A Curious Brand of Oversight

There is a lot going on regarding the Los Angeles Police Department’s corruption scandal. The City Council awaits Mayor Richard Riordan’s signature on a federal consent decree that will govern sweeping reforms and appoint an outside monitor to ensure they are accomplished. The council is also set to approve Rampart-related legal settlements that will bring the direct payouts by taxpayers to about $13 million. And the Police Commission’s independent review panel is due to release its own Rampart findings on Thursday, including recommendations about powers of the civilian Police Commission, whose five members are picked by the mayor and approved by the City Council as civilian overseers of the LAPD.

Why on Earth, then, would at least two members of the commission be pressing to inhibit rather than help their own inspector general in obtaining information on police misconduct?

Rules proposed at the Tuesday meeting of the Police Commission by Commissioner Raquelle de la Rocha were ostensibly intended to clarify the powers and authority of the inspector general. Some of what the motion would do is good, such as giving the inspector general the power to subpoena witnesses. But in other parts, such as a section on access to LAPD records and information, vague language would threaten to impede the inspector general.

One point of contention in the proposed rules is whether the inspector general should be required to provide the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division with “all material information” he gathers on potential misconduct, including the identity of complainants who want to remain anonymous. Inspector General Jeffrey C. Eglash said he fears that would discourage people from coming forward and reduce his office to a conduit for the LAPD. Commissioners T. Warren Jackson and De la Rocha argued Tuesday that police could not effectively investigate police misconduct without knowing the complainant. An odd argument, given that police investigate all manner of crimes based on anonymous tips.

De la Rocha and Jackson also said it was time to clarify the powers and work rules of the inspector general because of a long-standing and unresolved dispute with LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks over the inspector general’s role. But the motion, questioned sharply by commission President Gerald L. Chaleff and Commissioner Dean Hansell and sometimes by Commissioner Herbert F. Boeckmann II, was set aside until next week. Boeckmann could be a swing vote on the issue; he sided with De la Rocha in finding earlier this year that the fatal LAPD shooting of the homeless Margaret Laverne Mitchell in 1999 was within department policy.

Small wonder that City Council members Laura Chick, Cindy Miscikowski and Michael Feuer have introduced their own motion, based on a recommendation from James K. Hahn, the city attorney and a mayoral candidate, to overhaul police discipline practices and strengthen the Police Commission.

The consent decree, the independent panel’s report and City Council proposals are enough to deal with right now. The unclear and possibly harmful changes proposed in the Police Commission Tuesday should stay tabled indefinitely.