Talks With U.S. Officials Over LAPD Bog Down

Remember that consent decree on police reform between Los Angeles and the U.S. Department of Justice?

When last we looked in upon our embattled protagonists, they had vowed to submit the final agreement to the City Council by Wednesday, which came and went with no document in sight.

They missed the deadline partly because of the undertaking’s complexity and partly because the city’s negotiators have spent more time bargaining with each other than they have haggling with the federal officials, according to participants.

The disagreements have centered on a number of thorny issues, namely the role an outside, independent monitor will play in tracking the city’s progress in implementing the reforms outlined in the legally binding agreement.

Negotiators, for example, spent days arguing over the size of the monitor’s budget. After settling on a sum of no more than $10 million over five years, they went on to spar over how much access the monitor should be given to police records and personnel.

Now, with the police union threatening to sue the city to block implementation of the decree, the local and federal officials are trying to figure out what role the Police Protective League should play in the reform process.

Although negotiators say they will have the decree to the council next week for ratification, the fact that the talks have dragged on for so long raises an interesting issue: It gives Mayor Richard Riordan a chance to wait until after the presidential election to decide whether to veto the decree agreement.

Some City Hall insiders speculated that the mayor, who for months bitterly opposed the consent decree, is hoping that a new administration in the White House will allow the city to escape with a less restrictive agreement.

“It’s already the end of October and we were supposed to have this by the beginning of October,” said Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas. “I believe the mayor and his designees would like to drag this thing out as long as possible.”

But Deputy Mayor Kelly Martin, Riordan’s chief of staff and his negotiator on the team, says such allegations are untrue.

“The mayor has instructed me to make sure that because we have to live with this agreement for five years, we have to have language that works,” Martin said. “It has to be understandable to the monitor and the people who have to implement it.”

“You really want to know why it’s taking so long?” Martin asked. “Here’s an example. We spent an hour and a half last Friday just talking about the meet-and-confer process with the union. There are some very, very difficult issues here.”

Indeed, the question about the police union’s involvement is a daunting one. The laws governing the meet-and-confer process in California are stricter than in other places where the Department of Justice has crafted consent decrees, Martin noted.

“In other places it is much more of a meet and consult,” Martin said. “Here, we have an obligation to meet and confer with the union. We are not going to violate that.”

If the union chooses to fight the decree, it could drag out the process even longer--putting the city in the position of being sued by the Department of Justice. As a result, officials are trying to include language in the agreement that would give the city enough time to work out a pact with union officials.

Although the agreement deals mostly with managerial issues, there are some areas that directly affect the officers’ working environment, such as collecting data to determine whether the department engages in “racial profiling” in its traffic and pedestrian stops.

The city’s talks with the Justice Department started last spring, after the federal officials sent a letter to city lawmakers alleging that the Los Angeles Police Department has been engaging in a pattern of misconduct for years in dealing with suspects.

Justice officials demanded that the city enter into a consent decree, filed in federal court, to finally ensure that they would reform the Police Department.

To avoid a federal lawsuit, the council voted in September to accept the document in concept, signaling its support for a lengthy list of reforms. Some of the provisions of the decree include: establishing strict guidelines for using confidential informants; implementing a computerized system to track problem officers; holding the police chief more accountable for disciplinary decisions; and tightening management and control of the LAPD anti-gang units.

The lawmakers last month directed the negotiating team--which includes City Atty. James Hahn, Police Commission President Gerald L. Chaleff, Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton and Martin--to work out the final details.

Initially, the city team promised to return to the council with a final deal in early October. The date was then pushed back. Last week, officials anticipated going before the council Oct. 25. It quickly became apparent they couldn’t make that deadline either.

The process, negotiators said, has been excruciating at times, with the city’s negotiating team often split in its approach.

Acting on Riordan’s behalf, Martin strongly argued early on for a memorandum of understanding with the Justice Department, a less restrictive deal that would not involve the oversight of a federal judge. Meanwhile, Hahn and others argued in favor of a consent decree, saying the legally binding agreement was needed to make sure the police reforms were finally made.

“I’ve never seen negotiations proceed this slowly,” said one source close to the talks. “At this point, it isn’t because people don’t want to wrap it up. It’s just that, at the beginning, Kelly and the Justice Department people built up so much mutual distrust that they’re now in the position where they feel they have to haggle over every word.”

Deaton, who served as the council’s representative on the negotiating team, said Martin has “worked very hard.” Nonetheless, the talks became so difficult that a member of the negotiating team at one point quipped:

“This is what purgatory must be like.”