Council Debate on Consent Decree Reveals Rift

A deeply divided Los Angeles City Council began Tuesday to consider whether to approve a binding legal agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, and it quickly became clear that the fate of police reform may rest on the decision of an unlikely duo--the council’s oldest and most respected member, John Ferraro, and its youngest and most untested, Alex Padilla.

As the debate unfolded, it was apparent that nine members strongly favor entering into a consent decree specifying the reforms required to forestall a federal lawsuit alleging a “pattern or practice” of civil rights abuses by the LAPD.

Four lawmakers were equally unwavering in their opposition. That leaves two votes undecided and the most dramatic belongs to the man the other members refer to as “Big John,” the council president now on leave after undergoing surgery for cancer of the spleen.

His aides said Tuesday that the onetime USC football star will cast his ballot, even if it means returning to the council chambers in a wheelchair.

“If it were the eleventh hour and the council needed him to be there, he would pull out all the stops and be there,” said Gayle Johnson, Ferraro’s spokeswoman.

She added that Ferraro, 76, has been kept up to date on the issues with the U.S. Department of Justice, but has yet to decide how the city should proceed.

Meanwhile, Padilla, 27, the onetime MIT whiz kid who still lives with his parents in his east San Fernando Valley district, was even more silent than usual Tuesday. He was the only council member present at the meeting who chose not to join in the debate, which lasted more than a hour.

Afterward, Padilla said he is torn on the issue of the consent decree.

“There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but I haven’t made a final decision,” Padilla said.

Before Tuesday’s meeting, federal officials informed key city lawmakers that Atty. Gen. Janet Reno has resolved to obtain a consent decree and is willing to sue Los Angeles if no agreement is reached.

Justice officials also told council members that they want quick approval of a package of LAPD reforms, including keeping statistics on the race of people subjected to warrantless searches, traffic and pedestrian stops, and appointing an outside monitor to track the department’s progress in implementing a lengthy list of other improvements.

City Atty. James K. Hahn told council members in open session that he believes a consent decree filed with the court is needed to ensure that reforms are put in place. He also warned the lawmakers that he does not believe the city will prevail in court if it chooses to fight the federal government.

Ultimately, the city could end up with a court order far more restrictive than the negotiated consent decree.

“The DOJ has made very clear to us that without a consent decree, their proposal is off the table,” Hahn told council members. “I believe they are committed to litigation.”

On Tuesday, council members Laura Chick, Mike Feuer, Ruth Galanter, Jackie Goldberg, Mike Hernandez, Cindy Miscikowski, Mark Ridley-Thomas and Rita Walters spoke in support of a legally binding agreement with federal officials.

“I think that a consent decree, coupled with a monitor, is the legally responsible thing to do. I think it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do, and I think it will lead us most quickly to the reforms we need,” Feuer said. “Nobody wants a federal takeover here, but that’s precisely what will happen if we go to court.”

Though Councilman Joel Wachs said he did not explicitly support a consent decree, he said he believed that some sort of legal agreement is needed to ensure extensive reform of the Police Department.

“A consent decree is one mechanism and those who oppose it, if they have a better mechanism, have a duty to come forward with something,” he said.

But council members Hal Bernson, Nate Holden, Nick Pacheco and Rudy Svorinich argued against the legally binding settlement, saying it amounted to a federal takeover.

“Yes, we have failed to enact some things, but a lot of reforms have been made,” Bernson said. “If you enter into this type of agreement you will be sorry for a long time. . . . The City Council will be giving up its jurisdiction.”

The differing opinions among council members have left some City Hall insiders wondering if the lawmakers ultimately will have the 10 votes needed to override an anticipated mayoral veto.

Mayor Richard Riordan and Police Chief Bernard C. Parks strongly oppose the decree. They have been working behind the scenes to persuade city lawmakers to fight.

“We certainly understand the explanation offered by Mr. Hahn,” LAPD Deputy Chief Martin Pomeroy told the council. “I think the department’s position would still be that there has to be significant reform, but there’s been significant changes in the past and continue to be ongoing changes in the Los Angeles Police Department.”

He added: “It certainly would be our preference that there not be a consent decree involved. We believe the chief is more than adequate and more than competent to continue that process.”

Bill Lann Lee, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, flew to Los Angeles over the weekend to meet with council members about the proposed settlement. He is expected to address lawmakers in open session at today’s meeting.

The council will have a follow-up session Monday to go over the issues in more detail. It is unclear when a formal vote will take place.

Meanwhile, in a related matter, the Police Commission on Tuesday did not take a position on the controversy over whether to collect data on the race and ethnicity of people detained by police.

However, it voted 4 to 1 to order the Police Department to study the feasibility of collecting such data. Commissioner Bert Boeckmann dissented, saying police already have too much paperwork. Commissioner T. Warren Jackson also made it clear that he was not sold on the wisdom of collecting the data.

Parks has opposed a data collection effort similar to ones being undertaken voluntarily by departments in San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose and, by order of the governor, the California Highway Patrol. Parks has argued that data would not prove that individual officers improperly stopped someone solely because of race and might actually backfire, producing so-called racial profiling where none existed, by encouraging officers to second-guess themselves when considering making a traffic stop.

*

Times staff writer Ted Rohrlich contributed to this story.