In the Matter of the Chief: Process Does Matter

As Willie L. Williams seeks renewal of his five-year contract as police chief, he remains one of Los Angeles’ most popular public figures, according to a poll taken by The Times. The chief won a 66% approval rating, enviably higher than any other public official here. But the decision to keep him--or any future chief--should be determined not only by a good showing in polls but also by an assessment of what is best for the city and the Police Department.

The decision on the chief’s reappointment rests with the mayor-appointed civilian Police Commission, as prescribed in 1991 by the Christopher Commission and codified the following year by Charter Amendment F, the police reform that strengthened citizen oversight and control of the department. The reform measure, approved by the voters by a margin of more than 2 to 1, also limited a chief to two five-year terms and eliminated Civil Service protections that allowed near-lifetime tenure with true accountability to no one. Williams is the first chief to be evaluated under the new system. It is this process that should determine whether he, or any successor, should be hired for a second term.

The Police Commission is currently weighing Williams’ application to stay on. Though the chief works well with the civilian board on a variety of routine issues and departmental matters, he and his lawyers have taken the offensive on the matter of his reappointment. Their challenge of the criteria for evaluating the chief amounts to an attack on the authority of the civilian board and on the police reform overwhelmingly approved by the voters. The chief wants to be judged on the basis of objective and measurable standards; he takes credit for the decline in crime, arrests and civilian complaints against the department. Such quantifiable information is certainly a legitimate part of any evaluation. But management performance and leadership, aspects that cannot always be tied to cut-and-dried measurements, also are appropriate parts of any evaluation of a chief executive. The ultimate decision on the standards belongs to the civilian commission, not the chief’s lawyers.

Williams did not help his cause by refusing to attend a long-scheduled and twice-postponed meeting this week that he had requested to discuss his 1995 personnel evaluation. Williams’ lawyers may not have wanted to dredge up the commission’s 1995 decision to reprimand the chief after concluding he allegedly lied to the board about accepting free accommodations in Las Vegas, and the chief may be wary because his confidential personnel records regarding that matter were leaked to this newspaper and made public. However, it would be unheard of for a chief executive officer, and that is in effect what Williams is, to refuse to meet with his board of directors, which is the role of the Police Commission. Williams should cooperate.

Chief Williams wants to stay at Parker Center. He should make his case. The Police Commission--following the recommendations of the Christopher Commission--should then make a considered and timely decision in the best interest of the department and Los Angeles.