NEWS ANALYSIS : Decision on Chief Puts Riordan in Tough Bind : LAPD: Upholding Police Commission’s rebuke of popular Williams could hurt mayor politically. Rejecting it could undermine panel’s credibility.

Confronting his toughest political dilemma to date, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan is spending the weekend in seclusion out of the state as he decides what to do about his commissioners’ reprimand of Police Chief Willie L. Williams.

The mayor faces a Monday deadline to render a decision on a matter that threatens to polarize the city along racial lines and to undermine progress in the drive to rebuild the department’s strength and credibility.

Several of the city’s most influential black leaders are privately urging the mayor to overturn--or at least modify--the discipline meted out to the city’s first African American police chief.

At the same time, some police commissioners, explaining that they all put their best efforts into arriving at a just decision, said they would be surprised and upset if the mayor overruled them. And some of the mayor’s closest advisers have urged him to stand by the commission’s ruling if he finds the record supports it.

On May 16, commission members unanimously reprimanded the chief for allegedly lying to them about accepting free hotel accommodations in Las Vegas, according to sources close to the confidential investigation into the matter. The chief angrily blamed a misunderstanding over semantics and threatened to sue, while many of his supporters saw the discipline as part of a campaign to get Williams to leave. Some believe that the effort is being privately led by Riordan, a theory that the mayor’s office rejects.

Given the chief’s popularity--a recent Times poll put his approval rating at 64%--it seems clear that the mayor could not uphold the commission’s decision without suffering some political fallout.

“The political thing to do would be to back off--he’d be a hero,” a source close to the mayor said. Yet there are some indications that Riordan is likely to stand by his commission’s decision. In the past few weeks, he has repeatedly praised the commissioners, expressing confidence in their professionalism and unbiased work during the controversy.

Nor have the commissioners been silent, denying vehemently that the mayor had intervened to influence their review of the chief. As Commission President Enrique Hernandez Jr. recently told The Times: “The mayor has never done anything that I infer to be an attempt to influence the commission. Ever.”

The mayor’s office itself has pointed to the commission’s diversity. Deirdre Hill is a black attorney whose mother is state Sen. Theresa P. Hughes (D-Inglewood). Hernandez is a Latino attorney and businessman. The three whites on the commission come from different walks of life. Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, a human relations expert, was active in the campaign that led to voter approval in 1992 of Charter Amendment F, the police reform measure that grew out of the Rodney G. King beating. Art Mattox is a gay activist and corporate executive, and Bert Boeckmann is a San Fernando Valley businessman who also served as a police commissioner under Mayor Tom Bradley.

“I think the mayor would be hard-pressed not to affirm his commission, if the record supports their decision,” said a source close to the mayor. “Those five knew exactly what they were doing, what was at stake, and they agreed unanimously. They wouldn’t have taken this step unless they were absolutely confident that they were right.

“Are [the critics] going to expect us to believe that Rabbi Greenebaum was a puppet [in an alleged conspiracy from the mayor’s office to get Williams]? Are they going to say that Deirdre Hill was out to get a black? That they all lined up and agreed to get the chief?”

And, given the mayor’s own popularity, he can afford to do what is right, according to a mayoral adviser who believes that Riordan should back his appointees on the commission.

The mayor’s decision is awaited with particular interest by the black community, where some prominent leaders have said the Riordan Administration is insensitive to their concerns.

Williams’ attorney, Melanie Lomax, has characterized the commission’s action as “disgustingly and obviously partisan” and says the chief’s goal is full exoneration.

As the commission’s investigation into the chief’s Las Vegas activities unfolded, several black leaders spoke with commissioners and the mayor. According to several people involved in the talks, the leaders were trying to communicate the depth of their concerns and, in some cases, urged the mayor to overturn the reprimand.

John Mack, head of the Los Angeles Urban League, would not disclose what he said during the talks. However, he made it clear he was urging a speedy resolution.

“I believe the Los Angeles Police Department, the commission, the chief, the mayor and the City Council are really at a crossroads,” Mack said.

“We have what should be a temporary detour that should be resolved before it becomes a permanent derailing of Willie Williams and the Police Department” and turns into “a major setback” for the city’s struggle to overcome the racially divisive fallout from the King beating.

Saying that “this is the time for quiet diplomacy” and “it’s a tricky, delicate period” that will test the “caliber of the city’s elected leadership,” Mack called for finding a compromise.

The Rev. E.V. Hill, a Baptist minister in South-Central Los Angeles and an unpaid policy adviser to the mayor, said he urged Riordan to keep Williams’ record in perspective and give the chief a chance to prove himself.

The chief continues to be highly popular with residents in all parts of the city, the recent Times poll found. He has been credited with restoring confidence in the LAPD after the long months of racially charged tumult that began with the police beating of King in 1991.

Yet Williams is widely disliked within the department, and his leadership has been criticized by the Police Commission and others. Pressed to reveal his own assessment of the chief’s performance even before the Las Vegas matter came up, Riordan has said only that he hopes the chief succeeds in his mission to reshape the department and has repeated that it is up to the commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council, to be the judge.

In this case, however, because of voter-approved reforms, the mayor must decide whether to uphold, set aside or modify the commission’s discipline.

Not to support the panel would weaken its credibility and undercut one of the main goals of Charter Amendment F, which gave the commission broader authority over the chief, some argue.

“This is a very, very serious issue that’s very important to the city,” Riordan said last week as he began his review of the commission action, including separate interviews with the panel and Williams. To advise him on the legal technicalities, Riordan enlisted former City Atty. Burt Pines as well as his own counsel, Karen Rotschafer.

Complicating the issue for the mayor is the confidentiality of the investigation, revealed so far only in bits and pieces through anonymous leaks. Unless the chief agrees to release the records, no one may legally divulge the details. That will make it difficult for the mayor to fully explain his position.

The chief could appeal a mayoral decision to the City Council, which so far has declined to enter the fray, although several individual members have urged the mayor to find a way to resolve the matter, and quickly.