Officials Back Most of LAPD Shake-Up : Police: Some are concerned about new assistant chief position, and say Williams will be accountable for results.

Despite significant misgivings at City Hall over Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams’ proposed reorganization of his department, council members and police commissioners said Tuesday that they expect to back the chief on most of his ideas and then hold him accountable if the shake-up fails to produce results.

But even among Williams’ supporters, some expressed doubts about a plan to create a new position of “first assistant chief” and accused Williams of demoting his top assistant, Bernard C. Parks, to deflect criticism of his own management. Several key council members, including Council President John Ferraro, said they were troubled by the proposal to create the new post. And two retired LAPD chiefs, Daryl F. Gates and Ed Davis, both condemned the idea.

“There is a tremendous possibility for corruption” when one assistant has so much power, said Davis, who still is an influential figure in Los Angeles politics, particularly in issues involving the Police Department. “It would be horrible.”

Gates agreed and blasted Williams for the moves, which the chief announced Monday evening after word began leaking out that changes were in the works. “The problem is not Parks,” said the former chief, who in recent months has been highly critical of the man who took over the LAPD when Gates retired under pressure in 1992. “The problem is Willie Williams. He is an absolute, total blob. He’s incompetent.”

When he unveiled the shake-up Monday, Williams presented the management reorganization as effective immediately. But police commissioners and members of the City Council, some of whom were irritated to learn of the changes from reporters rather than from Williams himself, say they will play a role in it before it is finalized.

“The structure that the chief has proposed will be a discussion point with the commission,” said Enrique Hernandez Jr., president of the civilian body that oversees Police Department policy. “I think he knows the commission wants to support him.”

An aide to Mayor Richard Riordan said the mayor also backed the chief’s proposed reorganization, which sources say was prompted largely by Riordan’s dissatisfaction with the Police Department’s performance under Williams. Williams acknowledged that the mayor’s office was consulted about the reorganization, but denied that the moves were made in response to pressure.

In a recent meeting with the mayor, Williams complained that his efforts to move the department forward were being hampered by his lack of faith in his command staff. Sources said that Riordan did not make any specific suggestions about personnel changes, but that he and his staff urged Williams to take greater control of the department in order to ensure that the LAPD stayed on track toward achieving reforms and implementing a highly touted police expansion plan.

Monday, Williams described the personnel shifts as necessary to push the LAPD forward and announced that he was promoting Deputy Chief Ronald Banks to the position of first assistant chief. Banks, according to Williams, “will be accountable, along with the chief of police, as a driver of change within the department.”

No such post currently exists, and several observers raised doubts about it Tuesday. In particular, they questioned why Williams needed an assistant to take charge of all LAPD operations and administrative services when, under the current organization, that is Williams’ job.

“The job he described is what he’s supposed to be,” said Ferraro. “I don’t know why we need that.”

Another councilman, Richard Alatorre, promised to have pointed questions for Williams when he comes to the council for approval of the new assistant post.

*

“He said he didn’t need that position before, “ Alatorre said, referring to the chief’s first reorganization of the department. “Now he is saying he does need it. Why? What changed?”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky was out of the country on vacation, but his chief deputy, Alisa Katz, said Williams will be questioned closely about the value of creating another top post in the Police Department’s management.

“It flies in the face of manage ment audits previously done on the Police Department, which called for reducing the number of top management staff,” Katz said.

Police Commissioner Gary Greenebaum said, however, that he and other commissioners were committed to giving Williams room to manage the department as he sees it. Greenebaum said he hoped council members would agree and not obstruct Williams’ proposal.

“Is the City Council going to want to micro-manage the chief in that way?” Greenebaum asked. “We feel as a commission that it’s not our job to do that. I think the City Council should not do that either.”

Councilman Joel Wachs, in comments that were echoed by many officials, said that while he and other council members are impatient for progress in deploying more officers, he wants to give Williams ample latitude to do his job.

“It’s the chief’s call, and then ultimately he will be judged on the wisdom of his decisions and the results he gets,” Wachs said.

Although creation of the new assistant chief job is the most significant structural change in the organization, it was Williams’ decision to demote Parks that prompted the most emotional response.

The relationship between Parks and Williams has never been cozy.

Both sought to become the department’s first black police chief. After Williams won the job, he made Parks his top aide, but the two have frequently clashed over internal police matters. Both, however, are popular figures--Williams enjoying wide support among the public and Parks with the city’s power elite.

As the split between two top law enforcement leaders spilled into the public arena this week, its fallout was felt profoundly throughout the Police Department and City Hall, where the shake-up was a hot topic of conversation. .

“I think it is causing a great deal of consternation among some rank-and-file officers and some ranking members of the department, as well as in the city’s elected leadership,” said one council member who asked not to be named. Parks “is held in very high esteem.”

Leaders of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, who have openly feuded with Parks in recent months, called a news conference to praise the chief’s actions, hailing the shake-up as a way to address low officer morale and uncertain public confidence in the Police Department. In a statement read by league Vice President Ron Aguilar, the union leaders said they had “encountered some very serious managerial and attitude problems with Chief Parks,” and added that his demotion would be a blessing for the department.

But Parks was not surrendering.

He was not at work Tuesday but consulted with his attorneys, one of whom said he was contemplating seeking an injunction, filing a lawsuit or filing a grievance to block the demotion.

“From all appearances, what Chief Williams has done is unlawful and improper and against all LAPD practices and procedures,” said Barry Levin, counsel to the Command Officers Assn., a labor organization that represents high-ranking LAPD officers. Levin said Williams had failed to give Parks notice that he was planning to demote him and thus never gave Parks the opportunity to respond to any complaints about his work.

Levin said Williams had spoken to Parks just before Parks left for Europe, where he was representing Los Angeles at a sister city conference in Berlin last week. During that meeting, according to Levin, Williams told Parks that he was pleased with his work.

Contributing to this story was Times staff writer Shawn Hubler.