The Los Angeles Metropolitan News Enterprise yesterday published an excoriating condemnation of Association of Deputy District Attorney's Board Leader and President in Waiting Steve Ipsen.
The Met News cataloged a shocking record of prosecutorial "misconduct," "betrayal" of duties and "gross irresponsibility," before perhaps inevitably concluding Ipsen to be "woefully unqualified to be district attorney."
The Met News editorial, "No on Ipsen," can and should be read, shared and discussed. It can be accessed by clicking here.
Although Ipsen's chances of becoming DA are slim to none (he failed miserably in is last attempt), the Met News editorial conveys highly relevant information for DDAs about the man who wants to be their leader, either as their boss, or as their representative.
Approximately 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys are about to vote on whether to entrust Ipsen with the leadership of a so-called Agency Shop "union" that he founded and has continued to lead (despite feigning a resignation in 2009). Many might well believe that the Met News Editorial best illustrates not only how "wholly unqualified" Ipsen is for the role of District Attorney, but also what a grave mistake it would be for DDAs to support an Agency Shop union that would be subject to Ipsen's record of "gross irresponsibility."
The impetus for the Met News editorial appears to be the recent unauthorized transmission of a confidential DA's Office memorandum to the Los Angeles Times. The memorandum, written by Ipsen, criticized the prosecution of an ex-skinhead, tattooed-up white supremacist third-strike defendant. The Met News concluded that "it is doubtful that the confidential memo would have been supplied to the Times by anyone other than Ipsen. An e-mail was sent to Ipsen by this newspaper yesterday asking if he denied doing so; there was no response."
It is interesting that the Met News focused on Ipsen's apparent disregard for confidential information. It was around this time last year that Ipsen's ADDA Board became aware of ADDA Treasurer Loren Naiman's similar disregard for confidential information when his negligence allowed criminals to obtain DDA's personal bank and residence details; Naiman left his personal laptop unattended in his vehicle and it was stolen. The laptop contained scanned images of DDA's checks that Naiman had stored without permission, together with hundreds, if not thousands, of unauthorized copies of police reports regarding ongoing criminal investigations. The ADDA did not lift a finger to warn DDAs that their confidential information had been compromised.
Like Ipsen, Naiman resigned from the ADDA. Equally like Ipsen, Naimen was summarily reinstated to the ADDA Board without a vote by members, perhaps a tacit approval by the ADDA Board of the actions and conduct of the pair.
In fairness to Ipsen, some might take the view that Ipsen is precisely the kind of person that they want to represent them. In any organization with over 1,000 professionals, there are bound to be a few malcontents. The malcontents mostly seem to be the ADDA Board, or certainly it's Ipsen-led majority. They ensure their perpetuated existence by resigning for incompetence and then being reinstated without votes. They manipulate and control by either failing to follow their own rules, or changing the rules to suit themselves. When decent people express dissent, they are castigated and attacked with meritless lawsuits funded by members' dues or bailouts from AFSCME.
This is what is in store for Deputy District Attorneys if they allow this Ipsen-led Agency Shop union to become their worst nightmare. It is time for DDAs to become engaged and to vote "NO" on the Agency Shop, unless you want this kind of incompetence, irresponsibility and insanity to be your voice.