Chief Should Be Disciplined if He Lied, Union Says : LAPD: Willie Williams’ attorney calls allegations ‘smear tactics’ and says his right to confidentiality has been breached.

Leaders of the union representing Los Angeles’ rank-and-file police officers demanded Saturday that Chief Willie L. Williams be disciplined, just like an ordinary officer, if he lied to the city Police Commission about receiving free rooms from a Las Vegas hotel.

As the union stated its position, a lawyer for Williams went on the attack as well, branding allegations that the chief lied as “politically calculated smear tactics.” Williams’ attorney, former police Commissioner Melanie Lomax, said the city’s first African American police chief could resort to legal action to protect his reputation.

Although Williams has insisted that he has committed no wrongdoing, he has refused to comment on the story in The Times on Saturday that reported that members of the commission believed he had lied. The chief said it is a personnel matter.

He would not talk to reporters about the matter Saturday as he played in the department’s annual police celebrity golf tournament on the Westside. It is clear from the comments of union officials and Williams’ lawyer that the controversy surrounding Williams will be a heated one. At the heart of it will be what, if any, disciplinary action the commission takes against the chief.

Officials of the Police Protective League cited numerous occasions when rank-and-file officers were suspended or terminated for lying to superiors, during courtroom testimony or in the course of an internal investigation. According to sources, members of the Police Commission have concluded that Williams lied to them when he denied receiving free rooms from the hotel.

“You look in the policy manual of the Los Angeles Police Department and it says truthfulness and integrity are mandatory,” said Hank Hernandez, the union’s general counsel. “The public needs to have credibility and trust in its officers.”

Hernandez noted that an officer was fired several years ago for giving false and misleading statements during an internal probe of an officer-involved shooting in which a suspect was struck in the back.

The officer’s equivocation played a bigger role in the termination than the shooting did, Hernandez said.

According to City Hall sources, commissioners are less concerned with the gratis rooms they believe Williams accepted than with what is perceived as his untruthfulness.

Beyond allegations that Williams had accepted free rooms in Las Vegas, rumors have swirled through the LAPD that he and his family had misused city cars, drivers and cellular phones and that he had improperly solicited perks from private sources--all of which Williams has described as “utterly false.” One source said that although the report says commission members believe the chief lied, he was exonerated of the other allegations against him.

The commissioners, who are appointed by the mayor, said they are restrained by confidentiality rules from discussing the issue.

Saturday, union leaders and high-ranking department sources said the furor surrounding Williams has helped erode confidence in his performance within the department. This newest development, they said, would serve to create an impression that Williams, halfway through his five-year term, could not possibly be appointed to a second term and, therefore, is a lame-duck leader.

“You can commit a small transgression, but when you lie about that transgression, that’s when you have a problem,” said Sgt. Dennis Zine, a police union director. “The standard has to apply to the chief of police down to the entry-level officer.

“In my 27 years on the job, this department has been severe on officers who don’t tell the truth. I think that in this case, it will be the same.”

Union leaders agreed that Williams is entitled to a hearing to determine if he was untruthful.

Lomax strongly asserted Saturday that the report of Williams’ having lied to the commission was “reckless, distorted and selective.”

“People, when considering what has been leaked, have to pause and wonder what is the agenda here, and question whether or not this attempt to destabilize the department and the leadership of Chief Williams . . . is not without some ulterior motives,” Lomax said.

She said Williams’ right to a confidential review of the allegations had been breached, and she suggested that he “take the legal steps that are necessary to provide for confidentiality . . . and to ensure that there is not a continuation of these very calculated leaks.”

She would not elaborate on what she meant by legal action, saying she was “not prepared to script out the chief’s legal course at this point.”

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, a member of the public safety committee, said he believed the whole issue centered around a campaign to discredit the chief.

“[Williams] has the highest popularity in the city and I think that’s part of the problem,” he said. “Some people don’t want that.”

Although even Williams’ critics acknowledge that he has successfully burnished the department’s severely tarnished image since his appointment after the 1992 riots, his image within the department and inside some parts of City Hall remains problematic. Some critics have condemned his management style, calling it ineffectual at best.

A recent performance evaluation by the Police Commission suggested that Williams needs to improve his work habits and take firmer control of the department.

Some officials urged caution in drawing any conclusions until Williams has had his say.

“You’ve got to hear Chief Williams’ side of the story before you take any of this as gospel,” said former council member Zev Yaroslavsky, now a county supervisor. “There may or may not be an explanation.”

Times staff writer Jim Newton contributed to this story.