Term Limits Fan Flames Between Officers and Chief

Six years ago, the Police Protective League successfully fought to oust Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams. The leadership of the African American community came to the aid of the embattled African American chief, and the community lost. We are replaying that scenario, and all parties could lose.

In an unexpected way, term limits may be undermining the capacity of the Los Angeles Police Department to regain its former image as the most professional, well-managed department in the country. This very public and political campaign regarding the chief is fostered by term limits and the possibility of a second term because it raises expectation of influence by the league.

Policing requires walking an extraordinarily political tightrope. Any chief who tries to rein in the troops risks alienating them, as has Bernard Parks. Any chief who bows to the demands of the union and does not seek to discipline minor abuses is likely to lose the support of a portion of the population, usually, but not always, the poor and people of color.

The union’s most critical charge against Parks is that he disciplined their behavior in inconsistent and small ways. His approach is tough, but it can be compared to the “broken windows” policing philosophy: going after the small offenses to stop the development of greater crimes. Given a choice, the public is better off with no offenses, not just punishment for the big ones.

Term limits have been a popular solution to the problem of too much power accruing in too few hands, although there are drawbacks when they throw out the good guys with the bad. Some say that limited terms at the state and local level are leaving too much of our public policy in the hands of special interests and bureaucrats.

However, limiting the term of an elected politician and limiting the term of an appointed official is altogether different. Politicians tend to get elected for the full number of terms allowed because serious opponents prefer running for an open seat. In the case of the post of police chief, the Police Protective League has turned into a 24/7 opponent. No matter who the chief, there will be conflicts and the league is there to protest.

The Police Protective League has an obligation to represent its members’ interests, but in this police department--the most ethnically diverse in the nation--the union’s leadership is uncomfortably homogeneous. Minority groups and other unions within the department support Parks.

The low morale in the LAPD is a product of dissension as much as it is the reality of a tough disciplinarian at the helm. The league has run negative campaigns against the city in the past, and doubtless the threat of a million-dollar television campaign that trashes L.A. has had its effect, whether or not Parks is reappointed. Those proposed ads must have been a factor in Mayor James K. Hahn’s mind as he faces the job of pulling the city out of recession and building a case against Valley secession.

While term limits are not the cause of the hostility between the chief and the league, they make the relationship so adversarial that it is hard to imagine an effective police force in Los Angeles’ future.

Perhaps the best approach would be one seven-year term: There would be no undue pressure on the incumbent and enough time to make an imprint on the department. If the chief can’t do the job, he or she could be fired by the commission (with the appropriate approval of the mayor and the City Council) at any time.