It’s Time, Chief Parks, to Let the Sunshine In

As the latest LAPD scandal unfolds, city and county public officials have moved with admirable speed to get to the bottom of the matter. No one has been more determined to root out the offending officers and assess how deep the management problems run than Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. In this crisis, he has once again demonstrated that he is an extremely effective professional in a highly sensitive role. However, Parks’ resistance to civilian oversight can hinder the department’s ability to recover.

Civilian oversight can help prevent future scandals by establishing checks and balances over even the best internal management; it is essential when management problems occur.

Accountability is crucial to good government, and is a central feature of the new City Charter approved by the voters in June. It is hard to justify keeping the LAPD aloof from the push toward streamlined management and tough oversight that defines the future course of the city’s government.

Parks has shown himself to be a tough disciplinarian and an excellent administrator. He has served his whole term under the provisions of the police reforms proposed by the Christopher Commission and passed by the voters in 1992. In a separate measure in 1995, the voters created the Police Commission’s inspector general post. Parks’ success has shown that civilian oversight does not prevent an outstanding professional from doing his or her job as chief.

The chief has continued to try to limit the powers of the inspector general. The city attorney recently clarified that, under the City Charter, the Police Commission--and not the chief--is the legal head of the Police Department. The commission alone can direct the inspector general.

The chief asked recently why he should listen to “self-proclaimed activists” when he directly listens to the people. Yet the only way the people can hold the chief accountable is through elected and appointed officials: the Police Commission, the mayor and the City Council.

The deeper issue is the remarkable durability of the culture of the LAPD that was constructed by Chief William Parker nearly half a century ago.

When Parker took over the deeply troubled department in 1950, he completely revamped its operations. He attacked police corruption and brought a high standard of professionalism to the force. However, he also had an authoritarian style and a deeply insular concept of the LAPD’s role within the government, a view that resisted civilian oversight and intimidated public officials.

As Lou Cannon has written in his book on the LAPD, Parker “wanted a department that answered to no one but its chief. He achieved this goal and in the process became a chief who answered to no one.”

Parker expected royal treatment by the City Council and usually got it. When City Councilman Tom Bradley, a former LAPD lieutenant, critically questioned Parker about the Watts riots, Bradley remembered that Parker “resented that one of his former minions would publicly challenge him on anything.”

Just as the Bill Parker attitude toward civilian oversight would not work today, neither would the passivity of the rest of the system that made it easy for Parker to get his way. It is no picnic to resist the will of a determined, capable and popular chief. However, in stark contrast to Parker’s heyday, public opinion has spoken three times in this decade in favor of civilian oversight, most recently with the passage of the new charter in June.

The charter reform commissions--both elected and appointed--determined, among other things, that the inspector general must have the same access to department materials as the Police Commission. As weak as some police commissions have been in overseeing the department, the charter commissioners believed that the Police Commission remains the best hope for civilian oversight.

The strengthening of the inspector general post was one of the selling points of the new charter. Even charter opponents praised the provisions on the inspector general. And the charter received 60% of the vote. Public opinion, which has never seen a contradiction between support for law enforcement and civilian oversight, has been translated into law.

Civilian oversight can’t wait for the police culture to change. The mayor, the Police Commission and the City Council have to insist on oversight now, when the need is obvious, but especially in the months and years ahead when the pressure for reform wanes and the real twilight struggle begins.