Role of LAPD Inspector General

Re “Balance for LAPD Watchdog,” editorial, Dec. 9: We agree that it is imperative that the inspector general position be structured in such a way that the personalities of any given inspector general, police commissioner, or police chief do not stand in the way of effective civilian oversight. The editorial takes us down the garden path, however, with its invocation of independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s excesses. As it stands, the inspector general position has so few protections as to render such a comparison facile at best, irresponsible at worst. Resistance from the LAPD to the activities of the inspector general--and indeed, as you noted, resistance from Chief Bernard Parks to the very notion of an inspector general--persists. Employees who aid the inspector general in her investigations are subject to retaliation by the department leadership.

The suggestions by police reformers are both reasonable and necessary to ensure effective civilian oversight. Our first recommendation, that the inspector general report directly to the Police Commission, has widespread support. We further recommend that the inspector general have a term of years and be fired only for cause, so as to ensure that she can be fired only for doing a bad job and not for doing such a good job that she upsets the status quo.

We take issue with The Times’ intimation that the inspector general should have only limited access to department files to prevent overreaching. This attitude, shared by the LAPD leadership, treats the inspector general as an infiltrator usurping departmental authority, rather than as a representative of the people of Los Angeles, responsible for maintaining citizen trust in the department.

RAMONA RIPSTON, Exec. Dir.

ACLU, Los Angeles