Bid to Block Ruling on Williams Denied

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office, acting quickly in response to a politically charged request, Tuesday denied a move by Police Chief Willie L. Williams’ backers to disqualify the Police Commission from considering the chief’s application for a second term.

“We find it in the public interest to allow the commission to perform its charter-mandated duty,” according to a letter City Atty. James K. Hahn sent to City Council members Nate Holden and Rita Walters just 24 hours after they made the request on behalf of the chief.

That request, first made by Williams’ lawyers and then by his two most vocal council supporters, reflected the view of the chief’s backers that the Police Commission will not judge Williams fairly. Williams’ lawyers have called the commission’s evaluation process “window dressing” because, they contend, the panel already has decided to refuse the chief a second term.

In a statement released by the commission, members said they were troubled by the chief’s attempt to challenge the board’s authority. They accused Williams of attacking not only the board, but also the principle of civilian oversight of the city’s police, a mainstay of Los Angeles’ police reform movement.

In 1992, city voters approved a set of reform measures recommended by the blue-ribbon Christopher Commission the year before. Those reforms limited the chief to two five-year terms, renewable at the discretion of the Police Commission, whose members now bristle at Williams’ suggestion that they are acting improperly.

“The Board of Police Commissioners is extremely disturbed that the chief of police, the highest-ranking uniformed law enforcement officer in the city, would make such an accusation without adequate factual or legal basis and before any decision has even been reached regarding his reappointment,” the commission statement said. “The requests to the city attorney are direct challenges to the integrity and the independence of the police commissioners and the important civilian oversight.”

Peter I. Ostroff, a lawyer for Williams, said he was surprised by the commission’s statement and said it offered more evidence that the board had already decided against Williams.

“It’s absurd for them to suggest for a second that they haven’t prejudged this,” Ostroff said.

*

In their request for the commission to be disqualified, Williams’ lawyers listed seven factors that they said were evidence of bias against the chief. They ranged from a 1995 memorandum in which the then-commission president warned Williams that the board might not renew his contract if his performance did not improve, to what his lawyers said was the improper release of some of Williams’ personnel documents.

According to the commission, all seven of the factors are false.

“The chief’s attorneys know that the Police Commission cannot completely respond to and refute the chief’s allegations without disclosing confidential personnel proceedings and other matters of a confidential nature,” the statement said. “To date, the chief has not given his consent to such disclosures.”

Cleared by the city attorney to proceed, commissioners expect to convene again with Williams on Thursday in order to continue considering his application. A final decision could come Friday, but seems more likely to be handed down next week at the earliest.

Meanwhile, the chief’s lawyers are continuing to discuss his legal options, threatening to go to court to disqualify the commission and, according to City Hall sources, discussing the possibility of a financial settlement that would allow Williams to leave without a prolonged legal fight.

Ostroff said Tuesday that no decision has been made about whether to file a lawsuit.

“We really haven’t decided,” he said. “It’s just such a serious step for the chief to take.”

Sources familiar with the discussions regarding a possible settlement say the chief’s lawyers initially sought $3 million to head off a lawsuit, but more recently have suggested that a lower figure might be acceptable. Ostroff and Johnny Darnell Griggs, the chief’s other lawyer, vehemently denied that any negotiations were underway.

“There aren’t negotiations,” Ostroff said. “There isn’t an amount.”

Times staff writer Jodi Wilgoren contributed to this story.