LAPD Discipline Enforces the Party Line : Police: The system is fine in principle. Yet small things are pursued with a vengeance, while major things may slide by.

The failure of some command officers in the Los Angeles Police Department to apply the principles of its disciplinary system has caused serious problems and resulted in a demand for reform.

The purpose of the disciplinary system is to promote efficiency within the department. This goal is to be applied and accomplished in a threefold manner: Bring errant behavior into line with acceptable and preferred standards of conduct; apply discipline to discourage other officers from committing similar acts of misconduct, and apply corrective discipline to assure the community that the department will not tolerate deviant behavior and is committed to providing the highest quality service.

The system of discipline established by the City Charter is outstanding. However, one of the major shortcomings in its application, and one that is particularly irksome to the public and to officers alike, is the meting out of heavy suspensions for minor administrative offenses. At the same time, major misconduct seemingly goes unpunished or receives light penalties.

Another serious problem is the relentless prosecution of line officers for misconduct while offenses by staff officers and those in the inner sanctum are often overlooked and excused. This double standard is particularly acute when dealing with minority officers and women.

With the exception of alcohol-related personnel complaints, the root causes of misconduct are rarely addressed. If an individual is psychologically unfit to be a police officer, imposing a six-month suspension will not make the person fit for duty. The department needs to use its resources to find out why certain officers are committing offenses. Only when this has been accomplished can the department take appropriate steps to correct the causes and prevent repeat offenses. Officers whose behavior cannot be brought up to acceptable standards should be terminated.

A review of how the system has been implemented shows that over the years, at times almost imperceptibly, the disciplinary system has become the primary instrument for political and economic repression within the department. Refuse to go along with the official party line for whatever reason and you would find yourself the recipient of a 1.81 (personnel complaint). Speak out against problems or injustices within the department and you get a 1.81 initiated by the department.

Instead of being used as a means to promote efficiency, discipline was increasingly used to punish, intimidate and terrorize officers. Investigators were allowed to conduct biased investigations with impunity, a practice that continues.

While department-generated complaints for minor infractions of department policy skyrocketed, complaints for offenses harmful to the community decreased. Instead of making determinations based on the evidence, certain career-minded command officers began to find officers guilty because they felt that was what was expected of them. A letter issued by Chief Daryl Gates in 1981 to command officers informing them that fairness should not be the most important determinant of their findings at Board of Rights hearings further encouraged them in this regard.

The principles and standards established by the City Charter and the Board of Rights manual to ensure fair and impartial hearings were increasingly being ignored. The first principle to be abandoned was the most important one, that a finding of guilty be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. Command officers who didn’t go along with the program might find their careers stymied or be subjected to undesirable transfers.

In the meantime, the administration was doing a snow job on the public, the Police Commission and the City Council designed to persuade them that the department was effectively policing itself. This was done by pursuing thousands of insignificant complaints and imposing harsh, unreasonable penalties--aided by the department’s selective enforcement of those sections of the City Charter beneficial to the accused officer while mercilessly exploiting those that were detrimental. Chief among these is section that allows the chief of police to temporarily relieve from duty any officer pending a hearing before, and a decision by, a Board of Rights. The implementation of this section, which I believe to be unconstitutional, allows the department to financially destroy an innocent officer.

Ironically, when the Police Commission sought to relieve the chief, even with pay, we were all in an uproar. But the chief had access to high-powered attorneys and friends in high places so he prevailed. But who goes to bat for the little people?

Imagine not being able to buy food, pay the mortgage or otherwise provide for your family when you haven’t even been found guilty.

While there is no justification for a police officer to mistreat anyone, it would behoove officials to consider the probability that officers who have been victimized by unjust discipline might manifest a tendency to mistreat the public in turn.

A detailed study of the disciplinary system, utilizing the input of the Officer Representation Section and the Protective League--two entities that are infinitely familiar with it--would show that the Police Commission and the City Council have the power to enforce the principles and guidelines established by the City Charter. Rather than reforming a perfectly good system, proper oversight by the Police Commission is a far more effective and less expensive method of improving the disciplinary system and increasing the quality of police service.