Accord Unravels on Role of LAPD Watchdog

Exacerbating the controversy over the role of the inspector general, the Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday instructed Chief Bernard C. Parks not to distribute a special order on how officers are to cooperate with the civilian watchdog.

Police Commission members say they are concerned that the language in the chief’s directive may limit the inspector general’s ability to scrutinize the department.

The latest controversy comes three weeks after LAPD officials and Inspector General Jeffrey C. Eglash announced that they believed they had resolved their philosophical differences and agreed in principle on the wording for a special order.

Apparently, that is no longer the case.

“The commission is reviewing the order to ensure that it accurately reflects the commission policies regarding the inspector general,” Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff said.

Commissioners were surprised that Parks had signed the order without bringing it back to them for further review and discussion, sources said. Commissioners sent notice to the chief through his command staff to hold off on distributing the order, sources said.

Cmdr. David J. Kalish, the LAPD’s spokesman, said the chief had no knowledge of the commission’s request, but was not intending to immediately distribute the directive, anyway. However, Kalish said, Parks does not need the commission’s approval to distribute special orders unless they involve policy matters.

Eglash, who complained last month that Parks was trying to limit his authority, declined to comment Tuesday.

LAPD officials have been working on the special order for more than 10 months. The order is intended to inform LAPD employees on the responsibilities and authority of the watchdog position and instruct them on how to interact with the office.

As envisioned by the 1991 Christopher Commission, which proposed police reforms after the beating of Rodney G. King, the inspector general was to be the Police Commission’s eyes and ears into the department, particularly into its disciplinary system.

One of the main concerns about the chief’s new order is that it cites a city attorney’s opinion that is being clarified with respect to the inspector general’s investigative powers.

The chief’s special order borrows language from the city attorney opinion, stating that “roles not suited for the inspector general include misconduct investigations, criminal investigations, and use-of-force investigations performed by the department.”

On Tuesday, Fred Merkin, special assistant to City Atty. James K. Hahn, said “some people read this [segment of the legal opinion] in a way not that it was intended.”

Merkin, who wrote the opinion, said the inspector general is not supposed to “replace the department” in those investigative roles. However, he said, the inspector general does have the power to conduct such investigation on his own initiative.

“The inspector general can investigate the investigators, but can also do substantiative investigations,” Merkin said.

Merkin’s legal opinion first raised concerns earlier this month when several council members said they feared that it could be construed to limit the inspector general’s powers.

At that time, Merkin said he would clarify his opinion in writing to the council members who raised the issue, including Laura Chick, Mike Feuer and Jackie Goldberg.

However, during that council meeting LAPD Cmdr. Ronald Bergman told the council: “I don’t know that we would agree that the inspector general could step in and conduct a misconduct investigation.”

Merkin responded, saying the inspector general is free to initiate his own investigations, even if that means opening reviews that the Police Department has decided not to pursue or refused to investigate.

Merkin added that oversight includes “some level” of investigation and that as long as the Police Commission has not terminated it for some reason, the inspector general would, by definition, be involved in investigations.

Kalish said the chief relied on the city attorney opinion and was unaware that it was being clarified. He downplayed the controversy.

Sources, however, say that commissioners are frustrated with what they believe are the chief’s attempts to undermine the inspector general’s powers. The chief unilaterally has restricted the inspector general’s authority to refer criminal cases to a prosecuting agency, saying the Police Commission’s approval is required. The commission, however, has said the inspector general did not need such approval.