Rush to Judgment About the Chief? : Be very careful how Williams case is handled

It was never much of a secret, but suddenly the growing tension and mistrust between the Los Angeles Police Commission and Chief Willie L. Williams have spilled out into the public arena. And that’s not good.

On the face of it, the problem between Williams and the panel that oversees his post centers on a specific allegation. The charge is that Williams--appointed in 1992 after the respected Christopher Commission found many faults within the LAPD--lied to the public and the commission about gratuities he accepted from a hotel.

The Police Commission has decided to reprimand the chief. Williams vehemently asserts he has done nothing wrong. Unfortunately the estrangement goes far deeper than the hotel matter. The members of this Police Commission, appointed by Mayor Richard Riordan, are widely known to dislike the chief’s management style, which they find careless and unfocused, and even his personal style, which they find aloof and unresponsive.

Under Charter Amendment F, passed in 1992, the City Council and the mayor have the power to strengthen or reverse any sanction against Williams. Such a process surely would be messy. For one thing, the chief has allies on the City Council who feel that the commission has made the proverbial mountain out of a molehill. For another, this chief is, according to all public opinion polls, the most popular one here in perhaps decades and in addition is the LAPD’s first African American leader. Some supporters of Williams--who was appointed during the Tom Bradley Administration--think he is the victim of a campaign to drive him out of his job so Riordan can have a police chief of his own choosing.

Williams is not accused of misconduct in accepting the alleged gratuities--free hotel rooms in Las Vegas. The only public issue is whether he came completely clean about gifts. If he did not, it would seem to us at this point, the commission’s reported reprimand is appropriate.

At a press conference Wednesday, Williams reiterated his stand: “I have not now, nor have I ever, solicited any form of gratuity or received any complimentary benefit in the city of Las Vegas, from any hotel, which is not available to the general public.” The problem is nothing more than “misunderstanding and miscommunication, or a difference about semantics,” Williams said.

It should be noted that Williams took on a job that he knew entailed a formidable responsibility: thorough-going reform of a police bureaucracy that needs an urgent heavy dose of modernization and sensitizing.

The chief has more than two years to go on his five-year contract, so he still has time to prove himself. A good case has yet to be made that Williams no longer deserves all the time he was promised.