Panel Orders Parks to Work With Garcetti

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Friday ordered Chief Bernard C. Parks to cooperate with county prosecutors in the Rampart corruption probe, and launched an investigation to determine whether he failed to do so in the past.

Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has accused Parks of shutting his prosecutors out of the ongoing Rampart investigation by denying them access to LAPD files.

Despite an orchestrated show of support for Parks, the civilian commission asserted its control over the strong-willed chief, declaring in a written motion that he had unilaterally and improperly changed the LAPD’s working relationship with prosecutorial agencies.

“No member of this commission received any notice from the chief of police or any member of this department regarding a change in policy concerning cooperation with prosecutors in the Rampart investigation,” the motion stated. “The department’s unilateral change of policy is contrary to the commission’s role as head of the department.”

Parks, who read the motion shortly before the emergency meeting was convened, was furious with the assertion that he improperly bypassed the commission, sources said. He tried to convince commissioners to change it before the meeting, the sources added.

Apparently prompted by the chief’s concern, Commissioner Raquelle de La Rocha--without consulting her commission colleagues--departed from the motion’s written text, sources said. When she read it into the public record, De La Rocha said it “appears” that the chief changed LAPD policy, instead of “it is clear” that he had, as the text read.

The motion, in which the commission’s inspector general was directed to determine whether the department had indeed withheld information from Garcetti’s prosecutors, passed unanimously.

Inspector General Jeffrey C. Eglash will review a packet of material submitted by Garcetti that provides details about five instances earlier this week in which prosecutors were allegedly denied access to LAPD files related to the Rampart probe. Eglash has the power to subpoena officers and question them under oath.

So far, the scandal has involved allegations of officers planting evidence on innocent people, beating suspects and covering up unjustified shootings. At least 29 officers have been relieved of duty, suspended or fired or have resigned. Dozens of criminal convictions have been overturned.

At Least One Conflict Acknowledged

Parks, who until Friday had insisted that the LAPD had never refused prosecutors information, appeared to backpedal on that claim in a news conference after the meeting.

Asked by a reporter if he could state “categorically that there was no information requested by the D.A. that you withheld for any purpose,” the chief acknowledged that there may have been at least one conflict.

“The D.A. asked for some shooting reports that were not part of a criminal case,” Parks said. “Our investigators set up a protocol for them to come view those cases.”

But that access was not immediate and had conditions attached, officials said.

LAPD Cmdr. Dan Schatz, who is in charge of the Rampart probe, elaborated on the chief’s remarks, saying that in one instance a deputy district attorney requested copies of some shooting reports to take back to the D.A.’s office and was denied them. The prosecutor, however, was told that he could examine the documents at the LAPD’s office, Schatz said.

“We have a protocol to give [shooting reports] out,” Schatz said. “You can’t just copy them willy-nilly.”

In his news conference, Parks said the LAPD told district attorney’s officials that the shooting reports should first go to the U.S. attorney’s office so any compelled statements from officers could be removed. Such statements, under law, cannot be used against officers in criminal cases.

Parks said district attorney’s officials were told that the reports should “be cleaned before they reviewed them if they’re dealing with them on a criminal basis. And we left it at that.”

The issue of “cleaning” documents of coerced, self-incriminating statements is at the crux of the dispute between Parks and Garcetti.

The chief, who now says he will allow Garcetti unfettered access, had favored using the U.S. attorney’s office as a first-stop clearinghouse where information would be reviewed then distributed to county prosecutors. Such a process is unacceptable to Garcetti, who wants to receive information from the LAPD at the same time the U.S. attorney receives it.

On Friday, Garcetti declined to comment.

The feud between Parks and Garcetti has been going on for months. Parks says he is frustrated that the district attorney has not moved more quickly to dismiss convictions tainted by Rampart officers or file criminal charges against corrupt officers. Garcetti, sources say, believes Parks is seeking to wrap up the corruption investigation as quickly as he can, minimizing the scope of potential wrongdoing by LAPD officers. The clash between the two erupted into public view this week with the controversy over the district attorney’s access to LAPD information. Garcetti accused Parks of being out of control, and Parks called the district attorney a liar.

Parks Says He’s ‘Moving Forward’

On Friday, Parks said he was going to take the high road from now on, but veered off course almost immediately.

“If we have made a mistake in this process so far, it is that we have gotten into a verbal dispute with a person who has a sagging political future. We do not intend to get into that anymore. We are moving forward.”

He added: “The Los Angeles Police Department personnel demand and should have better leadership than that. And the community deserves a better work product than getting into a personality clash with an individual that we have clearly shown that we have very little confidence [in].”

Parks also was visibly annoyed with the commission’s suggestion that he may have changed LAPD policy without the board’s approval. Asked about the commission’s written motion, the chief said: “You’ll have to ask the commission. They wrote that.”

Concerned that the chief was under attack in recent days, a number of supporters attended the meeting to voice their confidence in his leadership.

Before the commission’s vote, half a dozen people spoke in support of Parks, though none addressed the issues contained in the then-pending motion. Instead, they took turns lauding the chief.

“We just want to commend you, Chief Parks, for your fine work,” said the Rev. Robert Holt, who said he has backed Parks since he was appointed chief in 1997. “Keep up the good job.”

Others offered similar praise. At one point, the meeting took on the feel of a revival, when “Sweet” Alice Harris, a community activist, took to the podium.

“You do what you have to do and don’t change your mind . . . and don’t let nobody but nobody tell you you’re doing the wrong thing,” Harris said.

“So, hold your head up high,” she told the chief, eliciting the faintest trace of a smile from the grim-faced Parks. “And don’t worry about a thing, ‘cause God and we got your side.”

As Harris spoke, activist Ted Hayes, another Parks supporter, punctuated her presentation in revival fashion: “That’s right!” he proclaimed after many of Harris’ points. “That’s right!”

Some observers noted the pro-Parks theme among the speakers, suggesting that the support had been orchestrated by police officials.

Asked if the department had invited anyone to speak at the meeting, the chief said, “The department did not invite. We informed people about the meeting,” adding that it was routine to do so.

Meanwhile Friday, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously adopted a resolution endorsing the Police Commission’s action.

“Jurisdictional squabbles and politically motivated sniping between leaders who should be working arm in arm to bring wrongdoers to justice have no place in the investigation of this scandal,” said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who along with Councilman Mike Feuer introduced the resolution.

The squabbles “only undercut its progress and shake the people’s confidence in both agencies and in the entire criminal justice system in Los Angeles,” Miscikowski said.

The resolution--which passed by a vote of 13 to 0--further reiterated that Parks must report to the commission on “all matters of policy prior to taking any action on behalf of the department.”

“I think I’m being very kind when I call this a mistake on the part of Chief Parks,” Councilman Nick Pacheco, a former prosecutor, told his colleagues.

*

Times staff writer Tina Daunt contributed to this story.