The City Should Not Pay the Chief to Leave

Whatever one thinks of Police Chief Willie Williams and his tenure, the Los Angeles City Council should not pay him even the smallest sum to leave or to settle any lawsuit, threatened or otherwise. To do so would gut one of the key reform provisions of Charter Amendment F, adopted overwhelmingly by voters in 1992, which ensured that the chief of police can be replaced via a civilian democratic process at any time for any reason.

Williams’ threat to sue if he is not reappointed by the Police Commission and City Council for another five-year term, and his ancillary demand that the commission be removed from the process for “prejudging” the issue--or alternatively that he be paid $3 million--echoes similar legal maneuvers by his predecessor, Daryl Gates, in 1991.

When the Police Commission placed Gates on paid leave while considering whether to replace him, the City Council overruled the commission with an agreement to reinstate him. The ostensible rationale was that officials feared a successful and costly lawsuit by Gates.

This lawsuit threat was credible only because, under the city charter, Gates was protected by the civil service system, which permitted termination only for cause, a legal standard that required specific misconduct and costly and rigid procedural standards.

The civil service shield was an anomaly. No other police chief in California, and only a handful in the United States, have held office under such a system. The typical case is that chiefs of police, like other federal, state and local executive and policymaking officials, must be subject to the democratic process, making them accountable to the public, whether by direct election or by appointment and removal by officials who are elected or appointed by elected officials. The public is entitled to change leadership or policy direction without having to justify it on grounds of misconduct.

Equally important is the hallowed constitutional principle that military and paramilitary police authorities must always be subject to final and controlling civilian democratic authority.

Charter Amendment F brought the city into line with the rest of the state and country, eliminating the chief-for-life principle. Although it prescribes a five-year term, with the potential of a single additional term, the amendment eliminated the civil service requirement that the police chief could be removed only for cause.

Therefore, under Charter Amendment F, a Police Commission or City Council decision not to approve a new term, or even to remove the police chief during either term, does not require any actual misconduct; nor does it require any process other than a vote of the Police Commission and City Council. If the Police Commission or City Council submits to the lawsuit threat by Williams and his lawyers, a terrible precedent will be set that overrides the will of the voters. Any future police chief will not be removable for 10 years without actual misconduct or a substantial publicly paid cash buyout, which will effectively deter replacement in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The voters rejected the arguments of Gates and others that the public is better served by removing police chiefs from the civilian democratic political process. Voters repudiated the concept that the public is best served by a politically untouchable police-chief-for-life.

It is true, unfortunately, that Williams’ management and the implementation of police reforms from the Christopher Commission proposals have been hampered by an ossified command system that continues to offer civil service protection for senior police officials below the rank of chief. Neither a new police chief nor meaningful reform can occur without the ability to replace senior and mid-level officials.

Supporters of Williams or his continued tenure as police chief may be tempted to join his coercive litigation maneuvers. This would be a serious error that would backfire against racial and ethnic minorities--as well as other groups whose voices are not always heard--by restoring a system that rarely served them well in the past, and will rarely do so in the future.

Rather than step backward on voter-adopted Charter Amendment F reforms, the Police Commission and City Council should extend the reforms and eliminate the system of lifetime appointments for other senior police officials so that replacing the police chief can be a meaningful democratic act.