Patt Morrison’s interview of L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca; Proposition 21 and saving the state’s parks; Meg Whitman’s run for governor

A sheriff who also cares

Re “Patt Morrison Asks / Lee Baca: Social worker,” Opinion, Sept. 18

Thank you for that insightful interview with Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca. I’ve heard him speak many times, and he is a true visionary.

One thing that was not mentioned in the interview is how he and his department are very aware of the fact that with every violent crime, there is also a victim.

Baca takes an active role in the moral obligation of society to assist in the healing of those victims, to become survivors. My son, Anthony, was killed by gang members in Highland Park in 2000.

Luisa Prudhomme

Los Angeles

As a social worker who has a master’s degree from an accredited school of social work, I have mixed feelings about Baca referring to himself as a social worker.

I truly appreciate the core value he referenced — that deputies must appreciate the dignity of all without respect to race, sexual preference and gender. Those are surely values that are shared with the profession of social work.

However, social work is an established profession distinct from good intentions. Social workers must help people in a very different way than law enforcement. Our training helps us to assist individuals, families and organizations with the specific problems they face. We have a distinct set of ethical values we must follow.

I will end by thanking Baca for his sensitivity. I do wish all law enforcement would follow his example.

Robin Wilkes

West Hills

On the question of drugs, Baca channels Nancy Reagan and others in his admonition to abstain, but I think he forgets that prohibition only serves two purposes: It provides profits and price supports for the criminal and jobs for law enforcement. Which of these benefits does he favor?

Jon Hartmann

Los Angeles

The wrong way to save our parks

Re “California’s ‘best idea,’ ” Opinion, Sept. 19

As expected, the Sierra Club official supports Proposition 21, which would fund state parks by adding $18 a year to our existing vehicle tax.

Right goal; wrong approach. Why should we single out state parks for still another special tax?

If we do this for state parks, why not a measly $3 a year to support classical music performances or, say, $5 a year for school athletics?

We could drive our vehicle taxes up to $1,000 and make everyone pay for many activities that some of us enjoy. Or we could ask those who use and cherish these activities to pay for them themselves.

I vote yes on supporting our state park system but no on this proposition.

Peter Wetzel

Orange

Traffic tickets as revenue source

Re “Cops told to defend all tickets,” Sept. 19

It seems rather clear that the Los Angeles Police Department policy requiring officers to testify in traffic citation cases — even when a testifying officer has no recollection of a specific case — is motivated by the need of the city to raise revenues. Hardly unusual. But it is unfair to the defendants, and even the officers.

Why can’t the city instead encourage officers in such situations not to appear at the trial? The city would save money by not having to pay overtime, and the defendant would win by default.

S. Kenneth Kawano

Los Angeles

Your article says the LAPD wants officers “to testify to the best of their ability … and, in instances in which they cannot remember what occurred, must base their testimony on what they wrote on the citations.”What a field day for officers. They can simply write incriminating facts on the ticket, then claim at trial they have no independent recollection of the event, so what they wrote can be used to convict the defendant.

Allen P. Wilkinson

Laguna Woods

$119 million and what it can buy

Re “Zillion-dollar politics,” Opinion, Sept. 18

Tim Rutten’s column discusses Meg Whitman spending $119 million of her own money on her race for governor. It points out that she is running on the usual Republican plank of abolishing capital gains taxes.

What this means, of course, is that her $119million is actually an investment. If she wins and capital gains taxes are eliminated, she will make back that money or more, in effect letting the people of California who do pay taxes finance her campaign.

Because Whitman voted erratically, showing me that she really isn’t interested in the state’s problems or politics, I think her run for governor is an ultra-cynical ploy to further enrich the super-rich.

Henry Hespenheide

Hermosa Beach

Contrary to Rutten’s column, Whitman is entirely correct in wanting to lay off 40,000 public employees and abolish capital gains taxes in California.

California is insolvent precisely because its budget and number of employees have grown beyond both the state’s population growth and tax revenues. Private businesses have had to pare back their payrolls and budgets to survive in this recession.

It is Rutten’s higher-tax/bigger government “ideas” that are neither novel nor independent; they have been tried and have failed everywhere.

Whitman’s proposals also may not be either novel or independent, but they are precisely what needs to be done.

Peter Rich

Los Angeles

As I read Rutten’s column on the current gubernatorial race, I began thinking about the minimal obligations of a citizen in our democracy.

We no longer have a military draft, and the Peace Corps and Teach for America seem to have all but disappeared from the public consciousness. It seems that no one wants to pay taxes, so that the “dues” of a democratic society have become a virtual pejorative.

The obligation to vote, therefore, has become the last, least demanding and most basic obligation that remains. Yet we are now seriously considering a candidate who rarely exercised her most basic and least intrusive obligation as a citizen — to vote.

The amount of money Whitman is spending will not make her independent of special interests. Her lack of a record of voting, however, does tell us something about her primary special interest — that is, herself.

Alfred Sils

Woodland Hills

We can’t prevent rich candidates from buying public offices, but we should at least level the playing field.

I read a wonderful idea some time ago that would simply use tax funds to make sure that no matter how much money a candidate spends on a campaign, all of the qualified opponents receive enough money to match it.

It seems to me that then what one has to say would become much more important than how many times one says it. This would be a huge incentive for highly qualified people with the capabilities and the desire to serve to think about running for office.

I think we all know there are people in this country we would be proud to have representing us in office but who have too much integrity to do what’s required to raise enough money to run for office.

Bob Suddaby

Torrance

A true legend of Hollywood

Re “James Bacon, 1914-2010, Hollywood columnist,” Obituary, Sept. 19

I was saddened to learn of the passing of Jim Bacon.

In 1988, he was doing some work at Rogers & Cowan, where I was an intern. One day he happened to be in the office.

He struck up a conversation with me while I was filing papers. For about 10 minutes, he recounted some great Hollywood stories about people like Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Gleason. He even shared a scandalous story about a certain Hollywood producer.

Bacon, a true Hollywood legend who rubbed elbows with major stars, took time to reminisce with an intern — who never forgot his stories or his kindness.

Elizabeth Borsting

Long Beach