Parks Was Praised in 2 Confidential Reports

Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks received strong praise for his leadership qualities in confidential Police Commission reports evaluating his first 31/2 years on the job, but was also taken to task on some of the same fronts that Mayor James K. Hahn now identifies in arguing that he should not be reappointed.

In the years covered by the evaluations, obtained by The Times, commissioners found much to admire about Parks’ vision and administration of the LAPD, from his commitment to discipline to his handling of security for the 2000 Democratic National Convention. The chief, commissioners wrote, also “exceeds goals and expectations.”

But the second of the two evaluations, in particular, suggests that the relationship between Parks and his civilian bosses was becoming somewhat strained. Specifically, it shows the commissioners voicing concern about the chief’s approach to civilian oversight, community policing and officer morale, issues that Hahn also has raised.

“Repeated public statements that either there is not a morale problem or that it is not his concern have not reflected well on his leadership,” the commission wrote in the latter evaluation.

Parks’ chances for reappointment to a second five-year term as chief have been made more difficult by Hahn’s recent statements that he should step down. The five-member civilian Police Commission, whose current members were appointed by Hahn but are empowered to make an independent decision, will decide Parks’ fate in coming weeks.

The two evaluations were drafted by commission members appointed by former Mayor Richard Riordan, a staunch supporter of the chief. A review for 2001 has not yet been completed.

It is unclear what weight the reviews will be given in the reappointment process by the current panel, which contains only one holdover member. Commission members have said they will develop specific criteria on which to evaluate the chief in coming days and will then decide his future.

The chief’s first evaluation, dated June 1999, addressed his early tenure in the post he assumed in August 1997 and was highly complimentary of his efforts to toughen the discipline system, streamline the command structure and return community police liaisons, known as senior lead officers, to patrol.

“The chief has directed and harnessed the talent in the department, encouraged employees to take leadership approaches to their work, raised the bar of excellence, made it clear that performance and accountability are applied to each employee, and imposed meaningful discipline and training,” the commission stated in the initial review. “First year has been fantastic.”

Back then, Los Angeles’ crime rate was continuing to drop and most city leaders agreed that Parks’ strong leadership was a marked improvement over the stewardship of his predecessor, Willie L. Williams.

In the evaluation, Parks came across as an extremely active and involved leader who took a personal role in a wide range of operational decisions. He was called a “hands on” manager who went through the department’s budget line by line, checked weekly on overtime costs, and involved himself in everything from departmental litigation to where officers are allowed to park their cars.

The commissioners praised him for adept administration and his efforts to diversify the LAPD by fostering relationships with gay community groups, clergy and businesspeople.

Yet this first evaluation also shows that early on, commissioners did have concerns about Parks’ interactions with the panel.

Sought Better Communication

For example, in that first report the commissioners told Parks he should strive to communicate more effectively with the mayor and City Council. The document also said he should consult with the commission in a timely way, and “before making major policy decisions.”

Other comments in the report highlighted some of the chief’s idiosyncrasies--for instance, his occasional stiffness in public, portrayed by some as coldness.

People close to Parks argue that his public demeanor contrasts strikingly with a warmer private manner; the early evaluation suggested that commissioners thought so too.

Parks’ “formal speeches are sometimes long, delivered in a monotone and with little eye contact,” the commissioners wrote, “while his extemporaneous remarks are animated, articulate and even humorous.”

Elsewhere, the evaluation called on the chief to demonstrate “more empathy and compassion.”

The second evaluation, dated February 2001, covers a much more turbulent time for Parks and the department. This period, from June 1999 to December 2000, was dominated by the Rampart corruption scandal and a deepening rift between the chief and the LAPD officers’ union over discipline and the union’s efforts to win approval for a flexible work schedule.

It was a time when Parks was involved in a high-profile squabble with then-Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti over the LAPD’s alleged refusal to turn over information about the scandal. Parks also battled with the commission’s inspector general over access to department records.

And there was a change in the commission leadership, which altered the dynamics of Parks’ relationship with his five civilian bosses. In Parks’ first years on the job, the commission president was attorney Edith Perez, a strong ally of the chief who as a commissioner recommended his appointment to Riordan.

Perez’s unabashed support of Parks, however, caused some civil rights advocates and city leaders to question her ability to provide effective civilian oversight of the department. When her commission term expired in 1999, Riordan decided not to reappoint her to the board.

End of the ‘Honeymoon’

After Perez’s departure, criminal defense attorney Gerald L. Chaleff assumed the role of commission president, marking the end of the chief’s “honeymoon” period with his civilian bosses.

While most on the panel were still very supportive of the chief, the relationship between Parks and Chaleff, which was never good, worsened.

The second evaluation reflected this. More critical of Parks, it was debated by the commission for many months.

By the time it was completed, Riordan had removed Chaleff from the panel. So the task of signing the chief’s review fell to the new president, Raquelle de la Rocha. She was generally supportive of the chief but also sometimes took him to task.

More Kudos Than Criticism

Overall, the second evaluation was still positive. Often, the board’s concerns were expressed after the commissioners had complimented him in one way or another.

For example, while they praised the chief’s initial handling of the Rampart scandal and his decision to conduct a thorough self-critique of the department’s administrative failings, they criticized him for not consulting with them first about his plans.

“There have been several key instances where decisions were announced and/or implemented without meaningful input from the board and, in some instances, without consultation or advance notice.”

Commissioners also said the department’s response to their requests for action or information “has been on several occasions untimely.”

The panel chided Parks for his public feud with Garcetti. At the time of the flare-up, the commission ordered Parks to cooperate with county prosecutors in the corruption probe and directed the inspector general to investigate the chief’s conduct.

Months later, Inspector General Jeffrey C. Eglash concluded that Parks had sought to bypass county prosecutors handling the Rampart investigation and, at a minimum, “the weight of the evidence establishes that Chief Parks made misleading statements” about his actions.

In that case, the commissioners sided with Parks in a 3-2 vote, ruling that he did not commit misconduct. Nonetheless, they expressed their displeasure about the incident in his review.

Eglash and Parks have clashed on several other occasions over the years, most often over the inspector general’s access to department records. This too was noted in Parks’ most recent review.

“More progress is needed from the chief in forging a better working relationship with the inspector general,” it said.

But the second evaluation also showed that the commission’s priorities shifted over time. In fact, in several instances, the commissioners found fault with Parks for the very stands that won him praise the first time around.

Changing Views on Discipline

In the first report, the commission strongly endorsed his disciplinary reforms, commenting: “a strong disciplinarian, which is what we need. Well done.”

But in the following evaluation, the commissioners were more ambivalent. Although they still supported Parks’ views, they told him he needed to “ensure that discipline is imposed fairly and that it is perceived to be fair,” and they noted that many officers believed it was not.

“There needs to be a better balance between the stick [discipline] and the carrot,” they said.

Commissioners also shifted their stance on Parks’ community policing efforts.

In the early report, the commission referred to his controversial decision to replace an outreach program consisting of specialized senior lead officers as the realization of one of their goals. They endorsed Parks’ alternative plan, which was to make community policing the responsibility of all patrol officers.

But by the second evaluation--after this change had generated a political and community backlash--commissioners endorsed the reinstatement of senior lead officers.

This time, they told Parks that he must “overcome the impression he is not enthusiastic about the SLO program.” Moreover, they wrote that many community groups “feel the department’s commitment to community policing is wanting.”

In the second report, commissioners also told Parks that he needed to focus his attention on matters of morale and police attrition. They acknowledged that some causes of those problems, such as an antagonistic union, were “well beyond the control of the chief. However, we believe that there are constructive steps the chief can and must take to improve morale,” they wrote. “As stated before, the chief must recognize that officer morale is his responsibility.”