The Precious Momentum for Reform

The Christopher Commission proposal to limit the Los Angeles police chief to a term of no more than 10 years and to require a formal reappointment review process near the conclusion of the first five years is sagacious. Its adoption is crucial.

This reform would offer any chief a measure of insulation from politicians by all but guaranteeing an unbroken five-year run. And it would offer the city some measure of accountability by making it possible, though far from easy, to remove an ineffective or destructive chief after the first five years.

The best alternative to an elected chief--which is a bad idea for Los Angeles and for most other cities--is to allow the incumbent a measure of job stability without insulating the office from accountability.

The city adopted the current system of virtually open-ended civil service tenure in the wake of a nasty 1920s police scandal; it was designed to shield a chief from the politicians--an indisputable need. But, as we have unfortunately witnessed, it also served to isolate a chief from the very communities the department is supposed to serve. It’s now almost easier to elect a Pope than to remove an L.A. chief.

The Christopher Commission proposal for term reform is without precedent; but then again no other city is governed in quite the same fragmented and decentralized way as Los Angeles. It’s also true there’s no magic to “five plus five.” The panel might have recommended four plus four or six plus six or whatever. No matter. While there are other equally reasonable approaches, there aren’t any in existence that are manifestly superior. And while at some point in the second five-year term the chief would be increasingly seen as a lame duck, lame-duckism is endemic, one way or the other, to the offices of police chiefs everywhere. (Chiefs who are appointed directly by mayors, for instance, become lame ducks when their patrons’ re-election prospects fade.) The only tenure scheme that avoids this problem entirely is Los Angeles’ current one, but it has demonstrably exacted too high a price--an insulated, unaccountable chief. It’s also true that running a special election will cost money. But the bill, experts say, won’t run that much higher than if the proposal were placed on the regular June ballot.

The City Council’s best move is to stick closely to the Christopher Commission recommendation. Consulting a broad array of experts, the panel tried to make sense of the L.A. police problem for the city. The task now is to capitalize on the panel’s careful, historic effort by scheduling a special election on the L.A. police chief’s appointment and tenure process as soon as possible.

A January date is scarcely soon enough. Let’s not lose the momentum for this wise and overdue reform. Let’s not bungle this job.