Muscle Tries to Remake City Charter : Police: What is left of control over law enforcement if our municipal laws are so flagrantly dismissed?

In a televised statement immediately after he was placed on administrative leave last week by the Los Angeles Police Commission, Chief Daryl Gates “guaranteed” his quick return. The next day, the City Council announced its decision to reverse the commission and reinstate Gates.

The following Monday morning, April 9, a group of lawyers representing Gates and the city attorney’s office moved furtively from courtroom to courtroom in Los Angeles Superior Court trying to find a judge who would sign a formal “settlement” between Gates and the city. These attorneys hoped to get their deal “done” before the regular court hearing convened at 1:30 p.m. But they were caught.

Lawyers representing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and others filed a lawsuit the same morning. Gates lawyers were intercepted in time, and a hearing was ordered for both cases in open court.

Later that afternoon, the Superior Court ordered that Gates remain--at least temporarily--on active duty. But the behind-the-scenes quick settlement had been stopped. On April 25, there will be full consideration of the legality of Gates and the city’s attempt to overturn the Police Commission’s decision.

Gates has complained frequently that he has been denied due process. He has also portrayed himself as deeply loyal to the Police Department, to the point of saying that he would resign if a fair investigation found his actions delinquent.

Yet when the governing board of his department, the Police Commission, closely followed Section 78 of the City Charter and applicable regulations of the city police manual to review Gates’ performance, the chief’s response was not to follow the same proper process. Instead, he responded with what he and the LAPD under him are known for: muscle. By calling in political debts, and with thinly veiled threats of political exposure, he persuaded all but three City Council members--Robert Farrell, Ruth Galanter and Michael Woo--to go along with a patently illegal “legal settlement” that would reinstate him. A purely “political move,” Councilwoman Joy Picus called it. Gates’ lawyers then tried to steal into court and consummate the deal before anyone could respond.

It is frightening to witness these methods spreading from the Police Department to the core of city government. It is also striking that just as Rodney King was surrounded and assaulted by a group of white officers, we now see much the same picture (with some obvious exceptions): People of color on the Police Commission and within the council are being surrounded and politically assaulted by Gates and a predominantly white group of council members.

The lines have been drawn, and it isn’t pretty. Where will it all stop? What is left of any lawful control over the Police Department if the process carefully crafted in our municipal laws is so flagrantly dismissed? Someone must be willing to say “no” to Hoover-like threats of political exposes and sham legal maneuvers, just as we have said “no” to the physical violence visited upon Rodney King.

Mayor Tom Bradley took an out-front position over a moral issue that has galvanized the nation. He has worked for years to build a sense of unity in Los Angeles. Now, when he and the community need them, where are those allies from the city’s vaunted power structure?

The Police Commission’s attempt to put Gates on administrative leave with pay pending investigation of department practices was an appropriate signal to the public that lawful action would be taken and that police officers could come forward with honest reports of internal practices and have the commission’s support. To the extent that this process is blocked, community confidence in any legal recourse declines and the prospect of violent protest escalates. There were many in the crowd of 5,000 anti-Gates demonstrators this past Saturday who expressed such sentiment.

Bradley’s planned trip to the Far East today leaves the commissioners at the mercy of council President John Ferraro. The City Council should avoid any action during this two-week period that would compound the crisis. The “truce” achieved by political leaders and the Superior Court’s temporary restraining order does not diminish the dangerous division still seething in the community. Now the Police Protective League says it will throw its money and political clout behind a proposed recall of Bradley, violating the truce and further inflaming the situation.

The California Code of Civil Procedure gives ordinary citizens--taxpayers--standing to sue and seek proper enforcement of the law. In this case, that means upholding the commission’s actions. With this purpose, we have intervened and will continue to work independently. The commission’s and the City Charter’s integrity must be restored, or there will remain no legal options for holding Gates and his troops accountable.