LAPD Overseer Says Plan Limits His Authority

The Los Angeles Police Department’s civilian watchdog strongly objected Monday to a Police Commission proposal that he contends would substantially reduce his authority and transform his office into an agent of the department’s Internal Affairs Division.

In a three-page memo to his five civilian bosses, Inspector General Jeffrey C. Eglash said the proposal drafted by a member of the commission seeks to limit his access to information and to undermine his ability to keep confidential the identity of people making complaints.

The concerns raised by Eglash are the latest in a three-year-old debate over the powers and independence of the inspector general. The matter has been hotly discussed at the Police Commission and City Council and was supposed to have been resolved when the new City Charter was approved by voters last year.

Instead, the controversy lingers with the inspector general complaining that LAPD officials routinely frustrate his requests for information, and the department’s top brass asking the Police Commission to establish rules by which the inspector general is supposed to operate.

Eglash’s fears that his powers would be “substantially reduced” under the proposal coincide with calls for enhanced civilian oversight of the Police Department.

“I believe that a strong consensus has emerged that strengthening civilian oversight is a key, if not the key, to needed reform of the department,” said Eglash, referring to recommendations in the federal consent decree and two studies of the Rampart corruption scandal.

One of the most disturbing provisions in the proposed “work rules,” Eglash said, is one that requires his office to turn over to the LAPD’s internal affairs commander all “material information” it has on personnel complaints.

“I don’t believe that it’s appropriate for internal affairs to have the unfettered ability to go through our files,” Eglash said Monday.

Such a requirement, he added, would fundamentally alter the relationship between the department and the inspector general, whose primary responsibility is to oversee the department’s discipline system. The inspector general position was one of the key recommendations to come out of the 1991 Christopher Commission report after the beating of Rodney G. King.

Eglash also is concerned that the proposal would limit his access to information on the LAPD’s ongoing internal investigations and constrain his ability to make criminal referrals to prosecutors.

Commissioner Raquelle de la Rocha, who drafted the proposal, said internal affairs should have access to information that the inspector general has.

“Our position is that [internal affairs] should get as much information as possible,” she said.

De la Rocha said the inspector general should not be allowed to hold confidential the identity of department employees who are material witnesses to misconduct.

“The I.G. must disclose all material information with regard to potential misconduct to internal affairs because to do otherwise ties the hands of internal affairs in uncovering misconduct,” she said in a memo.

Proponents of allowing the inspector general to offer confidentiality say that complainants whose identities remain secret are more willing to come forward because they are less likely to fear retaliation.

De la Rocha acknowledged that the lack of confidentiality might have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to report misconduct, but she said the alternative is worse.

“Allowing the I.G. to maintain the identity of witnesses as confidential and not accessible to internal affairs perpetuates the perception of many in the department that retaliation is a foregone conclusion and the promise of anonymity and secrecy are necessary to investigate wrongdoing within the department,” she said. “If we can’t trust internal affairs to protect witnesses, we are without hope to ever change the culture of the department as to the code of silence.”

De la Rocha and Commissioner Herbert F. Boeckmann II were part of a Police Commission subcommittee charged with establishing the work rules for the inspector general. She said she and Boeckmann were trying to strike a practical balance between the competing interests of the inspector general and the department. LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks has long wanted the commission to establish rules and protocols for the inspector general.

Eglash, she said, “wants all the power he can get. . . . I respect him for that. The chief wants to limit his power as much as possible.”

It is unclear whether the proposal--as currently drafted--will be approved at today’s commission meeting. Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff and Commissioner Dean Hansell said Monday that they favor a strong inspector general and do not want to limit the powers of that office in any way.

Chaleff expressed concern about undermining the inspector general’s ability to grant confidentiality.

“We do not want to adopt rules that inhibit and discourage people from coming forward to the inspector general with their complaints of misconduct,” he said.

Hansell said he is hopeful the commission would be able to draft work rules that satisfy both the department and the inspector general.