NEWS ANALYSIS : Block’s Cooperation Key to Reform Measures : Autonomy: Implementing report recommendations without agreement of the sheriff could require legal and governmental changes.

Most of the reforms recommended for the Sheriff’s Department by retired Judge James G. Kolts cannot easily be implemented unless Sheriff Sherman Block goes along with them--and Block’s initial reaction Monday was a mystery.

The 67-year-old sheriff, who is considering whether to run for a fourth term in 1994, was in Sacramento at an attorney general’s conference, and aides said he would not return to Los Angeles until tonight. In Sacramento, he refused to make any statements and no date was set for his response.

Because he is an elected official, Block has wide latitude to run his department without more than nominal oversight by any independent body. Although the Board of Supervisors approves the sheriff’s budget, it has exercised little critical scrutiny over the department’s expenditures and has shown little willingness to tangle with Block.

As a result, Kolts, his senior staff and members of the board appeared eager Monday to avoid a confrontation with the sheriff, saying they were counting on Block’s voluntary cooperation as the only practical way to ensure that the reforms are implemented.

To put the report’s recommendations into effect without Block’s agreement would require changes in either the state Constitution, state law or the Los Angeles County Charter, and maybe all of them. Under existing law, the attorney general has power to intervene in the department, but only under extraordinary circumstances.

Gloria Molina, the only supervisor who has persistently criticized Block, quickly acknowledged Monday that “we have no legal authority” to force the sheriff to adopt any change.

She said the supervisors must try to work with the Sheriff’s Department to implement the reforms. “I am hopeful that the sheriff will not look at this (report) as the enemy,” Molina said. “This is an opportunity to form some solid partnerships with the Board of Supervisors who represent the people.”

Supervisor Ed Edelman, who proposed the Kolts inquiry, was equally conciliatory.

“Look, let’s give the sheriff a chance to see what his response is,” Edelman said. “If I were sheriff, I wouldn’t want to respond (to the report) until I looked at it very carefully. . . . There are some critical things in here and let’s give him an opportunity. . . . Let’s see what he says.”

Kolts, in his opening statement, also sought to avoid confrontation, instead complimenting Block as someone whose “temperament and style have encouraged self-examination.”

A Kolts staff source, who declined to be quoted by name, said later that there had been little interchange between Block and the Kolts group that would indicate what Block’s response would be to the often critical report. Earlier this year, however, Block said in an interview that he would not implement recommendations with which he disagreed.

Among the report’s principal recommendations that could be immediately implemented by Block are its calls for citizen participation in adjudicating complaints of brutality and harassment and the establishment of an early-warning system to monitor which deputies use unnecessary force.

The source said that pursuing constitutional and legal means of implementing the reforms against the wishes of Block was viewed by Kolts and his aides as “distasteful.”

He explained that a state constitutional amendment would have to apply to all sheriffs across the state and would be politically difficult to achieve.

State code changes would require the consent of a possibly reluctant Legislature, he added, and there are only limited changes that could be brought about through County Charter amendments.

Block’s chief spokesman, Capt. Doug McClure, said Monday that the report originally was to have been released on July 15 and the sheriff had set aside two days to read and respond to it. But, he said, Block decided to keep his long-scheduled plans to attend the attorney general’s conference when he learned last week that the new release date would conflict with the meeting.

McClure said that Block had been given an advance copy of the Kolts report Sunday, but had only “glanced” at it. He said no date had been set for Block’s public response, but it probably would come before July 29, when Block has his next scheduled news conference.

Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner--whose department also was heavily criticized in the report--was not even aware the report was going to be issued until a newsman called Monday for his comment on it, said spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.

At Monday’s press conference, Merrick J. Bobb, general counsel to the Kolts staff, called Reiner’s “refusals to prosecute” more than one of 382 questionable deputies’ shootings referred to his office “incomprehensible.” He said, “The D.A.’s record is even worse” than than that of the Sheriff’s Department.

Gibbons said the district attorney--who ran second in the June primary and faces an uphill battle for reelection against Deputy Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti--would not respond to Bobb’s remarks or to the criticism until he had read the report. She gave no date for Reiner’s response.

Garcetti said the report “appears to be another example that Ira doesn’t have the professional capability to do the job. His inability to perform is not fair to both police officers and the community.”

Garcetti promised that if elected district attorney, he would persoally make all decisions on whether to prosecute questionable shooting cases. He added, however, that “in the vast, vast majority of cases, the officers committed no criminal act.”

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said she was astonished that Reiner claimed not to know the report was going to be issued.

“Everybody concerned knew about this report being due out in mid-July,” she said.

As for Block, Ripston said that while she recognizes that the state Constitution governs the Sheriff’s Department, she believes public hearings ought to be held on the department’s failures. While “the findings of the Kolts report are good, the recommendations are for the most part weak,” she said.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich angrily branded the report “a backdoor attempt by liberals to undermine law enforcement.” He said the “liberals for years have been attempting to expand the rights of criminals to the detriment of the victims. . . . Our (Sheriff’s) Department is superb, as the statistics indicate.” Supervisor Deane Dana, who faces a tough reelection campaign, said: “I look forward to hearing the sheriff’s responses to Judge Kolts’ report. I believe that will go a long way toward determining what additional steps can and should be taken in dealing with the problems that were outlined in the judge’s report.”

Supervisor Kenneth Hahn declined comment.

The People Behind the Kolts Report A look at key members of the team that produced Monday’s report on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. James G. Kolts, 67 Occupation: Retired Superior Court judge, hired by the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 17, 1991, to lead the investigation into sheriff’s operations, allegations of excessive force and citizen complaint procedures. Background: A Republican and former deputy district attorney, he was appointed to the Superior Court bench in 1969 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. Kolts handled criminal matters for five years before switching to the civil courts. He retired in 1989. Merrick J. Bobb, 46 Occupation: An attorney with the Los Angeles law firm of Tuttle & Taylor, hired as general counsel to help review excessive-force allegations against sheriff’s deputies that have cost taxpayers almost $15.5 million over the past 3 1/2 years. Background: Served as deputy general counsel on the Christopher Commission’s investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department after the Rodney G. King beating. Director of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles from 1983 to 1991. Fred Loya Jr., 43 Occupation: Psychologist specializing in Latino issues; an expert on interracial violence and executive director of the Santa Anita Family Service in Monrovia. Hired to prepare a psychological evaluation of recruitment and training practices of the Sheriff’s Department. Background: Former assistant professor of psychology at UCLA. Directed a team of researchers investigating the dramatic increase in homicides in Los Angeles between 1981 and 1986. Jeffrey H. Dasteel, 39 Occupation: A general business litigator and member of the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; pro bono staff member reviewing allegations that some deputies banded together and engaged in gang-like behavior. Background: Graduated from Loyola Law School in 1983; former staff attorney who reviewed discipline and complaints on the Christopher Commission. Katharine L. Krause, 44 Occupation: Attorney with the law firm of Newman, Aaronson & Vanaman in Sherman Oaks. Hired to look into sheriff’s recruiting, training and hiring practices. Background: Former executive director of the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation. Wendy Munger, 42 Occupation: Homemaker and mother, community volunteer in the Pasadena area. Assisted Kolts as pro bono staff member reviewing excessive-force litigation. Background: Graduate of UCLA School of Law, 1977; law clerk to U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and former partner in the law firm Tuttle & Taylor. Julio A. Thompson, 27 Occupation: Attorney with Tuttle & Taylor specializing in civil litigation and appeals. Hired to review complaints and discipline, officer-involved shootings, problem officers and tracking of use-of-force incidents. Background: Graduate of University of Michigan Law School, 1989. Barbara Hallett, 43 Occupation: Homemaker and mother; worked pro bono as editor for the Kolts report. Background: Graduate of University of Washington, Seattle, 1970; former reporter for the Tacoma News Tribune and former chief deputy city editor of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Compiled by Times researcher Cecilia Rasmussen