Judge Says City Violated Binkley’s Rights, Orders Rehearing : Courts: The decision does not require that the former police chief be reinstated. The city, saying Binkley was treated fairly, plans to appeal.

Former Long Beach Police Chief Lawrence L. Binkley may have another shot at his old job after a judge ordered city officials this week to give the fired chief a new hearing.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien said Tuesday that the city violated Binkley’s procedural rights “in every respect.” Although O’Brien did not order the city to reinstate Binkley as police chief, he ruled that the controversial former department head is entitled to a new appeal.

Binkley sued the city and City Manager James C. Hankla in May, arguing that he was fired without cause and did not receive a fair appeal hearing.

“It’s our contention that the investigation was a sham, and so was the appeal process,” said Rod Fick, Binkley’s attorney.

City officials, saying that Binkley was treated fairly, plan to appeal O’Brien’s ruling. “We disagree with it very strongly,” Assistant City Atty. Robert E. Shannon said. “We believe we took great care to comply with the law.”

Binkley would not comment earlier this week on the judge’s ruling. In his lawsuit, the former police chief said officials treated him unfairly throughout the process.

Hankla suspended Binkley last December after high-ranking police commanders complained to city officials about Binkley’s management style. The city manager placed Binkley on special assignment and ordered a city investigation.

During the next several weeks, Binkley’s attorneys complained that city officials refused to meet with them and provide details of the complaints against the chief.

Hankla fired Binkley on Jan. 17. The city manager said there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Binkley was guilty of any wrongdoing, but told the chief he had lost confidence in Binkley’s ability to lead the department. Hankla said Binkley’s management practices had caused morale to deteriorate in the department.

In February, Hankla appointed Judson Schoendorf, a former Civil Service commissioner, to hear Binkley’s appeal. After a hearing Feb. 27, Schoendorf concurred with Hankla’s decision to terminate Binkley.

Binkley’s lawsuit contends that since Hankla fired the chief, the city manager should not have been able to select an arbiter, or have the final say on the matter.

“That’s not really an appeal,” attorney Fick said, adding that Binkley’s due process rights under California laws “were clearly violated.”

Shannon argued, however, that the city’s charter gives the city manager the authority to hire and fire a police chief. “He served at the pleasure of the city manager,” Shannon said.

Binkley said in court documents that he was given no warning, until his suspension, that his work was not satisfactory.

He also noted that he was hired as Long Beach police chief five years ago to reform a department with a reputation for using excessive force and continuous feuds between management and the Police Officers Assn. “During the past five years, I evoked numerous reforms as part of the implementation of this mandate for change and have heard nothing but praise from both the city manager and the City Council,” Binkley wrote in court documents.

Hankla, in another document, disagreed. “I have repeatedly been forced to counsel him in the past concerning various indiscretions, including his widely perceived image of vindictiveness toward subordinates and others,” Hankla wrote.

In a Feb. 14 letter, Hankla spelled out allegations of misconduct, including Binkley’s secret investigations of several public officials.

In his last month on the job, Binkley came under fire when city officials learned that he had several ongoing investigations involving public figures. Hankla said that Binkley violated a standing mandate to avoid such investigations and turn over any allegations of wrongdoing to the district attorney’s office. Binkley said he had planned to contact the district attorney’s office after gathering more information.

In court documents, Binkley’s attorney defended the investigations, saying they “support the public interest in uncovering potential city government corruption.” The chief’s dismissal “was politically motivated, retaliatory and violates public policy.”

While attorneys for both sides agreed that the judge ordered a new appeal hearing for Binkley this week, they disagreed on the scope of the ruling.

Fick said he believes that the ruling granted everything Binkley’s petition had sought, including a new investigation, a new hearing with an independent arbiter, monetary damages determined by the court and attorney fees. Binkley’s lawsuit also seeks to exclude the city attorney’s office from the appeal, prevent Hankla from having a final say in the case and remove references of the original investigation from Binkley’s personnel records.

Shannon, however, interpreted the judge’s ruling more narrowly. Shannon argued that in ordering a new appeal hearing, O’Brien did not agree to all of Binkley’s other requests. In fact, Shannon said his understanding of the ruling would not preclude the original arbiter, Schoendorf, from conducting a new hearing.