COLUMN ONE : Toughest Task Was Gates Issue : Some commissioners initially wanted to stick with police organization and steer clear of individual accountability. But testimony and findings swayed them.

As they met in private for long hours over the past two weeks, members of the Christopher Commission initially found themselves agreeing on virtually all of the bold recommendations to reform the Los Angeles Police Department except one: what to do about Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

It was not until late last week--only days before the 228-page report would be shipped to the printer--that the commission inserted a call for Gates, 64, to begin “a transition” toward retirement, commission sources told The Times.

When the deliberations began, a commission majority believed that the controversial chief should be asked to step aside at once, while others were content to let the report’s findings of serious management shortcomings stand alone, sources said. It took days to build a consensus on the delicate final wording.

But in all the language about term limits and transition timetables, the commission’s thrust came through clearly in the report: Gates should go. And if there was any confusion, chairman Warren Christopher took steps at a press conference Tuesday to erase it.

“We believe,” he said, “it is time for the transition in the department to commence.”

The panel’s recommendation on Gates stunned many officials at City Hall and Parker Center, the police headquarters, in part because commission officials had consistently said that the report would not single out Gates for criticism or enter the long-running political sideshow over his future.

Christopher seemed to understand the explosiveness of the commission’s surprise recommendations. Asked shortly before the report’s release if it would offer any guidance about what to do with the chief, the longtime diplomat would say only: “I think you won’t be disappointed.”

Ever defiant, Gates indicated that he had no intention of following the commission’s recommendation to set in motion his departure. Gates’ reaction made clear that he, too, had been taken by surprise, and raised questions about why the commission had felt it necessary to make the late decision to come down strongly against the chief.

While Christopher Commission leadership publicly denied there was a late dispute over Gates, well-placed sources described how the commission in two weeks shifted course and meticulously crafted what would become perhaps its most volatile recommendation.

They said there was initially strong sentiment among several commissioners that it would be “inappropriate” for the panel to deliver any judgment about Gates. Three of the 10 panel members, including Vice Chairman John A. Arguelles, had been appointed by Gates. Two of them--Arguelles and attorney Richard M. Mosk--were among those initially opposed to judgments on Gates, sources said, as was retired Lockheed Corp. Chairman Roy A. Anderson, who like the rest had been appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley.

Some members argued that the commission should stick with issues of police structure and organization and steer clear from the accountability of any individual--the course Christopher initially had outlined when the commission was formed.

But in the final weeks, as testimony was reviewed and statistics reassessed, some of the members of the panel began to shift. A majority opinion slowly emerged: A statement on Gates’ tenure was necessary.

“There was a feeling about needing to say something about the leadership of the department,” said Raymond C. Fisher, a deputy general counsel to the commission. “It took a long time for people to get comfortable with how far you go in addressing what is obviously a very sensitive subject.”

While the commissioners did not want the status of Gates to become the overriding issue, Fisher said, they decided that they simply could not dodge the question.

Debate ensued. Fisher said the commissioners spent hours, spread over days, engaging in “very reasoned, thoughtful” discussion. There were no pounding of fists or raising of voices.

“Feelings were strongly expressed,” he said. “This wasn’t a bunch of wimps standing around marching to the same tune.”

Said Commissioner John Brooks Slaughter, president of Occidental College: “. . . I don’t think anybody went at it with relish. So there was not a sense of pursuing a target here. It became very clear, I think to all of us, perhaps some not as clear as others, (that we) had to do it.”

As their early July deadline approached, the commissioners met almost daily for as long as five hours at a time, deliberating over what should go in the report.

The commissioners worked in a suite of donated offices on the 19th floor of an office building on South Hope Street. Secrecy prevailed. A security guard was posted outside the commission offices. Identification badges were required. Reporters were not allowed on the floor.

Christopher kept a lid on the activities. Even though more than 100 lawyers, accountants and staffers and the 10 commissioners were involved, there were virtually no leaks of crucial information before a copy was delivered to the mayor on Tuesday morning.

The report was prepared by the staff and delivered to the commission in 10 separate chapters. The commissioners reviewed each chapter line by line.

Fisher said it was Christopher who eventually broached the issue of whether the commissioners should “take the next step and talk about how to implement the recommendations.”

Should this include a statement about Gates?

Several members cautioned that it might not be “appropriate;” others said the commission had a responsibility to take a stand.

Finally, it was agreed to address Gates’ future in an 11th chapter called “Implementation.” The commissioners in this passage called for Gates to begin stepping aside, along with the police commissioners who had tried to oust him.

They wrote: “Chief Gates has already served 13 years as chief of police, three years longer than the maximum of two five-year terms that we recommended for any future chief. . . . We believe that commencement of a transition in that office is now appropriate.”

After the report had been released, Christopher and others sought to dispel any notion that the final product--and especially the Gates recommendation--had been anything but an orderly march toward consensus.

For instance, in an interview the day before the report was released, Christopher described in his standard diplomatic manner how one Gates appointee, Mosk, played the “valuable role” of devil’s advocate and was still “doing it right up until” the last meeting on Monday--after the completed report had been sent to the printer.

“He constantly tested us on our propositions, forcing us to rethink some generality that we thought might be accurate,” said Christopher. “It was very effectively done.”

Added Commissioner Mickey Kantor: “We all agreed our deliberations would be confidential. . . . There were a number of questions we debated. Every point in the report is unanimous. That is key.”