Danger Signs for LAPD’s Watchdog

Having witnessed my share of political executions at Los Angeles City Hall, I sense preparations beginning for another of these sorry events.

The latest potential victim may be Katherine Mader, the Los Angeles Police Department’s first inspector general, whose job it is to provide civilian oversight of the LAPD’s disciplinary process and to monitor citizen complaints against cops.

I could see all the danger signs Tuesday, when Mader presented the Police Commission with a report highly critical of the way the department identifies and monitors the careers of officers accused of brutal behavior, of lying in reports and on the witness stand, or of committing other “integrity related” offenses.”

*

Mader, a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who prosecuted police officers in abuse cases, has been inspector general for more than a year. She is the department’s first IG, a job recommended by the Christopher Commission after its post-Rodney King investigation of the LAPD.

At the commission meeting, held in a small hearing room in Parker Center, Mader laid out her findings in a calm, clear manner. In a sign of respect for her bosses, the five members of the Board of Police Commissioners, she turned the rostrum so that it faced them rather than the several television cameras covering the meeting.

Her manner was a contrast to her conclusions’ hard tone: Neither the department nor the city’s prosecutorial agency, the city attorney’s office, have adequate systems for keeping track of cops who have been arrested and convicted or who been have sued for beating suspects or spouses.

While Mader praised Chief Bernard Parks for doing “a number of things to improve personnel investigations,” she said there were “a number of gaps in the system.”

She came down especially hard on City Atty. Jim Hahn for allowing a system in which his deputies do not tell the LAPD when a cop has been sued “even after a substantial settlement has been paid.”

Chief Parks--sitting straight in his chair, trim in his well-pressed uniform, the very symbol of LAPD blue--watched her without expression.

When he responded, his voice was soft, his reply delivered as calmly and clearly as she had been in her presentation.

But there was no mistaking Parks’ meaning. While he conceded the validity of some of Mader’s findings, he made it clear that he wasn’t impressed with the overall quality of her work.

“This is a very complex issue,” he said, “and sometimes simplistic answers create a bigger dilemma.”

City law, he said, barred some of the disciplinary actions recommended by Mader. Then, with a note of condescension, he said: “We are limited by a small document called the City Charter.”

Another critic was City Atty. Hahn, who objected because Mader hadn’t discussed her criticism of his office with him in private before going public in her report. Of course, his top aides had gone over the report with Mader’s staff. This may be a clue to the caliber of communications within Hahn’s office.

Despite Parks and Hahn’s unhappiness, however, they both told the commission they were making changes aimed at solving the problems that Mader had pointed out.

So, obviously her report was on the right track.

Most of Mader’s critics aren’t attacking her on the issues, however. They say it’s a question of “style.”

A member of Mayor Riordan’s team said that Mader ought to work things out in private before going public with her criticism.

There was more: She’s too confrontational. She’s too aggressive. She’s too defensive. She can’t take criticism.

This has a familiar sound. It’s what a lot of guys say when they have to answer a tough woman’s tough questions.

*

Up to now, the criticism is just a far-off drumbeat.

One person familiar with the situation called Mader “beleaguered but not in danger.”

When I asked board President Edith Perez if Mader’s job was safe, she replied, “Absolutely. There is no issue there at all. That [firing her] would send a bad message to the Police Department. The voters . . . want a true watchdog. And she is a true watchdog.”

But Perez doesn’t like watchdogs that bark too much. She said the best way to change the department is “to be constructive, and not hostile and not adversarial. Then you will get their trust. They will provide you with information. You will not alienate them.”

But a good inspector general can’t help alienating people, especially when investigating the thin-skinned and defensive Los Angeles Police Department.

It was good to hear Police Commission President Perez give watchdog Mader a vote of confidence. I hope it wasn’t like the endorsement college athletic directors give the football coach before the ax falls.