Raymond Fisher

Raymond C. Fisher, president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, presided over one of the most controversial decisions in recent city history last week when he and four other members of the commission unanimously voted not to bring Police Chief Willie L. Williams back for a second, five-year term.

Williams’ supporters are still fighting for the chief, and the City Council may consider a motion this week to overturn the commission, a power the council has under what is known as Proposition 5. So far, Williams seems far short of the two-thirds majority he would need to prevail in such a vote, and he received a setback last week when former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the man most associated with police reform in Los Angeles, weighed in to support the Police Commission and the process it used to evaluate Williams.

Still, Williams is a popular chief with a few well-placed supporters, including City Councilman Nate Holden. Should the matter of Williams’ reappointment be debated in the City Council, it could be acrimonious and divisive, with heavy racial overtones.

Fisher, 57, who clerked for legendary U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. and served as deputy general counsel to the Christopher Commission, is a longtime fixture in the city’s civil-rights community and a partner at the prestigious law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe. A respected civil litigator, he is admired even by the lawyers for Williams, and is a careful, deliberate speaker. He is a native Californian and is married to Nancy Leigh Fisher, an English teacher. They have two grown children.

In an interview last week, he chose his answers carefully, acknowledging that the decision regarding Williams had put him and the other commissioners in the spotlight but pledging not to be distracted by the controversy that has erupted around it. Fisher said he has avoided lobbying council members directly, but he strongly warned that he believes any move to overturn the commission could jeopardize a mainstay of the city’s police reform movement--one both he and Christopher have played key roles in.

If the council were to overrule the commission, Fisher said, he fears the result would be the erosion of the principle of civilian control over police.

*

Question: Back in 1991, when you were deputy general counsel to the Christopher Commission, could you have anticipated the complexities that have arisen in this process of evaluating Chief Williams?

Answer: I think we foresaw quite a bit, in terms of how the process might play itself out. We obviously didn’t anticipate that it would A) come into play so quickly and B) involve the kind of circumstances that were at work here--namely a popular chief of police who is really being criticized for serious management problems. Our model, obviously, was the problem of entrenched chiefs--who, in the case of Daryl Gates, was someone who had become impervious to any kind control or accountability . . . . The system was designed to avoid that kind of confrontational, painful, divisive situation.

I think, quite frankly, we did what the Christopher Commission and the voters intended. Whether we are upheld in that or not is probably a test of the viability of that system.

*

Q: Would it work better if, as the Christopher Commission recommended, the council did not have any override authority?

A: Well, I like to think so. It eliminates the problem of having to depend on whoever the incumbents are at the time exercising restraint. I don’t mean to be overly critical of the council. I understand that they have their agendas for each of their districts. But I do think that once that authority hangs out there, there’s the temptation for someone to invoke it.

*

Q: Were the council to override this decision, what would that do to the principle of civilian oversight of the Police Department and the chief?

A: This may sound self-serving, but I think the commission acted with utmost integrity--both in terms of what we did and in terms of trying to follow the mandate of the charter amendment. If this commission and what it did can’t be sustained, then I think the system itself can’t be sustained . . .

I don’t see why any citizen would want to go through this again, put in the time and good faith effort, only to have it overturned because the chief and his supporters have been able to effectively campaign against it.

It is not a campaign. It should not be a campaign. The commission should not be in the position of having to make a public case against the chief. That is the very system that Prop. F was put in to avoid. If that’s what happens here, as a practical consequence we might as well dispense with the system.

*

Q: Some might describe the commission’s analysis of the chief’s strengths and weakness as an attempt to build a public case against him.

A: I think we were compelled by the circumstances to state, at least summarize, the rationale for why we came to our decision. We tried to make it into a balanced statement. I’ve tried to honor that in my public statements, as have the other commissioners.

It is important for the commission to be critical in its oversight of the department without having to trash the department . . . I have tried, while being critical at times, to be constructive as well.

*

Q: Has the commission’s action last week set a precedent for future commissions trying to evaluate a chief of police?

A: Hopefully, this is precedent-setting in the sense that if the commission is upheld, I think that it will make the next police chief a lot clearer about what the authority of the Police Commission is. That was undermined, quite frankly, by the overturning of the reprimand. [In 1995, police commissioners reprimanded Williams after they concluded that he had lied to them about accepting free accommodations from a Las Vegas casino; the council, fearing a divisive debate, voted to overturn that reprimand without looking at the commission’s investigation of Williams. Then, a few months later, The Times published that file, embarrassing many council members and briefly causing Chief Williams to threaten to sue the city for disclosure of the material.]

There was a serious, negative signal sent by that, a mixed message . . . If the commission is overridden on this one--that coupled with the override of the reprimand--would be a pretty plain statement that when the commission has to make hard choices, it isn’t going to be backed up. So why bother? And if you’re the chief of police, why respect the Police Commission? And if you’re a member of the Police Commission, you’re not going to have any respect. So again, why bother?

I think now, going forward, that it’s incumbent on the commission clearly not to abuse its authority, and certainly be held accountable for that . . . . But a police chief now knows that the commission does mean what it says, that it does expect the chief to deliver on what’s promised, to deliver effective responses, and that we can hold the chief accountable and that progress can be made. If it doesn’t get made to the satisfaction of the commission, then the chief is going to held accountable.

*

Q: Over the past month, the commission has come under a lot of fire, especially from the chief’s lawyers, who have accused you of conducting a sham evaluation of Williams. One lawyer suggested the chief’s problems were “not with the institution but with the inmates”--meaning you. How do you react to those accusations?

A: I took most of that as rather intemperate lawyer language. I think it was very, very poor judgment on the part of the chief and his lawyers to engage in that sort of strategy. It made it very difficult for the commission to accept the notion that Chief Williams, at base, really did respect the police commission and its authority.

I objected early on to the chief by what I considered the intemperate statement right at the beginning of the process--referring to us as a kangaroo court. I said that was not helpful in a context where the chief personally had said he wanted to maintain a professional relationship. And yet, even after he was put on notice that that was not a constructive approach by his lawyers, not only did it continue, it intensified.

I think that showed a fundamental disrespect for the civilian oversight body. And we did factor that in to our decision.

*

Q: Some will look at your decision as proof of what the chief’s lawyers had alleged, which is that you had prejudged him and were intending to get rid of him. Lo and behold, you did vote just as they predicted. Did you prejudge the chief?

A: I came on the commission with no dislike for Chief Williams. I only knew him by general reputation. I came on rather enthusiastic, with the opportunity to deal with Christopher Commission reforms, which I did understood to be rather slow in being implemented. That was my primary concern.

My opinions of the chief, both of his strengths and weaknesses, evolved over time. And I have over 2,000 hours invested as a police commissioner. That’s a lot of personal dealing with the chief and other members of the department. I didn’t come on the commission to make a case against Chief Williams. I came on really to see if I could be constructive in working with him.

Far from disliking him, we all shared the same objective. I suppose what developed was frustration at not being able to translate that potential into the success that it should have been.

And the other issue was of effectively managing a very complicated business in a time when the challenges are very, very complex . . . . We’ve got tremendous technological needs. And you have to deal with those problems. If you fail, the consequence is literally a matter of life and death.

The North Hollywood incident is a dramatic illustration that when cops can do their job effectively, they can suppress the crime. But that could just as easily have turned out to be a bloody disaster, in which case the Police Department could have been very, very sorely criticized for being undermanned and undergunned. It was skill that brought it under control, but it was a lot of luck as well. That’s the kind of incident that can turn public opinion against a Police Department.

This is not bean-counting. This is delivering a high-quality service that people can depend on for their safety.

*

Q: Is the LAPD, as some suggest, a hidebound organization, entrenched and resistant to change--one whose members made it impossible for Williams to succeed?

A: I think that’s a simplistic generalization, to be quite honest. There are clearly elements in the department--as you would expect in any large bureaucracy--that have become pretty insular over time. You find elements of people who are either too proud or too resistant to change.

But there is a tradition of officers getting advanced education, pursuing graduate degrees . . . . There is lots of talent there that I have encountered personally. I have dealt with command officers who really are interested in and excited by the opportunity to capture momentum, to be innovative and the like. . . . I really think there are a lot of people in the department who want to do their job right. I’ve met no one, to be quite honest, who, at whatever level they’re at, really doesn’t want to do a good job. The beat cops, street cops, they want to do their job . . . . The talent is there.

I think Chief Williams had enormous obstacles coming in without a background in the LAPD. Understood. But he knew that coming in. And I think there were ways he could have addressed them.

He did a good job with the public. He clearly didn’t afford the same resources to penetrate into the department . . . . In four-and-a-half years, you’re no longer an outsider. If you can be as charismatic as Chief Williams is with the outside world, there’s really no reason why he couldn’t be as charismatic and persuasive with insiders.