Move Fails to Assure Confidentiality on LAPD Complaints

Police officers who confidentially contact the Los Angeles Police Commission’s inspector general will not be guaranteed so-called whistle-blower protections, despite City Council efforts today to provide such safeguards.

Even as the council prepares to pass an ordinance aimed at ensuring that the inspector general’s work is kept confidential and that officers who lodge complaints are free from departmental retaliation, knowledgeable city and LAPD officials say the proposal essentially is toothless.

“The ordinance is largely symbolic,” said one City Council aide who has been involved in the inspector general debate. “There are no guarantees that someone’s contact or identity won’t be revealed down the road.”

Councilwoman Laura Chick, who, as head of the council’s Public Safety Committee has led the drive for confidentiality, said the draft ordinance “is not perfect, but it sends a strong message that this is something we care about. We are making [the inspector general’s office] as safe a place as we can.”

The council’s proposed ordinance acknowledges that there may be cases in which the identity of a complainant will be made public. For example, the draft ordinance states, the Police Commission “may determine that disclosure is required for law enforcement or other purposes.”

Moreover, the effort to protect complainants from retaliation does not prevent the LAPD from disciplining employees for failing to report misconduct to department officials, even if they go to the inspector general with the misconduct allegation.

“The City Council and the Police Commission need to deal with that reality before they can fully address the retaliation issue,” said Katherine Mader, the commission’s former inspector general.

According to the proposed ordinance, officers’ contact with the inspector general should be regarded as a “neutral event,” meaning that the contact cannot be held against the officers nor can it be used to shield them from their departmental obligations.

The gaps in the city legislation reflect the problem city officials have had trying to strengthen the position while not tampering with the department’s ability to investigate misconduct allegations and discipline its own employees.

“Nobody should be under any illusions,” said Police Commissioner Dean Hansell. “The City Council’s action is limited in scope.”

Hansell and other city officials say changes need to be made in the charter and state law if the inspector general is going to be able to provide protections for whistle-blowers.

Commissioner Gerald L. Chaleff said he and his colleagues believe “we should do everything we can so members of the department feel comfortable and secure in going to the inspector general’s office.” He is part of a Police Commission subcommittee examining the issue of confidentiality for the inspector general’s office.

Concerns about the position arose in November when Mader resigned. She said the commission had weakened and undermined the post. The Police Commission’s executive director accused Mader of substandard work.

The conflict between the inspector general and her Police Commission bosses rattled many civil rights activists who believe that the creation of the civilian watchdog was one of the most important reforms in the wake of the 1991 Rodney G. King beating. As envisioned by the Christopher Commission, the inspector general was to monitor the department’s disciplinary system to make sure complaints were properly investigated and wayward cops were appropriately punished.

For months, city and community leaders have launched a public campaign to bolster the inspector general’s autonomy and independence. In the zeal to strengthen the inspector general, some top police officials fear that the position’s powers are being broadened into areas that were never intended.

Council members counter that a strong inspector general greatly helps the commission exert civilian oversight over the LAPD.

Dave Hepburn, head of the police union, said he supports the City Council’s proposal, but doesn’t think “it’s going to change anything. It’s more of a policy statement for the council.”