Another Thought on Financial Disclosure (Part 2)
A federal judge named Feess has decided that if you want to work a gang or narcotic unit for the LAPD, then you need to disclose any and all financial information to IAID. You must then produce documentation justifying any income (or lack thereof) that they find questionable during an audit.
Judge Feess made this decision based on the federal Consent Decree that your upper management allowed to be foisted upon you based on the lies they believed from Rafael Perez. Never mind the fact that Perez would never have been discovered using such a system. Never mind the fact that the very people who demand that you sign a financial disclosure don’t have to. Never mind the fact that expert after expert has testified in court to the frivolity of such a system. Never mind the fact that only a complete idiot would steal money on duty, then deposit it in their checking account like a birthday gift. Never mind the fact that GED and NED have been running (without financial disclosure) in exemplary fashion for many years since the Consent Decree began.
How, then, can it be right? Ask yourself why people are being recruited to sign the disclosure on the sly. Ask yourself why it is that willingness to sign a financial disclosure is now the only qualifying criterion to become part of a GED or NED. Don’t they only select the best and hardest workers? Ask yourself why upper management is so emotional about this issue.
Is it because the Department brass knows instinctively that it is an insulting and useless policy? Is it because they would never have considered signing such a thing themselves? Are they now being forced to implement a policy that they know will be divisive and damage the cohesiveness of their command?
Ask yourself this: If it is right to sign financial disclosure to work a GED or NED, then why does management have to resort to a practice they have never had to in order to staff two of the most desirable, specialized units in the LAPD?
Recruitment.
