Cooperation Needed to Implement Reforms

If the Christopher Commission’s recommendations for far-reaching changes in the Los Angeles Police Department are to do more than grow yellow on library shelves, they must overcome major obstacles in the coming months--not the least of which are a skittish City Council and an apparently reluctant Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

After a 100-day study, the commission on Tuesday urged a complex package of reforms that would require extraordinary cooperation among the mayor, the City Council, the Police Department and voters. The changes include appropriations measures that would bolster the Police Commission and the Police Department’s internal affairs section, and a half dozen amendments to the City Charter, aimed at promoting civilian oversight of the department.

The package is designed to enable Los Angeles residents to demand greater accountability from their police, and in particular from their police chief, who would be limited to two five-year terms. In the current arrangement, a chief can serve for life.

In proposing such reform, the commission recognized that implementation will be a formidable task involving major political arm-twisting and public relations.

Each change will likely face opposition from some politicians and interest groups, such as the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which is expected to oppose the tightening of department disciplinary policies. As volatile as ever is the question of Gates’ future, and there was no clear sign Tuesday that the chief would follow the commission’s call to resign without a fight.

There was, however, a widespread initial sense at City Hall that the Christopher Commission had done an impressive job of research, and that its recommendations appeared well thought out.

Whether such good will can be harnessed into actual implementation of key recommendations may depend on the willingness of Christopher commissioners themselves, and their staff of volunteer lawyers, to see the effort through. Some commission and staff members have said they will be available and are even willing to draft detailed language for the new laws they have proposed.

In short order Tuesday, there was some movement on the proposals. The Christopher Commission urged that the Police Commission be reconstituted, and two members--mayoral appointees Melanie Lomax and Sam Williams--promptly offered to resign. They had orchestrated an unsuccessful attempt to place Gates on leave last April, and had galvanized the council behind Gates.

It is clear that council support is crucial to implementation of the Christopher Commission recommendations, and some members suggested that the departure of Lomax and Williams would be seen as an initial sign of good faith.

City Council members--most of whom had not had time to read the 228-page report--struggled Tuesday to come to grips with the complex set of recommended changes, many of which they would by law have to initiate.

An informal poll of Los Angeles City Council members by The Times indicated general support for the package, and eight of the 14 members said that the 64-year-old Gates ought to retire. Only three months ago, the council had overwhelmingly backed Gates in his fight for his job with the Police Commission.

Even some council members who had staunchly supported Gates then agreed on Tuesday that he should step aside in the best interest of the city.

“It’s not only appropriate, but it’s probably what he himself is looking for,” said Councilwoman Joy Picus, who said Gates could remain in office as long as a year to help search for a new chief and aid in a transition.

Only Councilman Hal Bernson said Gates should stay on. “I don’t believe there is a need for a change at the top,” Bernson said. He defended the department and Gates, saying that only a “few” officers had been criticized for using excessive force and sending racist computer messages in the report.

In a move later criticized as unseemly by the Christopher Commission, Gates campaigned on behalf of Bernson in his recent runoff election to retain his council seat.

A council consensus appeared to be emerging in support of a key structural revision--a five-year term limit for the police chief. Both Picus and Councilman Richard Alatorre said they will push measures this month to limit police chiefs to five-year terms. There was less enthusiasm for a recommendation that the council strengthen the Police Commission, its adversary in the fight over Gates.

The entire package of proposals will be considered beginning Monday in the council’s Public Safety Committee, which Alatorre chairs.

“I promise the citizens of Los Angeles that we will immediately review the recommendations set before us,” Alatorre said, adding that he believes Gates should step down within six to nine months.

The earliest any of the city Charter amendments is likely to come before the voters is the next regularly scheduled election in June, 1992. Council members said on Tuesday that because of high costs, they are not likely to call an early special election to deal with the recommendations.

Councilman Michael Woo said he plans to lead a campaign to have the proposals passed as a package, rather than piecemeal. He called for Gates to step down now and was joined by council newcomers Rita Walters and Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Some said the hubbub at City Hall--with a steady stream of press conferences as council members sought to be heard--was cause for the Christopher Commission to be optimistic.

“I think the initial reaction from most quarters is how pleased everyone is with the job done by the Christopher Commission,” said City Atty. James Hahn. “I think there is the will and the energy now at City Hall to want to see these recommendations implemented. I don’t think we’re going to lose this momentum.”

But even the Christopher Commission itself was cautious. “We recognize that the culture of an organization developed over many years cannot be changed by simple fiat,” the report said.

This is recognition that even if the City Council falls into line, the commission will still have to secure the cooperation of police administrators, many of whom may be proud of the paramilitary department they are being asked to change.

If implemented, the Christopher Commission said, the recommendations would enable a “fundamental change” in the Police Department’s “siege mentality”--a switch from an “organizational culture” that encourages use of force to one that encourages restraint.

If Gates’ performance on Tuesday was any indication, he for one seems intent on resisting. In a brief televised statement to “the people,” Gates described the report as “good overall,” then criticized the commission for spending too much time on the failings of relatively few officers.

Although the heart of the report criticized the Police Department under Gates for training officers “to command and to confront, not to communicate,” Gates made no apologies, nor took the opportunity to condemn the use of excessive force.

In short, while Gates said he would accept some of the report’s recommendations--and that some, unspecified, were already in the works--he seemed to signal that he is not ready to back off from an approach to policing which the Christopher Commission disparaged.

Under this “crime-control model” of police work, the commission said, “officers . . . are expected to produce high citation and arrest statistics and low response times.” As a result, they “do not have time to explain their actions, to apologize when they make a mistake, or even to ask about problems in a neighborhood.” The commission said it favored a switch to “community policing,” in which officers would be encouraged to take the initiative and help solve neighborhood problems.

But Gates said, defiantly and proudly: “This Police Department is aggressive.”

The chief also warned that the recommendations “require the citizens of Los Angeles to make some very difficult decisions.”

He apparently was referring to proposed city Charter changes that would:

* Increase the clout of the civilian Police Commission, whose five part-time members have served as a sort of ineffectual board of directors for the Police Department.

* Lessen the power of the police chief, who now may only be removed from office for wrongdoing, which he has the right to insist be proven in an adversarial process.

* Increase the power of police administrators to discipline rank-and-file officers, particularly those who use excessive force.

All of these eventually would require voter approval, and when it comes to issues of crime, voters often take their lead from the police.

“It’s been almost taboo for all these years,” Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said, “to even think of amending” Charter sections that apply to the police. “When we talked about reforming the Charter, we talked about everything but the Police Department, because the Police Department would oppose it, the police league would oppose it, the chief would oppose it and it would be a politically futile effort.”

Also contributing to Christopher Commission report coverage were Times staff writers Edward J. Boyer, Mike Connelly, Paul Feldman, Scott Harris, John D. Kendall, Paul Lieberman, Victor Merina, Fred Muir, Ronald L. Soble, and Lois Timnick, and researchers Michael Meyers, Cecilia Rasmussen and Tracy Thomas.