Gates Has Strong Ally in City Charter

No matter how many people want him out, all Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates has to worry about is Page 295 of the City Charter.

That, combined with his determination not to be chased from his job, is what stands between Gates and the end to his controversial 13 years as chief after the televised police beating of Rodney G. King.

Not to underestimate the chief’s determination, Page 295 is really all he needs. The third paragraph of that page makes it virtually impossible to fire the chief. It gives him the rights of any Civil Service employee.

The Board of Police Commissioners, appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley, hired him. The board can fire him. But only if it can prove to the city’s Board of Civil Service Commissioners that there is “good and sufficient cause.”

“Good and sufficient cause.” A lawyer’s delight. Can’t you see the combative chief hiring a band of lawyers even more pugnacious than himself, fighting his case with pit bull ferocity before the Civil Service Commission? And if he loses there, he could go to court. It would make the McMartin case seem simple.

In private business, if a company loses money or is embarrassed, the boss is fired. Here, the company certainly has been embarrassed--on international television no less. And it seems certain to lose money on the lawsuit that everyone assumes will be filed.

But the boss remains. He’s been humbled a bit and has refrained from heaping his usual scorn on his foes. He’s even apologizing for his men’s behavior. Those are signs that Gates’ position has weakened. But he’s still the chief.

There’s a reason the chief’s job is so sheltered by the City Charter, although it’s extremely hard to explain.

It goes back to 1937, when the city was embroiled in its biggest scandal. A grand jury was investigating the mayor, Frank Shaw, for corruption, a probe being pushed by a famous citizen reformer, Clifford Clifton, the founder of Clifton’s cafeterias.

The Police Department was also under suspicion. Clifton’s home was bombed. Shaw was eventually recalled, the police chief ousted and the voters approved the charter amendment, hoping to give future police chiefs protection from mayoral and council interference.

This was done in the spirit of California Progressivism. Californians-- Southlanders, in particular--have always had suspicion of politics and what reformers termed “Eastern big city political machines” where people got jobs through political patronage. Thousands of state and local government jobs are under civil service. The Los Angeles law was approved in that spirit.

Let’s move forward to the late 1940s. The Los Angeles Daily News found out that the police were protecting prostitutes. Chief C. B. Horrall knew about it. Although Horrall’s job was protected by the City Charter, the question of “good and sufficient cause” was never tested: Public opinion gave the Police Commission the political clout it needed to force the chief to retire.

A retired Marine general, William A. Worton, was made acting chief. He cleaned up the department and instituted a reform that still has impact--creation of a powerful Internal Affairs Division to investigate corruption. That was the beginning of the present system of the department investigating its own misconduct, an issue that has been raised in the current beating case. The first boss of internal affairs was Worton’s favorite, Bill Parker, who later became the department’s most famous chief.

Despite the failure of the charter provision to assure an honest department, voters in later elections have extended that job security to other department heads.

That’s where we are today. Both Bradley and his predecessor, Sam Yorty, wanted to end or at least modify the charter provision. They argued that the mayor should be able to pick his department heads, including police chief. What happens, for example, if someone is elected mayor by promising to change police policies--and is stuck with the same chief? But in five elections since 1970, voters have been moved by warnings of machine politics and retained the present system.

Tuesday, Mayor Bradley tried again. He’d be happy if Gates quit. But, trying to make the best of a bad situation, he went after the charter again. He proposed that the chief and other department heads be given Civil Service protection for five years. After that, the city would have a choice of retaining the executive or handing out a pink slip.

“We must act quickly,” he said, asking that the measure be placed on the June ballot, while the Rodney G. King furor is alive.

It wouldn’t affect Gates, however. You can’t make such laws retroactive.

Thus the issue of Daryl F. Gates’ future is unsettled. It remains in his own hands.