The Next Chapter for LAPD: Another Tough Task Ahead

In the wake of the Los Angeles Police Commission’s decision not to renew the contract of Chief Willie L. Williams, the Los Angeles Police Department needs a new chief who is a strong manager, one capable of putting community policing into effect citywide, shoring up sagging morale and delivering on projects in a timely fashion. The new chief must accomplish all of that and more, but without permitting a return to the bad old days when the department winked at pervasive and excessive use of force, entrenched racial and gender bias and inconsistent discipline that encouraged quick-draw cowboys to stay on the force despite a spate of questionable incidents.

It would be a big mistake if the only message to come from Williams’ release is that only an up-from-the-ranks insider can take effective charge of the LAPD. The department needs strong leadership, and that quality is certainly not limited to the ranks of the LAPD.

But just as the pressure was strong in 1992 to bring in someone from the outside to lead the department away from its proclivities for discrimination and unnecessary violence, the pressure now is strong to go back to the department for someone who can master the hardball politics that go with the top cop’s job. Camps are already forming around the likely contenders, Deputy Chiefs Bernard C. Parks and Mark Kroeker. Internal factions are neither healthy for the department nor for a smooth transition from Williams, now a lame duck, to his successor. Mayor Richard Riordan has recommended Parks, a politically astute insider who is also African American, to serve as interim chief after Williams leaves; his term ends in July. Cynics--and City Hall is full of them--suggest that the mayor’s nod to Parks had a little something to do with the upcoming city election and the mayor’s desire to neutralize the racial element of the Williams controversy. That may not be entirely fair to Parks, a 32-year veteran of the department who was a top contender for the chief’s job in 1992. But he and the other candidates had better develop thick political skins--a necessary attribute for anyone who wants to be LA police chief.

For the city overall, Willie L. Williams leaves the LAPD in better shape than he found it. His successor will do well to learn from his successes and failures, his strengths and his weaknesses.

Whether Williams, who was conciliatory on Monday, will go quietly or quickly, or fight in court or before the City Council or seek a monetary settlement remains to be seen. Much may depend on how voters react to the his ouster. Williams has enjoyed higher poll ratings than any elected city official. The City Council would be wise to gauge what it would cost the city, even if it prevailed, to fight a lawsuit.

Even those unhappy about the outcome for Williams should applaud the fact that the Police Commission flexed its relatively new muscle. Strong civilian oversight and control of the department is exactly what’s needed to spare Los Angeles any more of despotic chiefs, the sort who accrue more power than the city’s elected representatives. Before Williams, Los Angeles had a few who fit that description; there shall be no more. The mayor, the mayor’s appointed commission and the council have the say over this police chief and all future chiefs, which is the way it’s supposed to work.

This is not a perfect system--senior LAPD management below the chief should be also exempt from civil service protection, so that a chief can select a team that works well together--but it is a system that ultimately demands accountability. And if the decisions of the mayor’s commission and the council are not endorsed by the public, election booths will be open early April 8 for the ultimate voter poll.