular rate for 8 hours of work plus his 10-15% administrative fee (to pay for his Contract Services Staff) will bump the cost of productions well above our current system. The administrative cost of the current system is not paid by the public or the production companies other than standard film permit fees.
Additionally, active off duty LAPD officers will use LA City owned equipment, police vehicles and police motorcycles. Guess who will pay for their gasoline, maintenance and repairs. Not to mention the liability of death or injury if the off duty officer is injured while traveling to or from a film location in/on his City owned vehicle. There is alot more liability to the City by using active off duty officers than the Chief is willing to admit to.
Also remember the underlying motivation for his plan is to generate more income for the City to pay for more police officers; at the expense of the film production companies.
Chief, this system has been working effectively for close to 50 years. Don't try to fix something that is already working good. Leave the film industry alone and let us do the job that you, and many other Chief's have approved us for.
I wanted to research this subject and write a paper. Your post what a thousand words would not. Nice job.
______________________________________________________________________________________
http://applyfoodstamp.com
I wanted to research this subject and write a paper. Your post what a thousand words would not. Nice job.
Leave a comment
Please be civil, concise, and on-topic. Notes:Please read our full Terms of Use before posting.