Lawyers Back Strong LAPD Watchdog

A group of prominent attorneys who worked on the 1991 Christopher Commission report told the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday that they believe the Police Commission’s civilian watchdog should have the power to independently initiate investigations.

In a letter to the chair of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee, the four attorneys said the inspector general position, which was first proposed by the blue-ribbon panel, should also have “unfettered access” to LAPD information and report directly to commissioners, instead of having to work under the direction of the board’s executive director, as some have interpreted the City Charter to require.

The attorneys’ letter offers important insight into what authorities and powers the people involved with the Christopher Commission envisioned for the inspector general. That panel, headed by Warren Christopher before he became secretary of State, was formed in the wake of Rodney G. King’s beating, and it proposed sweeping police reforms.

Recently, police commissioners have sent out mixed messages about the inspector general’s role. Executive Director Joseph A. Gunn repeatedly has stated that the inspector general works under his direction. And police commissioners have resisted giving the inspector general the power to initiate investigations without their approval.

“The question of when and under what circumstances an inspector general could initiate an investigation is not specifically addressed in the Christopher Commission report,” said Mark R. Steinberg, one of the letter’s authors and former deputy general counsel to the 1991 panel. “I believe we feel that the suggestion made in our letter is within the spirit of the inspector general recommendation.”

In addition to Steinberg, the letter was signed by former U.S attorney and Christopher Commission member Andrea Sheridan Ordin; John W. Spiegel, the Christopher Commission’s general counsel; and deputy general counsel Mark H. Epstein. All four attorneys played important roles in drafting the landmark report.

The attorneys were adamant that the inspector general should report directly to the police commissioners.

“It was clear to us that there needed to be direct, two-way communication between the inspector general and the Police Commission,” the attorneys wrote, adding that Christopher Commission members never intended the executive director to serve as an “intermediary or filter” between the inspector general and the board.

“Such a ‘buffered’ relationship would undermine both the independence and apparent authority of the office,” the attorneys wrote.

The controversy over the responsibilities of the inspector general has been the subject of debate among city government and community leaders ever since the commission’s current inspector general, Katherine Mader, resigned under pressure from the board.

She contends that the commissioners undercut her powers; they claim--through Gunn--that her work was poor.

Since Mader’s resignation--which is effective Jan. 1--civil rights activists and others have questioned the Police Commission’s commitment to police reforms and civilian oversight. Two panels studying reforms to the City Charter, meanwhile, have advocated measures to strengthen the inspector general’s autonomy and authority.

In their defense, police commissioners have insisted that they are exerting strong oversight on the LAPD, even if it is out of view of the public. This week they sent a 12-page letter to Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas citing their accomplishments and vowing a commitment to police reforms. That letter was responding to concerns Ridley-Thomas had raised about the commission’s performance as the LAPD’s civilian overseer.

Commissioners also have maintained that the inspector general always has had direct access to them.

Councilwoman Laura Chick, chairwoman of the Public Safety Committee, has scheduled a special hearing for Monday to probe the role of the inspector general and the status of civilian oversight.

Several of the attorneys who wrote the letter Wednesday are planning to attend Chick’s hearing. In their letter, they said “the Police Commission is and must remain the heart of the civilian oversight process.” The inspector general, they added, “is essential to the credibility” of that effort.

Because the position is supposed to act as the investigative arm of the commission, “we do not believe that it is appropriate to require an inspector general to seek prior approval or permission before launching an investigation.”

If the commissioners feel a particular investigation is unwarranted or unnecessary, a public hearing should be held to give the inspector general the opportunity to “justify or explain the rationale for the inquiry,” they said.

“The commission, if not satisfied with such an explanation, should have the power, perhaps by supramajority vote, to halt the investigation,” they added.

Police commissioners have expressed concern that giving the inspector general power to initiate investigations could result in runaway probes with little control.

Steinberg said he and his co-authors believe that the Police Commission has the power to strengthen the inspector general position without changing the City Charter. But, he said, he and the other attorneys do not oppose rewriting the charter for clarification.

“Our goal in 1991, as it is today, was to help create a credible and appropriately independent investigative resource for the Police Commission, while preserving the primacy of the commission in the civilian oversight process,” Steinberg said.