Has Commission Wearied of Oversight?

It is nearly seven years since Warren Christopher stood before community leaders and the media and outlined the conclusions of the just-completed Christopher Commission report. Yanked into existence by the hideous videotape of the beating of Rodney King, the commission’s report made abundantly clear that the Los Angeles Police Department still had a long way to go before it was rid of its tendency toward arrogance and race-based excessive force.

The report boldly outlined the city charter changes that would be necessary to make the LAPD accountable at last. In June of 1992, voters overwhelmingly approved this charter reform. One of the most important recommendations for change was to provide the Police Commission with an inspector general.

The perceived need for an inspector general was based on a lack of trust of the department to adequately, fully and honestly police itself and discipline its own. Changes since 1991 have improved the complaint and investigation process, but the need for oversight remains. Only by holding the department publicly accountable by means of the inspector general’s auditing and investigative roles, the Christopher Commission concluded, could the Police Commission ensure that citizen’s rights were being upheld.

It is with this background that we come to the peculiar situation that has arisen in recent months. It is a development never foreseen by the Christopher Commission. The current inspector general, Katherine Mader, who was hired by three of the commissioners still serving (along with two other commissioners who have since moved on) seems to have a proper understanding of her responsibilities and the role of the inspector general. She appears to be providing exactly the kind of investigation and oversight that the Christopher Commission envisioned.

But the Police Commission seems unclear on whether it wants the responsibility of overseeing the department in these ways. The Police Commission seems to be returning more and more to the old rubber stamp model, which the Christopher Commission blamed for being part of the department’s problem. Thus the inspector general receives little or no commission support. Reported comments by some commissioners over the past few months suggest that the inspector general is in some way not fulfilling her responsibilities or doing the wrong kind of work. The situation appears to be not that the department is at odds with the inspector general, but that the Police Commission is at odds with its own employee.

The solution is simple. If the Police Commission believes that the current inspector general is not adequately doing her job, then commissioners should take action. First, publish for all to see exactly what it believes are and are not the responsibilities of the inspector general. Second, if they feel the inspector general is not doing the job well, they have the right to fire her and hire a new inspector general.

But what if the issue really is that the Police Commission does not choose to contradict the chief of police or does not wish to accept the oversight responsibilities that the citizens of this city voted to give to it? If this turns out to be the case, then the City Council and the mayor may need to oversee the Police Commission and remind it of the sacred trust it holds in this post-Rodney King world in which we live.