City Panel Backs Power of LAPD Overseer

Backing up the power and independence of the Police Commission’s inspector general, a City Council panel recommended an ordinance Monday banning LAPD retaliation against those who cooperate with the investigator.

The ordinance sent by the council’s Public Safety Committee to the full council would also make confidential complaints and investigations by the inspector general.

The proposals are in response to concerns that a Los Angeles police officer’s recent complaint against Chief Bernard Parks was handled by the Police Commission’s executive director, dismissed and sent to the chief.

Council members were concerned that the handling of the complaint might lead to retaliation against the officer who filed it.

“It was my intention to look for the most expedient and strongest and most valid ways of shoring up the position of inspector general,” said West Valley Councilwoman Laura Chick, chairwoman of the committee.

The council members also voiced support for proposals by the two charter reform commissions, which would have the inspector general report directly to the Police Commission, rather than through the executive director. Chick also backed a charter proposal giving the inspector general power to initiate investigations without Police Commission approval.

Police Commissioner T. Warren Jackson said the proposed ordinance is consistent with the intent of the commission.

“We’re all on the same page, but the question is in the details,” said Jackson, who is working on guidelines to ensure confidentiality.

The inspector general position was created at the urging of the Christopher Commission to audit and oversee complaints and discipline involving police misconduct.

The original case involved a complaint by Sgt. Jace Kessler, who asked former Inspector General Katherine Mader to look at remarks by Parks calling the police union directors “tired old men.”

In Mader’s absence, Police Commission Executive Director Joe Gunn dismissed the complaint and notified Parks. Council members called the Police Commission in for a special closed session on the incident last month.

The ordinance recommended Monday states: “Employees should be free to contact the inspector general or respond to queries from the inspector general without having to fear that their employment might be adversely affected.”

Information relating to complaints received by the inspector general are to be kept confidential, and “no employee shall be harassed or suffer adverse employment action because he or she contacted or was contacted by the inspector general,” according to the proposal.

Chick also asked Deputy Chief Dave Gascon to clarify the chief’s recent written statements that the inspector general position was set up to oversee the handling of civilian complaints.

“There seems to be still some confusion about the roles and the duties of the inspector general, certainly among the chief and Police Commission,” Chick said.

Councilman Mike Feuer and Chick said their reading of the Christopher Commission report and charter allows internal complaints of police misconduct to be monitored by the inspector general.

“The [chief’s] letter is wrong,” Feuer said.

Gascon conceded that the broader interpretation is accurate, but said the focus of the Christopher Commission was on concerns by citizens that their complaints were not being properly handled.

He also said the chief is concerned that the inspector general not run parallel investigations to ones done by other agencies, such as criminal prosecutors.

Chick said the proposed ordinance shows that the council will protect the independence and power of the inspector general.

“It’s an opportunity for the council to underscore the importance of this position,” she said.