L.A. Police Union Gets Hard-Liner as President

With negotiations over a new police contract reaching a crucial point, the president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League abruptly stepped down Wednesday and was replaced by a notoriously hard-line director--a move that casts pay raise talks into turmoil and leaves elected officials to puzzle over the union’s latest action.

Protective League directors spent Wednesday afternoon huddled in a board meeting, declining to comment as the board debated the issue. Then, early Wednesday evening, the directors emerged with a three-paragraph statement announcing the departure of President Cliff Ruff and his replacement by Bill Harkness, widely known by his nickname “In Your Face” Harkness.

Harkness, who relishes his role as a tough advocate for rank-and-file officers, caused a stir two years ago at a City Council meeting by openly threatening that body with labor action if it failed to deliver on a favorable pay increase.

Harkness, whose complaint record earned him a place on the Christopher Commission’s notorious list of 44 potentially problem officers, was joined on the board’s leadership by new Vice President Rick Wells, another director who has struck a hard line in the ongoing contract talks with the city.

With a contract seemingly close, council members expressed shock and some dismay over the league’s decision to replace its top representatives.

“I’m very surprised,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who heads the Personnel Committee and who described Ruff as a militant and aggressive leader. “Maybe it means we’re not going to get a contract. I hope not.”

She added that the change in leadership could further hinder the chances of cutting a deal.

“We’ve established very good rapport [with Ruff],” she said. “You start over with somebody new, and it may screw up negotiations.”

In their terse statement, the league directors denied that the moves represented a fundamental shift in the organization’s approach to the contract talks.

“The changes in the leadership of the league do not change the directors’ resolve to obtain a good contract,” the union’s prepared statement said. “The united board of directors, in conjunction with the negotiating team, is working diligently toward a fair and equitable contract settlement. The board has no other comment at this time.”

With Wednesday’s action, Harkness and Wells immediately become the top officials at one of the city’s most powerful political organizations, one whose support for Richard Riordan helped secure him the mayor’s job in 1993 and whose endorsement is courted by many politicians as they seek office in Los Angeles. The league’s influence is matched by its turmoil, however, and it has regularly ousted its top officials in recent years, replacing them with more and more hard-line representatives, who have pushed contract demands forward but at the same time alienated some council members.

Ironically, the contract currently being considered by the league and the City Council contains the raises that the union has aggressively sought--5% increases in each of the next three years.

But the league and city government have failed to reach agreement on a number of side issues, including the question of how many sick days officers should give up--the city wants four, and the league has offered three--and the volatile issue of whether the union should be forced to pick up the cost of defending officers accused of violating LAPD internal policies.

The Police Department traditionally has footed that bill, but some city officials want the league to begin bearing that burden, a cost that the union is unwilling to absorb without sweeping changes in the disciplinary system.

Still, those differences have struck some observers as small and resolvable. So Wednesday’s changes left some players unsettled.

“My concern would be that the council has tried to make these negotiations precedent-setting in terms of keeping . . . hostility out of it,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, who heads the Public Safety Committee.

“At this point, we are so close and have moved so near to giving our officers what they really want, which is a significant salary increase. It would really be a shame for all involved if this degenerated into warfare.”