Panel Urges Approval of Many LAPD Changes

A special Los Angeles City Council committee on Monday recommended approval of several key Police Department reforms advocated by the Christopher Commission, but the panel declined to support a proposal to surrender some of the council’s newly enhanced power over the LAPD.

The ad hoc committee on the Christopher Commission endorsed placement before voters of City Charter amendments that would empower the mayor to appoint the police chief and limit a chief to two five-year terms.

The charter amendments are cornerstones of a sweeping reform package advanced by the Christopher Commission after its 100-day investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department, an unprecedented probe spawned by the March 3 beating of motorist Rodney G. King. The citizens panel concluded that the department was infected with racism and that its hierarchy, including the chief, needed to be more tightly controlled.

While the council committee has more issues to address, the battery of recommendations Monday dealt with those that require voter approval and essentially began to shift to the full council the work of overhauling the LAPD. In this broader forum, the politics are expected to intensify as attempts are made to translate a general call for police reform into hard changes.

“Everyone will want to be heard and everyone will want to be part of the action,” said Councilwoman Joy Picus. “It is a difficult process at best and doing it in the bright glare of the public just makes it harder.”

Not all of the ad hoc committee’s recommendations Monday were unanimous. Freshman Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, for instance, disapproved of a committee decision not to endorse limiting the council’s oversight of the Police Commission and, by extension, the Police Department. Veteran Councilman Richard Alatorre cast a dissenting vote on the question of whether the mayor should appoint chiefs, a responsibility now held by the Police Commission.

In all, the committee forwarded to the council more than a dozen recommendations, some politically volatile and others bordering on clerical changes sought by the Christopher report.

Committee Chairman Marvin Braude said the committee acted on “things that we can do legally and now,” and the full council is expected to begin its debate next week. The council intends to put the Christopher reforms to voters next June--after a new chief is selected.

The committee refused to act on a motion brought by Picus to hold a special election in March--before a new police chief is selected to replace Gates--on proposed reforms related to the selection, term and removal of a chief of police.

“I’m not willing to pay $1.8 million to rush to have an early election,” Braude said. “And I’m not willing to confuse the voters by having two separate elections on the Christopher Commission matter. It’s just isn’t worth it.”

Six other key issues raised by the commission report, ranging from racism and use of force to harassment and the need for enhanced community-based policing efforts, do not require charter changes and will be “fleshed out” at committee hearings scheduled for October, Braude said.

As with much of the King beating aftermath, the council debate is expected to grow most intense on questions relating to the chief of police.

“The council will generally be supportive of the great bulk of the recommendations that deal with things like recruitment and selection and community-based policing,” Picus added. “But the charter amendment that has to do with the selection, term and removal of a police chief, well, people who haven’t been heard from will want to be heard at length on that.”

One issue before the council is whether it should retain its newly won authority over the Police Commission, which at present oversees the LAPD. In June, voters overwhelmingly passed Charter Amendment 5, which gave the council power to reverse the decisions of mayor-approved commissions, including the Police Commission, with a two-thirds vote.

This was seen as strengthening the council’s hand in the battle with Mayor Tom Bradley over Chief Daryl F. Gates’ tenure. The Christopher Commission recommended that the Police Commission be strengthened, and that the council give back its authority under Charter Amendment 5.

Ridley-Thomas, who cast the lone vote Monday in favor of exempting the Police Commission from the amendment, said he intends to ask the council for a detailed explanation of the circumstances under which it would invoke the ordinance.

“There are bound to be specific instances in which the council may be inclined to invoke its powers under the charter amendment,” Ridley-Thomas said. “It may be helpful for the council to specify the instances in which it would be inclined to do so.”

Braude and the other committee members claimed that they were following the will of voters.

“Seventy percent of the people approved Charter Amendment 5,” Braude said in an interview. “It’s a very limited power and an appropriate one in a democratic society so that fundamental power shall be with elected representatives of the people.”

Alatorre argued against the proposed charter amendment to allow the mayor to appoint police chiefs, saying it might unduly “politicize” the selection process.

The other committee members supported the Christopher report, which argued that the mayor essentially has the power to pick police chiefs already, since the Police Commission is appointed by the mayor.

Ray Fisher, deputy general counsel for the Christopher Commission, said he was generally pleased with the committee’s actions.

“We are closer to bringing the matter (of police reforms) to the voters,” he said.

Moreover, Fisher said the city Personnel Department is “proceeding with all steps preliminary to final selection of a chief, and that is consistent with what the Christopher Commission recommended.”