Williams Assails Leaks on Vegas Hotel Rooms : LAPD: Chief insists lodging was in return for gambling and thus not ‘free.’ Other officials face tough questions as well.

An angry, husky-voiced Police Chief Willie L. Williams on Friday deplored disclosures of a personnel investigation into charges that he lied to the Police Commission and steadfastly insisted that he never accepted free accommodations from a Las Vegas hotel--despite receipts showing that rooms, food and phone service were “comped” to him and his family on five occasions.

The complimentary accommodations, Williams said, were solely given to him because of slot-machine playing by himself and other members of his family. As a result, the chief insisted they should not be considered “free.”

“No one will ever convince me or anyone who is reasonable and fair that hotel discounts are considered free and without cost if they are wholly dependent upon play and spending at any casino hotel in the United States,” said Williams, who called the dispute one of semantics, not substance. “The pay is through the play.”

Appearing before reporters but declining to answer detailed questions about the Police Commission investigation, Williams said publication of documents related to that probe by The Times had hurt him, his family and the Police Department, which is struggling with the fallout from the O.J. Simpson murder trial and especially the spotlight brought to it by the comments of retired Detective Mark Fuhrman.

“It’s horrible to the people of this organization,” Williams said of the latest disclosures. “Their chief of police is under attack.”

*

Williams was only one of many public officials forced Friday to confront difficult questions raised by the release of files from the commission’s investigation: City Council members, who overturned a reprimand of the chief without looking at the investigative file, said the information raised troubling questions about the chief’s credibility. And the commission itself, once pilloried for being too hard on Williams, suddenly faced criticism for having let him off easy.

The investigative file revealed that Williams had repeatedly--and in writing--denied ever receiving free benefits from a Las Vegas hotel. Receipts from the hotel showed that Williams and his family received $1,545 in complimentary lodging, room service and telephone calls, and the commission called Williams’ shifting explanations for those benefits “inherently implausible.”

“No police officer would have gotten away with a reprimand for these statements,” said Cliff Ruff, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League. “This is blatant untruthfulness.”

Current members of the commission declined to comment, but Gary Greenebaum, who served on the board during the Williams investigation, acknowledged that the members had elected to err on the side of caution.

“What the commission worked very hard to do was strike the proper balance,” he said. “If anything, I think we were excessively lenient. We certainly were not excessively harsh.”

Commission President Deirdre Hill declined to comment on the latest disclosures or on the board’s investigation.

While Williams threatened legal action to retaliate for the release of his files to The Times, City Council members also expressed dismay--both over leaking of the documents and over the contents disclosed.

Interviews with all 15 council members Friday showed considerable dissent over what should be the next step. Most wanted to let the issue simmer over the weekend before making any moves. But several said the new disclosures could severely damage the chief’s effectiveness.

“It says a great deal about the character of the police chief, but does nothing about making the city safer,” said Laura Chick, who chairs the council’s Public Safety Committee. “If you’re looking at this issue in a vacuum, of course we should have looked at the report. How can we make a decision without looking at the facts? But when you’re looking at all issues of public safety, it’s a negative, detrimental use of time, energy and emotion.”

Councilman Richard Alarcon said a full public airing of the personnel file is called for.

“I do think the public would like to know what happened,” Alarcon said. “It’s obvious to me this is not going to go away until they do. That might affect his ability to work without distractions.”

Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. suggested that Williams should visit the council in person to exonerate himself.

“I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s crippling his ability to lead, but I would say there are concerns,” Svorinich said. “In order that he can get on with his job of being chief of police, he should step up to the plate and do everything he can to clear his name.”

Council President John Ferraro said he may, in fact, ask the Public Safety Committee to review the matter.

But the council’s hands may be tied--at least on reopening the question of Williams’ reprimand.

Senior Assistant City Atty. Fred Merkin said Friday that he could not comment directly on the case because it is a confidential personnel matter. However, Merkin said that, hypothetically, the council cannot reverse an action it has already taken, such as overturning a police commission reprimand. The council also cannot use its independent disciplinary authority to revisit conduct it has already considered.

Still, Chick and others said the chief’s public confidence and effectiveness would doubtless be marred.

“Certainly it’s shaken the level of confidence,” said Chick, who is generally a strong supporter of Williams. “It causes us to question the chief’s honesty when we so need to trust him. I don’t think it adds to anything positive for him, for the department, for the city. . . . I was very dismayed.”

Richard Alatorre, a frequent Williams critic and the only council member to vote against overturning the reprimand, was far more strident, suggesting that the chief may not be able to survive the controversy.

“There’s an absolute travesty of justice here when the council decided not to read the report,” he said. “One of the most basic, fundamental aspects of law enforcement is honesty. When you’re the chief, you’re going to be the standard bearer of honesty, and then you’re caught lying? . . . He not only lied to the commission, but he’s lied to the general public.

“This is just something on top of other things that the chief has got to overcome,” Alatorre added. “I doubt that he can overcome it.”

*

Meanwhile, Councilman Nate Holden asked the city attorney to look into the city’s liability over the leaks of the confidential personnel documents, and Mike Feuer, who sits on the Public Safety Committee, said he would probably suggest a closed session in which the city attorney could more widely advise the council of its options.

Holden and Mark Ridley-Thomas, two of the council’s three black members, said the leaking of the personnel file and the entire controversy is a racist attack on the African American chief and threatens to further divide the city.

“Obviously somebody is out to divert the good work of the chief from fighting crime to defending himself,” Holden said. “They want him to fall. They want to stab the guy in the back. The system seems to be protecting the bad guys, ones who violate people’s civil rights, and socking it to the good guys--it’s the height of hypocrisy.” Holden was particularly dismissive of the allegations that Williams solicited and received free tickets from Universal Studios, an allegation that Williams has long denied and again disputed during his press conference.

“Every single elected official or public servant was at one time granted free passes to Universal Studios,” Holden said. “All you have to do is call and they give them to you. It’s no big deal.”

Like his backers, Williams blamed enemies for leaking the documents and suggested it was part of a campaign to discredit him and the LAPD.

“Some individual or group is out to destroy the Los Angeles Police Department from within and without, and is attempting to do so by attacking the organization’s credibility and the credibility and integrity of the chief of police,” he said, reading from a prepared statement. “The disclosures that were made are clearly an effort to distract me and the members of my organization from the job and the crises that are facing us today.”

Councilman Mike Hernandez echoed that theme.

“The reality is, people are out to get the chief,” Hernandez said. “The conspiracy to get the chief is what should be investigated,” he added. “The chief’s up for evaluation. The commission gets to decide whether or not to renew his contract. That’s the appropriate time for this discussion.”

Although Williams said his lawyer, Melanie Lomax, had advised him not to address specifics of the Police Commission investigation, he did reveal a few new details in response to questions.

Williams has steadfastly maintained that he never solicited or accepted any perk that was not available to members of the public. During the news conference, however, he did acknowledge knowing Henry Gluck, the now-retired chief executive officer of Caesars World Inc.; Gluck’s name appears on one of the hotel receipts as having approved the complimentary room given to Williams’ family in October, 1994.

“I know Mr. Gluck,” Williams said Friday, “along with probably, to date, about 20,000 or 30,000 other people who I’ve met in this city and probably 300 or 400 who I’ve become personal acquaintances with.”

Williams did not elaborate, but observers outside the Police Department focused on Gluck’s involvement, which some found troubling.

“He’s the CEO of Caesars,” said County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a longtime member of the City Council and leading critic of the LAPD. “That’s not someone who’s accessible to anybody. That just doesn’t jibe with what the chief has said.”

A woman who answered the intercom at Gluck’s Bel-Air home said he was unavailable for comment.

*

Williams also acknowledged that a large group of his friends and family had visited Universal Studios a day before he was sworn in as chief of police. When he was interviewed by a Police Commission investigator, an aide to the chief recalled arranging for 23 free admissions to Universal Studios. In response to the allegation that he had solicited those tickets, Williams denied the charge in January and repeated his denial Friday, though he added that the tickets may indeed have been procured.

“I did not know until April of this year, when I was interviewed by the Board of Police Commissioners, that a group of 23 people received tickets. If there was a misunderstanding about my request and one of the employees in the department, that is the way it is, and that’s the way the Police Commission found it to be.”

The commission left that allegation “not resolved” because it could not reconcile the apparently contradictory statements of the chief and his subordinate.

Amid the clamorous reaction Friday to the disclosures about Williams, only Mayor Richard Riordan seemed largely able to avoid any criticism. Unlike the council, Riordan had reviewed the investigation into the chief’s conduct and had voted to uphold the reprimand.