Council Backs Civilian Rule Over LAPD

One by one and in no uncertain terms, Los Angeles City Council members made it clear during a Police Department briefing Wednesday that they are disappointed with Chief Bernard C. Parks’ obdurate resistance to civilian oversight of the department.

Specifically, council members said the chief’s constant expression of concerns about the role of the department’s watchdog, the inspector general, should be put to rest.

Parks has raised numerous questions about the inspector general’s role in investigations and in gaining access to confidential documents. The Police Commission this week formed a subcommittee to further clarify the role of their inspector general, a move strongly supported by Parks.

“It is the unanimous view of all of us here that the arguments cease, the cooperation begin and the inspector general be granted the authority it needs,” said Councilman Mike Feuer, who requested the briefing last week after concerns once again were raised by the department over the kinds of investigations that could be conducted by the inspector general.

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, head of the council’s public safety committee, said after the meeting that Parks is acting “singularly and independently” to find potential disagreements.

“It’s not good for the council to, in effect, rebuke the chief [which is] what this is,” Miscikowski said. “There is a level of clear frustration on the part of the council. It’s so unnecessary. It’s not as if there’s a major, major policy dispute. For all intents and purposes, everyone’s on the same page. . . . It just has to be collaborative.”

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said the public needs assurances that the LAPD, a paramilitary organization, is overseen by civilians, particularly as the department conducts its investigation into the unfolding corruption probe of officers assigned to the Rampart station.

“We are in one voice on these issues because we are reflecting the amount and the intensity with which the public believes we need an able . . . inspector general,” Goldberg said. “I think the most important thing is to see some action, some visible action” demonstrating the department’s cooperation with the inspector general.

The numerous legal clarifications by the city attorney’s office on the inspector general’s role and responsibilities are anything but ambiguous at this point, council members said.

“I would hope that this is the last time we need a special motion . . . to say [to Parks], ‘You don’t understand it the way we understand it,’ ” Miscikowski said.

Councilwoman Laura Chick added: “This bogging down at the department level is just, I think, causing disbelief, a shaking of faith [in the department] and frustration.”

In an interview from Lake Arrowhead, where city officials are discussing emergency preparedness, Parks said he too is frustrated, but for different reasons, and he blames, in part, the Police Commission for failing to address these conflicts sooner.

“If they think they’re frustrated, how do you think we feel in trying to get 10,000 sworn and 3,000 civilians moving in the same direction with some clarity?”Parks asked.

In Parks’ absence at the briefing, lawmakers appeared to be speaking directly to the chief through one of his bosses, Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff, whose five-member panel oversees the department.

Although council members were clearly dissatisfied with the chief, they appeared confident in the current Police Commission.

Making veiled references to Chaleff’s predecessor, Edith Perez, some lawmakers said they believed this commission is taking the lead to effectively assure strong civilian oversight of the department. Perez was criticized for rubber stamping the chief’s proposals rather than scrutinizing them.

Chief Responds to Criticism

Some City Hall insiders said, in fact, that it now appears council members are more comfortable talking to Chaleff than they are addressing the chief.

Parks took a swipe at the council Wednesday.

“You have to wonder: Why are they frightened of the [commission’s] citizen committee doing its task? They roundly criticized Commissioner Perez and even said too many things are being worked out behind the scenes. Now we have open debate and they criticize the open debate.”

He said the commission’s action to establish work rules goes a long way toward answering his concerns, but that it should have happened sooner.

“The mere fact that they chose to do this is an acknowledgment that they’ve been remiss by not doing this sooner,” Parks said. “What keeps getting missed here is everyone zeros in and talks about the inspector general’s duties and not talking about the chief’s duties. The city attorney has said the inspector general . . . can’t impede the chief’s ability to do its job.”

“If [the City Charter] is so clear and predictable, why is there a standing committee in the council, newly created, to review the charter?”

Council members, city attorneys and Chaleff agreed that Inspector General Jeffrey Eglash has the authority to conduct his own investigations into police misconduct, shootings by officers and other disciplinary matters.

But LAPD officials remained steadfast in their belief that areas of contention still exist, although they acknowledged that the department would work to resolve conflicts as they arise.

“These are issues that defy simplicity,” Cmdr. Ronald Bergmann said after the council meeting.

Some confidential internal documents, for example, are protected under state law and the department still needs to determine the so-called protocols that would allow Eglash to review them.

The department still has concerns over parallel investigations in which the inspector general and the department are reviewing the same matter. LAPD officials said they are worried that Eglash could conduct key interviews before the department does, thus fouling its investigation. They wonder whether two reports would be submitted to prosecutors.

“We don’t think these are insurmountable, but these are things we have to work out so we don’t step on each other’s toes,” Bergmann said.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, a Parks supporter, said he is concerned that the entire issue is “a clash of cultures: sworn versus civilian.”

“Is this matter the chief’s call? I happen to think it is not. I don’t know that it is the role of the chief--whoever the chief may be--to determine the role of the inspector general whose responsibility it is to be the external entity that presumably keeps the department honest.”

Further, he said: “Have we not learned our lesson about deferring to any single individual with respect to the business of public safety in the city of Los Angeles?”

But council members, who control the department’s budget, are far from pleased by the “public arm wrestling” as Feuer called it, over the inspector general.

“The spectacle of debate over this issue has to conclude,” Feuer said.