THE STATE : Should the Police Commission Get Involved in LAPD Reform?

The Board of Police Commissioners has shed its traditional timidity toward activism and adopted a plan to bring sorely needed impetus and integrity to the task of implementing the Christopher Commission reforms. Drawing up detailed action plans, complete with implementation dates, it has taken on issues at the heart of Los Angeles’ police culture: use of force, internal discipline, officer evaluation, bias and prejudice stemming from cultural differences and community policing. The question is whether the commission’s ambitions will outstrip its abilities.

Understandably, the new Police Commission is frustrated by the leisurely attitude the Los Angeles Police Department has taken toward realizing the Christopher recommendations, now nearly four years old. In seizing control of the reform calendar, it accused the LAPD brass of procrastinating and of failing to support the chief’s reform efforts.

Somewhat surprisingly, the commission’s new-found assertiveness has not won many plaudits among its natural allies. Council members are quietly supportive, the mayor, who appointed the commission, is mostly quiet and community representatives, ever mindful of past promises unfulfilled, are cautious.

The commission’s natural enemies have not hesitated to open fire. The Police Protective League, which represents most of the police officers, sergeants and lieutenants of the LAPD, accused the commission of insensitivity to the cop on the beat and of thereby accelerating the exodus of young officers to other law-enforcement agencies. The Police Command Officers’ Assn., representing captains, commanders and deputy chiefs, bridled at charges that some of them may be a “bottleneck” to reform. Chief Willie L. Williams, meanwhile, though mute on the propriety of a commission-turned-activist, has eagerly supplied data suggesting how much reform his department has already achieved.

Yet, in exerting a firmer hand on the pace of reform, the commission has displayed a certain naivete about how to produce results in a large organization such as the LAPD. The commissioners, so far, have not grasped the concept that they must hold the chief responsible for progress within the department. Not only does their failure to do so violate a basic principle of management, it also allows the chief to escape accountability even as it weakens his authority.

The commission, certainly, has a right and an obligation to monitor progress toward an LAPD modeled after the Christopher recommendations. Indeed, it has general responsibility for all departmental operations. But it must issue direction and receive reform reports through the chief. The Police Commission

can complain all it wants about the foot-dragging or incompetence of LAPD’s brass, but it cannot directly address these problems without undermining the chief’s ability to manage his officers. If the chief is left out of this command-control loop, he can do little to make corrections or take appropriate administrative actions.

If the LAPD command staff is undercutting his reform efforts, the chief must use his City Charter authority to reassign, transfer, evaluate, reward, demote, disci

pline or force retirement, and the commission must support his chosen actions, including resisting City Council attempts to meddle. If it is determined that it is the chief who is at fault for the laggardly pace of reform, the commission should give him notice and, if improvement is not forthcoming, replace him.

The commission also seems naive about how departmental inertia protects philosophies and attitudes ingrained over decades. Members seem to little appreciate the different aims and interests of the various parties to reform, to little understand the different, often conflicting worlds of individual officers.

The enormity of these differences in perceptions, opinions, aims and ambitions demands a problem-solving approach that, unfortunately, is foreign to the LAPD’s tradition. One way to overcome this is to include all interested parties in the task of reforming the department. Each representative must have equal status. Each proposal must be equally respected and considered.

The Board of Police Commissioners can best assist in reforming the LAPD by insisting on this kind of approach. In no other way will the diverse views of the city’s political leaders, the police commissioners, the chief, the LAPD command staff, the members and leadership of the Police Protective League and, most important, the people served by the LAPD be reconciled and focused on meaningful change.