The Election’s Over: Back to the Williams Matter

Memo to Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council: With the election over, maybe now the people of Los Angeles can expect city officials to get back to the business at hand. Topping that list is how to handle the departure of Police Chief Willie L. Williams.

After a long controversy, Williams’ five-year contract was not renewed by the city. His term ends in July, but it’s obvious it would be best for all concerned if a lame duck didn’t continue in one of the city’s most important jobs.

Williams’ lawyers have threatened to sue the city, saying that the mayor’s appointed Police Commission prejudged the matter of his reappointment and that Williams was thus treated unfairly. His lawyers also point to the leaking of Williams’ confidential personnel file to this newspaper as another basis for a suit against the city.

In potential lawsuits as sensitive as this one, the city attorney would normally recommend a course of action, and any payout would have to be approved by the council. In this case, City Atty. Jim Hahn has deferred to outside counsel because of an inherent conflict his office has in this matter. The city attorney’s office normally represents the Police Department and the chief personally in cases involving charges of misconduct.

The appointment of a mediator is one possibility to get the deal done quickly; mediation is common in civil litigation, private industry and government. Another is a face-to-face meeting between the mayor and the chief, without handlers or lawyers. Williams has been non-confrontational and conciliatory during this crisis, and Riordan is a consummate deal maker inside and outside of City Hall. Perhaps this approach can result in a settlement that best serves the interests of Los Angeles.

A closed City Council session intended to consider a financial settlement with Williams ended with a punt. The council made no decision on any payout and instead sent a pointed message to Riordan. “The police chief will complete his contract term,” a council motion stated, “and if the Police Commission or the mayor disagree, they may suggest an alternative action accompanied by its rationale.”

Councilwoman Laura Chick seemed to suggest that several council members voted to do nothing because, in effect, they were angry with Riordan and the commission for handling the Williams matter in a way that may have put the city at risk of being sued. If the council believes that, wouldn’t there seem to be a very logical reason to try to come to some agreement with Williams? Apparently not, because the matter appears not to be about protecting taxpayers and saving the city from a divisive battle; the most important issue in this mess now seems to be to assign blame. Note this incredible statement from Councilman Mike Hernandez: “If the chief chooses to sue, I think many of us look forward to disclosure in court of the actions of the mayor and the mayor’s commission.”

The council and the mayor need to sit down and discuss the legal pros and cons of the Williams case. Then the mayor shouldn’t hesitate to catch the pass the council has thrown to him so that the issue doesn’t turn into the long and nightmarish soap opera it could well become for the city of Los Angeles.