Post-Christopher Report Glow Turns to Infighting : Reform: City Council bristles at recommendations that would give power to Police Commission or mayor.

The warm praise that filled Los Angeles City Hall last month when the Christopher Commission presented its bold overhaul plan for the Los Angeles Police Department is giving way to the chilly realities of turf battles and political compromise.

As City Council members begin shaping the detailed package of reforms voters will consider next year, opposition to some recommendations is building, according to several council members.

Resistance is particularly strong to proposals that would surrender the council’s newfound powers over the Police Department--powers won at the ballot box amid the legal and political turmoil following the videotaped beating of Rodney G. King. In fact, several key council members are predicting outright rejection of Christopher Commission proposals to enhance the autonomy of the city Police Commission.

Council President John Ferraro said that other Christopher Commission proposals, including changes in the hiring and firing of future police chiefs, may be altered before the full council agrees on a final reform package.

“I think there is going to be lot of tinkering,” Ferraro said. “That’s what we’re here for. We’re a legislative body, not . . . a rubber stamp.”

At the same time, there is increasing political pressure on the council to adhere closely to the Christopher Commission proposals--the course favored by Mayor Tom Bradley and his allies. Some prominent business and community leaders are organizing a watchdog group to monitor the council action and to begin raising money for a campaign to secure voter approval of the police reforms, said attorney Mickey Kantor.

Kantor, a member of the Christopher Commission and a Bradley adviser, said the committee will be ready to push its own LAPD reform initiative if it determines “the Christopher Commission proposals have been diluted too severely” by the council.

Those involved in the watchdog group discussions include Roy Anderson, a Christopher Commission member and former chairman of Lockheed Corp.; John Mack, president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Urban League, and Bill Robertson, the head of the Los Angeles Federation of Labor, City Hall sources said.

The first clear signal of dissension over the Christopher report came Friday when a City Council committee set aside a central recommendation that the mayor, rather than the Police Commission, select future police chiefs.

The committee, headed by Councilman Richard Alatorre, also rejected a Christopher panel proposal to make the Police Commission’s decisions exempt from review by the City Council. The council last June was given unprecedented power to review all city commission decisions when voters approved Charter Amendment 5 amid controversy over the Police Commission’s effort to remove Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

Critics charged that the Alatorre committee was trying to undermine the Christopher Commission reforms and had taken the action at a poorly publicized meeting--allegations Alatorre denied.

The job of reviewing the reforms shifted this week to a special committee chaired by Councilman Marvin Braude, who will hold a series of hearings before recommending a package of Police Department reforms to the full council in several weeks.

In an unusual and somewhat confusing concession to Alatorre, however, the full council agreed Tuesday to consider his panel’s recommendations at the same time the proposals from Braude’s committee are debated.

Some council members and City Hall observers fear the handling of the LAPD overhaul could be a rerun of the 1989 ethics reform package debate. Critics maintain that lengthy fiddling with the ethics reforms by the 15-member council created an ordinance riddled with loopholes and confusion.

H. Eric Schockman, associate director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of California, predicted that compromises will be necessary to win council approval for the Christopher Commission reforms and that will create holes “big enough to drive a Mack truck through.”

Councilman Michael Woo, who wants to see the original reform package adopted, agreed. “We have . . . an enormous potential for tinkering, watering down and distracting from the central principles of the Christopher Commission,” he said.

Most council members say it is too early to tell how much of the Christopher Commission report will be approved and placed on the ballot.

Thus far, there has been little open debate on proposals to change officer training and discipline and to shift emphasis to so-called community policing, in which police build ties to neighborhoods and attempt to prevent crime.

Several council members, however, said they have no intention of granting the Police Commission special autonomy, or allowing it to take independent legal actions to defend its rights.

“It’s a non-starter,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who like other council members argued that voters already spoke on the matter when they approved Charter Amendment 5.

Alatorre said he will oppose a Christopher Commission proposal to have the mayor select future police chiefs. Such a provision, he said, would create a fatal flaw in the reforms--politicizing the selection of the police chief--and give opponents of the LAPD reforms an issue to exploit.

Ferraro, meanwhile, said that when the reforms come to the full council he will propose amendments to allow the City Council to initiate the removal of a police chief in concert with the Police Commission and the mayor. Presently, the council can only review disciplinary efforts against the chief.

Warren Christopher, the former U.S. deputy secretary of state who chaired the independent panel, remained diplomatic. He acknowledged concerns that the council could water down the recommendations but has left the door open for some compromise.

For example, he noted that exempting Police Commission actions from council review was not as high a priority for his panel as the “carefully balanced” proposals to allow the mayor to select and remove the police chief with the review and consent of the City Council.

“We don’t claim some sort of monoply on wisdom on this matter,” he said.

Officially, Bradley continues to call for adoption of the Christopher Commission reforms as drafted. The mayor has the power to veto any package of ballot measures proposed by the council.

Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani declined to specify what issues might trigger a mayoral veto, although he warned that alterations in the Christopher proposals for appointment and removal of the police chief would “require serious reevaluation of the entire” package.

Police Reforms Could Cost $30 Million

The chief budget officer for the city of Los Angeles estimated Tuesday that the cost of adopting the Christopher Commission reforms for the Police Department could be $2.6 million to $30 million.

Not included in the estimate provided by City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie was the cost of holding a special election for potential changes to the City Charter or the cost of implementing “community-based” policing efforts.

Community-based policing, which emphasizes prevention over arrests, could cost “zero to millions” depending on the department’s ability to realign its resources, he said.

The department’s budget for 1991-92 is $987 million.

“Given the size of this budget and the city’s current financial limitations,” Comrie said, “it is reasonable to consider a reordering of priorities to provide the funding needed for all or many of the recommendations.”

* JUDGE’S DEFENSE

Judge Bernard Kamins said he is not biased and should not be removed from the King case. B3