Parks Attacks Proposals for LAPD Overseer

Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks broke his silence Thursday on the controversy over the role of LAPD’s civilian watchdog, denouncing recent proposals aimed at strengthening the inspector general’s position as extreme.

“The recommendations,” Parks wrote in a strongly worded eight-page letter to City Council members, “go far beyond oversight of the department’s administration of discipline and severely encroach on the chief of police’s chartered responsibilities to provide for the safety of this city.”

According to sources, Parks was outraged by the actions of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee earlier this week. That committee directed the city attorney to find the most expedient way to give the inspector general the authority to initiate investigations, to obtain access to all LAPD information, to offer witnesses confidentiality in both criminal and administrative investigations and to release investigative findings unedited.

Parks said that most of recommendations give the inspector general too much power to get involved in the department’s disciplinary operations.

“Allowing the inspector general to actively engage in the operations of that disciplinary process is dangerous and diminishes accountability for the outcomes,” Parks said. “It is truly amazing that consideration would be given to a move in this direction given our recent reported difficulties with police leadership and accountability.”

“It sounds like he disagrees with what we are trying to do,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, chair of the Public Safety Committee. “It doesn’t surprise me.”

Chick said she is still committed to strengthening the independence of the inspector general to maximize effective civilian oversight of the LAPD.

Several prominent attorneys who worked on the 1991 Christopher Commission report in the wake of the Rodney King beating testified at the public safety meeting this week that they were in favor of strengthening the inspector general’s independence.

Police commissioners who also testified at the special hearing seemed to be in agreement with at least some of the committee’s recommendations.

In his letter, Parks said he found the recommendation giving the inspector general the power to offer confidentiality to any complainant or witness as the “most problematic.”

“The ability to grant immunity in exchange for testimony is only available to a prosecuting attorney,” Parks said.

He said the recommendation to give the inspector general the authority to initiate investigations is “at best an extremely dangerous venture in unabashed freedom.”

Giving the office access to all LAPD information, he said, “would violate the very basic tenet of investigations, which is that disclosure of information be limited to those with a right to know and a need to know.”

Parks said he supports the existence of an inspector general, but he added that checks and balances are needed so the person in that job can be held accountable.

Chick said Parks’ letter adds to the “healthy debate” on the responsibilities of the inspector general.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who participated in the public safety meeting this week and has expressed concern about the status of police reforms and civilian oversight, said he found Parks’ letter interesting.

“I’m not sure that his point of view is persuasive, but it is certainly worth discussion,” he said.

Ridley-Thomas, however, also raised the issue of accountability of the inspector general at this week’s hearing.

“Nobody but nobody gets a free hand to do whatever they please without being held accountable,” he said.

But, he added, he does not believe the chief is the one who should be setting the rules.