Panel Votes Not to Rehire Chief : Williams Sends Mixed Signals on His Options

Police Chief Willie L. Williams, who charmed the public and helped restore its confidence in the LAPD, but who struggled to take command of the department and disappointed many of the city’s top leaders, was rejected Monday in his bid for a second five-year term.

“We know the chief’s strengths and weaknesses; we know the department’s strengths and weaknesses as well as its needs,” the city’s Police Commission said in a statement read by board President Raymond C. Fisher. “As right as the chief may have been when he was selected, he does not have the confidence of this board to lead the department for the next five years.”

The vote of the ethnically diverse, five-member board, Fisher added, was unanimous.

In explaining its decision, the board released a lengthy review of Williams’ tenure, crediting him with strong public outreach, but methodically listing management breakdowns, from the department’s failure to produce an adequate biopsy of the career of former Det. Mark Fuhrman to its failure to integrate the work of various consultants hired to analyze the LAPD.

“The board concluded . . . that the department cannot continue without more effective management, and therefore concluded that strengthening the department’s management will require a change at the top, a new chief,” the commission statement said.

Monday’s announcement ends a two-month evaluation of the chief that has tested the principle of civilian oversight of the Police Department. It also opens what could be a two-pronged final battle, one legal and one political, if Williams decides to fight for his job. Lawyers for Williams have publicly floated their options, which include asking the City Council to overrule the Police Commission or filing a lawsuit to protest the decision.

But Williams, the first African American to lead the LAPD and one of the city’s most popular public figures, appears to face long odds in either effort. On Monday, he sent conflicting signals about his next move--sometimes seeming to suggest that he will fight on, other times anticipating life after the LAPD.

“I’m deeply disappointed as a citizen by the decision that was made by the Police Commission this morning,” Williams said at a news conference, one of three on the subject that were televised live Monday. But “a decision has been made, and I will leave that decision as it is.”

Keeping His Options Open

At the same time, Williams avoided foreclosing any options.

He said that council members might decide to overturn the matter, and he declined to comment on the possibility of a lawsuit. And yet, even as he hinted that those options were still alive, the chief closed his news conference with remarks suggesting that he was looking beyond his own term toward retirement from policing.

“I’m going to be living in my nice home here in the city of Los Angeles, probably going to have to take out the city phone so I don’t get those early morning phone calls, but I’m always going to be concerned about the men and women of this organization,” Williams said. “I’ll be entertaining some private sector opportunities . . . and I’m going to spend some time with my wife and children and grandchildren.”

Williams’ comments may reflect the growing consensus that if he chooses to fight, he would have a tough time winning.

Legal experts note that the City Charter specifically gives the Police Commission the right to refuse a chief a second term, a fact that greatly weakens any potential legal case. Council members, meanwhile, say Williams seems short of the 10 votes out of a possible 15 needed for the council to overturn the commission’s decision.

According to sources, Richard Alatorre, Richard Alarcon, Hal Bernson, John Ferraro, Rudy Svorinich Jr. and Joel Wachs are solid votes against having the council wade into the fray. Council members Marvin Braude, Laura Chick and Mike Feuer also are considered unlikely to vote to yank the matter out of the commission’s hands.

“I think the majority of council members are not inclined to overturn what the voters intended,” Feuer said, referring to the 1992 ballot measure that adopted key recommendations of the police reform group known as the Christopher Commission. Among other things, that measure imposed term limits on the chief and gave the Police Commission the authority to decide whether a second term was warranted.

Holden’s Criticism

Chick agreed that the council did not appear inclined to overrule the Police Commission and said she would not support such a move.

But Councilman Nate Holden, the chief’s strongest City Hall ally, has pressed on despite the votes lining up against him. On Monday, Holden, who was in Washington when the decision was announced, called the move “a dirty trick on the chief and the city of Los Angeles.”

Holden wants the City Council to review the commission action, a position joined by Councilwoman Rita Walters, another of the chief’s strong supporters.

Although Williams continued to deny Monday that he has entertained offers of a settlement that would pay him money to ensure an amicable parting, other officials said such negotiations had taken place. According to those officials, Williams’ lawyers had asked for $3 million on their client’s behalf in the early stages of those talks.

Despite the denials by Williams and his lawyers, Alatorre said Monday that he had personally discussed a settlement with Williams’ attorneys. Alatorre added that the talks have broken off in recent days.

“The window of opportunity has closed,” Alatorre said. “I wanted to do the right thing, but he didn’t [care] about the right thing. I would have been sympathetic before. Now I’m not so benevolent. I won’t do it. I don’t care if I’m the only one. I’m against it. . . . I will not be extorted.”

With Williams’ options appearing to dwindle, commissioners were talking about plans for “an orderly transition,” and many observers were thinking beyond Williams to the selection of a new chief, who would become the 51st in the history of the LAPD.

The top candidates for that job include Deputy Chief Bernard C. Parks and Deputy Chief Mark Kroeker, two of the LAPD’s most senior and visible leaders.

Parks, an African American, received a high-profile show of support Monday. Mayor Richard Riordan announced that he would back Parks for interim chief, a job that presumably will open up on July 7, when Williams finishes his term, assuming that a new chief has not been selected by then.

Riordan’s Announcement

Some observers suggested that Riordan’s announcement was motivated in part by his desire to publicly praise a high-ranking LAPD official who is black to soothe any racial uneasiness caused by Williams’ ouster. Riordan denied that.

“Bernie Parks has been a great leader of this department for years,” said Riordan, who is seeking reelection. “To even consider that race had anything to do with it is insulting to Angelenos and the department.”

Riordan, who has repeatedly denied accusations that he orchestrated Williams’ downfall, has tried to avoid being drawn into the debate over the chief’s future. But the mayor Monday seemed to hint at his dissatisfaction with Williams’ leadership in response to a question about what type of manager he would like to see in charge of the LAPD.

“We need a chief that is a strong manager who implements the Christopher reforms more quickly, more efficiently,” Riordan said. “We particularly need a chief that puts power and responsibility down at the divisions or stations, who holds captains and sergeants responsible for fighting crime in their districts, not a chief who works at Parker Center and runs the department by memo.”

Riordan then backed off, saying he wanted to talk about the future, not criticize the chief. Later, however, he came under fire from his opponent in the mayor’s race, state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles).

“This decision has been rigged by Mayor Riordan from the beginning,” Hayden said at the Burbank airport after flying in from Sacramento. “This is a city that deserves politics out front, in the open, on a stage.”

Hayden repeated his belief that Williams should have been retained because he has been “a healing, stabilizing force” who helped soothe wounds between a hostile LAPD and the city’s minority residents.

For the LAPD, where turmoil has been a nearly constant part of life in the 1990s, Monday’s announcement promises yet another tumultuous decision with deep implications for the direction of the agency. If Williams leaves in July, his departure will probably be accompanied by the retirements of his three top assistants, Ronald Banks, Frank Piersol and Bayan Lewis.

Other top LAPD brass are eyeing the likely contenders for the top job and hoping to carve out a place for themselves in the new administration. As a result, camps have begun forming around the likely candidates, a development that was destructive and distracting during the 1992 chief selection process.

Williams was the victor in the process that time, and he came to Los Angeles amid great fanfare. A strong proponent of community-based policing, Williams vowed to reform the LAPD and infuse it with a stronger sense of connection to those it serves.

Community Policing

In some areas, Williams’ administration was a success. Led by Riordan, the department has grown by about 2,000 officers--fewer than Riordan promised in 1993 but enough to make the LAPD the largest it has ever been--and has obtained new cars and other equipment.

Community policing has begun to take hold, though its progress has been halting, and some other reforms have been enacted as well. Crime is down, though not much more or less than in other major American cities, so it is difficult to credit Williams or the LAPD with much of that progress.

At the same time, Williams has run into one problem after another. After a long honeymoon, his competence and honesty came under fire. Outside analysts have criticized the department’s management and have suggested that reform is being stymied by the lack of strong leadership.

Williams’ bosses also have questioned his truthfulness and his judgment.

The most well-known of those incidents erupted in 1995, when Williams was accused of accepting free accommodations from a Las Vegas casino. He denied the allegation, but the commission then uncovered receipts showing that Williams and his family had accepted “comped” rooms on at least five occasions. Williams distinguished between a “comped” room and a “free” room, but the commission concluded that he had lied and reprimanded him--a move that later was overturned by the City Council.

In the analysis released Monday, the commission also highlighted several other instances in which Williams has given conflicting statements about issues, including his position on a new police schedule, his views of a lawsuit pending against the LAPD, and his handling of a dispute over accepting a free trip for his wife to travel with him to Europe. In each case, the commission said Williams had given answers that turned out to be misleading or untrue.

“These individual instances, while important in themselves, are more significant as a whole,” the commission wrote. “Unfortunately, the chief’s actions have left the board without the requisite confidence, and without this confidence civilian oversight cannot exist.”

Times staff writers Jodi Wilgoren, Josh Meyer, Matt Lait, Nancy Hill-Holtzman and Henry Weinstein contributed to this article.

* NEXT IN LINE

Attention focuses on Deputy Chiefs Bernard C. Parks, Mark Kroeker as successors. A23