Correspondence: complaints against LAPD (2 of 2), 1989-04-17, p. 24 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 24 of 26 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
Personnel Complaint
Page 2 3
8.2
Perhaps Lieutenant Hall could have handled his explanation to
Ramirez differently. A selection for Detective III was properly
made, as are all selections in Operations-Headquarters Bureau,
during a discussion by the Commanding Officer who has the
vacancy, the Group Commanding Officer and the Bureau Commanding * r
Officer. After Ramirez was not selected, Lieutenant Hall JiuLyyt
honestly explained the reasons for his non-selection and offered—*^^
->> suggestions for improvement. Ramirez' weaknesses were discussed
and Lieutenant Hall offered training to help Ramirez improve his
skills for future Detective III vacancies. Unfortunately, little
had been done by Hall previously to inform Ramirez of these
weaknesses or exactly how serious Hall perceived those weaknesses
to be. It is possible that if Lieutenant Hall had done a better
job of counseling leading up to this discussion, Ramirez would
not have been as surprised as he was. Hall's intention was good
and in my opinion, without any intent to malign.
One other major area of concern is the allegation that Lieutenant
Hall improperly discussed an ongoing personnel investigation with
potential witnesses. While some of the witnesses felt they were
being coerced, I believe that is a matter of perception. It is
my belief that Lieutenant Hall did in fact have the welfare of
Laura Diethrich in mind when he discussed the investigation with
Laura and her husband, a detective who had been a subordinate of
Hall's when he was the Commanding Officer of Newton Detectives.
Notwithstanding that good motivation, Lieutenant Hall should not
have involved himself with any witnesses because he was also an
accused employee. He should have communicated any concerns he
had to his superiors, who were in a better position to deal with
the situation. Lieutenant Hall has been provided with training
in this area and he understands how his actions could appear to
have been an attempt to influence witness statements.
Additionally, all of the members of the O.I.S. have been provided
with training in the areas covered by Memorandum No. 1, 1987 and
Special Order No. 10, 1988. >/
In light of Ramirez' assertions about possible overtime abuse by AMffifatc.
Pellegrino, an audit is being conducted to determine if any -.
irregularities occurred; however, it will not be completed prior J/U^
to the adjudication of this complaint. At the time Ramirez filed\ (-^?i
his grievance^^J^'-^^J^B* that it would be in his best interest if \?Hfyf^
he did not work in O.I.S. He was assigned to the Bank Robbery s* qfy
Section of Robbery-Homicide Division and is still there. s v
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION t^04^jL
Due to the number of allegations, they will be listed in chart
form which will list the count number, in or out of statute, the
accused employees name, and the proposed classification:
Object Description
| Title | Correspondence: complaints against LAPD (2 of 2), 1989-04-17 |
| Description | Los Angeles Police Department personnel complaint, 1989 April 17, against Elmer Pellegrino, John Tortorici, Carlos Ramirez, Charles Massey, Wallace Montgomery and William Hall. PART OF A SERIES: Materials in the series fall into one of several categories related to the Independent Commission's work product: (1) Commission meeting materials, which include meeting agendas, work plans, memoranda, and articles about police misconduct that were circulated and reviewed during the Commission's internal meetings; (2) public correspondence, which includes citizen complaints against the LAPD in the form of written testimony, articles, and an audio cassette tape, as well as letters drafted by citizens in support of the LAPD; (3) summaries of interviews held with LAPD officers regarding Departmental procedures and relations; (4) public meeting materials, which include transcripts, supplementary documents, and witness statements that were reviewed at the Commission's public meetings; (5) press releases related to the formation and work product of the Commission; and (6) miscellaneous materials reviewed by the Commission during its study, including LAPD personnel and training manuals, a memorandum of understanding, and messages from the LAPD's Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT) system. |
| Coverage date | 1981/1989 |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
| Date created | 1989-04-17 |
| Type | texts |
| Format | 26 p. |
| Format (aat) | personnel records |
| Format (imt) | application/pdf |
| Language | English |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
| Series | Independent Commission File List |
| File | Complaints, suggestions, and support |
| Box and folder | box 23, folder 6 |
| Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
| Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
| Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
| Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Filename | indep-box23-06 |
Description
| Title | Correspondence: complaints against LAPD (2 of 2), 1989-04-17, p. 24 |
| Format (imt) | image/tiff |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Full text | Personnel Complaint Page 2 3 8.2 Perhaps Lieutenant Hall could have handled his explanation to Ramirez differently. A selection for Detective III was properly made, as are all selections in Operations-Headquarters Bureau, during a discussion by the Commanding Officer who has the vacancy, the Group Commanding Officer and the Bureau Commanding * r Officer. After Ramirez was not selected, Lieutenant Hall JiuLyyt honestly explained the reasons for his non-selection and offered—*^^ ->> suggestions for improvement. Ramirez' weaknesses were discussed and Lieutenant Hall offered training to help Ramirez improve his skills for future Detective III vacancies. Unfortunately, little had been done by Hall previously to inform Ramirez of these weaknesses or exactly how serious Hall perceived those weaknesses to be. It is possible that if Lieutenant Hall had done a better job of counseling leading up to this discussion, Ramirez would not have been as surprised as he was. Hall's intention was good and in my opinion, without any intent to malign. One other major area of concern is the allegation that Lieutenant Hall improperly discussed an ongoing personnel investigation with potential witnesses. While some of the witnesses felt they were being coerced, I believe that is a matter of perception. It is my belief that Lieutenant Hall did in fact have the welfare of Laura Diethrich in mind when he discussed the investigation with Laura and her husband, a detective who had been a subordinate of Hall's when he was the Commanding Officer of Newton Detectives. Notwithstanding that good motivation, Lieutenant Hall should not have involved himself with any witnesses because he was also an accused employee. He should have communicated any concerns he had to his superiors, who were in a better position to deal with the situation. Lieutenant Hall has been provided with training in this area and he understands how his actions could appear to have been an attempt to influence witness statements. Additionally, all of the members of the O.I.S. have been provided with training in the areas covered by Memorandum No. 1, 1987 and Special Order No. 10, 1988. >/ In light of Ramirez' assertions about possible overtime abuse by AMffifatc. Pellegrino, an audit is being conducted to determine if any -. irregularities occurred; however, it will not be completed prior J/U^ to the adjudication of this complaint. At the time Ramirez filed\ (-^?i his grievance^^J^'-^^J^B* that it would be in his best interest if \?Hfyf^ he did not work in O.I.S. He was assigned to the Bank Robbery s* qfy Section of Robbery-Homicide Division and is still there. s v CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION t^04^jL Due to the number of allegations, they will be listed in chart form which will list the count number, in or out of statute, the accused employees name, and the proposed classification: |
| Filename | indep-box23-06~24.tif |
| Archival file | Volume75/indep-box23-06~24.tif |
