PERSPECTIVE ON THE WILLIAMS CONTROVERSY : The Council Shows ‘Em Who’s Boss : Having trumped the mayor, members must address the chief’s--and the departments’-- effectiveness.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council administered a painful reminder to Mayor Richard Riordan when it dramatically overturned the Police Commission reprimand of Chief Willie Williams, which the mayor had upheld: Nothing really can happen in city government without the consent of America’s most powerful council. Its 15 members, already armed with broad powers, were made even stronger by the 1991 passage of Charter Amendment 5, which allowed the council to overturn decisions by city commissions, and by Proposition F in 1992, which allowed it to override the commission in matters involving the police chief. With the council’s reluctant entry into the Williams case, the controversy has changed significantly.

Riordan is only the latest Los Angeles mayor to find that he is only as strong as his relationship with the council. Mayor Sam Yorty constantly fought the council and got little done. Mayor Tom Bradley was successful as long as his council base was intact, but suffered a drastic drop in effectiveness when the council went its own way. He too found the council willing to buck a mayor’s police commission when, in 1991, it overruled the decision to suspend Chief Daryl Gates.

This week’s events may have been foreshadowed by Riordan’s unsuccessful attempt to remove Fire Commissioner Leslie Song-Winner earlier this year. After commission criticism and mayoral budget cuts led Fire Chief Donald Manning to resign, Riordan suddenly fired Song-Winner, with only a veiled reference to her not being a “team player.” Song-Winner fought all the way to the City Council, where deals have been proposed and the mayor’s will has yet to be fulfilled. Until this week, the struggle had been between the mayor and his commissioners, on the one hand, and Williams on the other. As an outside reformer, Williams has been fighting heavy resistance within the department and a mayor who had become increasingly distant toward him. His relationship with the police commissioners--his bosses--had become acrimonious. Williams’ main base of support has been public opinion, which still backs him by heavy margins throughout the city. The only player yet to be heard from was the council.

The council’s intervention does not mean that members support Williams in the ongoing controversy. By refusing to open the personnel files and simply overturning the commission’s decision, members made a political statement to the combatants, even if their actual motivation was to avoid political and legal hassles. If Riordan and the commission are going to the mat with Williams, they will need more than charges about Las Vegas hotel rooms. To Williams, the council action emphasizes that the chief’s status depends on his ability to work with the city’s political leaders.

The council is understandably reluctant to allow matters to descend to the crisis level of the battles between Bradley and Gates. But a public debate over Williams is inevitable. Sooner or later, now or in 1997 when the chief comes up for reappointment, our city leaders will have to consider:

* How successful has Williams been as chief? Long before the Las Vegas questions, the police commission had criticized Williams’ management. If there are management problems, are they solvable?

* What should be the goals of the police department? Williams was appointed in 1992 to restore community lies and pursue internal reform. Riordan was elected in 1993 on a promise to add 3,000 new officers without raising taxes. Together, this is a huge, possibly contradictory set of agendas.

The council has found an ingenious way to move the Williams matter to higher ground. But the broader issues raised by this controversy will not go away, and the council must stand ready to consider them.