Outlook May Be Brighter for Chief

After Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn announced he opposed a new term for Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, many assumed the chief’s fate was sealed: that he would be ousted, even though the decision rested with the Police Commission, not Hahn.

But this week, as the commission enters what probably will be its final days of deliberations on Parks’ future, some observers say the intensity of the sessions might suggest a possible surprise. “Maybe I’m naive,” said John Mack, president of the Los Angeles Urban League and a Parks supporter.

Many people still see Parks’ chances as slim. But the chief, for his part, said, “I feel good about my chances,” adding that he is pleased the commission saw that “the issues are very complex.”

All five commissioners say they are still undecided, and three--Rick Caruso, David Cunningham and Silvia Saucedo--described themselves in various states of inner conflict. “Definitely, one of the toughest decisions I will have to make,” said Saucedo, 28, a lawyer in her first stint on a city board.

A fourth member, Rose Ochi, said she has not made up her mind either. And the fifth, Bert Boeckmann, while acknowledging he has a good idea of how he will vote, said he doesn’t understand why anyone would be certain that members’ minds are made up. After all, he said, with the vehement partisans on both sides, “it’s a no-win deal either way.”

Late last week, there were still people, both inside and outside the department, who remained skeptical that the commission’s process is anything more than a formality.

But some close to the commission say that its members are wrestling with a number of questions: Parks knows the department like the back of his hand, but can he lead and inspire? He is a strong boss, but is he too stubborn and inflexible?

Commission President Caruso said a “rambunctious,” closed-session argument followed the lengthy interview with the chief last week. It’s not the considerable political heat that is getting to them, commissioners insist, but rather the vexing personality and management style of the chief.

Even as commissioners have extended their closed-session deliberations into this week, they say the man whose job is on the line has done virtually nothing to curry their favor. His refusal to do so leaves some commissioners--who view the process as an extended job interview--shaking their heads.

The nine-hour interview over two consecutive days began with an awkward discussion about whether the chief could have a lawyer present. After the lawyer left, the session progressed in the businesslike manner that commission meetings regularly do, sources said.

Some in the room said Parks appeared more relaxed and convinced of commissioners’ sincerity as time wore on.

At the hearing, the chief presented point-by-point responses on each of eight performance criteria on which the commissioners said they would judge him, fielded a barrage of questions and entered into new discussion topics raised by them.

Parks used as reference an inch-thick binder of materials he had prepared, mostly devoted to explaining the efforts he has made to change LAPD organization, procedures and policies.

The largest section extends more than dozen pages on at least 20 topics under subheads, ranging from tougher policies against false statements to the creation of an audit division. It covers his efforts to respond to the Christopher Commission, the 1991 report exploring LAPD racism and brutality after the beating of motorist Rodney King, and assorted other reform mandates.

The report also promises commissioners that he would “maintain advances” in his “reform agenda” among his goals, meaning that much of the work had already begun.

Commissioners said the material was mostly familiar, presented to them in previous reports. But they went home with stacks of new papers to study.

After his presentation, Parks said commissioners “were very interested in the system. There was a lot of note-taking. I was very gratified to see that.”

He said he had been businesslike, as he always is, before the commission and made no special effort to charm. “I would not want to be in a situation where commissioners see me as their buddy,” he said. “These are situations and relationships that are very professional.”

Such an outlook is vintage Parks. Often asserting that he is only interested in doing “the right things for the right reasons,” Parks said, “I don’t ingratiate myself.”

“I don’t believe in ingratiating myself to gain favor,” he said. “The way to gain favor is the way you do your job.”

Those who think otherwise, he added, “are often the people who bring the least substance to the job.”

Parks is credited, even by his enemies, with a relentless work ethic and an insider’s knowledge of the LAPD that is second to none. He is faulted for not being open to suggestion, for stifling dissent, for being too dogmatic. He is not, said former LAPD Chief Ed Davis, “over-endowed with humility.”

Parks’ signature style is almost universally described as pedantic. In public, he often appears stiff. He is grandiloquent, rather than eloquent, tending to make his sentences more grammatically complex than they need to be. His diction is so measured that some accuse him of droning. He conveys passion mainly by talking faster.

For the civilian overseers judging his fitness for the job, the issue of Parks’ receptivity to outsiders is key. They are looking for signs the chief will adapt to their vision of good leadership.

The rub comes on issues such as officer morale.

Commissioners want Parks to aggressively pursue the raising of morale. Parks disagrees with the premise of the question, arguing that reforms to the LAPD’s discipline system have been a priority of both his and his overseers--and “reforms are what officers are upset about.”

In the view of Mayor Hahn, the most important reform mandate is “the willingness of the LAPD, and particularly the chief ... to accept the fact that they are answerable to civilian control.” And under Parks, Hahn has concluded, the LAPD has “an us-versus-them mentality.”

That picture is at odds with the view of Parks inside the LAPD. Outside, Parks is sometimes described as the rigid defender of the status quo. But inside, his underlings insist it’s the opposite.

Parks and many who work under him say he has worked furiously at implementing myriad changes. By the same token, people close to Parks believe his initial opposition to the 2000 consent decree--an agreement with the federal government to reform the department--was less out of resistance than injured pride: He thought the LAPD deserved praise for crafting reform without being told, but felt no one would acknowledge this.

Commissioners said they want to make their decision on Parks’ reappointment about merits, and now they have abundant material with which to do so.

But it remained unclear last week whether this would really render their decision any easier.

The Parks they saw was a Parks they already knew: a hard worker, a reformer and a problematic leader. The commissioners, Ochi said, “are agonizing.”