LAPD Opposes New Powers for Civilian Advisory Boards

The Los Angeles Police Department Tuesday strongly opposed recommendations by the Police Commission’s staff that would give community police advisory boards additional powers, including the ability to veto some decisions by local police captains.

In rebuffing most of the recommendations presented to him in August, Police Chief Bernard C. Parks told the Police Commission he had “significant differences” with commission Executive Director Joseph A. Gunn over the future direction of the 18 boards.

Without indicating which way they were leaning, the five police commissioners voted to send the parties back to the table for more discussions, deciding not to take up the issue again until Nov. 30 at the earliest.

At one point, Police Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff, who described the dispute as a “fundamental disagreement,” asked the LAPD brass: “Is there anything in the executive director’s report that you agree with?”

There was agreement on the need for standardized procedures and guidelines for the community councils, but on little else.

One key area of disagreement was over a recommendation that the advisory groups be allowed to approve new members with a majority vote and be given veto power over decisions by area police captains on such things as removal of council members for reasons other than criminal conduct.

Under the current system, captains are free to remove members as they see fit. There have been complaints that advisory board members were removed simply because they disagreed with area captains on some policy issues.

The proposed change would allow area captains to retain absolute authority to remove prospective members if they have criminal records. But local advisory boards, with a two-thirds vote, could overturn a commanding officer’s decision to dismiss a member for any other reason.

The Police Department’s response was to argue that such power would politicize the 18 boards, which have a total of 688 members.

“An area commanding officer must retain sole and final authority regarding the advisory board’s membership,” said the department’s response.

The department argued that advisory boards “with veto powers over an area commanding officer may develop into independent bodies acting in contrast to the [Police] Commission, and in practice, act like 18 separate commissions.”

As it stands now, the boards act as advisors to commanding officers on a variety of community problems and concerns, a service that Parks and his staff said is highly valued, even a “vital necessity.”

Representatives of the community groups told the commission they were concerned that they were being cut out of the debate between the department and the commission. The commission’s action Tuesday will allow community representatives to be part of negotiations.