Police Reform Effort Gave Panel New Clout

The Police Commission’s decision Monday not to renew LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams’ five-year contract provides some important measures of just how far Los Angeles has come on its post-Rodney King journey toward police reform.

“Screw you,” then-Police Chief Daryl F. Gates said at one point after having promised to retire in time to make way for Williams, “I’ll retire when I want to retire.”

A chief unwanted by his civilian bosses on the commission can no longer hold the city hostage by refusing to get out, as Gates did five years ago. But because the chief still retains avenues of appeal--to the City Council and the courts--Williams may be able to hold the city up. He also may be able to get some going-away money through negotiations in the back rooms of City Hall.

Williams cannot fight what amounts to his dismissal as Gates did for a simple reason: A voter-approved change in the city charter inspired by the accountability-minded Christopher Commission rescinded the virtual job-for-life status that civil service protection had afforded a Los Angeles chief for half a century. Under the charter change, a chief is simply an employee with a five-year contract that can be renewed once at the discretion of the civilian Police Commission appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

*

That change actually was an attempt to take city government back toward what the Progressive Era reformers envisioned, when they drafted the charter in the 1920s. The original charter called for city departments to be managed by such panels of part-time civilians.

Civil service protection for department heads, including the police chief, was only introduced after corruption scandals in the 1930s. The idea was to insulate the chief from political pressures and leave him free to honestly investigate crimes by other city officials.

But the move had another effect. It radically tipped the balance of power between the chief and his ostensible bosses on the Police Commission, who could no longer fire him without proving misconduct in a full-blown adversary hearing.

The result, according to the Christopher Commission, was that police commissioners became mere boosters and rubber stamps for the Police Department, rather than its board of directors.

The chief’s “independence . . . ultimately created a principality within the city,” former Police Chief Ed Davis said. “Chiefs who stay[ed] too long look[ed] upon the department as their personal fiefdom and resist[ed] all external change.”

The Christopher Commission also wanted the City Council to relinquish its authority to second-guess commission decisions. But the council balked. Its unwillingness to step aside is the main reason that Williams now has room to maneuver politically.

How damaging and divisive that maneuvering may be to the city depends on whether Williams’ public support turns out to be as deep as it is wide, and on how stiff a fight his supporters decide to wage on his behalf.

Williams also must decide whether to stick to his reported demand that he be paid $3 million to drop plans for a lawsuit and walk away quickly and quietly from his $173,000-a-year job.

City officials may want to smooth a path for his successor by paying Williams to go away. “It’s going to be bad enough to find a new chief with credentials who is willing to dive into this far-from-happy picture,” said a deputy general counsel to the Christopher Commission who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It will be harder still to find someone to dive in when, at least conceivably, some court may say his predecessor was still eligible for the job.”

Political consultant Joe Scott predicted that the Riordan administration will view a Williams buyout as taxpayer money well spent. Scott, who worked in the first election campaign of the multimillionaire lawyer-businessman but has since become a harsh critic of the mayor, noted that the ousted city zoo director and Ethics Commission director were both given consulting contracts to ease their transitions and, in the case of the Ethics Commission director, to fend off a threatened defamation lawsuit.

“This crowd has a tendency to use money to get rid of problems,” Scott said of the Riordan administration. “The essence of it is the deal: What do we need to send him home happy?”

One possible reaction to such a move can be seen in the comment of former Los Angeles Police Officer Barry Levin, now a lawyer whose clients include the department’s command officers association. He said he believes that Williams at this point is just after money. “It’s like a robbery, but he’s not using a gun,” Levin said.

Another reaction still not quite certain is that of the City Council. At the moment, the chief does not appear to have the votes to overturn the Police Commission decision. But if public sentiment moves strongly in the chief’s favor, who knows?

*

As a broad new effort to rewrite the entire city charter gathers steam in coming months, some people associated with the Christopher Commission said they will attempt to make sure that this particular uncertainty is not repeated by trying to write the council out of the process.

The Christopher Commission veterans also are likely to keep pushing the city to give the Police Commission far more staff resources to realize their vision of police commissioners as part-time civilians who are nonetheless able to effectively supervise a department of 9,000 officers and 3,000 civilians.

“What the Christopher Commission said five years ago remains true,” former Deputy General Counsel Merrick Bobb wrote to the Police Commission in a special report last year. “This commission plainly needs additional resources to carry out its oversight and policymaking functions effectively.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Reasons

A summary of reasons cited by the Police Commissioners for denying Police Chief Willie L. Williams another term:

Reforms: The board says the chief has been unable to consistently maintain the reform process or to effectively provide a direction.

*

Relations with board: The board lost confidence in Williams’ commitment to civilian oversight and his willingness to communicate with them in a timely manner.

*

Relations with officers: He did not take the necessary steps to build his stature as a respected leader in the department, the board maintains.

*

Effectiveness: He has proven unable or unwilling to consistently translate his words into action, the board says.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What They Said

“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.”--Raymond C. Fisher, president of the Los Angeles Police Commission

*

“We need a chief [who] is a strong manager, who implements the Christopher reforms more quickly, more efficiently.”--Mayor Richard Riordan

*

“This is a sad day for the LAPD and it’s a sad day for Los Angeles. Williams...has done an outstanding job of turning around a department that has a legacy of brutality and racism.”--John Mack of the L.A. Urban League

Next Steps

* Williams: The chief sent conflicting signals about his next move, suggesting that he might fight on, but also anticipating life after the LAPD.

* Commissioners: Talked about plans for “an orderly transition.” Some were thinking ahead to the selection of the 51st LAPD Chief.

* The Mayor: Riordan announced he would back Deputy Chief Bernard C. Parks for interim chief.