Police Reform Controversy: Some Questions--and Answers

On June 2 Los Angeles voters will be asked to approve Charter Amendment F. This is a very important police-reform measure. The Christopher Commission identified a number of serious problem areas in the Los Angeles Police Department--even beyond the Rodney King incident. The Police Commission and the City Council have done a good job, so far at least, in implementing those changes that can be put in place administratively or legislatively. But some recommended reforms require revising the City Charter--the blueprint by which city government operates. This is what Charter Amendment F would do.

This measure is not particularly complicated, and its provisions are not especially novel. But they are certainly new to Los Angeles, and so a lot of questions have been raised about them. In an effort to enhance understanding of the very important issues at stake, here are some frequently asked questions about Charter Amendment F--and our answers:

Q. Isn’t it true that this so-called charter reform will do little more than permit politicians to get their hands on the police? Isn’t it really a formula for the crass repoliticization of the LAPD?

A. No, it’s not. The politicization of municipal services is certainly one warning sign of a possibly corrupt government. But accountability to civilians is quite another thing. It is a principle essential to good government. The moment America says there’s no difference between appropriate civilian accountability and craven political interference, democracy is in serious trouble. Civilian authority means that the people are sovereign, not the government. Let the Police Department escape this principle and soon others in government will try to do so as well.

Q. Well, that sounds really nice and high-minded. But somehow the thought of the City Council running the LAPD is scary.

A. That’s not what’s being proposed. The chief would still manage the department day to day and civilians would oversee it through a better-staffed Police Commission. What we have now is a system in which the police chief is not accountable to the public. He--or, theoretically at least, she--has to answer to hardly anyone. Once in office, he has virtual lifetime tenure. He can be dismissed only if he is found guilty of misconduct and the removal is upheld in court. He can thumb his nose at anyone. This carries the principle of insulating the police chief from politics to its most absurd extreme.

Q. Chief Daryl F. Gates certainly has been difficult at times. But how would this reform help? You could still have a difficult chief, right?

A. This incumbent chief has been in office for 14 years. All this reform does is to require the chief to answer to someone besides his own muse. The Police Commission--with a real staff for the first time--would have a larger role; so would the City Council and the mayor. But having a larger role is hardly the same thing as holding absolute power. On the contrary, the point of this reform is to prevent any one person from having total power. No one person or group could have ultimate control over a chief; he could not be removed frivolously. What the reform does is to reintroduce that tried-and-true insurance policy: checks and balances. This way no one gets carried away.

Q. The idea is to limit the chief to two five-year terms, right?

A. Right--the reform is basically a term-limitation measure, and not even as tough as the state term limitation that California voters supported two years ago. The principle: No one should stay in public office too long; everyone can get stale after a while and a certain regular rotation of talent is a good thing.

Q. Well, the average person isn’t so enthralled by all this political theory. People are scared and they want the police to protect them. Few people care that much about how the cops get the job done.

A. The whole point of the Christopher Commission report and its recommendations was to get the people and the police working more closely together. Instead of being at odds, they must get married, as it were. Many police experts are convinced that the key to effective policing is the cooperation and involvement of the community with the police. With the LAPD, there’s too little of this. The point of “community policing”--the proposed new approach to deployment of officers and the priorities of policing--is to tie the people and the police more closely together. This would make the police more effective and make people safer. But to make it work properly, Los Angeles needs a new police chief and passage of the charter reform.

Q. Basically, don’t the police have to do all they can to make sure the criminals don’t overwhelm them? Politicizing cops won’t make them more effective.

A. The LAPD is already politicized; that’s the problem. The chief is actively campaigning against charter reform, like a stump politician. This isn’t right. Moreover, if the Police Department continues to get into these dicey confrontations with citizens--not to mention all the costly lawsuit settlements for police misconduct--it is going to come under more and more political fire. Charter reform is designed to buffer the department from raging political controversy. It’s designed to make it even more professional than it is. Like any institution--government, a newspaper--it occasionally benefits from change, is strengthened by it. Charter Amendment F wouldn’t politicize the department, but it would make it an even better place to work--and involve citizens more fully in the campaign to reduce crime.