Rehire Willie Williams? Just Stick to the Facts

When Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams announced his intention to seek a second five-year term, he set the stage for the long-awaited showdown at City Hall between the forces supporting him and those who want him to leave. The tension may be manufactured; Williams may be merely strengthening his bargaining position for a settlement with the city. But the moment of truth may indeed be at hand, and many fear a racially divisive struggle.

Under Proposition F, the charter amendment passed by the voters in 1992, the chief can be removed at any time and for any reason by the mayor-appointed Police Commission. Either the mayor or two-thirds of the City Council can override the commission. Unlike his predecessor Daryl Gates, Williams has no civil service protection. His tenure depends on maintaining the confidence of civilian officials.

Last year, the city went through a dress rehearsal for the big one. The Police Commission issued a reprimand to the chief, charging that he had lied to them about free accommodations in Las Vegas hotels. Mayor Richard Riordan sustained the commission’s action. The City Council then overturned the reprimand. Two commission members resigned in protest. Both sides lived to fight another day, and now that day may be here.

Williams was hired in 1992 by the outgoing Tom Bradley administration. Riordan was elected mayor in 1993. Williams presumed that he was hired to improve the department’s relationship with the community. Riordan presumed that he was elected to keep his promise to add 3,000 new officers to the department. They both made substantial progress in achieving their objectives; today, the department is both bigger and more popular.

The problem is that the city has not created a unified, coherent public safety program that can build on renewed community support and more police to achieve the sort of dramatic cut in crime that has occurred in New York City. Williams’ opponents blame the chief for the lack of coherence. Others suggest that the breakneck pace of police hiring has made it difficult to establish a clear plan of action.

But like most police issues in Los Angeles, this one also has important racial and political overtones.

Many African Americans feel that Williams has not received fair treatment. Williams is drawing on African Americans who were prominent in the Bradley coalition for support, and has received backing from City Atty. James K. Hahn, who is white, well-regarded in the black community and an opponent of Riordan’s.

Opponents of Williams complain that some African American leaders are insisting that the city stick with him, no matter what. The opponents argue that their objections to Williams involve his management ability and honesty and have nothing to do with race.

The racial lines are not altogether fixed. A number of important African American leaders recently endorsed Riordan’s reelection, while many people outside the black community view Williams favorably. Williams remains a popular figure citywide, but even supportive City Council members are reluctant to commit to Williams’ rehiring in advance. There is no reason at all to assume that he will have automatic support in the council.

The surest way to avoid a racial fracas is to be open and aboveboard about the contract renewal process, which is new to the LAPD and the city. Leaks and innuendoes against Williams have aroused great suspicion in minority communities that there is an orchestrated campaign against him. If the chief goes ahead and applies for renewal, the public deserves an open and balanced assessment of his performance.

The City Council chose not to open the commission’s files in the Las Vegas matter, a statement that Williams’ tenure would not be decided on what many considered a peripheral matter. That reasoning no longer applies in the case of renewal, and the performance file likely will be opened and examined.

But it is also incumbent upon Williams to make his own case. Williams exercised his right to keep personnel matters confidential in the Las Vegas matter. If his future is to be decided in a public contest, the public needs to know the facts. It is not right to arouse the community and then keep relevant information behind closed doors.

The process will be tense and uncomfortable for all parties. But if we are going to have true civilian control of the LAPD as envisioned by Proposition F, the chief’s opponents and his supporters need to inform the public and have faith in an informed public’s ability to support their elected officials as they make this contentious decision.