Proposed Settlement of LAPD Bias Suit Criticized

Mayor Richard Riordan and several other politicians Tuesday tried to slam the brakes on a proposal to create aggressive hiring goals for women and minorities in the Los Angeles Police Department and strip the department of its power to investigate discrimination claims.

Calling the consent decree, which was proposed to settle a long-running lawsuit against LAPD, a “rush to judgment” that borders on “malpractice” by the city attorney’s office, Deputy Mayor Gary Mendoza said the matter needs far more scrutiny by policymakers, including the mayor, City Council members and the Police Commission.

Reviewing the document for the first time in closed session Tuesday, several City Council members agreed and postponed a decision at least until Friday. The Police Commission also may schedule an emergency meeting to discuss the document Friday morning.

“If you’re going to do a settlement of a case, you usually get something in return. We’re getting nothing in return,” Mendoza said. “This is the lawyer running the show. Generally, the clients run the show.”

Mendoza echoed concerns--including cost and future liability--raised by several members of the council and the commission.

“I have lots and lots of questions,” said Councilman Mike Feuer, who is a member of the Public Safety Committee. “This is a big deal. When we address significant public policy issues, I think we should do it in a thoughtful way.” Riordan and Police Commission President Raymond C. Fisher wrote to City Atty. James K. Hahn on Monday asking that action on the decree be delayed until the commission has had a chance to discuss it and relay its concerns to the council. Though Hahn’s office agreed to postpone the matter until Friday, some at City Hall insist that is still not enough time.

The proposal would settle a discrimination case known as Tipton-Wittingham vs. city of Los Angeles, a sweeping class-action suit that raises complaints of sexual harassment and racial and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion.

Lawyers on both sides said they are anxious to resolve the 2 1/2-year-old dispute before a status conference in federal court Dec. 9. Some at City Hall, however, believe that it is being rushed through before the November elections so it won’t be derailed if Proposition 209--which bans government affirmative action programs--passes at the polls.

“Why are the special interests . . . trying to push it down everybody’s throats?” asked Commission Vice President Art Mattox who, along with Fisher, attended the council’s closed-door discussion of the decree. “The timing of it concerns me greatly. . . . They’re almost boxing us in to not have any input.”

The consent decree offers a road map for running the LAPD for the next two decades, including goals for hiring women and minorities so the department ranks reflect the civilian work force; hiring a consultant to advise the chief on issues of discrimination and harassment; and setting up an independent unit to handle complaints.

It would supersede existing consent decrees which set hiring goals only for Latinos and African Americans, not Asian Americans and women.

Public Safety Committee Chairwoman Laura Chick and Feuer said they agree wholeheartedly with the goals of diversifying the department and eliminating discrimination, but are unsure that a consent decree is the best path.

The LAPD is already aggressively recruiting women and minorities, they and others noted, and the city is at work on establishing a discrimination investigation unit.

Several policy-makers also worried about cost. Officials estimate that the city would have to pay $1.6 million in fees for the plaintiffs’ lawyers right away, plus ongoing attorneys fees, stipends for consultants called for by the decree, and, eventually, damage awards for the plaintiffs.

“Usually, you cut a deal and the lawsuit goes bye-bye,” noted Councilman Richard Alatorre, chairman of the powerful Budget and Finance Committee. “It’s my understanding that we give them this and the lawsuit still goes forward and we can still lose money.”

Carol Sobel of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said Tuesday she wants the decree approved as written--and soon.

“This litigation has been pending now for 2 1/2 years, and there have not been significant changes [at the department],” Sobel said. “People who need the protections this consent decree provides simply don’t have them.”