Would-Be Mayors Split on U.S. Intervention in LAPD

By JIM NEWTON

Sept. 4, 2000 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

As representatives of Los Angeles’ city government and the U.S. Department of Justice attempt to resolve their differences over police reform, the potential agreement’s outlines already are dividing both the mayoral candidates and the City Council, which ultimately must approve any deal.

The philosophical, political and management issues involved in reaching agreement are overlapping and dauntingly complex. Kelly Martin, Mayor Richard Riordan’s chief of staff and one of the city’s negotiators, compares the undertaking to “three-dimensional chess,” an assessment that other participants echo.

In essence, however, the city’s internal debate is between two camps: those who see the federal government’s intervention as constructive and potentially helpful in ridding the LAPD of corruption, and those who see it as something akin to a takeover in which Justice Department officials would strip the department and civic leaders of autonomy.

Council members, the police chief, the mayor and others fall into one camp or another. But the views of those running to replace Riordan--who is precluded by term limits from seeking reelection--are especially important for two reasons.

For one thing, the next mayor of Los Angeles will have to work with whatever deal is reached. Additionally, two of the mayoral candidates, City Atty. James K. Hahn and City Councilman Joel Wachs, have important roles to play in negotiating and approving an agreement.

Mayoral candidate Steve Soboroff, a civically active commercial real estate broker running with Riordan’s endorsement, is by far the most determined spokesman for the “takeover” position. He opposes any proposal that would involve appointment of a monitor to oversee the LAPD’s compliance with agreed-upon reforms.

Soboroff also opposes entering into a consent decree, under which a federal judge could hold local officials in contempt if they violated the deal: He argues that would give an outsider too much say in the management of the city agency.

“Will the department be better run, will this be a safer city if there’s a consent decree in place?” Soboroff asked. “No.”

At the other end of the spectrum are Rep. Xavier Becerra and Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa; both of them Los Angeles Democrats who welcome the federal government’s involvement and say they see it as a way for the LAPD finally to get its house in order.

“We need to have somebody who can kick a little behind,” Becerra said.

Villaraigosa, one of the earliest Los Angeles public officials to voice support for the federal action, affirmed that position last week.

“I would support a negotiated consent decree,” he said. “That is the best way to ensure local input with the federal oversight necessary to ensure comprehensive reform of the Los Angeles Police Department.”

The two remaining candidates, Hahn and Wachs, have the most to lose in the debate because they have a real say in the outcome: Hahn is the city’s lead negotiator and Wachs will be asked to vote up or down on the final deal. (A sixth potential candidate, State Controller Kathleen Connell, declined last week to comment on the negotiations, saying she is not close enough to the talks to feel comfortable weighing in. Connell is expected to join the mayor’s race later this month.)

In an interview, Hahn, like Villaraigosa and Becerra, adamantly dismissed the contention that the federal government is attempting to take over the Police Department--and suggested that Soboroff is mischaracterizing the issue to score political points.

“That totally overstates anything the federal government is seeking here or has sought anywhere,” said Hahn, a view shared by many legal scholars and others. The city attorney also said he was generally satisfied with the progress of negotiations and added that he believes a deal is possible that would advance reform and improve policing of the city.

Wachs, meanwhile, protested the secrecy of the negotiations and said he is inclined to vote against the deal because it does not go far enough toward overhauling the LAPD.

“It needs to be dramatically improved,” Wachs said of the proposed agreement, which has not been made public, though details have been reported in The Times and shared with council members in private briefings.

“There’s not nearly enough in there to have meaningful police reform,” Wachs warned.

He did not say what he would add to the proposal to improve it, and he did not offer any detailed counterproposals or amendments during the two closed City Council sessions on the matter. Wachs also has persistently argued that the negotiations should be held in public, though he has never formally moved to open the closed council sessions on the matter.

Still, Wachs’ objections, both procedural and substantive, significantly affect the deal’s prospects. That’s because City Hall insiders predict a close council vote over any proposed agreement.

Riordan has threatened to veto any deal that includes the appointment of a federal monitor or the entering of a consent decree, provisions that Police Chief Bernard C. Parks also vigorously opposes.

If the Justice Department continues to insist on those provisions, and if Riordan follows through on his promise, every vote will count on the council, where it takes 10 out of 15 votes to override a veto.

Including Wachs, close observers now count four likely votes with Riordan to oppose the deal--Hal Bernsen, Nick Pacheco and Rudy Svorinich are the other three. They expect Council President John Ferraro, who has been out for several weeks recovering from surgery, to be absent. To sustain a veto, Riordan would need just one more member to vote his way.

Other political forces might bolster Riordan’s chances of finding that vote.

Take, for instance, Laura Chick and Mike Feuer, both of whom are running for citywide offices--controller and city attorney, respectively--and are courting the support of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the rank-and-file officers union.

The league generally has been quiet on the talks, but it’s hard to imagine its staying that way much longer.

That is true, in particular, because the proposed deal would include an upgrading in the systems for tracking misconduct by officers and a vast increase in the number of officers assigned to investigate allegations of misconduct. Those are two areas sure to be unpopular with rank-and-file officers, who already complain about what they see as the department’s heavy-handed discipline.

The calculations involving the council and its role in reviewing a mayoral veto, widely discussed at City Hall in recent weeks, rest on an assumption: that no deal will be struck between the local negotiating team and the federal government that the mayor can accept.

Those who believe that a deal is unlikely generally point to a few areas of apparently serious disagreement: Riordan’s opposition to appointment of a monitor with certain powers; his opposition to a consent decree; and his opposition to collection of some data to see whether the LAPD engages in racial profiling.

In previous negotiating sessions and in its proposed consent decree, the Justice Department has insisted on all of those provisions. Other than Soboroff, most of the candidates vying to succeed Riordan endorse them, though some have questions.

In addition, one less widely discussed Justice Department demand could pit federal officials against the mayor and Parks. According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the Justice Department wants Los Angeles to allow officers who do not immediately report acts of misconduct a grace period for coming forward without being punished. Parks opposes that.

Finally, sources say, Justice Department negotiators were taken aback last week by an aspect of the city’s latest proposal.

Under the city’s plan, language suggested by the federal government that would have bound the city government to guarantee a certain level of funding for the Police Commission and its inspector general would be deleted. Federal officials, according to participants in the talks, want that language restored.

And yet, despite the gulf between the two sides on those and a few other hot-button issues, some participants in the talks are optimistic that a deal still can be struck--either with one side yielding on key issues or with compromises where middle ground exists.

In the case of collecting data, for instance, city officials have proposed that the department gather information about the race of anyone pulled over in a traffic stop, but that it not do the same for pedestrian stops and foot pursuits. Whether that compromise will satisfy Washington is not yet clear.

Perhaps the strongest argument that a deal will eventually be cut, however, comes from those who warn that the city frankly does not have many options.

The near-unanimous consensus of the legal community is that the city would lose if the Justice Department filed a lawsuit accusing the LAPD of a “pattern or practice” of violating rights. The revelations contained in the LAPD’s analysis of the Rampart police scandal provide, by themselves, enough evidence for the Justice Department to prevail in court, many lawyers say.

What’s more, the federal government would not be limited to that evidence. There are more than 40 pending civil rights cases against the LAPD, and there is no statute of limitations on the material the Justice Department could present. So, it would be free to comb the records in past years for evidence of misconduct and of management failings that allowed that misconduct to occur.

As a result, the city’s choice may not be between accepting an agreement and avoiding one, but rather between negotiating a deal and having a judge impose one.

“Look,” said Villaraigosa, “you can pose this as a federal takeover. Or you can say: ‘Do we want a negotiated settlement where we have input into the development of a consent decree, or do we want a court decree which would also put us under the jurisdiction of a federal judge but that would be adopted unilaterally, without our input?’ That’s our choice.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Stances on Key Issues:

Where the Los Angeles mayor and his would-be successors stand on issues related to the U.S. Department of Justice’s intervention in overhauling the Los Angeles Police Department.

Mayor Richard Riordan

Opposes a consent decree

Opposes collecting data related to racial profiling

Opposes appointment of a monitor with authority to order investigations

U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra

Supports a consent decree

Supports collecting data related to racial profiling, wants to be sure no privacy rights violated

Supports appointment of a monitor agreed to by both sides

City Atty. James Hahn

Willing to consider a consent decree

Supports collecting of data related to racial profiling, wants rules on what would be collected, how it would be used

Willing to consider appointment of a monitor with power to make sure both sides live up to agreement