(September 18, 2003) -- We cannot stress strongly enough the significance -- on multiple levels -- of what occurred in the City Council chamber on the afternoon of September 16.

LB Police Chief Anthony Batts refused to act as a human shield for Councilmembers.

In a presentation simultaneously respectful but unflinching from the facts, he told the nine elected people who decide how many police LB has that LB needs 130 more officers.

Chief Batts did the public a real service by going where the truth leads no matter whose toes it steps on. What he did was so important in so many ways that we feel compelled to point them out below.

What Chief Batts did could not have happened without City Manager Jerry Miller believing the public has a right to hear unvarnished facts on public safety. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

In a similarly significant action, management's facts were backed by the Department's officer-employee rep. LB Police Officers Association President Steve James told the Council, "Plain and simple, you have a Chief that finally came down here and finally told you the truth." Thank you, Mr. James, whose plain speaking is consistent with the position he took in February 2002 when he advised the Council to start adding officers and stop making excuses.

At that time, Council incumbents (approaching April/June 2002 city elections for Mayor and others) listened politely and deferred the issue to the 2003 budget year. They are the ones responsible for perpetuating the police deficit LB now faces entering FY 2004.

That may explain why some of the same Council incumbents put public safety last -- dead last -- in the recently concluded budget process. Councilmembers (not management) relegated budget discussion by LBPD and LBFD to the last two items on the last low profile afternoon of the last budget workshop preceding the Council's largely rubberstamp budget vote.

(We're told public safety was scheduled for discussion on Sept. 9, well over three weeks after the budget was publicly released. Councilmembers delayed it even further to Sept. 16 -- a month after the budget was released and the date of the budget vote -- because a Councilmember who wanted to hear the public safety presentations was attending a CA League of Cities meeting. His absence on city business is not the issue. Public safety is the Council's most important priority. It belonged first, in late August or Sept. 2 at the latest, not the day of budget vote.)

Perhaps LB's lawmakers didn't expect Police Chief Batts would have much to say. After all, other Police Chiefs had come to the Council podium and silently acquiesced in giving LB taxpayers a thinner blue line than what a City Auditor-City Management devised Police "Strategic Plan" recommended in 1994: 1,024 officers...by FY 2000.

They may not have read LBReport.com's detailed account of what Chief Batts said shortly after taking office in fall 2002, when he invited LB media reps to an unusual briefing. Speaking extemporaneously to a room full of reporters for nearly ninety minutes, the Chief explained what he planned to do. When pressed on what he'd recommend to the Council for police levels, he said (our paraphrase) he'd first deal with required cuts to non-sworn staff, then independently assess what sworn levels were needed, then tell the Council the truth.

Chief Batts' position was straightforward: the Council sets policy and decides citywide spending priorities. He'd tell Councilmembers what's needed and the decision on whether (in his words) to budget "a Porsche" or "a Volkswagen" would be up to them.

The Chief declined to be bound by rigid formulas (officers per thousand, still our favorite) or past plans (previously ignored). We thought at the time that Chief Batts' position -- he reports, the Council decides -- was just fine...if he could keep to what he promised.

The entire city can now see that Chief Batts did exactly what he said he'd do.

He cut Department spending on non-sworn positions by over 11%. We don't know how many other non-sworn city departments can say that. The Council directed Batts to end up with net Departmental reductions without touching sworn positions (although sworn costs are about 2/3 of the Departmental budget)...and he did.

Then he ascertained what sworn levels were needed...and itemized it publicly for the public and the Council:

And he went further. He cited some of the major reasons (he called them "challenges") why the additional officers are needed. Some were out of LB's control...but he didn't flinch at including things that the Council had invited itself:

Private development is moving ahead at full speed and will impact demand for public services. Town Center, CityPlace and the Carnival Cruise Terminal will soon be joined by the Pike project...The downtown, including Pine Ave., is evolving into both a residential neighborhood and an entertainment center which is attracting large numbers of residents and out of town visitors, and placing additional deployment demands on law enforcement.

Homeland security requirements are real and expanding. In addition to our Harbor and Airport security units, every officer now assumes Homeland Security responsibilities.