LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva declines to testify Monday without certain conditions
Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva is declining to testify before the Civilian Oversight Commission on Monday unless the commission meets certain conditions, namely the presence of a neutral hearing officer, the ability to cross-examine witnesses and deliver an opening statement, and a preview of all exhibits.
In a letter sent to the commission's executive director Brian Williams on Sunday, Villanueva said he was prepared to testify before the commission Monday, but "was deeply disappointed to learn the Commission is unwilling to allow very basic and reasonable elements of a legitimate oversight meeting designed to understand the truth. It makes neutral observers question whether the Commission's real agenda is to learn the facts, or to put on a show."
The sheriff, who has repeatedly accused the county Board of Supervisors and Inspector General Max Huntsman of pursuing personal political biases in clashes over the alleged deputy gangs and other issues, expressed concern about "demonstrably false statements having already been accepted by the Commission" in his letter to Williams.
"A legitimate oversight process should be based on full information, not the element of surprise or a reliance on `gotcha' questions," he wrote. "I would also call attention to the fact on several occasions, the documents presented by the Commission were clearly altered or manufactured, most notable, the so-called `Brady list' information referenced at the July 1, 2022, special meeting ... when an anti-law enforcement website was falsely represented as an official State of California website.
Villanueva said he "strongly" believes that every public servant must be open to public scrutiny and legitimate oversight.
"This is why I sent Department executives, on several occasions, to answer questions for the Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) about deputy cliques and subgroups. Additionally, on March 26, 2019, and December 17, 2020, I personally appeared and answered questions for the COC about deputy cliques and subgroups. Subsequently, I testified under oath before the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on April 22, 2022, and I offered to testify again in May on the issue of deputy subgroups," he wrote.
On Thursday, attorneys for the county filed papers asking a court to consider holding Villanueva and Undersheriff Timothy Murakami in contempt for allegedly ignoring subpoenas to appear before the commission and testify about alleged deputy cliques.
The commission subpoenaed Villanueva because in 2018 his then-Division Chief Matthew Burson issued an order barring sheriff's department internal investigators from questioning witnesses about what role a suspected deputy gang known as the "Banditos" played in assaults by some deputies upon others at a department party, the petition states.
"Burson thus robbed criminal investigators before the investigation started of their best chance of exposing the Banditos, even though the evidence strongly suggested their direct involvement in the attacks and deputy gangs have reportedly plagued the department for decades," the petition states.
Villanueva said he is "more than happy to speak with the commissioners as soon as these requests are granted."
Villanueva sent a statement to CBSLA Sunday that read:
I strongly believe every public servant must be open to public scrutiny and legitimate oversight. That is especially true of law enforcement agencies. This is why I sent Department executives, on several occasions, to answer questions for the Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) about deputy cliques and subgroups. Additionally, on March 26, 2019, and December 17, 2020, I personally appeared and answered questions for the COC about deputy cliques and subgroups. Subsequently, I testified under oath before the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on April 22, 2022, and I offered to testify again in May on the issue of deputy subgroups. I am proud of my record as Sheriff, which includes the body-worn camera program, proactive and consistent discipline of deputies who violate Department policies, a dramatic increase in the number of women and people of color in the leadership ranks, and a ban on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Los Angeles jails. These and many other policies we instituted have made the Department more accountable and more representative of the communities we serve and protect. As you know, I was prepared to testify before the commission on Monday, July 25, 2022. I was deeply disappointed to learn the Commission is unwilling to allow very basic and reasonable elements of a legitimate oversight meeting designed to understand the truth. It makes neutral observers question whether the Commission's real agenda is to learn the facts, or to put on a show. If the real goal is to conduct impartial oversight in search of the truth and free of any political agendas, then at a minimum, the Commission should seek my support in establishing appropriate protocols. The Commission should include the presence of a neutral hearing officer and the ability to cross-examine witnesses. Given the potential of demonstrably false statements having already been accepted by the Commission, an opening statement and a preview of all exhibits would assist both myself and the Commission in maximizing our meeting time. A legitimate oversight process should be based on full information, not the element of surprise or a reliance on "gotcha" questions. I would also call attention to the fact on several occasions, the documents presented by the Commission were clearly altered or manufactured, most notable, the so-called "Brady list" information referenced at the July 1, 2022, special meeting by Mr. Deixler, when an anti-law enforcement website was falsely represented as an official State of California website. I am more than happy to speak with the commissioners as soon as these requests are granted. They in no way interfere with the Commission's ability to ask questions, learn the truth, or fulfill its oversight role. In fact, they would clearly enhance their ability to discern the truth, assuming that is the goal. As always, I am committed to following the instructions of the court, as should you. I reserve the right to challenge in court any subpoena or process that is abusive and/or motivated by political agendas, but remain hopeful your goal is an objective search of the truth.
