PERSPECTIVE ON THE POLICE : Civil Service Gets in the Way : Removing the chief and other department heads from rigid protection is essential if they are to be held accountable.

Now that the Christopher Commission’s recommendations are under consideration and Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates is deciding when he will resign, if at all, I am still left with a notion that I have had for years: Civil Service does more harm to the body politic than good.

A City Charter change limiting a chief’s term would be a step forward but no panacea. The recommendation that the chief be removed from Civil Service is also needed to keep the Police Department responsive to the city and community. Unless that is done, a future police chief, at any time within the five-year term recommended by the commission, could stonewall the city and community as Gates has done.

The chief has been able to resist all efforts to obtain his resignation for one reason: He is a civil-service employee. As such, he cannot be fired or even disciplined without proof that he was responsible for the actions of a handful of his 8,300-member staff. In the rigid context of a civil-service hearing with the likelihood of later recourse to the courts on appeal, proving that could be very difficult if not impossible. Shocking as it may seem to persons outside City Hall, civil-service law is designed more to protect jobs than ensure good performance.

Civil Service originated at the turn of the century, when employees were hired or fired on a political-spoils basis rather than on merit. When nepotism was prohibited and city recruitment modernized, the need for civil-service systems disappeared. But Civil Service did not. Today, Civil Service is just as rigid and protective of employee rights as it was 50 years ago. Accordingly, being hired as a city employee is tantamount to being given a job for life.

What makes it so tragic is that many city supervisors have to think twice before firing even an incompetent employee. In order to fire someone, there must be a full-blown hearing in which the worker--with the power of subpoena and other rights--can turn the tables on the supervisor. The employee can bring up issues that may have no bearing on the case itself.

I recall a civil-service hearing in which I represented a city supervisor.The employee requested that a subpoena be issued for a woman allegedly having an affair with a councilman. When the subpoena was issued, the employee was paid to resign.

From my experience, the unpredictable twists and turns of a civil-service hearing could be matched only by a defendant’s tactics in a criminal trial.

So it is not surprising that the lights at City Hall burned late after the Rodney King beating and that the Christopher Commission had to perform its herculean task. None of it would have been necessary if Gates were not a civil-service employee. The mayor, Police Commission and council would merely have dealt with Gates as the occasion demanded in much the same manner that practically every city does.

Los Angeles needs and deserves a personnel-management system reflective of the enlightened era in which we live. A civil-service system that gives department heads as well as workers lifetime security at the expense of effective management and the public interest is positively antediluvian.

Unfortunate as the King beating was, let us hope voters will awaken to the need for a charter change that includes the removal of the police chief and all department heads from the system. Everyone working for the city should be answerable to someone. The fact that the voters of Los Angeles have turned down a charter change regarding Civil Service five times in the last 20 years should not dissuade the council from once again putting it on the ballot and strongly campaigning for its passage. To do otherwise would be just another example of ineptitude at City Hall.