Penalties More Severe in LAPD Ranks, Cases Show : Discipline: Reprimands of officers for lying have been more harsh than treatment given to Chief Williams.

In the past year, 33 Los Angeles police officers were disciplined for lying to supervisors, and most received punishments far more severe than Chief Willie L. Williams got for the same offense--a reprimand, later overturned by the City Council.

One officer received a five-day suspension and lost $843 in wages for misleading two supervisors. The same punishment was applied to an officer who lied about being sick to get out of work. And the department fired an officer who made false statements during an official investigation and also altered answers on an exam.

Only two police officers were reprimanded for lying during a 12-month period beginning in April, 1994, according to LAPD Internal Affairs disciplinary records.

The relatively harsh punishments meted out to the rank and file have sparked anger among officers who contend that Williams was treated too leniently.

“There is a double standard for discipline of police management,” said Cliff Ruff, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents police officers up to the rank of lieutenant. “The men and women who risk their lives daily are subjected to more severe punishment for false and misleading statements than the reprimand the chief received.”

LAPD spokesmen point out that the punishment for lying swings vastly depending on the severity of the case and the record of the officer involved. An officer caught fudging on a minor issue might simply get a reprimand. But an officer who covers up a sordid episode involving excessive force or courtroom perjury or corruption could be fired.

In Williams’ case, the Police Commission issued a reprimand last month after concluding that the chief had lied to them about accepting free hotel rooms in Las Vegas. Mayor Richard Riordan supported that decision, upholding the official rebuke.

Then, without reading the commission’s file on Williams, the City Council voted 12 to 1 to overturn the chief’s reprimand. Declaring victory, Williams said the council’s action affirmed his integrity and cleared his name.

*

But where Williams saw vindication, some rank-and-file officers saw discrimination.

To be sure, many of the cases recorded by the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division under the category of “false and misleading statements” actually involve other serious misconduct as well. In November, a sergeant was suspended for 129 days after he misled the department--and also inappropriately touched a citizen, kissed a prospective LAPD candidate and made unacceptable gestures and comments.

In at least five instances, however, Internal Affairs documents say an officer was disciplined solely for lying--the same limited charge that Williams faced.

All of those officers were suspended without pay for one to five days, losing up to $827 in wages. The severity of those punishments, compared to the relatively mild reprimand Williams received, angered some officers and their supporters.

“The blue-suiters driving their black-and-whites around are going to be thinking, ‘I got 15 days [suspension] for making false and misleading statements,”’ said attorney Michael P. Stone, a former general counsel for the LAPD union. “They’re going to be disgruntled and bitter.”

Especially, Stone said, because “there is such a history in this department of extreme administrative disapproval of false and misleading statements.”

Internal Affairs records show just how severely the LAPD punishes dishonesty.

An officer who lied about a medical appointment and a visit to Mississippi received a 15-day suspension--costing nearly $2,500 in lost pay. Another resigned rather than face discipline for misleading supervisors about a vandalism arrest. A third was fired after falsely reporting an identification badge as lost and indulging in unprofessional conduct while dealing with citizens.

In contrast, a detective who was arrested for domestic violence while off duty, and who then failed to cooperate with the law enforcement officers investigating his case, received an official reprimand. So did a police officer who “inappropriately grabbed another department employee.”

Lt. Joe Ramm of the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Department contends that the system metes out consistent punishments. Although records show a vast range of punishments for dishonest officers--from a reprimand to a pink slip--Ramm said each case is judged on a variety of factors.

An officer who lies but does not really obstruct an investigation might receive a lighter sanction than someone whose statements throw commanding officers on the wrong track entirely, Ramm said.

“You can’t judge [fairness] just by the penalty,” said Cmdr. Tim McBride, a department spokesman.

Chief Williams reviews every officer suspension to make sure the punishment matches the offense, Ramm said.

That duty, a traditional police chief responsibility, may have become more controversial in light of the uproar over Williams’ own discipline.

“How does the department, with a straight face, bring charges against officers and exact a cost more significant than a written reprimand or a minor suspension in view of what happened to Chief Williams?” Stone asked. “For that matter, how does Chief Williams execute charges against officers with a straight face?”

Saying they want to restore confidence in the process, officials of the Police Protective League on Thursday asked Williams to release the records of the Police Commission investigation that led to his reprimand.

“Officers are telling us that this just isn’t right,” Ruff said. One typical call to the union came from a sergeant in the department’s Internal Affairs office, Ruff said. “He asked how he could conscientiously investigate police officers for the very same thing the chief was involved in without their having the very same appeal process.”

*

The appeal process is a sore point as the LAPD prepares to fire up the new Training Evaluation and Management System, which will track employees’ disciplinary records on a master computer. Most galling to officers, the program will include unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct.

But while the rank and file fear that they will never be able to shrug off accusations, Williams is claiming a full and public exoneration from the City Council.

“It’s back to a double standard,” Ruff said. “A police officer cannot . . . appeal to the City Council on a reprimand.”

That’s true, McBride acknowledged. But on the other hand, Williams cannot appeal to a Board of Rights, or a Civil Service Commission. And, McBride said, Williams’ public image will long be saddled with the memory of the reprimand.

Newspaper and television archives will provide a permanent record. And Williams’ civilian bosses, the commissioners who issued the reprimand, are not likely to overlook the episode when they consider whether to reappoint the chief 2 1/2 years from now.

“I don’t think the Police Commission will forget this incident,” McBride said.

Times staff writers Jim Newton and John M. Glionna contributed to this story.