Williams Lobbies Council to Stay on Job

One day after the Los Angeles Police Commission voted not to hire Police Chief Willie L. Williams for a second term, the chief quietly began lobbying to overturn the decision, while the president of the panel said members of the board would be willing to consider a package that could let Williams leave early but draw his salary to the end of his term.

“That’s certainly one option,” Commission President Raymond C. Fisher said. “We could have a consulting arrangement with him where he wouldn’t have to be here full time but would be on call to assist in the transition and would be paid through the term.”

Fisher stressed that no such talks have begun yet, though he added that the commissioners have asked Williams for his thoughts on how best to handle an orderly transition. Others close to the process said they would favor a severance deal that would pay Williams his full salary to the end of his term. They added, however, that they might resist any deal that would pay him more than the salary and benefits that he would have earned between now and the expiration of his term in July.

Williams, who makes $173,000 a year, declined to comment on the situation Tuesday, but said after the commission announced its decision Monday that he intended to stay until the end of his term. The commission has not fired Williams, so he is under no obligation to leave early. As a result, he and the city can part ways before then only if both sides agree.

One of Williams’ lawyers, Johnny Darnell Griggs, said Tuesday that he did not know whether the chief would be interested in accepting a package that would provide for his early departure while compensating him for the balance of his term.

The topic of having Williams leave while still drawing his salary arises in part because of the strange leadership quandary now shaping up for the LAPD.

As the situation now stands, the sitting chief has been rejected by the department’s civilian oversight panel, but he remains in place. The mayor has announced his support for an interim chief, but there is no opening for an interim chief. And many observers are speculating on who will be the next chief, but no selection process has begun.

Moreover, the Police Commission’s decision not to rehire Williams is subject to review.

The chief’s supporters on the City Council say they expect to introduce a motion this week to overrule the commission. So far, Williams’ supporters seem well short of the 10 votes needed to make that move, but the chief has begun lobbying them.

In a letter to council members Tuesday, Williams said he was “deeply disappointed” but not surprised by the commission’s decision. He asked them to consider overturning the decision.

“If viewed fairly and objectively, my record more than justifies appointment to a second term,” Williams wrote. “This letter constitutes a formal request for your support.”

The chief closed his letter by telling council members that he intended to follow up with them in person.

“I look forward to discussing this matter with you personally, and I shall contact you to arrange a meeting for this purpose,” wrote Williams, who has continued meeting with community groups and keeping his public calendar, even as the issues involving his future have heated to a boil.

City Councilman Nate Holden, who was out of town Monday, has scheduled a news conference this morning to react to the Police Commission vote. Aides said he plans to introduce a motion today to have the council take jurisdiction in the matter.

The council has until its meeting March 21 to act, but Holden’s aides said the councilman wants police commissioners first to appear before the council to explain their actions.

Fisher declined to comment on the prospect of council action regarding Williams.

Complicating the LAPD’s leadership questions further are the byzantine politics surrounding the chief selection process, which were roiled Monday by Mayor Richard Riordan’s announcement that he favors the appointment of Deputy Chief Bernard C. Parks as interim chief when Williams leaves.

Riordan’s announcement has no immediate effect because there is no interim position to fill and the mayor has no power to fill it. But the mayor’s comments jangled the rumor wires within the LAPD, where top officials long have assumed that Riordan favors Deputy Chief Mark Kroeker to succeed Williams.

Tuesday, some wondered whether Riordan’s endorsement of Parks represented a shift in the mayor’s position or whether advancing Parks merely was politically convenient for a mayor facing reelection and worried about the potential racial divisiveness of losing a popular black chief. Parks is African American.

Riordan vehemently denied that race entered into his choice, saying the mere suggestion of that was insulting to Parks and the city.

Others frankly and openly expressed skepticism about Riordan and his motives.

“In his warped view of things, [Riordan] probably thinks it’s going to ameliorate feelings in the black community,” said Councilwoman Rita Walters, a frequent critic of the mayor. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Ultimately, however, Riordan’s motives may matter less than Parks’. If Parks does ascend to the interim job--a decision that only can be made by the Police Commission--he would instantly inherit a citywide platform that would rival Riordan’s.

The result: If Riordan then tried to pick Kroeker as the LAPD’s next permanent chief, he would be forced to pass over yet another high-profile African American candidate. That would undoubtedly set off a new round of political fireworks for a mayor who already labors under the accusation that he has trouble working with black managers.

Riordan has steadfastly refused to be drawn into speculation over the hunt for a new chief, and Tuesday brushed off suggestions that he has a front-runner in mind.

“I have nobody that I’m supporting at this time,” Riordan said. “I think Mark Kroeker and Bernie Parks and several other people in the LAPD are highly qualified for the job. We also have to look outside to pick the best possible candidate.”

Fisher agreed that it is important to look outside the department, even if the selection is an insider, as many officials favor.

A wide search could uncover hidden talent and could give city leaders a valuable opportunity to learn about police work in other parts of the country, Fisher said.

He added that while the coming months may bring a host of controversies, the panel is committed to proceeding just as he believes it did throughout its evaluation of Williams: deliberately, carefully and with an eye toward keeping the department functioning even as its leadership is tested.

“Beyond what is unavoidable, we don’t want any loss of momentum,” Fisher said. “This all is delicate. That’s why we want to be very deliberative.”

Among the factors that make predictions difficult is that the Police Commission is not entirely in control of the process. Under the City Charter, it is the Personnel Department that does the first round of selection in the hunt for a new police chief.

After conducting examinations of the applicants, the Personnel Department then produces a list of eligible candidates and forwards it to the Police Commission. The commission selects its top three and submits that list to the mayor, who is allowed to choose his favorite. That nominee is then subject to City Council approval.

Because of that process, any choice for the LAPD’s top job will have to satisfy a wide variety of officials, some of whom have been at odds.

All of that bodes for a drawn-out selection process. As a result, Fisher stressed that commissioners would like to move as quickly as possible without sacrificing care. He said he hoped that the board could begin developing a plan next week.

As long as the chief’s spot is vacant, the competition could fragment the LAPD into various camps, which could make management of the agency more difficult, Fisher said.

“The main objective through all of this is to make sure that the department is effectively managed,” Fisher said. “That is paramount.”

Times staff writer Jodi Wilgoren contributed to this article.

* MAYOR’S RACE: Tom Hayden’s longshot bid for mayor gained and lost. B1