2 Officials Urge Stronger Civilian Control of LAPD

Two top Los Angeles Police Commission officials have recommended that the panel consider a top-to-bottom overhaul of the LAPD in the wake of the Rampart corruption scandal, including such controversial measures as placing civilians in charge of internal affairs and investigations of officer-involved shootings.

A report to the panel by Inspector General Jeffrey C. Eglash and Executive Director Joseph A. Gunn also suggests that the commission weigh giving civilians a role in the administration of departmental discipline, now the chief’s exclusive responsibility.

“Nothing less than the future of independent civilian oversight of the Police Department is at stake,” Eglash and Gunn said in their report. “The commission must consider whether, in the wake of Rampart, minor reforms are sufficient, or whether a radical restructuring and rethinking of the department, its organization, structure, core beliefs and philosophies is instead required.”

The commission is expected to adopt the report today, said panel President Gerald L. Chaleff.

“This document was prepared at the instruction of the commission and fully reflects the commission’s intent to conduct a comprehensive and wide-ranging review,” Chaleff said.

If the commission adopts the report, the five-member panel will almost certainly place itself at odds with LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks, who has a reputation among some police reformers for resisting civilian oversight. Cmdr. David J. Kalish, the chief’s spokesman, said he had not yet read the commission’s report and, therefore, could not comment.

“I trust that the commission will conduct a very thorough and comprehensive review,” Kalish said. “I’m confident they will be thoughtful and pragmatic in any recommendation they may make.”

Eglash and Gunn said the commission’s first objective should be to evaluate the LAPD’s own Board of Inquiry report, a scathing 362-page self-analysis released by the chief last week. To that end, the commission has enlisted the help of several prominent lawyers, ex-law enforcement officials and corporate executives.

“We must look at [the Board of Inquiry report’s] completeness, methodology, at the adequacy of the factual findings, and the soundness of its conclusions,” Eglash and Gunn wrote. They said commissioners also should learn more about the details of the alleged criminal activity at the Rampart Division, a topic the Board of Inquiry purposefully skirted because of an ongoing criminal probe.

Eglash and Gunn said the commission must not be content with simply reviewing the LAPD’s assessment of the scandal. They suggested the commission look at its own role in the affair, as well as at the LAPD’s relationship with other law enforcement agencies.

“This would include the department’s relationship with the district attorney’s office as it relates to Rampart. It should explore whether the police prosecutor relationship worked as effectively as it should and what changes, if any, are appropriate to enhance such relationships,” the report states.

The commission also should examine the department’s working relationships with the FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in connection with “recent allegation concerning violations of department policy concerning police activity directed at discovering immigration status,” as reported in The Times.

In addition to analyzing the specifics of what went wrong at Rampart, the report recommends that the commission examine seven other broad areas: officer-involved shootings/use of force; the disciplinary system; risk management/accountability; hiring/personnel/training; operations; civilian oversight, and ethics, culture and communications.

Within those areas are controversial proposals that would give officers departmental amnesty for reporting crimes or misconduct by others, the creation of a special prosecutor for police matters, and making the role of police commissioner a full-time position. As with other potential reforms, they are simply ideas to be investigated and discussed and do not yet have the endorsement of the commission.

The report states that negotiations are underway to lease an 8,000-square-foot office that will accommodate about 35 to 40 people. While the commission should rely heavily on volunteers, including lawyers who will work pro bono, Eglash and Gunn said the panel will need a minimum of 11 paid staffers and a pair of liaisons with the LAPD, one with the rank of commander or above. The report said more staff would be needed as the investigation progressed.

There was no timetable recommended to complete the probe.

“While we want to finish the project expeditiously, it is more important to do it right than to do it quickly,” Eglash and Gunn wrote. “We are opposed to setting artificial deadlines that might prevent us from doing in-depth analysis.”

The commission has scheduled a series of public hearings beginning March 14, in which residents can comment on the corruption scandal and offer possible solutions.

Much is riding on how the commission responds to the department’s corruption crisis.

Some city and community leaders have demanded that the LAPD be investigated by an independent, blue-ribbon civilian panel, much like the Christopher Commission, which proposed a number of police reforms after the 1991 beating of Rodney G. King. Chief Parks and the commission have resisted such a proposal.

Commission officials say that they want the opportunity to demonstrate that the board can exert strong oversight of the LAPD and that recent reforms to enhance civilian control have firmly taken hold.

Eglash and Gunn, in their report, said they realize that the commission’s review of the LAPD’s self-critique is a defining moment for the panel.

“By successfully carrying out the task of reviewing the department in this way, the commission will demonstrate its ability to provide the strong civilian oversight of the department as envisioned by the City Charter and the Christopher Commission,” the pair wrote.

Among those the report names as having volunteered their expertise are:

* Richard Drooyan, former chief assistant U.S. attorney and partner at the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson, who served as a deputy general counsel to the Christopher Commission.

* Michael Graham, former undersheriff and assistant sheriff of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, who is an expert on police reforms and accountability systems.

* Jan Lawrence Handzlik, former assistant U.S. attorney and a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, who served on the Christopher Commission and the Webster Commission and now handles business fraud and white-collar criminal cases.

* Michael Bromwich, former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Justice and a partner at the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney.

* Steve Downing, a retired LAPD deputy chief, who specializes in personnel and training.

* Charles LaBella, a senior managing director of DSFX--an investigations and consulting firm and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California.

* James Anthony, a staff consultant at the law firm of Manning, Marder and Wolfe and former chief of police for Glendale and Chino.