Civilian Panel Asserts Control Over LAPD

The Los Angeles Police Commission asserted its authority in a long-running struggle for control over the Los Angeles Police Department on Tuesday, using an unfolding scandal and a new opinion by the city attorney to insist that the police force and its chief be subordinated to civilian leadership.

Commissioners requested and received a report from the city attorney’s office declaring unambiguously that “the head of the department is the Police Commission.”

It was a stinging, public challenge to Police Chief Bernard C. Parks’ interpretation of the commission’s authority. Among other things, the city attorney contends that the commission has the right to transfer officers, a power no civilian panel in recent memory has ever tried to assert. The city attorney’s opinion dramatically undercuts the chief’s ability to contest the commission’s authority with the City Council or the mayor.

For now, commissioners said they will use their power to ensure that the corruption probe at the Rampart Division is thorough, impartial and fair.

To that end, the commission has instructed Inspector General Jeffrey Eglash to become fully involved in the department’s investigation of corruption. He will attend department briefings, review reports and follow the proceedings of a board of inquiry that will be created by the chief today to review the management structure of the department.

“Eglash’s job is to monitor the investigation, report to us on the nature of it and the quality of it,” said Commission President Gerald Chaleff. “He has full and complete access to everything. Everything. Underline everything.”

Eglash, like his predecessor, Katherine Mader, has said he was concerned that he would be barred from reviewing the department’s internal reports and records.

But Fred Merkin, the special assistant to City Atty. James K. Hahn, said the commission has access “to everything in the department.” He said further that the commission, not the department, has the power to decide how much access the inspector general should have.

The Rampart investigation probably will test that access.

Commissioner Dean Hansell said he could foresee Eglash, at some point in the probe, seeking interviews with some of the police officers or others involved, if the department’s reviews weren’t satisfactory.

“We may ask the department why [someone] wasn’t interviewed,” Hansell said. “We may get fairly involved in it. We need to make sure this is done very thoroughly.”

Parks, meanwhile, made the rounds of closed-door briefings Tuesday. First, he met with the Police Commission--and Eglash--to discuss the Rampart probe. Then he walked across the street to City Hall, where he spent almost three hours briefing the City Council.

“The council, the mayor, everyone’s affected by this,” Parks said. “It [the LAPD] is the most visible part of our city government. . . . The only legacy police officers have is their word, their credibility, their integrity.”

He said, further: “Anyone who would not be horrified by some of this is not human.”

The corruption probe has so far focused on Rampart’s anti-gang unit, against which allegations of illegal shootings, beatings and evidence planting have surfaced as the result of testimony by former officer Rafael A. Perez, who is providing information to obtain a more lenient sentence for stealing cocaine from police evidence facilities. As a result, 12 officers who work or have worked at Rampart have been relieved of duty; three others have been forced off the job.

After the council’s private meeting, Parks patiently discussed a variety of issues related to the investigation in open session. But the chief bristled when asked repeatedly by council members to address the access that will be given to the inspector general.

“The inspector general’s role in monitoring what we do as an employee of the commission is well established,” Parks said. “We got the third city attorney’s decision on it today.”

But the chief raised some concerns, as he had earlier in the Police Commission meeting, when he noted that some “protocols” have to be established to allow Eglash access to the most sensitive documents related to litigation.

Hahn, who also spoke before the council, sought to assuage lawmakers’ concerns: “The Police Commission runs the department, they can decide what the inspector general does, they can give direction to the chief of police,” he said.

The chief’s remarks, however, raised eyebrows around the council chamber even though he told lawmakers that the department has “invited” Eglash to monitor the board of inquiry’s proceedings.

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said the intent of the City Charter is clear: A paramilitary organization, such as the LAPD, should remain under civilian control.

“That’s the social compact of our society,” Goldberg said. “Anything less than that is just not acceptable.”

The blunt discussion of the Police Commission’s authority over the department comes after years of false starts for the panel. Nearly 10 years ago, former Mayor Tom Bradley sought to create a so-called activist Police Commission to more effectively monitor the department run by then-Chief Daryl F. Gates. The well-regarded Christopher Commission later recommended more power for the commission, stating that its role has been “illusory,” and that a number of structural and operational constraints weakened the panel’s abilities. More recently, the commission came under fire for rubber-stamping the chief’s requests rather than scrutinizing them.

The present commission, under Chaleff’s direction, appears headed into new territory.

“This is going to provide, in my opinion, an important, precedent-setting opportunity for the commission and the inspector general,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick.