Problem Is Process, Not Panel

The process of selecting a new Los Angeles police chief has entered its final phase one year after the Rodney King beating stunned this city and a watching world. Ironically, the selection procedure itself has made it even clearer that further reform is needed to have a police department that commands respect by truly reflecting its community.

As required by the current City Charter, a panel of local residents sent to the Police Commission the names of six finalists for the chief’s position, culled from a list of 12 top candidates. The finalists are officers with impressive credentials. They include Philadelphia’s police commissioner, who oversaw his department’s handling of a similarly difficult transition period after 1985, and five LAPD veterans. But in a city that is 40% Latino, none of the finalists are. Latino leaders are angry about that, which is understandable. There were at least two Latinos in law enforcement who could have been among the finalists, Division Chief Lee Baca of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and former Phoenix Police Chief Ruben Ortega. But they were eliminated because of antiquated Civil Service rules which put the citizens’ panel that picked the finalists in a bureaucratic straitjacket--and which required it to limit its list to six candidates only.

Under existing Civil Service rules, for any outsiders to even be considered, they must score higher on exams and interviews than any candidate from the LAPD. Even ties are not good enough because, again under the existing rules, LAPD candidates get extra points simply because they are LAPD veterans. But for these rules, both Baca and Ortega would have been among the six finalists. Clearly the rules have got to be changed--and will be if voters approve the Charter amendment reforms, recommended by the Christopher Commission, on the June 2 ballot.

City Councilman Richard Alatorre is threatening to stall the selection of a new chief until the rules are changed so a Latino candidate can have a better chance. That is a unwise gamble that depends entirely on the June passage of the Charter amendment. Worse, stalling the chief’s selection would only add to the delay of getting a fresh start in the chief’s office. Alatorre’s concerns can best be addressed through charter reform. Meantime the process of change must continue apace.