LAPD Seeks to Curb Authority, Access, Inspector General Charges

Renewing a controversy that consumed the Los Angeles Police Commission’s first civilian watchdog, Inspector Gen. Jeffrey C. Eglash said Tuesday that LAPD officials are attempting to restrict the scope and authority of his job.

Eglash, a former assistant U.S. attorney, said he has significant differences of opinion with Chief Bernard C. Parks over his access to department records.

The department has “unilaterally sought to put restrictions on the inspector general’s office,” Eglash said at the Police Commission’s weekly meeting.

More than eight months after the Police Commission instructed LAPD officials to give the inspector general complete and immediate access to all records, Eglash said the department’s top brass has failed to pass that order on to the rank-and-file.

LAPD officials said they are trying to fulfill the commission’s mandate as best they can, but believe there should be certain protocols governing the inspector general’s access. Moreover, they said the scope of his access should be better defined.

Capt. Michel R. Moore said the commissioners may not have recognized all the consequences and complexities of their January order. For example, Moore said, there are legal and liability problems associated with the inspector general’s ability to examine intelligence files and active criminal investigations.

Commission members acknowledged that they may have to revise their position and will fully discuss the issue at an upcoming meeting.

But there is an even greater conflict looming, according to commission sources, who say that Eglash and Parks disagree over the scope of the inspector general’s position under the city’s new charter, which takes effect July 1.

Eglash and at least some commissioners believe the new charter gives the inspector general the power to initiate audits and investigations of any matter involving the LAPD.

Parks said Tuesday that he believes the inspector general’s powers were broadened to investigate the LAPD’s disciplinary system, but not significantly expanded to examine other LAPD matters, without the ultimate approval of the commission.

The scope of the inspector general’s powers became an issue last year for Katherine Mader, the commission’s first civilian watchdog. Mader, who resigned under pressure after disputes with the commission over her position, said the LAPD restricted her access to records, as well.

Mader’s complaints, and her subsequent departure from the job, rattled many civil rights activists who believe that the creation of the inspector general’s office was one of the most important police reforms adopted in the wake of the 1991 Rodney G. King beating.

Because of the controversy, a move was made to strengthen the position during the charter reform process. Under the charter approved by city voters in June, the inspector general was given the same access to LAPD information as the Police Commission.

In addition to monitoring the department’s handling of complaints, the charter gives the inspector general the power to initiate audits and investigations without prior authorization. A majority vote of the board can quash an inspector general’s investigation.

On Tuesday, Eglash said he became concerned about the department’s attempt to limit his access to records when he reviewed a draft document that Moore prepared for the chief, and upon approval, was intended to be distributed throughout the department.

That document set up certain protocols for employees to follow if the inspector general requested information. Eglash said the proposed internal rules would inhibit his access and invite disputes over his right to information.

Commissioner Dean Hansell said he thought the department’s special order was inconsistent with the commission’s mandate in January.

“Either the special order needs to be changed,” or the commission’s position needs to change, Commissioner T. Warren Jackson said.

Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff added: “We all know what we said [in January], but do we all know what we meant?”

After the meeting, Eglash said he has not yet been denied information he has requested. He said he was trying prevent future problems and “vindicate a principle of access” in the city’s new charter.