Audit of the LAPD Churns at Slow Pace : Government: Ordered a year ago, it is seen by critics as a failure of the bureaucracy. Some question whether events have outstripped need for the report.

It was one year ago that Mayor Tom Bradley ordered a sweeping management audit of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Since then, the nation was shocked by the police beating of motorist Rodney G. King, the Christopher Commission was created and went on to complete its landmark study of police reforms, Police Chief Daryl F. Gates agreed to resign and a search began for his successor.

And what of the audit, which was to determine whether the LAPD’s 8,300 officers are being efficiently deployed and the $600-million annual budget properly spent?

It is still being vigorously pursued, city officials report.

In fact, they say, someone probably will be selected to perform the audit early next year. And they hope it can be completed in 1992--or 1993.

“That’s about right,” said Keith Comrie, city administrative officer, confirming the time schedule for a $1-million project that Bradley and key City Council members said was long overdue when it was proposed in 1990.

The project is a textbook example, critics say, of how the machinery of government churns--steadily and deliberately, but sometimes bafflingly slowly.

“If they were a business, they’d be out of business,” Jay Curtis, president of the Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn., said when contacted. The process, he said, is “another example of government inefficiency.”

“It’s just the way they do business around here,” said Councilman Nate Holden. “It’s not OK.”

Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani told The Times in July: “Obviously, the delay is frustrating.” Fabiani couldn’t be reached for comment on Monday after the City Council’s Public Safety Committee delayed consideration of the proposal for an additional three weeks.

But Comrie and others defended the time-consuming process.

The LAPD study is following the same bureaucratic labyrinth taken by other city departments, including the Planning Department and Community Redevelopment Agency, said Comrie. Extensive preparation and detailed procedures are necessary before the city can issue a contract for an audit, he said.

“No one ever told us: ‘Put it on the fast track,’ ” said C. Edward Corser, chief administrative analyst, who is shepherding the project. “They said: ‘Get to it when you can.’ ”

The process is so cumbersome that Corser keeps a running time line of all the stops the file makes as it winds its way through City Hall.

The audit proposal has already been to the City Council twice and it will have to make two more trips before it can be finally approved. The proposal has also been through the mayor’s office, the city attorney’s office, before a special steering committee and the chief administrative officer’s staff.

So much time has elapsed, and so many changes have taken place at the LAPD, that some are questioning whether the audit is relevant or necessary.

“It will be out of date by the time they are done,” said Curtis, of the Taxpayers Assn. “Time and history do not wait for them to finalize their reports.”

Holden said many of the questions about LAPD deployment have been answered by the Christopher Commission. And changes in LAPD finances, he said, will likely be addressed by a new chief of police, who could be appointed next spring.

“Everyone should realize we have a new ingredient in this recipe,” said Corser, referring to the Christopher Commission report. “That’s what the council will now want to discuss.”

“But I know the mayor still wants to know . . . are we getting what we pay for” from the LAPD, and that can be answered by the audit, Corser said.

A spokesman for Bradley said the auditing process could be further delayed by the selection of a new police chief. Press deputy Bill Chandler said the mayor wants an auditor selected as soon as possible, but suggested that it may be best to wait until the new chief is appointed before starting the audit.

“Obviously, the mayor would have preferred the process to move swiftly,” Chandler said.

It started that way. After being proposed by the mayor Oct. 19, 1990, the proposal went to the council the next day.

One month later, the city administrative officer was handed the project. Two weeks later, he made a preliminary response to the council. In February, a steering committee was formed to oversee the project.

In late March, the committee agreed on a draft of a “Request For Proposals,” a letter explaining the scope of the project for companies that might be interested in bidding.

The draft proposal went to the city attorney, back to the city administrative officer, to the steering committee, the mayor and council, which continued the matter Monday.

“I don’t know,” said Public Safety Committee Chairman Marvin Braude when asked why the process takes as long as it does. Asked if the project is still necessary, given the changes at the LAPD during the last year, Braude again said, “I don’t know.”

Comrie and Corser have said it will likely take several months to get the proposal through the council, then up to four months to receive and evaluate bids. Several council committees will examine the bid before its goes to the full council for a vote.

If the council agrees to award the estimated $1-million to $1.5-million contract, the audit could begin in 30 to 60 days, or sometime next summer. Work is expected to take six months to one year.

Bradley’s Audit Proposal

Here’s the complex course taken by Mayor Tom Bradley’s proposal to conduct a management audit of the LAPD:

Oct. 19, 1990: Mayor Tom Bradley proposes a sweeping management audit of the LAPD.

Oct. 20, 1990: Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky takes the motion to City Council.

Nov. 14, 1990: City Council refers it to the city administrative officer.

Dec. 3, 1990: CAO makes preliminary report to council

Feb. 22, 1991: Council approves formation of a steering committee.

March 27, 1991: Committee approves draft of Request for Proposal for potential auditors.

April 2, 1991: Draft is sent to city attorney.

June 28, 1991: City attorney returns bid proposal to CAO.

July 30, 1991: Steering committee approves proposal and sends it to Bradley.

Aug. 22, 1991: Bradley’s office refers proposal to City Council.

Oct. 21, 1991: Council’s Public Safety Committee continues consideration of the bid proposal until Nov. 11.

Here’s what must be done before the audit can actually begin:

City Council must approve bid proposal. Process could take until year’s end.

CAO would then request and evaluate bids, which could take 60-90 days.

The CAO will return to the City Council with a recommendation.

Council must approve bid and allocate an estimated $1 million to $1.5 million.

Audit could begin 30 to 60 days after council approval.

Work on the audit expected to take from six months to one year.

Projected total elapsed time from proposal to completion of audit: more than two years.