Despite All, Parks Is Best for the City

Mayor James K. Hahn got one thing right: Police Chief Bernard C. Parks is much too stubborn. So Parks isn’t perfect. But he’s the best choice to lead the Los Angeles Police Department for the next five years.

As a former chief of the LAPD myself, I’d like to make a case for Parks.

He’s a man of high integrity. Don’t sell that point short. The question of whether Los Angeles can hold on to those values if Parks goes is a considerable one. A city largely free of corruption is not a given. It’s produced by standing above compromising relationships and by vigilance.

Parks himself worries that the scandals of early 20th century Los Angeles could return if the department allowed itself to be enmeshed in politics. That wariness is one reason Parks chooses not to be “a good listener.”

The Police Protective League helped muscle the previous chief out the door. If it should do the same to Parks, its self-serving, money-powered agenda would dominate the law enforcement and political landscape. That must not happen.

The department Parks leads keeps making gains against discriminatory behavior. From what I can tell, it now treats every group with a reasonable degree of fairness. If there are imperfections in policing, they mostly don’t arise out of a climate of prejudice.

The monitor overseeing compliance with the federal consent decree gives the LAPD very good marks for its efforts so far.

Parks has installed and enforces a complaint system that puts the city at the forefront in well-disciplined policing. For Los Angeles, given its history, that’s a fundamental need, not an option. Some of the uproar from the Police Protective League--disguised as claims of “low morale”--shows how much of an impact his disciplinary system has had.

The police union does have a valid point, though. There’s a threshold at which things can descend into pettiness, where mountains are made of molehills. Discipline needs to be tempered with wisdom and a sense of proportion.

Reformers tend to minimize what Parks has accomplished with the complaint system. But why? It’s what they demanded. It neither sells out the citizen nor undercuts the cop. Have they studied what he has built? Do they really think this system is small potatoes?

This brings up the subject of the criteria set by the Police Commission for judging Parks. Are the members giving him the bum’s rush? Parks’ responsibility, above all, has been to shape a department that all residents can depend on and trust. Anyone who doesn’t realize that this needs to be his guiding mission wasn’t paying attention in the 1990s. Parks has put his heart and soul into that task.

If reappointed, can Parks do better? Sure. For one thing, it may be time for some of the greatest, most self-effacing leadership of Parks’ career: Break out the peace pipe with the Police Protective League.

However strained relationships are now, Parks and the league have to cooperate to make LAPD employment become a goal again for young officers and recruits. Working hours have been radically changed; other morale issues can be worked on to boost retention and recruiting.

Parks does need to become a better communicator with the public, city officials and his own force. Bernard, become a listener. And what’s wrong with meeting with the LAPD’s inspector general from time to time?

It gnaws at me that Parks and others didn’t do a more satisfying job of bringing the Ramparts Division investigation to a close. We still haven’t gotten to the roots of what happened. This can’t be allowed to stand as a raw sore.

Still, overall, Parks is terrific, always has been. He’s a great chief, always will be.

*

Ed Davis was chief of the Los Angeles Police Department from 1969 to 1978. He later served 12 years in the state Senate.