L.A. Police Monitor Issues First Report

While most Los Angeles police officers are committed to implementing a wide range of reforms, some still believe that the Rodney G. King beating was handled properly and regard the areas they serve as “enemy territory,” according to a long-anticipated report by the department’s independent monitor.

Michael Cherkasky, appointed by a federal judge to oversee reform of the Los Angeles Police Department, also found that a large backlog of misconduct complaints against officers threatens the department’s ability to pursue long-term fixes. He urged LAPD brass to work more quickly to handle the complaints.

“These backlogs are a drain on scarce department resources and adversely affect the morale of the force,” said Cherkasky, who noted that up to 6,000 complaints were initiated against officers in 2000. “Low morale and administrative burden of backlogs undermine the LAPD’s ability to pursue reforms.”

The report marked Cherkasky’s first public assessment of how the department is doing in its efforts to carry out reforms and address a culture that has been blamed for permitting abuse and misconduct.

Although city officials said they were anxious to address Cherkasky’s concerns, Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski said Monday that she wanted more information on how he reached his conclusions. She said she was struck by Cherkasky’s reference to a “few” officers’ views of the Rodney King beating, but was dismayed that he did not elaborate on his observation.

“I don’t know if the monitor had explained this in any of our meetings with him, but where does this come from?” said Miscikowski, who made her comments at Monday’s Public Safety Committee meeting.

Similarly, Cherkasky provided no details about his view that some officers see their patrol areas as “enemy territory.”

Cherkasky declined requests for interviews on Monday.

City staff said they were under the impression that Cherkasky and members of his team, among them former New York Police Commissioner William J. Bratton, reached their conclusions after conducting a number of ride-alongs and informal meetings with LAPD officers.

“They had experiences where some of the officers came up and talked to them,” said Barbara Garrett, a city legislative analyst. “Things were told to them freely. What they are trying to share with us is the concern that we have some hurdles.”

Cherkasky, a former New York City prosecutor who heads a corporate security firm, was appointed in June to serve as a federal court monitor overseeing implementation of a historic set of police reforms. The fixes are part of the city’s consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice, which alleged that LAPD officers had engaged for years in a “pattern or practice” of misconduct.

Under the agreement, Cherkasky is required to make quarterly reports to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess on the city’s progress in implementing the reforms.

LAPD officials on Monday sought to put a positive spin on the monitor’s first evaluation.

“The fact that the vast majority of the officers understood and accepted the reforms was, quite frankly, heartening,” said Cmdr. Dan Koenig. “The fact that . . . we have a few people who don’t get the message, I frankly don’t find that terribly surprising. You will find that in any organization, on any issue.”

Although Cherkasky notes that he received “cooperation and apparent goodwill” from the LAPD and the city, he said there are some areas of “significant concern.”

They include:

* The implementation of LAPD’s new compressed work schedule for officers. “Some opponents of the plan believe that the 3/12 schedule will limit the department’s ability to meet reform deadlines,” he noted. “Regardless of the resolution of this issue, the monitor maintains that failure to comply fully with the consent decree is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the reasons for noncompliance.”

* Careful implementation of the computerized “early warning” system designed to identify at-risk officers. Cherkasky expressed concerns that the city was moving too quickly to implement the complex project to meet consent decree deadline and recommended that the timetables be “relaxed somewhat.”

* An expedited meet-and-confer process to ensure that union representatives support the reforms. “The consent decree recognizes the obligation of the city to confer with union representatives, but requires this process to proceed in a timely manner,” Cherkasky wrote.

Cherkasky’s next evaluation is due early next year. Officials expect his subsequent reports to become increasingly more critical as he delves deeper into the LAPD.