PERSPECTIVE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT : Rebuild Confidence With Reforms : The human and fiscal toll in L.A. County demands more accountability and leadership.

The Christopher, Kolts and Webster investigations each made a media splash. Each called for police reform and reduction of excessive force. Now can these reports become catalysts for enduring change? Or will they be gradually shoved aside and end up on a dusty shelf, like the Los Angeles 2000 Report or the 1965 McCone Commission Report on the Watts riots?

We see reason for optimism in the city of Los Angeles, largely because L.A. voters (with the exception of some pockets in the San Fernando Valley) supported police reform by passing Charter Amendment F in June and supporting propositions M and N this month. Chief Willie Williams is wisely investing the political capital that was his when he took over from the discredited Daryl F. Gates.

But we have reason for concern about Los Angeles County. The Sheriff’s Department has not, unlike the LAPD, committed itself to substantial reform. County voters rejected structural reform of county government by defeating of Propositions B and C, which indirectly would have led to more rigorous accountability by the Sheriff’s Department. And it is yet to be seen whether the Board of Supervisors, to be joined by a new member in Kenneth Hahn’s former district, has the determination and will to implement the Kolts reforms.

The board shares responsibility with the Sheriff’s Department to reduce the $18-million taxpayer dollars paid by the county over the last five-and-a-half years to victims of excessive force. As reported by Nancy Rutter in the November issue of California Lawyer, in the last three years, the county has also paid more than $19 million to private firms to defend sheriff’s cases. That figure does not count the salaries of county counsel who defend deputies in force cases or other indirect costs of litigation. So the direct and indirect costs of excessive force over the same period are about $40 million.

The conclusions of the Christopher, Kolts and Webster reports were remarkably similar and the recommendations were uniform. They all advocated fundamental change in the philosophy of policing in Los Angeles and the role of leadership. They all saw the need for a larger citizen voice, greater public accountability and additional resources for police:

* The Christopher Commission found that there were a significant number of officers in the LAPD who “repetitively use excessive force against the public” and that the failure to control them “was a management issue . . . at the heart of the problem.” The solution? The panel called for a new standard of accountability” and for implementation of community-based policing.

The Kolts report on the Sheriff’s Department found “disturbing evidence of excessive force and lax discipline” and failure to listen to the communities it polices. The solutions? Among others, internal reform to make everyone in the department accountable for reducing excessive force and listening to the community. A review of complaints by detached and neutral persons and the Webster report, analyzing the civil disturbances and looting this spring, found a “leadership failure” that included (but was not limited to) the police department. “A key factor identified in study after study of disturbances is the relationship between the police and the people of a city. . . . It is essential that police officers treat all individuals in the city with equal dignity and respect.”

The similarities in the three reports are striking. There are greater variations, unfortunately, in the implementation of the proposals.

In the city, solid majorities supported June’s Charter Amendment F (selection and retention of the chief of police) and November’s Propositions M (improved 911 system) and N (1,000 new police): F needed a simple majority and passed easily; M needed a supermajority and passed easily; N needed a supermajority and narrowly lost, perhaps because it directly added to property tax bills. But overall, there appears to be a stable bloc of supportive votes for reform, among voters and in the City Council.

It is less clear that the county will follow suit. Even though there was no well-financed or highly visible campaign for Propositions B and C, it is discouraging that these thoughtful measures for increased representation on the Board of Supervisors and the creation of a much-needed elected county executive officer were defeated. On the other hand, the Board of Supervisors will soon have a new member and an opportunity to begin implementing the Kolts recommendations. Public hearings on the Kolts Report and the Sheriff’s response are set for Dec. 15.

A first step after that should be the appointment by the board of a strong, independent commission to monitor and audit full implementation of the recommendations on a rapid schedule. All the legitimate accomplishments of the Sheriff’s Department cannot obscure the fact that memebers of the department have engaged in repeated instances of brutal conduct that have cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The supervisors must act decisively and resolutely to diminish the human and fiscal toll.