Fear and Confusion Rule LAPD Disciplinary Policy : Crime: The mayor and chief back a costly plan to put more officers on patrol. Streamlining misconduct oversight may be a way to make a start.

The Public Safety Plan, inspired by Mayor Richard Riordan and designed by Police Chief Willie L. Williams, promises to substantially increase the number of officers on the street during the next five years. Nearly everyone likes the idea of more police; nearly no one believes there is money to pay for them.

Yet, there is a relatively easy way to add resources to the crime-fighting program in the department’s own back yard: Streamline how the Los Angeles Police Department disciplines its rank and file.

The current system evolved from the world view and management philosophy of William H. Parker and came to full flower under Daryl F. Gates.

A basic tenet of Parker’s philosophy was religious: What prevents man--or woman--from doing evil is the fear of punishment. Thus, the way to ensure proper conduct within the ranks is to create and impose a system for ferreting out any indications of wrongdoing, design an investigative process to substantiate such indications and select corrective actions that emphasize punishment to the near exclusion of training or positive motivation. Frequently, the wrongdoing is not a direct violation of a written policy or directive, but conduct construed as improper within a general category, such as “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”

Added to this philosophy was Parker’s belief, underscored by his successors, that police officers should be held to a higher standard of conduct in their personal life than is the general public. Failure to maintain this standard is punishable by the department. What constitutes such misconduct is determined by the chief of police or others trying to anticipate his judgment.

Under Parker, supervisors, particularly middle management, were evaluated on the basis of how “tough” they were in administering discipline. Pity the captain who attempted to interject human considerations or who recommended penalties that deviated from the unwritten but, nevertheless, rigid standard.

The exhaustive search for misconduct, coupled with the frequently elusive definition of just what misconduct is, immeasurably complicates the process.

In addition, fear that one might be viewed as “soft” results in the most insignificant incidents being reported, investigated and evaluated--incidents that could be resolved on the spot by supervisory counseling or training. In other words, if by some stretch of the imagination an act might be construed as misconduct, report it as such and let the system divine whether it is or not.

So what is wrong with this approach?

First, the system chokes on minutiae. The sheer volume of cases, coupled with the stylized investigation, reporting and review processes, eat huge chunks of valuable human resources. Any field sergeant will tell you that he or she spends more time in this activity than in preventing misconduct through leadership by example. Lieutenants, captains, deputy chiefs and the chief himself devote major portions of their time to the discipline of officers.

Second, the system is ponderously slow despite the time limits imposed by regulation. This is partly due to volume and complexity, but also is affected by the multilevel “nit-picky” review requiring frequent re-investigation and rewriting. Such reviews are clearly motivated by the fear of being thought not fully supportive of the disciplinary program.

This slowness defies the principle that police have espoused for years in criminal matters: For punishment to be effective, it must be swift and sure. Time allows for a rationalization of one’s actions and allows one to ascribe to another person’s actions erroneous motivations. Sides can be chosen and the work group can be fragmented to the detriment of efficiency.

Third, officers remain unsure of what acts constitute misconduct. This leads to disaffection and a lack of trust and belief in the fairness of the system. Department discipline becomes something to fight rather than to understand and accept.

By disciplining the system that oversees police conduct, the mayor and police chief will save money and put officers on the street, too.