The Public’s Interest Comes First

While most of the time government is not much more than an abstraction, the police are different. They are visible and powerful beyond any other agency. It is a narrow line between protection and abuse, and how the individual officer treads that line is fraught with danger for everyone.

Police discipline is one of the last remaining issues facing the two charter reform commissions. It has generated searching but heated debate. On one side is the Police Protective League--the police union. On the other side is Police Chief Bernard Parks, former members and staff of the Christopher Commission, which investigated abuses within the LAPD after the beating of Rodney G. King in 1991, and community-based organizations that speak for those most likely to be police victims on the other.

The main issue is the composition of the board of rights--a committee of three within the LAPD that hears cases involving serious misconduct and appeals of officer penalties. The board consists of two command officers with the rank of captain or above and a civilian drawn from the pools of examiners who conduct hearings for the Civil Service and Police commissions. The board’s composition was modified by the Christopher Commission to include a civilian, after reviewing other mechanisms for public oversight around the country.

The Police Protective League, arguing that the rights of its members are not served by this structure, suggested alternatives. One is binding arbitration; another is having two civilians, or a “peer member” (someone below command level, at the rank of sergeant, lieutenant or detective) in place of one of the command officers on the board.

The issue reflects the balance between the rights of the men and women who take risks to protect society and the security of the community against abusive behavior. In the middle is the obligation and authority of the chief.

Complicating the question put to the charter reformers is the growing tension between Parks and the Police Protective League, because Parks is a stricter disciplinarian than his recent predecessors.

Most of the controversial charter issues, in fact, are based on an awkward balance between the personalities and behavior of those now in power, and creating a structure for the future. Police departments are intense, quasi-military organizations. Their internal culture requires loyalty and commitment, because any officer’s life may depend on his or her fellow officer at any moment.

The Los Angeles Police Department was always known for its integrity. The visibility of the King beating and the Christopher Commission that followed revealed another side: a breakdown of officers’ ethics and behavior toward those in poor and minority communities. Changing that behavior (perpetrated by a relatively small number of officers, according to the Christopher Commission report) has been a slow, uphill battle.

Parks and his predecessor, Willie Williams, went a long way toward improving the public’s image of the police, and both--for very different reasons--have had their problems with the police union. Change in any organization’s culture isn’t easy. Changing police culture has got to be the most difficult, especially if the chief’s tools for holding subordinates responsible for their actions are limited.

A secondary issue regarding discipline is one of pay. Currently, some officers who come before a board of rights are relieved of duty and receive pay for the first 30 days, pending resolution of the case. That resolution can take years, because it may depend on the outcome of criminal trials, and can be a severe hardship for the officers involved. The union wants the officers transferred to administrative duties and kept on the payroll for the duration of the case. The chief’s position is that unlimited pay for someone who may ultimately be fired and jailed is an undue burden on taxpayers, and that an officer charged with a serious enough offense to warrant being relieved from street duty is not someone he wants to serve in another capacity.

Both the composition of the board of rights and the question of pay are under review but are now weighted in favor of the chief’s position. By normal civil service standards, it is unfair, but the Police Department is not a normal civil service agency; it must be held to higher standards. While no one wants to be unfair to the officers or their union, the public’s interest is primary. The only way the public interest can be served is through the chief, because the chief is the only one who can be held accountable. For that reason, organizations such as the NAACP, the African-American/Jewish Leadership Connection, the Latin American Civic Assn., the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles and the Southern California Assn. of Non-Profit Housing, all part of the city’s civic community, have spoken out strongly in favor of Parks’ position.

The final review of the charter ought to reflect that perspective.