Police Panel Votes to Oppose Consent Decree

On the eve of a scheduled City Council vote with potentially huge implications for the Los Angeles Police Department, the Police Commission voted Tuesday to oppose the deal, and the city’s two most prominent leaders struck different tones, with the police chief expressing guarded support for an agreement and the mayor opposing the proposal as written.

“I think they ought to put it on hold,” Mayor Richard Riordan said of the council, whose members are deeply split over the proposal. “We’re headed into very dangerous waters.”

Riordan said he was concerned that the proposed decree--which concerns sexual harassment and gender and race discrimination--would give outside organizations too much authority in managing the LAPD. Among other things, lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case would work with city officials to monitor allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination, and would help pick consultants who would recommend new LAPD policies and practices.

“To give that power over to somebody who is not accountable to the public,” said Riordan, “is bad government.”

In contrast to Riordan’s firm opposition, Police Chief Willie L. Williams said he generally favors a deal to lock in police hiring goals for women and minorities as well as to revamp some of the LAPD’s management practices.

“In general, I support the need for some consent decree to establish these rules for long after we’re all gone from here,” said Williams, who was out of town last week when the issue first drew public attention. “I think this decree accomplishes a lot. No decree accomplishes everything.”

But Williams declined to take a firm stand on the specific agreement being submitted to the council for its consideration, focusing his remarks instead on the principles underlying the agreement.

“I am fully supportive of the operational issues like improving the systems and improving the fairness to employees in the organization,” Williams said through a spokesman.

Commission President Raymond C. Fisher said members of the Police Department’s policymaking body were worried that the agreement would not resolve the lawsuit--a concern he said Williams shared. Under the proposed agreement, individual plaintiffs who allege harassment or discrimination would still be free to pursue damages from the city.

“We are not opposed to resolving the litigation through a consent decree,” Fisher said. But he added that the deal as written “leaves the department exposed to substantial liability” and is “extremely intrusive to the operations of the department.”

After a lengthy discussion, the commission voted 4-0 to oppose the consent decree; Commissioner Edith R. Perez, who left the session prior to the vote, said later that she was not aware a vote on the matter was scheduled.

The council, not the commission, has the authority to settle lawsuits against the city, so Tuesday’s commission vote does not affect the status of the proposed agreement. But commissioners have asked that the council consider the policy implications of the proposal for the Police Department, and the commission’s vote therefore could influence at least some council members.

To reinforce their views, commissioners sent a letter to the council president Tuesday, and Commissioners Art Mattox and T. Warren Jackson expect to be on hand for the council discussion today. But with passion running high over the issue, some key council members say the vote may end up being postponed.

“My sense is that we are having a more thoughtful dialogue and a slightly slowed-down process. My read is it doesn’t get decided and passed tomorrow,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, who heads the Public Safety Committee and is among the centrists on the 15-member panel. “I’m absolutely not willing to be a “yes” vote tomorrow. I have questions I need answered.”

Council members Marvin Braude, Mike Feuer and Richard Alatorre--all ardent affirmative action supporters--echoed Chick’s remarks. Feuer and Alatorre, who are members of the budget committee, complained that the consent decree does not end the issue of potential financial damages.

“I’m inclined to allow for further study of this,” Braude said. “I think it’ll be close, but in the end they may vote for more time, that’s my guess.”

“I’m open to arguments from both sides,” Feuer added. “I have questions about whether it’s responsible for us to resolve this litigation in the way proposed tomorrow.”

Council members Ruth Galanter, Jackie Goldberg, Mike Hernandez, Nate Holden and Rita Walters are prepared to vote yes on the decree today, members and staffers said. Mark Ridley-Thomas, who supports the decree, will be out of town and will miss the meeting; Richard Alarcon is said to be a likely yes vote, but he could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Even if Ridley-Thomas were present, supporters are left with seven firm votes, one short of the number needed for passage. Council members Hal Bernson, John Ferraro, Rudy Svorinich Jr. and Joel Wachs have all expressed hesitations about the decree, and are historically supportive of the mayor and the police union, which both have urged the council to delay action.