Chief Gives Parks 10 Days to Resign or Accept Demotion : Police: Williams threatens pay cut, reduced pension. Embattled assistant chief may sue, his lawyer says.

Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams, in his first face-to-face meeting with the top aide he publicly demoted this week, gave Assistant Chief Bernard C. Parks an ultimatum Wednesday: Retire within 10 days or accept a demotion, a pay cut and a reduced pension.

The blunt offer came during a brief morning meeting between the LAPD’s two highest-ranking and most prominent officials. The showdown ended abruptly when Parks left after about 20 minutes, police officials said, adding that they were told the two men exchanged some harsh words and that Williams formally served Parks with his demotion papers.

Skip Miller, a lawyer representing Parks, said his client was studying Williams’ ultimatum but was continuing to weigh other options as well.

Those could include filing suit to save his job or seeking an injunction to block the demotion, Miller said. “He’s considering all his options,” Miller said.

Another of Parks’ attorneys, Barry Levin, said Williams made a number of errors in handling the demotion, including failing to give the assistant chief adequate notice of the pending action. But Gary Greenebaum, a member of the Police Commission, said he believed the proper procedures had been followed.

Accepting the demotion could cost Parks about $15,000 a year in lost salary and more than $500 a month in pension payments for the rest of his life. Police pensions are based on an officer’s last salary, so Parks would lose the money unless he stayed with the department and eventually regained a position as an assistant chief.

As Parks weighed his options, Williams began the process of symbolically removing his assistant chief from his seat of power. On Wednesday morning, even as Williams and Parks were meeting, a police officer began packing up the personal belongings in Parks’ office.

At Parker Center, many officials, including some loyal to Parks, said they had all but concluded that the assistant chief will not keep his post.

“It’s over,” said one. “Bernie’s gone.”

The blowup this week between the LAPD’s two top officials comes after months of a steadily deteriorating relationship between the two men, who had competed against each other for the department’s top job in 1992.

According to City Hall sources, Parks has made no secret of his concerns about Williams’ leadership--telling council members, for instance, that Williams has failed to act on such items as a report detailing allegations of sexual harassment at the West Los Angeles police station.

On another occasion, Parks told council members in response to their questions that he expected the LAPD to take a strong stand against imposing a strict hiring goal for female officers and against changing training standards that some women’s advocates objected to.

When Williams appeared before the council, he declined to stake a firm position on those issues, saying he would defer to the wishes of council members. Several council members commented later on the difference in tone between Williams’ comments and those from Parks.

“Parks is no stranger to letting people know about Williams’ weaknesses,” one City Hall source said.

Some of Parks’ remarks have made their way back to Williams, who saw them as disloyal and believed his second-in-command was actively undermining his credibility. Parks has told colleagues that he believed he was providing council members with honest assessments of the Police Department, but Williams perceived the comments differently, interpreting them as conveying Parks’ contempt for his boss.

In April, Williams told a few key city officials that he planned to demote Parks, but pulled back when he realized the extent of his aide’s political support. Members of the council and the Police Commission warned Williams that Parks was held in high esteem.

The two then spoke about their differences, and Police Department officials believed they were working together again. In a recent interview with The Times, Williams said he had no complaints with Parks and no plans to restructure his top staff.

But when Williams came under increasing pressure from Mayor Richard Riordan and leaders of the Police Commission demanding better management of the department, he stiffened his resolve to make changes in his leadership team, sources said.

In addition to demoting Parks, Williams proposed to elevate Deputy Chief Ronald Banks to a newly created post of first assistant chief. If approved by the Police Commission and City Council, Banks would take control of all Police Department operations and would report only to Williams, an organizational setup common among many East Coast police departments but an unusual departure for the LAPD.

That proposal has met with some early doubts among City Council members, and Williams’ handling of the shake-up this week has raised new questions about his management skills.

Until the Parks affair, Williams has been largely impervious to criticism around City Hall. The chief was credited with restoring a sense of order and respect for the Police Department and presenting a cool, rational face to the public.

A Times Poll this summer found that 73% of the residents approved of the job he was doing, even better than popular Mayor Richard Riordan, who had a 59% approval rating.

Much of the council continues to back Williams, saying he should be given the freedom to run the department. But for the first time since his arrival from Philadelphia two years ago, some council members have signaled that they are ready to confront Williams on more than just the demotion of Parks. Several said they will begin pushing harder for progress in hiring more officers, putting more police on the streets and upping the percentages of minorities and women in uniform.

“He’s had his honeymoon,” said Eastside Councilman Richard Alatorre. “It’s about time we really look at him. What has he done in two years?”

Council President John Ferraro said: “I don’t know if (Williams) has been that involved in the operation of the department. He has gone around and met a lot of the public and done that well. But I think he has done enough of that for now.”

Times staff writer James Rainey contributed to this report.