New Era for LAPD Reform

The Los Angeles City Council has made a dramatic and commendable shift toward real civilian control of the Police Department. For all the years of talk about police accountability to the public, the pending federal oversight of the LAPD holds the expectation that such talk will become action.

Of course, this sort of shift has happened before, most notably after the Christopher Commission report of 1991, only to be buried by the culture of the LAPD. The difference this time is the federal muscle behind the consent decree: There’s nothing like a noose around one’s neck to concentrate the mind.

Some of the reforms agreed to by the council on a 9-2 vote Tuesday have long been resisted by the LAPD, including record-keeping on the races of motorists and pedestrians stopped by police. Other changes, including a computerized system to track problem officers, were called for by the Christopher Commission and ignored or stalled by police.

Though the Justice Department, probably in a joint process with the city, will appoint an independent monitor to oversee the reforms, on-the-ground enforcement will fall to the council, the mayor’s office and the Police Commission. The commission’s role might be troublesome. Appointed by the mayor, the part-time volunteer commission has been a weak link in civilian control of a department that was spread thin and saw itself as tougher than others. The current inspector general of the commission, Jeffrey C. Eglash, has been fairly aggressive in seeking information on police disciplinary matters, especially since the Rampart police corruption scandal broke. However, too often his requests have been defied by police.

The inspector general needs the full backing of the commission; Eglash has never really gotten it, nor did his predecessor. Some have blamed Mayor Richard Riordan, an ally of Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. The mayor appoints the five-member commission, which in turn hires and has the power to fire the inspector general. The inspector general gains broader powers to audit reforms under the consent decree, and the commission itself will no doubt change next year when a new mayor takes office, but the structural problem remains.

An appointed monitor will regularly assess the department’s compliance and may bring violations before a federal judge, who has the authority to hold the mayor and council responsible.

History proves that leaving the LAPD to its own devices does not produce lasting change, however sincere the original intention. The City Council and the next mayor will have to be just as persistent in backing strong civilian control of the LAPD as Chief Parks and most of his predecessors have been in resisting it.