Christopher Joins Fray Over LAPD Discipline

Former Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, who headed the blue-ribbon commission on Los Angeles police abuse, has stepped into the city’s charter debate to preserve the LAPD reforms he helped initiate.

Adding his influential voice to the discussion of one of city government’s most controversial topics, Christopher sent letters to the two charter reform commissions, saying he opposes a proposal that would change the way police officers are disciplined.

Specifically, the proposal would allow officers to appeal discipline imposed by the police chief to a binding arbitration panel, independent of the LAPD. Currently, the chief has sole authority to impose discipline.

Police union leaders are fighting to change the process, arguing that the chief wields too much influence over a system that is supposed to be impartial.

Chief Bernard C. Parks vigorously opposes any attempt to modify the discipline process, saying it would dilute his authority and undercut his ability to manage the department.

In his letter to both charter commissions, Christopher said: “The disciplinary process should operate entirely within the existing structural framework of the LAPD and its oversight commission.”

When the Christopher Commission examined the LAPD after the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King, it found problems with the disciplinary system. But, Christopher said in his letter, the panel “concluded that the best approach to addressing those deficiencies was to strengthen the oversight role of the Police Commission, and that ‘good management principles’ counseled leaving the chief of police primarily responsible for imposing discipline in individual cases.”

Christopher added that his commission rejected the idea of creating a civilian review board independent of the chief. In 1992, voters followed Christopher’s advice and approved strengthening the Police Commission’s oversight role and increasing its ability to hold the chief accountable.

Geoffrey Garfield, administrative director of the elected charter commission, said a subcommittee is still grappling with the discipline issue.

“The sentiment was: If there is a possibility of standardizing discipline among all city employees, then the [charter] commission is willing to explore that,” he said. On the other hand, giving the chief the “last word on discipline is an important consideration.”

He added: “There’s no predicting what will happen.”

George D. Kieffer, chairman of the appointed commission, said his panel also will be discussing discipline matters within the next few weeks.

“We’re certainly going to consider Warren Christopher’s views on this, as well as those of the proponents of the proposal,” Kieffer said. “We have not made a decision as of yet, and won’t for a couple of meetings.”

The debate on the LAPD’s discipline process is a striking point of contention between Parks and the Police Protective League. While the union is pressing to limit Parks’ powers, the chief has been lobbying the charter commissions to give him more leeway in handing out punishment, as well as permission to exempt top jobs in the LAPD from Civil Service protection.

The union’s proposal to have, in essence, civilian review of discipline would have been unthinkable among union leaders years ago. The change of position, they say, is a sign that rank-and-file members believe Parks frequently goes overboard when meting out punishment. Also, they say, it reflects the growing confidence they have in civilian judges. Currently, LAPD discipline panels are composed of two department command officers and one civilian.

“The civilian members are fair and impartial,” said Sgt. Dennis Zine, a union director and member of the elected charter commission.

Zine, who is facing possible disciplinary action over alleged misconduct, said Parks has “tainted” the process by cracking down on command officers he considers too soft on punishment.

“What we have now are witch hunts,” said Zine, adding that he believes binding arbitration would ensure fairness.

Christopher, however, concluded his letter to the charter commissions by saying he believes that “the addition of a new external layer to the system is unnecessary and unwise.”