U.S., City Face Delicate Tasks in Negotiating Police Reform

Federal officials enter today’s initial negotiation over the future of the Los Angeles Police Department facing a difficult task: how to force reform of the LAPD by strengthening civilian oversight without undermining the local officials responsible for it.

As delicate as that job is, however, their counterparts on the city delegation have an even more difficult one: City negotiators appear divided and unsure of what to expect. They agree that they want to avoid a lawsuit by the federal government, but they differ over how much they are willing to concede to avoid that fight.

Moreover, while the federal government comes to the table after long preparation, city negotiators have held just one face-to-face session among themselves, and it occurred Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours before today’s meeting with the U.S. Justice Department.

The discussion of what role the federal government should play in rooting out corruption in the LAPD is a complicated one on both sides.

It comes after a four-year investigation by the Justice Department into allegations of corruption and civil rights violations by Los Angeles police, and it reflects the federal government’s conclusion that the Police Department has engaged in a “pattern or practice” of violations. On May 8, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division informed city officials that it was prepared to sue Los Angeles and its Police Department unless local officials agreed to enter into a consent decree in which the city would agree to reforms that would be overseen by a federal judge.

That gives the Justice Department the opportunity to complete a reform process begun in 1991, when the Christopher Commission proposed a set of recommendations strengthening civilian oversight of the LAPD. Many of those reforms were enacted, but others were not.

In the view of some observers, federal officials now have the chance to finish that work by including the completion of that reform effort in a consent decree.

That could mean that the Christopher report, an advisory document produced by a panel that went out of business upon completing it, would acquire the force of federal law.

In practical terms, it could mean such things as ordering a larger staff for the Police Commission and its inspector general, imposing new reporting requirements on the LAPD and setting new deadlines for achieving certain reforms--most notably the completion of a long-delayed improvement of the LAPD’s computerized officer-tracking system.

All of that, proponents argue, would allow the federal government to empower local civilian leaders, leaving them in a better position to manage the department when the consent decree eventually expires. But the newfound authority for the Police Commission and inspector general could come at the expense of others, such as the police chief, who could lose his exclusive grip on some disciplinary matters, and even the mayor and City Council, who might have to forgo some authority over the city’s annual budget.

On the city side, at least two of the four principal members of the negotiating team are likely to agree to many of the federal government’s proposals. City Atty. James K. Hahn, a leading candidate for mayor, already has indicated his support for an agreement that would give the federal government authority to monitor and advance police reform in Los Angeles.

“I’m interested in finishing the work of the Christopher Commission,” Hahn said Tuesday.

Asked specifically whether he would support federal insistence on the successful completion of the Christopher reforms, Hahn responded: “That wouldn’t be a bad way to go. . . . They could essentially put the period at the end of that sentence.”

Police Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff, meanwhile, oversees the civilian policy body for the Police Department and has long argued for greater civilian control over certain aspects of the LAPD, including internal discipline. As a result, he is considered a likely source of support for a deal that would strengthen the oversight system.

That leaves two wild cards: Mayor Richard Riordan’s chief of staff, Kelly Martin, and Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton.

Martin’s public comments on the negotiations have suggested to some observers that she is primarily interested in limiting the scope and duration of any federal decree. But in an interview Tuesday, Martin denied that those were her intentions.

“My mission hasn’t been that clearly articulated to me,” she said. “I plan to learn more about what the Justice Department is hoping to see in some kind of agreement with the city.”

The widespread assumption that Martin will try to fend off aggressive federal intervention in the workings and oversight of the LAPD emerges mostly because Riordan has stood firmly with Police Chief Bernard C. Parks at every turn in the Rampart corruption scandal.

Parks will not be at the negotiating session today, but the LAPD will be represented--at the Police Commission’s invitation--by Deputy Chief Martin Pomeroy.

Deaton is believed by some observers to be interested in protecting the city treasury and, especially, in ensuring that the City Council’s voice is heard in the talks.

Known as “the 16th council member,” Deaton is considered one of the city’s most controversial and powerful figures.

“A lot of council members won’t make a move without him,” said one City Hall insider. “He is very good at looking years ahead at the impact programs will have on the city.”

Still, the same observers who believe that Martin ultimately will oppose any aggressive move by the federal government say they expect Deaton to be more receptive to the Justice Department’s approach. That’s because Martin represents the mayor and Deaton is the agent of the City Council.

Just how deep the divisions are among the local negotiators is unclear, in part because the local team frankly does not know what to expect from the Justice Department officials today and partly because of the local group’s single advance meeting.

That session lasted 90 minutes Tuesday. Afterward, a source close to the talks said that there were some differences on how to approach the negotiations but that all parties had agreed to spend today’s meeting questioning federal officials and trying to learn more about what they intend.

Although participants in the talks privately admit that they foresee differences among the city’s negotiators, several stressed that they expect the local team to come to some accord.

“I think everybody shares the same ultimate goals,” Hahn said. “If this is going to work, everyone is going to have to be on board.”