Gates Positions Self to Shape LAPD’s Future

When he finally succumbed to intense political pressure to set a retirement date, Police Chief Daryl F. Gates also positioned himself as a key player over the next nine months in shaping the future of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Now some city leaders say they fear that Gates, who last week disclosed plans to step aside next April, will stymie many recommendations proposed by the Christopher Commission in the wake of the Rodney G. King beating.

“Frankly, I don’t think that he is the man who can be trusted with the responsibility to reform the LAPD,” said Councilman Michael Woo, who has repeatedly called for the chief to resign. “He has too much of a vested interest in defending the past rather than creating the future.”

Woo said his concerns were exacerbated last week after nearly two hours of testimony before a City Council committee in which Gates repeatedly criticized many aspects of the Christopher Commission’s blueprint for police reform. Gates opposed at least a dozen of the major changes proposed by the independent panel, including term limits and a revised selection process for the next police chief. After his testimony, he indicated that he does not believe major changes are necessary.

“I’m going to spend the next several months really tuning this department up,” Gates said. “It is not going to take a lot of tuning. We’re not in a crisis situation.”

Such statements have fueled speculation among the city’s leaders over how the chief of 13 years intends to exert his considerable influence: Will he overhaul a Police Department that the Christopher panel concluded was riddled with management problems and tolerated racism, sexism and brutality by rogue officers? Or will he seize his remaining months in office to block significant reforms and continue an alleged pattern of retaliating against officers who were critical of him?

Only Gates knows for certain and, true to form, the chief is not tipping his hand. But he vowed in a news conference last week to assert his authority.

“I know (police officers) will follow me because they know I still have significant power. And I know how to use it,” said Gates, who was not available for an interview to discuss his transition plans.

Just how much authority Gates will have is subject to debate.

UCLA criminologist James Q. Wilson said that fundamental change in the Police Department is not likely to occur until after Gates’ successor is named. “There are a lot of things in the Christopher Commission report that will have to wait on a new chief to be implemented,” said Wilson, who testified as an expert witness before the Christopher panel.

In the meantime, Gates is expected to tap the surge in political goodwill and respect he achieved at City Hall since he set a retirement date.

“Now that he has done the statesmanlike thing by removing himself from the picture, Daryl Gates has the ability to speak to these issues, and his opposition to these issues, with more credibility,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky. “It is no longer Daryl Gates trying to protect himself. . . . There will be sympathy from the general public and maybe from some opinion makers. He is going to be a factor, like it or not.”

Indeed, the chief’s supporters on the City Council say they are confident that he will devote his efforts to restoring excellence to the department.

“Daryl Gates has been a dedicated public servant, a police officer for 42 years and his interest is the city of Los Angeles and certainly his Police Department,” said council President John Ferraro. “I don’t think he is going to try to throw any roadblock or jam up anything just for being mean and nasty. That is not his nature.”

For his part, Gates has pledged to polish the image of his tarnished department.

“I feel a great responsibility to lead us into the next several months and leave this department in very, very good shape for whomever it is comes aboard to provide the leadership in the next few years,” he told reporters last week.

Mayor Tom Bradley and several other city leaders said they were concerned that the chief may retaliate against officers who are critical of him. They referred to Gates’ recent action of taking away duties from an assistant chief who criticized the police chief’s leadership during Christopher Commission testimony.

On Friday, Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas went so far as to propose a controversial measure that would restrict public statements by Gates and prevent him from retaliating against officers.

Gates declined last week to say whether he would make any additional personnel changes, saying, “You never know.” The chief’s authority to make personnel moves was restricted recently by the Police Commission.

The chief told the council’s Public Safety Committee that he favors several Christopher panel recommendations. These include upgrading the training of field supervisors, having civilian employees outside the Police Department take citizen complaints, and extending the statute of limitations for police misconduct from one year to six years.

Gates also expressed resistance to many of the proposed changes, including:

* Adopting and implementing a community-based policing model as practiced in other major cities.

Gates said “one of the most disappointing aspects” of the Christopher Commission report was the suggestion that the department should become more involved in community policing, which emphasizes a problem-solving philosophy over the importance of arrest statistics.

“We are involved,” Gates said. “We were the originators of community-oriented policing.”

One member of the Christopher panel, attorney Mickey Kantor, said that if Gates is not prepared to usher in a new era of policing, he should stay out of the reform process.

“Unfortunately and sadly, the Los Angeles Police Department was at the forefront, especially under Chief Ed Davis, and lost the momentum,” Kantor said.

* Restricting the chief’s tenure to a five-year term renewable at the discretion of the Police Commission for one more five-year term. The chief’s job now has no limits.

“I hear the malarkey that the chief has lifetime tenure. That is baloney,” said Gates, who has suggested that he would campaign against a two-term limit if it is placed on a ballot. “Show me a chief anywhere in the country that runs a better police department than the LAPD.”

If a special election is held, Police Commissioner Stanley Sheinbaum said, “a lot of Gates supporters are going to try to turn that into a referendum about Gates.”

* Revising the selection process for police chief. The panel proposed that the mayor pick the chief--subject to council approval--from a list of three candidates furnished by the Police Commission.

Gates said the current practice of having the Police Commission select the chief insulates the department from political interference.

Under the proposed selection process, Gates said, “the poor chief is going to be running around trying to keep the votes in the council and trying to take care of all of the other political considerations.”

* Changing the criteria that is used to discipline, evaluate and promote police officers. The chief’s office has identified numerous recommendations in these and other areas that would be subject to negotiations with police unions before they could be implemented.

“I guess another disappointment of mine (is) that many of the suggestions (the Christopher Commission panel) made of things that I ought to have been doing are patently illegal,” Gates said. “(They) would be in violation of current (labor) contracts.”

Sheinbaum said: “I would want to be very careful that that argument is not overused as a reason for not doing anything.”

* Restricting the authority of the chief in imposing discipline on officers accused of wrongdoing.

“I looked at disciplinary systems throughout the United States and there is none that is better,” Gates said. He said the Los Angeles system is “fair on both sides” by giving the chief power to discipline officers while giving employees due process.

Gates also indicated that he opposes a Christopher Commission recommendation to allow the use of unsustained excessive force complaints against officers when reviewing new complaints.

“I have a real problem with stigmatizing officers without knowing specifically that there is something that they have done other than . . . getting a complaint from time to time,” Gates said. “We are just not going to do that.”

It will be up to the five-member Police Commission to monitor the chief’s progress in implementing reforms, Bradley said last week.

“If (Gates) fails to carry out those changes in an expeditious fashion, you can be sure that those of us here in City Hall are going to be right on top of him,” he said.