Mayoral Candidates Take Strong Positions on LAPD

Businessman Steve Soboroff says the city needs to “get back to fighting crime” and opposes an expanded role for the federal government in monitoring police misconduct. Former legislator Antonio Villaraigosa would roll out the welcome mat for the federal monitors of the Los Angeles Police Department.

And who should lead the LAPD? City Councilman Joel Wachs says he would immediately begin moving to replace Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, while City Atty. James K. Hahn says the chief still can be an exemplary leader.

State Controller Kathleen Connell argues that her mayoral rivals lack the management experience to oversee the LAPD. And U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra focuses on recruitment, saying he’d offer scholarships to high school students and give officers breaks on their utility bills to beef up the LAPD’s depleted ranks.

Few institutions within the reach of Los Angeles’ mayor demand more attention, face more problems or invite more proposals for reform than the LAPD. On Saturday, new revelations raised questions about the department’s determination and effectiveness in rooting out corruption in the ranks, adding to a growing list of questions about how the department is managed.

One result of the continuing controversies is that the LAPD has been the most consistently debated topic in the Los Angeles mayoral campaign, now entering its final two weeks. And in a season of political equivocation, the six major candidates for mayor have staked out a series of clear and often controversial positions on reviving the Police Department and pulling it through its current troubles.

The leading candidates must help resolve a series of interlocking complaints of excessive force and evidence planting, among other things--collectively known as the Rampart scandal. They need to bolster sagging morale and reverse attrition that has cost the department more than 1,000 officers. They must find a way to deploy more police to work with neighborhood groups, as demanded by many communities.

Finally, they face an ominous rise in crime in recent months that has reversed five years of gains and preoccupied Mayor Richard Riordan as he approaches the end of his second and final term.

All six contenders to succeed Riordan claim they can attend to all those needs simultaneously and with equal vigor. But they send markedly different signals on priorities and how they would proceed.

Soboroff has made it clear that his focus would be on building the department and the morale of officers first, because he believes the attention on reforms, while important, has distracted from crime fighting.

To emphasize this point at mayoral debates, Soboroff tells audiences the apocryphal tale of street cops who must now pass out apology cards to every citizen asking the question: “Was I rude to you?” Soboroff’s message: Police must be freed to do their jobs.

The Pacific Palisades businessman is the only candidate in the race who opposes the deal between the city and the federal government to give a federal judge the power to oversee LAPD reforms. He frequently cites the example of Pittsburgh, which in 1997 was the first major city to fall under similar federal oversight.

Soboroff says that, in Pittsburgh, arrests and police stops went down while crime went up as a result of the federal intervention. Records and interviews from the Pennsylvania city do not entirely bear that out. In fact, there has been a slight drop-off in police performance--much of which predated the decree there--but also a marked decrease in citizens’ complaints and lawsuits.

“I just don’t think that police reform, in and of itself, is the road to a safer city,” Soboroff said in an interview. “It’s one important lane to follow, but there are also important lanes to recruiting kids away from gangs and to supporting police officers and improving their morale so they can do their job.”

At the other end of that question’s spectrum, Villaraigosa was the race’s earliest and most forceful advocate of a federal court monitor. Villaraigosa even made that case last summer in front of the city’s police union, an audience that did not welcome the stand.

Although he says “the vast majority of cops are honest and decent,” Villaraigosa has been more willing than other candidates to cite specific cases in which he believes police used excessive force. He “unequivocally” says, for example, that LAPD bicycle officers failed when they killed a frail, homeless woman named Margaret Mitchell in 1999.

Other mayoral contenders strike a far more cautious line on that controversial shooting. In interviews with The Times, the other five major candidates hesitated to criticize the officers who shot Mitchell, even though Chief Parks faulted the officers’ tactics and the Los Angeles Police Commission went even further, concluding that the officer who shot Mitchell was wrong to pull the trigger.

“It’s appalling that my opponents can’t make a strong statement on this,” Villaraigosa said. “I think it sends a message: We are going to have more of the same.”

Villaraigosa’s focus on the reform side of the police agenda is reinforced by a pair of other stands: He slammed Riordan for his firing of Police Commission President Gerald Chaleff, known as an advocate for greater police accountability but one whose oversight of the department drew some criticism.

And he has proposed the creation of a civilian panel to review complaints against officers, a move that would replace the current ad hoc boards that each include two police supervisors and one civilian.

As city attorney of Los Angeles for the last 16 years, Hahn has both the advantage and the handicap of being the candidate who is perhaps most familiar with--and responsible for--the LAPD.

Though he initially declined to endorse federal oversight of the department, Hahn subsequently helped write the legal agreement, which will track problem officers and beef up the internal affairs division. No other candidate can claim as much credit if the decree cleans up the LAPD, or sustain as much political damage if it fails.

But Hahn is also subject to the charge that for years his deputies failed to relay information about problem officers back to the department and that he never established an effective program to reduce excessive force complaints.

In addition, he once backed a bill that would have limited punitive damages against police officers to $10,000--a move that civil rights lawyers said would remove a lever against excessive force.

Yet Hahn has won the endorsement of Los Angeles’ most noted police reform advocate, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher. And the city attorney argues that it’s unfair to hold him accountable for every injury and legal loss. He can’t be at the wheel of every patrol car, preventing accidents and other failures, Hahn says.

As for his proposals for the future, the careful Hahn appears ready to proceed deliberately with reform.

While supporting the consent decree, he also would allow the chief of police to mete out punishments more directly, without waiting for review by the current disciplinary boards of rights. Officers could then appeal the chief’s actions to a hearing officer and a newly created panel of civilians.

“I think we need to start fresh with the discipline system,” said Hahn. “I don’t think the current system has credibility with officers or the public.”

Despite his criticisms of the LAPD, Hahn remains the candidate who is most supportive of Parks, saying the chief can reform the department if he’s properly focused. In addition to whatever its practical merits are, that stand makes political sense, because both men are most popular in the African American community and because the chairman of Hahn’s campaign, lawyer Bill Wardlaw, is a longtime admirer of the chief.

“This chief has done more to discipline officers than the last two police chiefs combined,” the city attorney said of Parks. “. . . I want to see this chief, who is very committed to cleaning up the department, given the opportunity to do it.”

City Councilman Wachs sits at the opposite end of the Parks continuum. Alone among the top contenders, he says he would begin a transition to a new chief as soon as he takes office July 1. (The new mayor will have the power in August 2002 to decide whether Parks should get a second five-year term.)

“I’ve thought about this for a long time and I think it’s time for a fresh start,” Wachs said in an interview. “Reform is not going to come voluntarily and it is not going to come from within.”

The councilman has long been viewed as one of the LAPD’s strongest backers and was a top ally of former Chief Daryl F. Gates. As with Hahn, his stand on Parks also has political merits: Wachs would like to secure the endorsement of the police union, whose leaders likely welcome his willingness to dump the chief. And polls indicate that Parks no longer commands strong public approval. Still, Wachs said he respects Parks and believes that the long-time veteran will work amicably with him to find a new chief.

To those who know Parks, that’s hard to accept. Although fiercely professional, Parks has reportedly been dismayed at what he believes is the politicization of his office. The department even released a statement praising little-known candidate Joe Shea, who said mayoral candidates should stop making Parks a political pawn.

Some of Wachs’ opponents have said his stand, in particular, threatens to turn Parks into a lame duck. With at least a year left in office under any new mayor, Parks could be crippled in his ability to get his subordinates to follow, said mayoral rival Connell.

Though he has attacked the chief, Wachs has spent recent months trying to draw ever closer to rank-and-file officers. He has submitted motions to the City Council to create a four-day workweek (which most of the major candidates support) and to restore neighborhood “senior lead officers”--a move accomplished recently by Parks and Mayor Riordan.

Although Wachs got nowhere with his City Council colleagues on those issues, he signaled street cops that he plans to be in their corner. That only adds to Wachs’ potential popularity with the police union.

But the union will be able to return the favor only if Wachs makes the June runoff election; that’s because union leaders have announced that they will sit out the first round of the mayoral contest.

Though police say Wachs would be in their corner, reform leaders view him more skeptically. They say the 29-year councilman has a long history of failing to scrutinize the LAPD. Wachs led the fight against the suspension of Chief Gates in the aftermath of the Rodney G. King beating. And he remained mostly silent in the 1980s, as the LAPD was scandalized by charges that it spied on private citizens.

Wachs says it’s wrong to categorize him as merely pro-police.

“I have heard people many times over the years divide others into pro-police or anti-police, and it should not be that way,” Wachs said. “You have to have the assurance that wrongdoing won’t be countenanced and reforms will take place. That just contributes to the trust and respect of people for the department.”

As is often the case in the campaign, state Controller Connell has focused her LAPD analysis on structure and oversight, while offering a bevy of specifics on how to better use city resources. She would try to find the money to put 200 security officers in middle schools and high schools and have 600 parking enforcement officers spend one-third of their time searching for broken sidewalks, potholed streets and crime hot spots.

Whether Connell can really find the $130 million to carry out those innovations and boost the force from about 9,000 to 11,000 remains uncertain. She claims she can get more out of the department by rigorously auditing the LAPD and by reducing the city’s total liability expenses, which now loom at $1 billion.

Connell also tends to view the department’s reform challenges from a management perspective. She intensely criticizes both the firing of Police Commission President Chaleff and Wachs’ call for dumping Parks. Rather, Connell says such important personnel moves should be made only after strict criteria have been set and employees’ performance analyzed.

“That’s just the difference between someone who has executive management experience,” Connell says, “and the rest of the candidates who do not.”

As controller, Connell recently proposed legislation that would encourage officers to live in the cities they police by paying $7,500 in assistance for the down payment on a home. The loans would be forgiven for officers who live in the cities they police for at least five years.

The candidate also emphasizes continual retraining of officers to prevent excessive force, which she believes is exacerbated by a few cynical, veteran officers who pass on bad habits to recruits.

As she campaigns, Connell pointedly looks outside the LAPD to other police agencies for prototypes of good policing. She cites New York’s use of mobile police substations, the county Sheriff’s Department’s implementation of four-day workweeks and San Diego’s community policing program.

Connell praised the San Diego police program and Chief David Bejarano so many times, in fact, that at least one Los Angeles police union board member became convinced that Connell wants to bring the San Diego chief to Los Angeles.

Connell denied that she’s looking for a new chief, saying she would give Parks a month to sign on to her agenda. She said it’s only appropriate to look nationally for strong programs because “we need an entire change in paradigm.”

Among the many priorities facing the LAPD, candidate Becerra said he would focus first on stemming the flow of officers to other departments and increasing the size of the force.

Like Connell, the congressman has proposed special home loans to get more officers to live in the city. As an additional live-in-Los Angeles incentive, he has called for reducing the utility rates that the Department of Water and Power charges police officers.

“We can’t be competitive and keep a lot of good officers unless we have better benefits,” said Becerra.

The congressman--who helped pass Clinton administration legislation that paid for more than 1,000 officers in Los Angeles--also outlined plans to begin recruiting officers at a much earlier age. He said he would mimic the military and recruit young people by offering college scholarships.

At a recent news conference, Becerra introduced a young Marine who said he would have become a police officer if a college scholarship had been available.

“I would like to see that young man given the opportunity, not only to serve his country,” Becerra said, “but to serve his city.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Views on the LAPD

The six leading contenders for mayor of Los Angeles differ on several policies related to the future of the Los Angeles Police Department, including the makeup of the Police Commission and the future of Chief Bernard C. Parks.

If you had to make the decision today, would you grant Chief Parks a second five-year term?

Xavier Becerra:

NO, the chief has “written his own epitaph” by failing to improve the department. (1)

*

Kathleen Connell:

YES, but the chief would have just 30 days to boost department performance or lose his job.

*

James K. Hahn

YES, the chief is a proven leader but must re-focus on the LAPD’s top priorities.

*

Steve Soboroff

NO, crime is up and arrests are down, as is morale. The Chief must be held accountable. (1)

*

Antonio R. Villaraigosa

NO, Parks is not “the right person for the job.” The chief has not been attentive enough to reform. (1)

*

Joel Wachs

*

NO, it’s time for change and a fresh start. Would look for new chief immediately.

(1) Becerra, Soboroff and Villaraigosa all offer some possibility that Parks can earn a second term, despite their current criticisms.

*

Would you keep the five-member Police Commission in its current form, or attempt to give it more clout by making the entire panel or some of its members paid, full-time employees?

Becerra:

Leans toward one or two full-time commissioners to improve civilian oversight

*

Connell:

Opposes full-time commissioners. Instead, panel would be managed more closely by the mayor and held accountable for failures.

*

Hahn:

Supports full-time commission president who would be paid equal to chief to reinforce civilian control.

*

Soboroff:

Opposes full-time commission. Money better spent on independent inspector general to oversee officers.

*

Villaraigosa:

Supports full-time commissioners to more consistently push for reforms. Against matching salary of commission president to chief.

*

Wachs:

Opposes full-time commissioners. Money better spent on independent inspector general to oversee officers.