U.S. Underlines Its Determination on Police Reform

In his strongest public statement to date on the urgency of reforming the Los Angeles Police Department, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division told the City Council Wednesday that the U.S. government insists on a binding, legal agreement to make sure “meaningful, permanent” police reforms finally occur.

“We are asking the City Council to fulfill its responsibility to commit unequivocally to implement these real, long-lasting reforms in a federal court order that will not change with the political winds,” Bill Lann Lee told city lawmakers. “We are insisting that the consent decree hold city officials directly accountable to the public for their progress in making these reforms through regular assessments and reports by an independent monitor.”

Lee also told council members that his department wants them to speedily approve a package of improvements designed to remedy what the Department of Justice sees as a “pattern or practice” of civil rights violations by LAPD officers.

“Police reform has been an unfinished item on the Los Angeles agenda for almost a decade now,” Lee said. “This time, police reform must remain at the top of the city’s agenda for as long as it takes to get this job done. A consent decree with an independent monitor will make that happen.”

Although nine of the 15 council members have said they are open to a binding legal agreement with the federal government, four have expressed strong opposition and two remain undecided.

The differing opinions have sparked concern that the lawmakers ultimately will approve a settlement, but not by the 10-vote total required to override the mayoral veto expected by many in City Hall.

Behind the scenes, Mayor Richard Riordan and Police Chief Bernard C. Parks have been urging council members to fight the decree and to seek a less restrictive memorandum of understanding, which would work like a contract, but without the involvement of a federal judge.

Council members opposed to the decree have characterized the proposed agreement as a “federal takeover” of the LAPD.

Aware of such concerns, Lee told city officials that the proposed consent decree had been formulated with an unusual amount of input from local authorities.

“This investigation, frankly, was quite unusual, because we combined our traditional investigation with an attempt to collaborate [with city officials] in constructing reforms with the LAPD,” Lee said.

Lee told the council that the proposed agreement--hammered out after extensive sessions with the city’s four-member negotiating team--accomplishes a “number of critical objectives.”

For example, he said, the decree would bolster the civilian oversight provisions in the Los Angeles City Charter--without attempting to alter the document--by strengthening the Police Commission and the inspector general.

It would also give assurance of regular, frequent and open public scrutiny of the LAPD’s progress in implementing the reforms, Lee said, through frequent assessments and public reports by an independent monitor.

“Clearly there are very significant areas of agreement between the Justice Department and the city negotiating team,” Lee said. “We are confident that full implementation of the changes required by the proposed agreement will eliminate the constitutional violations that we have found in our investigation.”

Lee said other provisions in the agreement include:

* Making the LAPD’s internal disciplinary system more “transparent” and providing mechanisms for holding the police chief more accountable for decisions he makes on disciplinary matters;

* Tightening management and control of the LAPD units monitoring gangs;

* Establishing strict guidelines for the use of confidential informants;

* Directing “an unprecedented degree of community outreach, open meetings and public information;”

* And implementing a computerized system to track problem officers.

“The agreement first mandates development of the computerized tracking database, also called an ‘early warning system,’ ” Lee said. “This system was first proposed in the 1991 Christopher Commission Report in the wake of the Rodney King incident. If the database had been in place, it might well have prevented, detected or limited the scope of the Rampart scandal.”

Official Lists Points in Dispute

Lee said there were four major areas of disagreement that still must be worked out between the Justice Department and the city. These are whether the city should enter into a consent decree, whether the reforms should be overseen by an outside monitor, whether the LAPD should be required to collect data on the extent of “racial profiling” by officers and whether the department should revise its guidelines on dealing with mentally ill suspects.

The city lawmakers are set to meet in a special session on Monday to further study the issues.

After a half-hour presentation to the council, Lee--who was rushing to catch a plane to Washington--had time to respond to only two questions from council members.

Nick Pacheco, who opposes a consent decree, asked why the Justice Department is needed to make the reforms.

“The Department of Justice is in no better condition to tell the City of Los Angeles how to run the department in comparison to our own leadership and our police chief, considering neither party was able to uncover [former Rampart officer-turned-informant] Rafael Perez and his cohorts,” Pacheco said.

Lee said this “is not a new problem. It didn’t need to be discovered. The issues that we’re talking about have been in the public domain and the public controversy for at least 10 years. This is not an agreement that contains new concepts.

“What this negotiating team, the department and the city have done is take the best ideas available to Los Angeles and put them together in a consent decree to make sure they will happen.”

Laura Chick, who supports the decree, asked why the reforms need to be implemented so quickly. The justice department reportedly has given the city until the end of the month to approve the agreement.

Lee responded: “Time is of the essence. Our charge is constitutional violations. Your charge is reform. I think we have a happy convergence.”

After the meeting, a number of council members said Lee’s presentation solidified in their minds that the city must either accept the legally binding agreement or face a lengthy and costly court battle.

“The most significant element of his presentation is the fact that the DOJ is ready to go to court if the city does not agree to this,” said Councilman Alex Padilla, who, along with Councilman John Ferraro, is undecided on the consent decree. “That’s a huge consideration in whatever the council and the city decide to do next week.”