Speaking Out in the Silence of the LAPD : Police: Unless whistle-blowers are heard, the department may seem to stand united against reform.

As Los Angeles moves to implement the Christopher Commission’s proposals, the city must prevent the Police Department--in particular the office of chief--from becoming politicized. On issues of governance and structural reforms, including civilian oversight, the people and their elected representatives must be the ones who deliberate and decide.

But the rights of all LAPD officers to engage in private political activity must also be preserved. This includes the right to dissent from the views of the chief and to report acts of misconduct by fellow officers without fear of retaliation.

I recently offered two motions in the City Council. One would close a loophole in the city’s ethics ordinance, which does not provide protection for police officers. The other motion would prevent the chief from using the powers, resources and emblems of his office either to enforce an “unofficial” policy within the department or to lobby the voters and civilian-oversight authorities, only to impede progress with respect to reform.

Gates has clearly expressed his intent to resist several of the commission recommendations, including changes in the tenure, appointment and removal of the chief. The whistle-blower motion also proposes an interim policy, which would protect officers who testified or provided information to the Christopher Commission or any other official investigation of the LAPD against retaliation.

This interim policy is made necessary by the recent actions of Chief Daryl Gates, who has used the powers of his office to punish critics and reward supporters.

Gates stripped the head of the internal-affairs unit of his duties and ordered a special audit of another critic, declaring: “I have all the legal powers I need to remove (Assistant Chief David) Dotson. If I choose to do it I will . . . . I just want people to know I have the power. Complete power.” Other LAPD supervisors, taking their cue from Gates, have retaliated against less-senior critics. (The Police Commission has ordered Dotson reinstated.)

Meanwhile, Gates has given plum assignments and promotions to those who promptly and vigorously supported him.

This emerging pattern of reward and punishment must be viewed in the broader context of the “code of silence” cited by the Christopher Commission. The unanimous findings of the commission were made substantially more credible because much of the criticism was confirmed by members of all ranks within the LAPD.

Therefore, the code of silence is now being enforced as part of Gates’ strategy to defeat the reforms by making it appear that LAPD itself is in opposition to the proposals. This code of silence is enforced in three inter-related ways: by peer pressure in the the closed police society; by front-line supervisory retaliation, with contrived patterns of petty enforcement of rules, and by management enforcement, either by direct retaliation or by knowing tolerance of peer ostracism or front-line supervisory retaliation.

Gates is already using his authority as chief, and his access to departmental resources, in an attempt to establish an “official” departmental position on some of the proposals. He has videotaped statements that are played during roll call, an official setting in which all officers are obliged to participate.

As a private citizen, Gates is entitled to engage freely in the political process. He is also entitled, indeed obliged, to speak publicly and officially on those matters under his final authority as chief, and to present his official views when called upon by the City Council, the Police Commission or other governmental bodies. Under my proposals, he would remain free to exercise these private rights and official responsibilities.

On the other hand, as a civil servant entrusted by the people with considerable law-enforcement authority and resources, Gates has a responsibility to refrain from being an obstructionist at such a critical time in local government.

The elected officials of this city have an obligation to ensure that there is free and open debate about the proposed reforms--it is in the city’s best interest.

The political activity of all LAPD officers, other than the chief, is subject to regulation while they are in uniform or acting in a representative or official capacity. Such regulations are commonplace and have been found to be legal. The same should apply to the chief. Otherwise, with several months still remaining before he retires, Gates can do far more damage than this city and the department can afford.

Officers who wish to express a view different from that of Gates or who wish to report the misconduct of other officers, will not do so unless firm action is taken by a governing body with the demonstrated power and the will to protect them from retaliation. It is therefore incumbent upon the City Council to take the lead.