LAPD keeps complaining its officers are overworked. And the Los Angeles public keeps complaining there aren't enough officers on the streets. So why in the world is the Los Angeles City Council even contemplating the LAPD making a grab to take back jurisdiction over L.A. television and movie location sets by replacing movie cops with off-duty active police? As one location manager advocating the status quo system that's worked well for decades told me, the LAPD wants this added responsibility "regardless of their ability to adequately man or administer the volume of work that the retired officers provide".
The movie cops are retired LAPD officers in charge of traffic and crowd control on TV and film locations. They see themselves as professionals and have even formed the Motion Picture Officers Association, with 150 or so members who have the required LAPD-issued permits to assist movie and TV productions. Interestingly, the Hollywood studios who employ the movie cops don't want changes. The MPAA points out that retired officers aren't subject to the same overtime limits as active duty police, so staying on schedule and on budget may prove impossible if TV and film sets are brought under LAPD control. Last year, the MPAA and LAPD agreed to start assigning a sergeant to oversee film sets and make spot checks to ensure permit compliance. But the LAPD is arguing that the rules regarding filming permits are still not being enforced toughly enough by the retirees.
The changes being advocated by the LAPD are part of its lobbying for a new overall Contract Services Section to give Parker Center control over law enforcement at major events, like sporting and filming. I've looked at the different sides of this issue, and I don't understand why the LAPD wants to fix something that ain't broke, especially when the police have far more serious matters to worry about. But now this issue is heating up before the Los Angeles City Council and the LAPD plans to start moving in the retired officers as soon as October, according to Hal Dejong, the president of the Motion Picture Officers Association. Here's the email DeJong sent to his members and was made available to me:
To All MPOA members
From Hal DeJongLAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has been in City Council offices shaking hands, finding ways to help with general constituent problems, and promoting his plan for Contract Services Section. He has all but won over the Council members and their staff members at this point. He and Duran have been selling the Council members on what an awful disciplinary problem the retired officers are, with Duran using the things he has been doing to us as evidence to back up those claims. The Council is getting the same impression of the retired officers that the Chief of Police got from Futrell and Rives.
We have to get OUR message to the Council members. They need to know that we are not out of control as LAPD is painting us. We need to, and our friends in the industry need to, let them know the following points:
The film industry values the services of the retired officers. Their experience makes it safe for them to do running shots, stunts on the streets, and significantly contributes to the effectiveness of their production efforts within the City. Many of these activities are specifically planned in Los Angeles because they do not get anywhere near the level of support from off-duty active officers in other jurisdictions. It is not the fault of those officers. They simply lack the experience and know-how that the retired LAPD officers have developed over the years. This industry has a $52 billion per year impact on the economy of the region. Other areas of the country are actively seeking to lure production to their cities and states, building elaborate sound stages and offering incentives to move production there. Yet much of it remains here, in part due to the support they receive from the experienced retired officers who facilitate their production requirements. The LAPD proposal will take away this experience, and substitute the same type of "crime fighter" officers that they get in other jurisdictions, who have little or no concept of how to safely set up for a movie closure .
The LAPD has embarked on a campaign to portray the retired officers as unfit to serve in the uniform of the Los Angeles Police Department. They have assigned a Sergeant to harass the retired officers with petty complaints, documenting numerous alleged infractions of the rules so that they may use those in their case to eliminate the retired officers. The truth is that the vast majority of the retired officers are dedicated, experienced, seasoned officers who truly work to facilitate the delicate balance between the rights and safety of the public and the needs of the film companies.
These retired officers have from 20 to 30 years of experience handling police situations before they retired. They also have years of experience working film locations. Those are different skill sets. The retired officers know from experience where the film sensitive areas are and why they are sensitive. They take steps to mitigate the impact on the location in those situations. A large cadre of active officers rotating through off-duty movie jobs would prevent those officers from acquiring the skill level of the retired officers for a very long time.
These retired officers have earned the respect of the production industry, which has given them de facto authority over enforcement of the film permit provisions, even in the absence of formal statutory authority.
The retired officers are able to respond to the highly dynamic schedules of the film industry without impacting the cost or level of police service in the City.
The current system under which coordinators facilitate the assignment of retired officers to movie jobs provides the necessary level of flexibility to change call times, add or delete officers, even at the last minute. The LAPD proposal would require 4 days notice. The current system often changes call times at wrap the day before.
While police patrol work is demanding and requires an officer to maintain a state of readiness to enter into a gunfight at any moment is his shift, location film work does not require such a high state of readiness. Retired officers are able to work the long hours of production schedules. Active officers would have to limit their movie job hours to avoid conflict with their scheduled LAPD shifts, court appearances, and other obligations.
Because the retired officers are not employed by the City, any lawsuits arising out of their actions would be against the retired officer and/or the studios they are working for. The actions of active officers working on City payroll would subject the City to legal liability for their actions. While the track record of citizen lawsuits against retired officers for their actions is nearly nonexistent, that is not the case for the actions of active LAPD officers.
Because retired officers are not City employees, their injuries are not treated at City expense and the City does not lose the services of an officer while the retired officer recovers from his injuries. An active officer injured on a movie job must be paid his regular salary while he recovers, even though he is unable to work his regular shifts during that time.
The City Council needs to hear the true impact of allowing LAPD to take away the retired officers and substitute active duty officers. The time is now to use any and all contacts you have. If you have access to a City Council member, go in and tell them. If you have friends in the industry who have access to City Council members or the Mayor, encourage them to go in, or at least call in, and promote retaining the retired officers. If you have contacts in the media, present the case to them. Media disclosure of the potential for increased costs to the City for this plan could result in a public backlash against LAPD taking these over.
The LAPD take-over seems to be very much closer than we thought. Lieutenant Ray Garvin has been given the direction to assemble his team within the next two months in preparation for their implementation of contract services. We now believe that the October general meeting of retired officers working movie jobs that Duran has told us he has planned will be the announcement that retired officers will no longer be allowed to work movie jobs in the uniform of the Los Angeles Police Department. We have a very short window of opportunity to try to counter this.
Because they are lazy and overpaid and catering has great donuts. In no other city in the world do police officers do as little and get way overpaid. They all get easy bonus pay and make up to $150k per year. I recently asked a cop (sitting with his fat ass in his car) in Little Tokyo where the closest USPS office was — he didn’t have a clue, probably because he was too lazy to ever get out of his car and actually walk around the neighborhood.
Comment by Overpaid — August 17, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
The officers on the set have a solid working relationship with prodcos on location and know how to get things done in a timely manner, where money and time are neither cheap, not at times, plentiful. Let’s hope this moronic plan vanishes from view ASAP. And put the Officers where they are really needed — in parts of LA to protect the folks living there.
Comment by pb — August 17, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
This makes no sense UNLESS some of these officers have an ax to grind with certain stars and want to use this situation to do something about it. For example, that douchebag cop who wrote tons of threatening letters to Mel Gibson after The Passion Of The Christ and then “by chance” pulled Mel over for DUI and destroyed his image in one fell swoop. Something about this whole scenario stinks to high heaven. Whenever a group wants to take control of everything, it’s time to get the fuck out.
Comment by Crystal Diane Stevens — August 17, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
@Overpaid: So, next time you need the services of one of those “fat ass” cops, call your local Starbucks barista–let me know how it works out.
It sure sounds little a greedy–not to mention dumb–plan by the LAPD. I bet cooler heads prevail and this idea will die a sudden, mysterious death and will disappear quickly into the cold-case files.
Comment by Hmmmmm...? — August 17, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
I’m all for the LAPD takeover! That way the motorcycle cop who gave me that darn speeding ticket will be less likely to have the time to show up in court when I contest it.
Comment by mheister — August 17, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Every public “servant” whether it is the police, teachers, or other unionized workforce doesn’t care about the consumers of their service, just getting their own snouts in the trough and being paid as much as possible to do as little as possible.
Comment by DH — August 17, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
I’ve been working on movie productions for 20 years and have had nothing but good dealings with the retired LAPD officers on set. They do a fine job. They’re not there to make arrests - they are there to help secure the area and necessitate street closures and the like. Productions move around daily, so why would you expect the officer to know where the local post office is? What kind of inane requirement is that? Get a GPS for chrissakes. Commenter #1 is nuts…and mean…though craft service usually does bring in good donuts. If those jerks at the SAG could finally resolve their internal issues, it would be nice to be on a set again enjoying a nice glazed one.
Comment by NotPaidEnough — August 17, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Oh Nikki, and you live in Hollywood. You really can’t see why LAPD is making the grab? It’s all about the benjamins. Every single dollar that is being paid to the private duty officers is one that the LAPD officers are not taking home. The LAPD Union wants to show their members the money. Getting back jurisdiction means they can. It’s that simple.
Comment by doneworkingwithcops — August 17, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Another reason NOT to shoot in L.A., but other areas of the U.S. Time to spread the wealth.
Comment by Old Line Cinema — August 17, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
I’ll bet the Chief of Police is just trying to get a “free” budget increase. I wonder what will become of the “on-duty” Police Officers who are “banned from the set”? And when the Chief receives the complaint letters? What happens then? Perhaps I’m naive, but this is a blatant, slimy, attempt to gain more control over the Movie’s production there. Won’t be long before the “On-Duty Cop” demands his own trailer, and casting couch… But probably only for “vetting” extras.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Oh Cyrstal! That so-called douchebag cop you hate is a LA County deputy, not LAPD.
And I don’t remember anything about him writing him writing tons of threatening letters over Gibson’s anti-Semitic screed!
Plus, Gibson was drunk & driving at the time. That’s very illegal, or do your favorite movie stars get a pass on that crime?
And a whole lot of us still want to know which female LA deputy he called “Sugartits”!
Comment by Unindicted Co-conspirator — August 17, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Reassign the cops to active duty and hire the Teamsters. They’re there anyway.
Comment by Santayana — August 17, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
This is clearly a pretext to transfer wealth and power to the LAPD without regard to the exigencies of film production.
Comment by humanshield — August 18, 2008 @ 12:30 am
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it indeed! This is insane and a waste of time!
Comment by dandan — August 18, 2008 @ 4:51 am
Nikki should have made it explicit that replacing movie cops with off-duty active police would result in the active duty officers receiving overtime pay and that their movie work would be in addition to their normal work week.(at least that’s how it appears to me). So it is indeed about more money for cops- through overtime pay which would be paid by the film companies. The bigger issue from a production standpoint, however, is that this will mean that instead of a few retired officers integrated into a production team and able to participate in the planning process, you would have the active duty cops rotated in (and requiring 4 day’s notice for a schedule change). My guess on the final financial impact? Active duty officers will cost more per hour(I’m sure somebody out there on the coast has these figures. Confirm or call me an idiot.). Production companies will still have to hire at least one of the retired cops as a consultant to deal with planning and co-ordination issues, and to help with managing the cops. Higher costs for less able and flexible staff.
Comment by D. Lloyd — August 18, 2008 @ 5:47 am
Yet another reason NOT to film in Los Angeles.
Comment by Tommy D — August 18, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Active duty police shouldn’t be allowed to moonlight at all, in any capacity. Their hourly restrictions are there for a reason — moonlighting is an end run around those restrictions. Not to mention the huge potential for conflict of interest and corruption… Let the retired cops do their thing and let the active duty do theirs.
Comment by D. Rivers — August 18, 2008 @ 7:46 am
with any luck, this is a step towards the terms of film permits actually getting enforced. the retired cops have repeatedly shown themselves useless in getting out-of-control productions to treat the neighborhoods they are shooting in with any sort of respect.
Comment by jim — August 18, 2008 @ 8:44 am
It’s a real shame that LA City appears to be doing a money grab that will, in the long term, chase more filming out of town. Maybe it’s time to move to New Mexico with everyone else…
It should be noted that the sergeant to whom you refer is not generally considered a productive part of the equation. But, then, hall-monitors have never been the most popular folks on campus.
Comment by anotherprodtype — August 18, 2008 @ 10:27 am
It ISN’T broken, so why are they trying to fix it? *rolls eyes*
Comment by HollywoodDream — August 18, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
In most major cities, police are 100% banned from working part time security or off duty PI work because the prevailing logic is that it almost always leads to corruption. The idea being that a public servant cannot serve two masters and remain true to the citizens.
In fact in most cities even the appearance of impropriety by cops in non-security or PI moonlighting is treated as a real problem; by way of obvious example, if a cop owns rental properties and collects his rent wearing a gun and badge it is an intimidating abuse of power, a threat that the tenant better watch their step and pay on time.
Notice also how in LA where despite innumerable federal convictions in the Pellicano case, not one state charge was ever filed against co-conspiring public servants who were convicted of selling out the citizens of LA.
The overriding problem is that the corruption has become institutionalized and though police should be banned from moonlighting, instead their ability to moonlight will now be expanded. No wonder it’s almost impossible to get anyone to shoot in state anymore.
Comment by Keefe — August 18, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
What will you guys do when all the filming leaves L.A.?? You almost found out when all the Indies and Series went to Vancouver….man you were scramblin’ then. Keep it up you bureaucratic goons. Of course, without filming, you won’t have a job either…just another EIDC/FILMLA grab? GO FIND WAYS TO PROMOTE FILMING which should be your jobs, you sorry politicians, and not to protect neighborhoods from the big,bad film people who probably pay their mortgage in one way or another and never had any problems before you came on the scene. GROW UP.
Comment by Jean — August 18, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Nikki makes a great point. The retired guys work out fine — they’re over paid, but better to have these trained people who are retired rather than on-duty cops who SHOULD be covering a city frought with gang violence and car jackings. I’d rather have LAPD doing the job we pay them to do than sitting at a movie set. This isn’t Mayberry. It’s L.A. And they need to be on the street protecting citizens rather than ogling actors. They can go for a a location job when they RETIRE.
Comment by Julia — August 18, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Wake up people. The retired LAPD officers don’t get up to date training, most of them are out of shape, most of them really don’t seem to know what’s going on around the location site and I agree LAPD should take over jurisdiction. Why should the retired cops be allowed to wear an LAPD uniform if they’re not with the department any longer? It makes perfect sense. Amazing all of you who criticize LAPD yet when you’re victimized you sure as hell call them first. Try riding in a black/white in this city and see what they go through. You are all clueless about this city. Everyone always criticizes LAPD until they become a victim of crime.
Comment by Janet — August 19, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Janet,
I’ve worked with the retired LAPD for over 17 years in this business.
Some of our retired LAPD were the officers that trained the new police recruits at the academy. All served the people of LA until their retirement. To say they don’t know whats going on around location sites and are out of shape and don’t have up to date training is a false statement. They have earned the right to wear their LAPD uniforms. Most film crews fully support the active LAPD who go out and put their lives on the line everyday. They always stop and talk with the retired officers and crew. With the job they have in this city of gangs and various other crimes, there is no way they would be able to also support the demands of a film shoot. One of the most important reasons for our use of retired officers is they work with us everyday, they know who belongs and who doesn’t. They can work 14 hours and not have to show up for active duty the next day. I see this as a power play by a select few in the LAPD, not by the active officers who work the streets of this wacked out city. So, I don’t know who you think is criticizing the active police force…it’s not the movie industry. You put down the retired officers, who served this city for years, that is clueless, they have earned the right to have these jobs.
Comment by btl teamster — August 19, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
This is a very simple matter. L.A.P.D. is using private dollars to subsidize putting more officers on the street. They’ve already admitted that every officer will be put on in an “overtime” rate and will be able to be pulled from a private venue in a moments notice. Let me get this straight, they plan to increase the cost and reduce the reliability of the service so they can increase the number of on duty officers on the street at the expense of the private business owner. Great job, just another reason this city has ended up being run into the ground. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Scott — August 20, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Have you guys ever been on a film set? Anyone who ever has knows this is such a fucking joke.
“Overworked” my fucking ass
Comment by Anonymous — August 20, 2008 @ 6:30 pm