Elect the police chief

I was disappointed to read the March 31 editorial, “LAPD’s chief and term limits,” in which The Times dismisses as “cynical and corrupt” our idea to give the citizens of Los Angeles the power to directly elect their own police chief. In a city that allows its residents to have a direct say in their city attorney and controller, it makes sense to open up the head of the city’s largest and most visible agency to the same level of scrutiny.

Los Angeles police chiefs had open-ended tenure under civil service protection until shortly after the riots in 1992, when voters approved Charter Amendment F. This change was a key recommendation of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, better known as the Christopher Commission, which examined the LAPD after the 1991 Rodney King incident. Under the civil service process, the police chief answered to five bosses rather than the mayor and could not be fired without cause. Charter Amendment F limited the police chief to a five-year term, renewable once by the civilian Police Commission.

Charter Amendment F made the LAPD chief directly accountable to the Police Commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor, thus giving the mayor complete control over hiring and firing of the chief.

Seventeen years after the Christopher Commission recommended sweeping changes to the LAPD, it is time for city leaders to explore making the LAPD chief position an elected rather than appointed position. With an elected chief, the public would better be able to directly hold the chief accountable. In California, elected sheriffs, by legislative design, are responsive and accountable to the public.

Making the chief position an elected one gives residents in Los Angeles a direct say in the kind of policing they want to have in the community, adding a needed check to the city’s political system. Candidates would have to run on clear and transparent programs, and winning candidates would have a direct mandate to pursue the objectives promised in their campaigns. Political considerations, mayoral interference and City Council meddling in police affairs would become a thing of the past. Rather than the chief being subordinate to the political needs of the mayor and council, he or she would be free to do the job as the voters have directed and would know up front that reelection depends on doing a good job, not gaining political favor.

In Los Angeles, the voters have long supported the election of the county sheriff. Sheriff Lee Baca and his predecessors have been rewarded with reelection because the people are satisfied with their performance. By contrast, after Charter Amendment F was passed and before Chief William Bratton came on board, the LAPD had two one-term chiefs whose performance was substandard.

Few positions in Los Angeles have more power and impact on Los Angeles residents than the police chief. It is one of the highest-profile positions in the city, and quality of leadership and policy decisions directly impact the everyday safety of residents. Yet under the current arrangement, voters do not get to choose what type of law enforcement style the city should follow.

As law enforcement professionals, we want the best public safety system in place for the residents of Los Angeles. Every day we look for ways to make our departments more efficient while we stretch every dime of taxpayer money. Electing the chief of police would bring more accountability, increased public scrutiny and oversight to the position.

Paul M. Weber is president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.