LBPD Records Destruction Item Pulled From Next Week’s City Council Agenda

3 minute read

Long Beach police internal review records from 2014 have been saved from the shredder, at least for now.

A request to destroy the documents was pulled from next week’s City Council meeting agenda because the department is “currently reviewing all of our processes to ensure the highest level of transparency,” LBPD spokesperson Arantxa Chavarria said in an email.

She added that going forward “eligible records will not be destroyed until we review our processes.”

The records that had been slated for destruction include documents related to use-of-force, policy compliance, forced entry, and internal affairs complaint investigations.


The move comes amid growing pressure from the public and lawmakers for greater police transparency and accountability.

A string of protests in Long Beach—part of hundreds of demonstrations around the globe—against police violence sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis has forced local elected officials to reckon with the city’s own history of police misconduct.

On Tuesday, the City Council responded with a “Framework for Reconciliation,” a set of steps designed to root out institutional racism from city government, including the police department. Part of that process is an analysis of police use-of-force data going back 10 years.

Tomisin Oluwole
Ode to Pink II, 2020
Acrylic and marker on paper
14 x 22 inches

Click here to check out our interview with Tomisin Oluwole, a a literary and visual artist based in Long Beach.

Instead of gunking up our site with ads, we use this space to display and promote the work of local artists.

“I want to make sure we are building transparency and trust with our police department and that’s going to take them sharing everything they can,” Councilmember Jeannine Pearce said before Tuesday’s vote.

Although the destruction request complied with the California Public Records Act, which requires a five-year retention period for these types of records, outcry on social media over the timing of the potential documents destruction prompted at least one councilmember to address it directly.

“I’d say pull all police records from being destroyed until the council reviews and updates their record retention policy,” Pearce responded to one such post on Facebook this morning. “We should partner with the (American Civil Liberties Union) to learn best practices.” 

In an email, Councilmemeber Suzie Price said Sunday, “I agree that we should be retaining police use of force records as long as feasible and permissible under the current law.”

Like records destruction requests from other city departments, this one was placed on a portion of the City Council’s meeting agenda called the consent calendar. The consent calendar ostensibly serves as a place for routine and non-controversial items that therefore don’t get public discussion before being voted on, unless it’s requested by the mayor, a councilmember, or the city manager.

The LBPD has previously drawn criticism for their timing of records destruction. In late 2018, FORTHE Media first reported that the LBPD purged a 23-year backlog of police misconduct records days before a statewide police transparency law, SB 1421, went into effect. That law would have given the public access to at least some of those records. The council gave the go-ahead during the last meeting of the year. The LA Times reported on a similar action taken in Inglewood.

We reached out to all nine councilmembers for comment, but we didn’t immediately receive any responses. This story will be updated if we hear back.

Updated June 17, 2020 with comment from Councilmember Suzie Price.

Contact The Author

[1] Militarily demobilized. Since WWII—which was both the death knell of European colonial empires as well as the starting shot of the American neocolonial era—Europe has had notoriously scant standing armies, and has been able to consistently slash government military spending domestically and as a percentage of their contributions to international diplomatic bodies such as the UN. This is because nowadays European nations very rarely find themselves in situations where they need to independently send their militaries abroad in order to secure trade routes, foreign resources, or privileges within markets overseas; the U.S. has been fulfilling that hard-power obligation for them for over half a century. The social results of Western Europe’s decreased militarization are striking, especially when contrasted with the U.S.: there is not a single country in Western Europe without universal healthcare, labor rights and welfare systems are strong, value is placed on corporate and financial regulation, environmental policy is lightyears ahead, and, not least of all, there is a robust governmental approach to curbing digital surveillance and reining in tech monopolies. Japan enjoys a similar arrangement with the U.S. in which it, too, is militarily demobilized yet is given full access to, and prominence in, the global economy. In the last decade there has been a reversing trend of remilitarization in some of these nations. That trend was hastened during the last four years as a result of Trump’s ultranationalist politics, but is likely to continue even after his departure in large part due to the growing bipolar geopolitical climate of competition between superpowers.

The “owner” bit of home-“owner” appears in scare quotes throughout the text for reasons that will shortly become apparent.

Nothing signals trouble quite like consensus.

More on them later.

And, anyways, what exactly remains “obvious” in an era “post-truth”?

I take as my starting position that even the “obvious” must be won.

It’s like Lenin said, you know…

Whether directly, or through a chain of investments, or through the wider speculative market in real estate.

I use “banks” in this piece as a stand-in for several sources of income that derive partly through the mortgaging of property and/or investment in institutions that have the power to mortgage property.

That is just its “ideology.”

The Ricardian “law of rent” explains that any location with an advantage over another location, can accrue an economic value, called “rent,” to the owner.

This happens without the owner needing to pitch in to create the advantage.

If the owner does pitch in, then the value accrued from that advantage cannot be called “rent.”

“Rent,” in economic terms, is only, precisely, the value accrued from that portion of the advantage for which the owner is not responsible. That is what we mean when we say, “Rent is theft.”

This does not mean places with lower property taxes ipso facto have higher property prices—and that is because the property tax is only one of the contributing factors. You could have zero taxes on land in Antarctica, for instance, and it would still sell for $0. This is why the introduction to the analogy controls for such variables.

This is the logical conclusion of believing two premises:

(1) All humans have an equal right to the Earth.
(2) Vaginal birth is a lottery system

Prop 13 is rent control for home-“owners.” You can learn more about its history and impact here.

“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare. Act 4, Scene 5

This is why the lobbyists who spend the most money to support the mortgage interest deduction are bankers, mortgagers, and realtors.

Term

Definition