Chief Issues Guidelines on Discipline

Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks on Monday gave his top command staff a new discipline guideline, mapping out his philosophy on punishment rather than providing specific ranges of penalties.

The chief’s 72-page document replaces a discipline guideline policy with a schedule of penalties approved last year by his Police Commission bosses. Commissioners backed away from their approach after Parks complained that they infringed on his authority under the City Charter.

“This is a clear statement of what we are doing and where we are going in terms of discipline,” Parks said Monday about his discipline guide, a copy of which was obtained by The Times. “This is one of the best documents the department has put together on any subject.”

Parks rejected the idea of setting down specific penalties. “Penalty schedules . . . fail to address changing sensibilities, both of the department and society in general,” the new discipline manual states. “Proper employee conduct is a dynamic process, not a static one.”

For example, the manual states, domestic violence is an offense that is viewed much more harshly today throughout the LAPD and society than it was years ago.

Parks, in an interview Monday, said the commission’s document was “too inflexible” and exposed the LAPD to potential lawsuits if managers deviated from the prescribed guidelines.

The chief’s manual focuses on helping managers figure out what factors to assess when handing down penalties.

Supporters of the commission-approved guidelines said they were necessary because without them top brass handed out punishment unevenly. They contended that minorities and low-ranking officers often received harsher punishment than others.

Some LAPD critics and union leaders also said the commission should have fought harder to keep its guidelines, which addressed a key recommendation of the 1991 Christopher Commission panel.

“This is not a guideline, it’s only a philosophical statement,” Gary Fullerton, a director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said of Parks’ new manual, which he hadn’t yet seen. “He doesn’t want to set any parameters on punishment because he wants total control. . . . This wouldn’t change a thing. It only gives lip service to fairness.”

Ramona Ripston, executive director the ACLU of Southern California, said she hasn’t seen the new guidelines either, but is suspicious of a manual that doesn’t set any ranges for punishments.

“I think it leaves too much discretion to supervisors,” she said. “Some might be too harsh and some might be too lenient.”

*

Throughout the LAPD, Parks has a reputation as a strict disciplinarian, firing more than 20 officers this year for misconduct. On Monday, he gave his manual to his top captains and other command officers. The guidelines are expected to be discussed by the Police Commission next week.

Commission President Edith Perez said she reviewed the chief’s manual and was impressed with its comprehensiveness.

“This is the first time in the history of the LAPD that the chief is on the record as to what his approach of discipline will be,” Perez said. “This makes it easier for the commission to hold him accountable.”

Perez said the commission is no longer interested in setting restrictive limits for punishments. Moreover, she said the chief’s new document satisfies “and goes beyond” the recommendations in the Christopher Commission report, which proposed department reforms after the beating of Rodney G. King.

“This makes everybody accountable for administering discipline in a fair and consistent way,” she said.

In another departure from the commission’s guidelines, Parks’ manual does not prioritize offenses. The commission sought to come down harder on officers who lie, use excessive force, demean women or minorities and are careless with their weapons.

Parks said every case of misconduct needs to be judged individually.

“Identical punishment is not our goal,” he said.

Discipline works, according to the manual, only when “fairness, consistency, and clearly stated expectations” are built into the process.

“Equally important to the process is the obligation to balance the needs of the employee with the needs of the organization and the public trust,” the manual states.

Parks said discipline at the LAPD serves three purposes: modifying the offending employee’s behavior; setting expectations for other employees; and assuring the public that the LAPD is holding employees accountable.

When deciding how severe a penalty should be, the manual says, command officers need to consider the officer’s motive, the damage the officer caused to the department’s property or reputation, the officer’s knowledge of the wrongdoing, the officer’s intent in committing misconduct and the officer’s personnel history.

“A penalty should be assessed based upon totality of the circumstances for each employee, not based solely upon the individual charges alleged,” the manual states.

To help command officers determine the appropriate punishment, the guide contains a historical review of penalties for specific misconduct offenses.

The new document also tells department managers how to adjudicate misconduct and assess witnesses’ credibility.

Parks said the new discipline guidelines will be a “living, breathing document” that can be used by chiefs in years to come. Ultimately, he added, the integrity of any discipline system “always come down to who the chief of police is.”