Paying the Chief $375,000 to Go Away

A bitterly split Los Angeles City Council voted 8 to 7 last week to offer Police Chief Willie L. Williams a $375,000 severance deal.

The pact was arranged after the Police Commission decided not to renew Williams’ five-year contract. But while that contract provided no guarantee that Williams would continue, many council members agreed to make the offer to allow him a smooth exit and end any speculation that a lawsuit would follow. As part of the agreement, Williams would continue as a consultant.

The council vote was disputed, as Councilman Nate Holden objected to being counted as a yes vote simply for walking into the room. And many in the community questioned whether Williams deserved such a deal.

Should Willie Williams have been given a $375,000 severance?

Dennis Zine, a director of the Police Protective League:

“Since the renewal did not occur, there should have been no settlement. . . . A contract is a contract and should be upheld. . . . I blame the city officials for allowing this to happen. . . . The offer smacks the taxpayer in the face. It also sets the stage down the road in five years for this to reoccur. . . . It offends the people who follow the rules and follow the system and say, ‘Why for him and not for me?’ . . . People are going to remember this for a long, long time.”

Harry Coleman, president of the North Hills Coordinating Council, who is also with the Community Police Advisory Board:

“Williams did a good job under very difficult circumstances. He arrived in the aftermath of the riots and . . . handled one crisis after another . . . [But] I think what L.A. needs now is a chief that can be an administrator. . . . Willie Williams was not an administrator. . . . [On the buyout] you can see a portion of this is due to him. Another portion is if he performed additional services. There is very little buyout when you get down to it. . . . Let’s get on with the business at hand. The general opinion is that LAPD morale is low. . . . Give him the buyout, get the new chief in and get on with the business of running the city’s Police Department.”

City Councilman Joel Wachs:

“He’s not entitled to any more money. . . . We hired some of the best lawyers in town, who really carefully analyzed every possible allegation the chief made. They were very clear to us that we didn’t have any legal liability. . . . It undermines the Christopher Commission reforms and sets a dangerous precedent that we will never be able to refuse someone a contract unless we pay them off. . . . The whole rationale that this would enable him to leave with dignity, I think, is absurd. There is no dignity in extortion.”

Don Schultz, president of Van Nuys Homeowners:

“I think that it’s outrageous that taxpayers for the city of Los Angeles are being asked to foot the bill for someone who had been signed for a specific period of time in a contract. . . . I think it’s like anyone who signs an employment contract. If the employer wants to keep them, they negotiate a new contract. . . . I don’t think it’s too late for the city to revisit this one. . . . I think it’s a case where the city should dig in their heels and say, ‘Go ahead and sue.’ ”