LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Willie Williams : City’s New Police Chief Faces Down Some Long Odds

Depending on the section of Los Angeles, Police Chief Willie L. Williams is viewed generously as a hero who will put more good cops on the streets, get more bad cops off the streets, reduce crime and boost morale; or he is seen warily as an outsider who cannot possibly find the money, tools or cooperation he needs to reform a battered, criticized police department.

Williams, 49, a workaholic husband and father of three adult children, is the ultimate outsider in a department run by insiders for nearly half a century. He’s black. He’s from Philadelphia. He’s open and personable, at least during an interview in his office at Parker Center, in sharp contrast to his combative, abrasive, in-your-face predecessor--the legendary Daryl F. Gates.

Whatever the view, the new chief is up against some very tough odds. He inherits a department that, at barely 7,800, is much too small to protect or serve a metropolis the size of Los Angeles. He is handcuffed by crippling city budget woes and hampered by a municipal hiring freeze. There is no money in the budget for additional cops, more civilian workers, computers, promotions, patrol bonuses or much of anything else that Williams needs to reshape the department.

He leads a police force embarrassed by the beating of Rodney G. King, stung by a tough Christopher Commission probe that documented police brutality, racism and sexism and still smarting from the widespread perception that not a cop could be found when Reginald O. Denny needed help at Florence and Normandie during the first night of the riots.

To beef up police visibility, to make community policing more than a slogan, Williams must depend on voters made skittish by a recession that just won’t end to open their wallets. Proposition N, a special property tax, would add 1,000 uniformed cops. The hiring and training of the new officers would probably take about two years, another tax on citizens impatient for reform. Williams promises to put all new crime-busters on patrol, but he can only keep that promise if he gets more than a little help from the ballot box. Without that, his goals begin to resemble an impossible mission.

Question: What do you need to police Los Angeles to make people feel safer?

Answer: The ideal package would include the ability to put dozens, if not hundreds, of officers on foot beats all over this city and at the same time backfill the areas where we need additional officers in cars. . . . People want to see an increase in uniform visibility. They want to see officers in black-and-whites who can respond in a reasonable amount of time to calls. . . . People want to see foot-beat officers because of the feeling of safety, the perception of increased safety.

I have two choices right now with the shrinking department. We are down now close to 7,800 officers--which is nearly 80 or 90 officers from what it was three months ago, when I started. At the same time, crime is on the rise. Calls for service are on the rise. Officers have no such thing as free preventive patrol time to drive, to look, to listen. They just go from call, to call, to call.

So, I am faced with either making decisions to stop doing certain functions and return people back to uniform patrol or slow down administrative and technical functions to put people back in patrol without having the ability to replace those people with civilians. Because of the city’s financial crisis, civilianization is just about on hold. So you can’t replace a uniform with a non-uniform.

The other option is that, if the voters of the city make a difficult decision to pass the proposition that would enable this department over the next couple years to have a net increase of 1,000 officers--from 7,900 to 8,900--I have made the public commitment that all of those officers will go into uniform assignments throughout the city. That’s the bare minimum you need to have safe policing here in the city of Los Angeles . . . .

*

Q: What happens if Proposition N doesn’t pass? Can you make community policing work without it?

A: We can make it work, but it’s going to be more difficult . . . I’m already looking at areas where we can cut back and thin, where we can merge units, use maybe two-thirds of those resources and reassign other people back to uniform assignments. . . . There will be some serious consequences if the proposition does not pass.

*

Q: Have you already put community policing into place?

A: The department started before I came here and we have been continuing. The department started out with seven divisions that they were going to experiment with in the area of community policing involving neighborhood advisory groups and getting the community really involved in the prioritization of services within those areas.

It’s my intention, as soon as we begin our reorganization at the end of this month or the first of November, to expand that to all 18 divisions of the city . . . .

I have intentionally kept a very grueling schedule--going around to as many parts of the city, attending as many community meetings from the big chamber-type luncheons to little neighborhood organizations, meeting with 30 and 40 people at a church on Saturday afternoon or Saturday night--to get a real feel of what it is the community wants from their police department and let them hear my thoughts and ideas. That process has really begun to open up the department to the Los Angeles community--open it up far more than it was before. So, in a sense, we’ve started the process; but community policing takes years to be successful.

*

Q: When you go around this city, is there extra pressure on you because you’re black? For example, do you feel animosity from some people inside the department and, on the other hand, do you feel extra pressure if you go to an event in the black community that people expect more from the LAPD because you’re here?

A: There’s extra pressure there. I feel it. I understand it’s there, although I don’t let it dissuade me from doing what I think I have to do. Having been the first black chief in Philadelphia, I’ve been through a lot of the same feelings and nuances that are here in Los Angeles.

Inside the organization, I think we’re still dealing with a high degree of racism and sexism, sexual preference issues, gender issues. A lot of officers are still struggling with their personal views versus my view and the city administration’s view. That’s impacting on the officers’ ability to work . . . to deliver a bias-free service to the community.

The black officers, the Hispanic officers, the other minority officers expect this minority chief to understand those problems exist and then to begin to address them.

The white officers, on the other hand, some sit and wonder, “Are things going to change? Am I no longer a part of this department? What’s going to happen tomorrow? Are we going to wake up and see all women in the department? All minorities?” My job is to let them know that there’s a role for everyone in this organization.

But if change comes--whether it’s mandated through court orders, mandated through executive policy or mandated through negotiation--once those policies are in place, you can go bang your head against the locker, you can kick the cabinet or kick your tires on your car, but then you got to come into work and put on your suit and be an LAPD officer. And if you can’t work with those balances, then you don’t belong in this job.

I’ve said publicly the department has to reflect the ethnicity of the city it serves. . . It’s the chief’s role to say and do and lead the charge on what’s correct . . . .

*

Q: Have things changed for the officers on the street?

A: It’s too early to say things have changed. I have a six-month and a year agenda. So if there’s been a change, I think perhaps (it stems from) some of the public pressures that have been put on the officers from Rodney King, through the Christopher Commission report, through the riot and the perception internally that they were let down by the command--the external perceptions that the community felt, in general, the LAPD let them down.

We’ve let a little steam out of the pressure valve in that area because of the changes in the department. I’m willing to sit down and talk and meet with anyone. Let the chief take some of that flak. So maybe that’s changed a little bit. But a lot of the pressures on the street have not changed, because it’s still a very violent street and Los Angeles is a big city.

*

Q: Los Angeles is expecting two controversial trials, the second Rodney King trial and the Reginald Denny trial. Are you expecting trouble? Do you have a plan that is different from whatever plan Chief Gates had?

A: Deep down inside, I don’t expect another riot. I do have to be a realist and understand that the Denny trial--particularly if there are any guilty verdicts--could spark some--I would keep my fingers crossed--isolated events. We have to be prepared . . . .

We have been working since last June looking at the preparedness of the rank and file, the preparedness of the supervisors. We have run exercises. . . . We have mutual-aid pacts in place with county, state and federal agencies. We’re developing new training processes. . . .

I’m not going to lay blame on anybody at this time. My job is to make sure that if any of these types of events occur in the future, that it’s absolutely important this department not be perceived as responding in the same way. We cannot afford it. I cannot afford it. I won’t accept it . . . .

*

Q: The training program you mentioned, is this based on the Christopher Commission recommendations?

A: One of the most critical areas in the Christopher Commission, when it came to training, came from personnel in the department. They were the most critical group about their lack of training or their lack of continuous and updated training. I’m looking at revamping our whole training program from A to Z. Everything is on the table for review.

I’m going to give you an example. I had all the personnel from the rank of commander and above at the academy. We went through all of the use-of-force training that is taught. If you talked to those people in the room, you would have gotten a different view of what they thought was being taught and what they thought was right and wrong. So now we all saw what was being taught, we had opportunities to comment, review, get updated, agree or disagree on what was appropriate and not appropriate for the 1990s. From that process, we’re looking at use-of-force training around the country. . . . We’re going to make some modifications and adjustments. . . .

Then we’re going to make sure that everyone from the chief on down sees the same videotaped message about the training, undergoes the same training, the same written documentation, so that there’s only one use-of-force training policy and everyone understands where that line in the sand is drawn.

We’re looking at a whole host of areas. Car stops. Pedestrian stops. The concern the community has about prone-outs--about laying people on the ground simply because they’re stopped for a traffic violation or you’re stopped in a gang neighborhood but there’s no indication you’re in a gang.

*

Q: Are there Christopher Commission reforms that you think won’t work?

A: I’m not in support of a totally independent civilian review process. The accountability for discipline and review has to be maintained with the chief of police. (If) you take all the responsibilities and accountability, then you don’t need a chief, just a high-priced clerk to manage the department on a day-to-day basis.

It’s gonna take probably another year to two years to go through all of the Christopher Commission reforms. . . . There’s a call for a lot of computerized, . . . tracking systems for problem officers. . . . We’ve made requests for two tracking systems but we’ve been told there’s no dollars there. . . . Doesn’t mean we’re not going to try to do it by hand, or have somebody try to develop something on a laptop (computer) or a PC (personal computer). We’re going to still try to go forward, because a tracking system is key to identifying officers early in their career, to identifying whether they are a major problem, whether there’s need for retraining or there’s need for separation from the organization.

*

Q: What did you learn in Philadelphia that you can apply here?

A: In spite of all of the energy to dive right in at the beginning and make changes, long-term, you better be patient. . . . Because, as a chief, when you say “yes,” it gets done, or “no,” it doesn’t get done. It stops. It starts. That’s one of the advantages of being a chief. Everyone here in Los Angeles, both in the department and outside, is waiting for the big massive change in the LAPD. . . . We’re sort of on time in my view. . . .

Something else I’ve learned from Philadelphia: In spite of all the management books that tell you it’s nice to bring your own people and put them in place on your own team, in policing, to be successful long term, you’ve got to work with the people you have. By taking that approach right from the beginning, while it’s been a little slower, I’ve learned a lot about the strengths, the weaknesses, the character of the people, the command staff. When I begin to put my senior management staff in place later on this month--knock on wood--hopefully I’ll feel comfortable that I’m promoting the right people and putting the right people in the right places.