Council Refuses to Pay Williams to Leave Early

In the latest case of the Los Angeles City Council and the city’s Police Commission moving at cross-purposes, the council Wednesday unanimously rejected efforts to pay Police Chief Willie L. Williams to leave early, even as the commission launched its own effort to pick a temporary replacement for him.

The result: Williams’ lawyers now say a lawsuit against the city is inevitable, and the Police Commission intends to press ahead with plans to pick an interim chief even though no vacancy is likely to exist for several months.

The council vote took many observers by surprise, but it reflected an unusual coalition of Williams’ opponents, who wanted to deny him any payout, and supporters, who wanted to take an action that would preserve the chief’s ability to sue the city but who lacked the votes to give him a substantial severance package, including one discussed Wednesday that would have paid him about $370,000.

The final council vote was 14-0, with only Councilman Richard Alatorre absent.

In addition, the council move reflected the animus some members bear toward Mayor Richard Riordan, who has endorsed a settlement for Williams but declined to say what amount he thought was appropriate. Instead, Riordan opted to leave the matter to the council and vowed to support any action it took.

That posture irritated some council members, who felt that Riordan was ducking the issue for the sake of political expediency. After the council adjourned Wednesday, some members said they now expect the matter to wind up in court, where they predicted that it could become embarrassing for Riordan. Among other things, Williams’ backers say the mayor pressured the chief on staffing decisions and urged him, through intermediaries, to leave.

“If the chief chooses to sue, I think many of us look forward to disclose in court the actions of the mayor and the mayor’s commission,” Councilman Mike Hernandez, a longtime Williams backer, said after the meeting.

Other council members voted not to offer Williams a severance package for different reasons--mainly, that they do not believe he deserves any money.

“I think that [Williams] should serve the remaining three months of his term, earn his pay for that and then go on to the next job,” said Councilman Joel Wachs. “I am very convinced from our lawyers that we do not have any liability, and I don’t believe we should just give him something gratuitously.”

Though Wednesday’s council session was held behind closed doors, the formal motion strongly hinted at the group’s unhappiness with Riordan and the commission. “The police chief will complete his contract term,” the motion stated, “and if the Police Commission or the mayor disagree, they may suggest an alternative action accompanied by its rationale.”

Councilwoman Laura Chick, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, said Williams’ lawyers, who met with the council Wednesday, detailed several meetings in which allies of the mayor attempted to persuade the chief to leave early. Supporters of the chief previously have raised that issue, in particular highlighting a session last fall in which Police Commissioner T. Warren Jackson met with Williams to inquire about his plans for seeking reappointment. Jackson has denied that his meeting with the chief was an attempt to push Williams out.

In addition, Chick said several council members described encounters with the mayor or his supporters that led them to believe that the Police Commission had made up its mind to oust Williams before the matter came before it.

According to Williams’ lawyers, those meetings could form the basis for a legal case against the city. And that, Chick said, united the otherwise divided council in a decision to shift the responsibility for paying Williams to Riordan and the Police Commission.

“Part of what we did today was express enormous resentment at being put at risk,” Chick said. “There was a strong consensus that we did not create the risk.”

Riordan met with council President John Ferraro after the council vote and emerged pledging to try to work the issue out.

“The council members have asked me for leadership in the matter of Chief Williams,” Riordan said. “I am willing to do that.”

One of Williams’ lawyers, Peter I. Ostroff, said later that the council’s action would clear the way for a lawsuit, adding that he believes some council members may have valuable testimony to bolster the chief’s contentions that his evaluation by the Police Commission was rigged against him.

Williams’ lawyers previously have indicated that they were considering a lawsuit, but usually their comments on the topic have been equivocal. On Wednesday, Ostroff, who got his start at Riordan’s law firm, said flatly that the chief will sue.

Of the council decision, Ostroff said: “I think it’s regrettable that they could not have assisted us in reaching a compromise in what is going to be a very serious dispute.”

Just hours before the council action, the police commissioners, who unanimously voted last month to deny Williams a second term, released a statement saying that next week they intend to begin the process of selecting an interim chief to fill any time between Williams’ departure and the selection of a new permanent chief.

Those candidates include at least two strong contenders for the permanent job, Deputy Chiefs Mark Kroeker and Bernard Parks. They also include one top official who has announced plans to leave, Assistant Chief Bayan Lewis, and another longtime LAPD veteran, Deputy Chief Martin Pomeroy, who heads LAPD operations in the San Fernando Valley.

The commission intends to begin interviewing the four candidates next week. Sources said the panel could select one of them by the end of April.

“The commissioners stressed that Chief Willie Williams remains the chief of police,” the commission statement said. “However, in order to ensure a smooth and seamless transition of authority, an interim chief should be identified in the near future so that person may become familiar with the issues and responsibilities of the position.”

Commissioners already have been meeting with top LAPD staffers, including Williams, to discuss details of a transition. Although commissioners will not discuss what has gone on in those discussions, sources familiar with the talks say Williams has indicated a willingness to work with whomever the commission may tap.

The selection of an interim chief is a task that combines policing and political issues. Commission President Raymond C. Fisher repeatedly has said that his primary concern is for steady management and has declined to say whom he might favor for the job, though most political insiders point to Kroeker and Parks as the leading candidates for the permanent spot.

Some participants in the process say they favor an interim chief who was not a candidate for the permanent job. If so, Lewis might emerge as the leading candidate, but Pomeroy could be a contender too.

Meanwhile, Williams and his lawyers could pursue legal action against the commission and the city--a possibility that raises the uneasy prospect of Williams serving as one of Los Angeles’ most visible officials even as he sues his employer.

Councilwoman Rita Walters, one of the chief’s strongest council backers, said after Wednesday’s vote that she would have preferred being able to offer Williams a generous severance package. Although she acknowledged that she and other supporters were not able to muster support for that proposal, Walters said she believes the matter is far from over.

“It is not the last [step],” she said. “Not by a long shot.”

Times staff writer Sharon Bernstein contributed to this article.