Ethics Panel Reportedly to Probe Williams Case : LAPD: Whether he disclosed free accommodations is at issue. Council divided on chief’s appeal of his reprimand.

As the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday started choosing up sides in the mounting municipal furor over the reprimand of Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams, sources said the city’s Ethics Commission also has joined the fray.

Word that the Ethics Commission has launched a review came the day after Mayor Richard Riordan sided with his Police Commission by letting stand its reprimand of Williams for allegedly lying about accepting free accommodations from a Las Vegas hotel-casino. Williams has adamantly denied any wrongdoing and said he will appeal to the City Council to restore his reputation.

The divided City Council was able to agree on just one thing Tuesday: the volatile reprimand issue needs to be resolved quickly. A survey of council members indicates that Williams did not have the 10 votes needed to buck the mayor. But there also appeared to be little overt sympathy for the mayor’s decision to uphold the discipline of the chief.

Five council members said they were leaning toward supporting the chief, while six others said they are waiting until they can see the confidential record on the Williams matter. Three others could not be reached for comment. The council’s 15th member, Mike Feuer, has not yet been sworn in.

The Police Commission’s investigation, according to sources, concluded with a reprimand of Williams for allegedly lying--not for accepting any free accommodations. The ethics review apparently will center on whether Williams appropriately fulfilled a city disclosure requirement.

High-ranking city officials, including Williams, are required by state and city anti-corruption laws to disclose gifts or benefits they receive. A violation of the city’s ethics laws could result in fines but carries no criminal penalties.

Ben Bycel, executive director of the Ethics Commission, citing standard practice, refused to comment. But another City Hall source said the review was opened because of “the obvious overlapping interests of the Police Commission and the Ethics Commission.”

It could not immediately be determined whether the ethics panel has requested or received a copy of the Police Commission’s report on Williams.

That report is expected to be forwarded to members of the City Council after the chief makes a formal request for the lawmakers to review his case.

Williams, who met in closed session with the Police Commission on Tuesday, has until Monday to file his appeal with the city clerk’s office, although he said at a news conference last Monday that he expects to do so sooner. Word of the reprimand, part of the chief’s confidential personnel record, leaked out last month, handing the Riordan Administration its toughest political dilemma to date.

It also has set off a furious controversy that threatens to divide the city along racial lines. Williams is the city’s first African American police chief, hired to reform a department criticized for its harsh treatment of minorities. Many of his supporters believe that the investigation into Williams’ Las Vegas activities are part of a campaign by his enemies within the department to get rid of him. Some also have accused the Riordan Administration of taking part in such a campaign, a charge that Riordan, his close advisers and police commissioners all have strongly denied.

Even before the Las Vegas allegations surfaced, the Police Commission had privately expressed its dissatisfaction with Williams’ management. Copies of internal personnel documents dating back to last year reflect the commission’s concerns about Williams’ ability to move the department forward and to set an example for rank-and-file police officers.

Williams, denouncing the leaks as an unjustified blot on an otherwise unblemished 32-year career, is insisting on full exoneration, while the mayor, saying his careful review of the record supports the commission’s action, firmly declined to overturn its unanimous reprimand.

“This should never have gotten to the ‘whose side are you on?’ stage, and it is unfortunate that we will now be spending a lot of time trying to decide what is true and what isn’t in what is a confidential personnel matter,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg. Goldberg, who has taken no position on the reprimand itself, said the leaks and escalating media attention “have turned this into a political matter” that will be much harder to resolve because it was not kept confidential.

Several council members said the high-profile dispute between the chief and the Police Commission has blown the issue out of proportion.

Councilman Mike Hernandez, who is likely to side with the chief, said the city is “in a situation that nobody knows how to get out of.” He blamed Riordan for that, saying the mayor had failed to find a way to resolve the matter sooner.

Councilman Marvin Braude, head of the Public Safety Committee and a strong Williams supporter, said he was disappointed that the mayor was unable to settle the matter and personally knew of no facts to justify the reprimand.

The mayor’s office, pointing out that council members have yet to see the record, said Riordan feels confident that the facts justify the reprimand.

Noelia Rodriguez, Riordan’s press secretary, issued a statement saying, “Given the seriousness of the issue, it would seem appropriate and responsible for those who have not seen the facts to reserve comment until they have had the opportunity to consider them.”

Police Commission President Enrique Hernandez echoed that view. “How can anyone form a judgment without having the facts?” he said.

The matter also poses a legal dilemma for the council, which will be required to seek outside legal counsel. That is because the city attorney’s office, in its various roles, has represented Williams before in other matters involving the city.

Once the appeal is filed, the council must decide how to proceed, including whether to send the matter to one or more of its committees, appoint a special panel from among its members or take up the issue as a group.

Williams’ attorney, Melanie Lomax, said Tuesday that the chief also wants a quick resolution. “There is no interest on the chief’s part in dragging it out,” Lomax said, adding that he “has not closed out any of his options,” including an earlier threat to sue over the breach of confidentiality.

Times staff writer Jim Newton contributed to this story.