L.A. Police Panel Reviews Its Watchdog’s Action

The Los Angeles Police Commission is reviewing the actions of its own civilian watchdog after union officials complained that she improperly released an officer’s confidential personnel records to a Municipal Court judge.

The commission has directed a private consultant to determine whether Inspector General Katherine Mader violated confidentiality laws when she sent the judge documents about an internal LAPD investigation into alleged domestic violence by the policeman.

The officer, who had been convicted of a previous domestic violence crime, had successfully petitioned the judge to modify that conviction so he would not lose his job under a new federal law that prohibits anyone found guilty of domestic abuse from carrying a firearm.

After Mader learned that the judge had granted the officer’s request, she faxed the jurist documents showing that the policeman was the subject of an internal investigation for another incident of domestic violence that allegedly occurred while he was on probation. Sources said Mader felt that her position as defined by the City Charter obligated her to provide the judge with information that he may not have been aware of.

Police union officials disagreed.

“In our view, the actions of the inspector general . . . amount to a violation of law, rules, regulations and policies of the Police Department and an invasion of the right of privacy,” Enrique A. Hernandez, general counsel of the Los Angeles Police Protective League wrote in a Sept. 22 letter to the commission.

As the first public watchdog in the LAPD’s history, Mader has been both praised and vilified by officers and their leaders who are grappling with the concept and consequences of civilian oversight.

Commission members said Thursday that attorney Merrick Bobb, special counsel to the panel, has been looking into the matter since shortly after they got the union’s letter. Bobb declined comment.

One commissioner, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “Bobb was directed to analyze and ferret out the facts of the alleged misconduct. And he was asked to analyze the case law cited in the union’s letter.”

Commission President Edith Perez said Bobb has not yet briefed the panel.

“This is a personnel matter, therefore I cannot comment as to any specifics,” Perez said. “. . . However, every member of the Board [of Police Commissioners], which is the oversight body of the inspector general, wholeheartedly supports the office of the inspector general and, more importantly, the objective for the office as envisioned by the Christopher Commission.”

While commissioners were reluctant to call their inquiry a full-fledged investigation, they said they felt an obligation to examine the union’s complaint to determine whether it has any merit.

Mader declined comment on the situation. A source, however, said the inspector believed that she had a duty as an attorney to provide the information and that her actions were justified under the City Charter, which says her office has authority to “make available to appropriate law enforcement officials any information or evidence which relates to criminal acts that may be obtained in the course of the inspector general’s duties.”

As with many other civilian oversight positions, the inspector general’s presence within the department has caused much angst among top LAPD brass.

Critics have accused her of abusing her authority and scrutinizing police matters she does not fully grasp. Her defenders have argued that Mader, a former deputy district attorney who investigated and prosecuted police misconduct, has restored integrity to a disciplinary system that has long had a reputation for failing to fairly and equally punish offending officers.

After 15 months on the job, Mader plays a role within the LAPD that remains controversial as she seeks to define the scope and authority of her position.

According to sources, some commissioners and LAPD officials are more troubled by Mader’s style and approach than by the fact that there is an inspector general.

“She’s having a hard time coming to grips with the chain of command and who her bosses are,” said one department insider.

As approved by the voters, the inspector general works for the Police Commission and has civilian oversight of all disciplinary matters within the LAPD. Additionally, she reviews all officer-involved shootings and has access to some of the most sensitive records in the department.

The review of her actions comes amid a clash between Mader and her commission bosses over the status of the inspector general’s inquiry into an incident in which Chief Bernard C. Parks was accused of intervening inappropriately to delay the serving of an arrest warrant on a suspended officer who had allegedly stalked and threatened his ex-girlfriend--a Los Angeles policewoman.

While Perez announced that Parks did nothing wrong and was not being investigated, Mader released a statement that she was still reviewing the matter.

Several department sources also say tension has developed between Parks and Mader. Some question whether the chief is attempting to undermine her authority by, among other things, creating an LAPD ombudsman’s position, which would be responsible for attempting to resolve disputes before they became formal complaints.

Much is riding on how Mader performs as inspector general, a position whose creation was one of the key recommendations of the 1991 Christopher Commission--which put forth reform measures after the Rodney King beating. If she does well, observers say, the Police Commission’s civilian oversight of the once-autonomous department would become firmly entrenched and legitimized. If she does poorly, the inspector general’s position could be dismissed as irrelevant, and the power of the commission probably would diminish.

Since taking the job, Mader has tackled a number of high-profile assignments. She reviewed deficiencies in the department’s citizen complaint process, oversaw background checks of transit officers applying to join the LAPD and analyzed the department’s handling of domestic violence allegations against its own officers.

She has also investigated numerous officers, from the rank and file to the top command.

But it was her involvement in the case of Officer Steven R. Markow that moved the union to call for an investigation.

He was accused of making terrorist threats and “inflicting corporal injury on a spouse” in October 1994, court records say. He pleaded no contest--equivalent to a conviction--to a misdemeanor charge related to domestic violence and was ordered to serve 24 months’ probation.

In late 1996, he went back to court, seeking to have his conviction modified because of the newly passed federal law prohibiting anyone with a domestic violence conviction from carrying a firearm.

The judge agreed to modify the conviction but was apparently unaware of the LAPD’s inquiry into another domestic abuse allegation, of which Mader informed the judge after he had already made his ruling.

“I question her authority to do that,” said Hernandez, who added that the union generally supports the role of the inspector general within the LAPD. “When an employee of the Police Department does not follow the law, that amounts to misconduct. All we’re asking for is that there be an investigation.”

Correspondent Dade Hayes contributed to this story.