Council OKs $375,000 Payout for Chief

The debate that has preoccupied city government since March came to a chaotic climax Tuesday as a divided Los Angeles City Council voted to give Police Chief Willie L. Williams a $375,000 severance package, clearing the way for the chief to vacate his office in less than a month.

Late in the day, Williams announced that he would accept the offer, which he said “corrects some of the inequities and injustices that have occurred in the past.”

Once the deal is finalized, it will forestall any lawsuit against the city by the chief, a prospect that Williams and other city officials had dreaded. To sue, Williams said Tuesday, “would be devastating and traumatic for the men and women of this organization. It would be devastating and traumatic for the men and women who live in my great city.”

An interim Los Angeles Police Department chief could be named as early as next week, and the city’s Police Commission hopes to have Williams’ permanent replacement in place by the end of the summer. If all goes as planned, that will mark a turning point in the department’s history: The process now unfolding represents the first full test of rules established by voters in 1992, when the Rodney G. King beating and the 1992 riots sparked a police reform movement that has reshaped the LAPD and city government.

Tuesday, however, the historical significance of the Williams succession and the future of Los Angeles police reform were subsumed by the emotions surrounding the chief and the occasional absurdities of city politics. The 8-7 council vote took place in closed session after a bizarre holdout by Councilman Nate Holden, who stalked the City Hall corridors for more than an hour while the debate went on without him.

Throughout his walkout, Holden periodically dropped by the building’s press room, at one point telling reporters that he refused to enter the council chambers as long as Police Commission President Raymond C. Fisher was inside. Fisher heads the panel that rejected Williams’ application for a second term, and Holden said he was offended by Fisher’s participation in the discussion Tuesday.

Mayor Richard Riordan and the mediator, retired Superior Court Presiding Judge Richard P. “Skip” Byrne, also joined the debate, described by participants as an extraordinarily testy and at times incoherent session. One particularly strange moment, observers said, came when Councilwoman Ruth Galanter interrupted her own speech to upbraid Councilwoman Rita Walters for drinking coffee from a paper cup--an act that Galanter found galling, particularly on Earth Day.

Despite the distractions, sources said council members one by one voiced their views of the proposed settlement, which would pay Williams his salary through the end of his term, boost his pension benefits, give him a yearlong consulting deal and compensate him for unused sick and other leave time. Supporters of the arrangement said it represented a humane way to resolve the chief’s tenure and a chance to avoid litigation with him. Backed by Byrne, those supporters said they believed that the cost of fighting a lawsuit by the chief could exceed the value of the settlement.

Hourlong Debate

Riordan, who supported the commission’s decision not to rehire Williams and who criticized some aspects of the chief’s leadership, on Tuesday urged the council to give the chief the proposed deal. As he often has in recent weeks, the mayor said it was important to treat Williams with dignity.

That prompted a retort Tuesday from Walters, a determined foe of the mayor. According to sources, the councilwoman told Riordan: “You say that you want him to leave with dignity. It might have been good for you to have treated him with dignity while he was on the job.”

Walters strongly supported a payout to the chief, but opponents of the proposed deal countered by saying that they did not believe that Williams deserved any money beyond the end of his term, which expires July 6, and by noting that lawyers for the city had indicated that they were confident that they could prevail if the chief filed a lawsuit. One particularly vehement opponent of the proposed deal, Councilman Joel Wachs, compared the chief’s efforts to secure a buyout to “extortion.”

Another outspoken foe of the deal, Councilman Mike Feuer, said he believed that it set a bad precedent. “He came into office knowing that he had a term,” the councilman said of the chief.

With extreme positions and with high emotions on both sides, the council debate stretched for more than an hour. When a vote finally was taken, it deadlocked at 7 to 7, with only Holden missing.

At that point, Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg left to find Holden, as did Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas. Sources said Williams also tried to call the councilman and urge him back to the chamber to cast a vote in favor of the deal.

Nevertheless, it took Holden almost 30 minutes to arrive, boasting to reporters as he entered that the body was deadlocked and that his would be the deciding vote.

“They have been praying,” Holden said as he entered. “Someone has heard their prayers.”

As soon as Holden appeared inside the chambers and briefly addressed his colleagues, council President John Ferraro called for a vote. Holden tried to storm out again, but council rules provide that any council member who is in the chamber at the time of a vote and does not vote against a motion is recorded as a “yes” vote.

The result: Holden, though he cast no ballot, was recorded as supporting the deal, and his vote tipped the scales for it. Joining the reluctant Holden were council members Richard Alatorre, Marvin Braude, Mike Hernandez, Goldberg, Ridley-Thomas, Walters and Richard Alarcon. As of late Monday, aides to Riordan had been counting on all those votes except Alarcon’s, so his made the difference by the mayor’s tally.

“Democracy in action,” a beaming Alatorre said, as reporters and others streamed back into the council chambers.

Hernandez was less impressed. He left the chamber before his colleagues, tailed by half a dozen camera crews. “It’s a joke,” he said of the proceedings.

Although it antagonized a few members, Ferraro’s parliamentary maneuver was praised by supporters as a shrewd way to curtail the frustrating and divisive debate. Still, it infuriated Holden and left open the possibility that the vote might be reconsidered.

In fact, the council does have to take up the matter at least one more time because Tuesday’s vote still requires it to revisit the issue to approve spending the money. In addition, Holden could ask his colleagues to join him in a formal motion for reconsideration, which would bring Tuesday’s vote back before the council, possibly as early as today. But for Holden, those options have their own political downside. Throughout the debate over Williams’ future, Holden has positioned himself as a loyal ally of the chief. Now that Williams has accepted the council offer, any move by Holden to undo it would undermine the very person to whom he has publicly pledged his support.

Meanwhile, sources familiar with the complicated discussions involving the buyout said they believe that even if Holden flips his vote, he is unlikely to prevail. That is because some council members who oppose the payment to Williams also want the matter concluded and, therefore, would vote against reconsidering the issue or denying the final payment.

“I think it’s high time that we settle this matter for the good of all parties concerned,” said Ridley-Thomas, voicing a view shared by a number of council members. “This is what the chief has indicated that he wanted to happen. . . . I’m hopeful that this resolves the matter, and I have no reason to think otherwise.”

If the vote holds, Williams is expected to be gone from his job May 17, though he said he could stay longer if he chooses. At his news conference, Williams declined to say whom he would like to see succeed him, and said he would announce his plans sometime in the next month or so.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the city and the best interest of the department to get this matter with the chief behind us and allow him to leave his position as chief with dignity,” Fisher said at his own afternoon news conference after the council vote.

Chief’s Consultant Role

Fisher said the commission is “interested in moving forward” on its selection of an interim chief, which could occur as soon as next week. He said the search for a permanent chief also is underway, and added that he believes that a selection could be made by late summer.

Throughout that time, Williams will be available to the commission and the city as a consultant--a fact that some critics of Tuesday’s deal considered one of its strangest twists.

After all, one critic asked, why would the Police Commission, which evaluated Williams’ performance and concluded that he was a weak manager who had repeatedly misled his bosses about important issues, want to hire him as a consultant?

Asked about that Tuesday, Fisher answered only in general terms. Fisher said the chief could assist department officials in several areas during his year as an LAPD consultant, including the leadership transition and litigation matters.

“We expect that there will be a number of occasions where we will need to draw upon Chief Williams to get his perspective and his recollection of events,” Fisher said. “This kind of consulting agreement is typically used in the private sector.”

Two areas unaddressed by the deal are Williams’ legal fees and the depreciation on his Woodland Hills home. The chief had asked for money to cover those expenses, but a number of council members and others had balked, particularly at the request for attorneys’ fees.

In theory, that could mean that even with the settlement, Williams is left with little to show for the long negotiations. But sources familiar with the talks say the chief’s lawyers and their firm have been under pressure to waive their fees, which many city officials considered exorbitant.

Asked about the legal bills Tuesday, Riordan smiled: “We’re going to see how nice the chief’s lawyers are,” he said. “I think that will work out OK.”

Neither Peter I. Ostroff nor Johnny Darnell Griggs, the chief’s lawyers, were available for comment.