Police-Reform Vote Is a Chance for L.A. to Define Its Future

In little more than two months, Los Angeles comes to a historic fork in the road of its municipal life. In one direction, along one dark path, lies uncertainty, a failure of nerve, a missed opportunity and, ultimately, fear. In the other direction, along the brighter avenue of police reform, lies greater public safety, a less fearful, far more productive relationship between citizens and police, and the chance for the Los Angeles Police Department to become a leading agency again in the revitalization of the city.

On June 2, the citizens of Los Angeles get to make their choice. It is almost impossible to overstate what is at stake with Charter Amendment F, on the citywide ballot--and no exaggeration of the issues is needed to make the point: Los Angeles can, and will, decide the kind of place it wants to be. For some of our citizens the situation seems not wholly without parallel to South Africa, which two weeks ago decided what kind of society it would pass on to its children. The vote here has a measure of symbolic import as well as specific substantive content. Defeat of the measure would be an enormous setback--a tragedy, really. For it would undo so much that has been gained.

NO. 1 ARGUMENT AGAINST: Among all the theoretical objections to passage of this historic reform, only one stands out. More than 50 years ago a major and ugly political scandal erupted in Los Angeles that led, quite properly, to a significant change in the City Charter. The intention of the reform then was to protect the Police Department from the politicians, to keep them from meddling with good cops, by erecting, in effect, a kind of very visible shield.

In the formal ballot arguments, recently filed with the city and now made available to the public, opponents of the measure explicitly refer to this half-century-old scandal when they claim that “the proposed changes to the Charter will transform the Chief of Police from a professional manager into a political appointee. . . . One only has to look to large Eastern cities to see the effects of politicized departments. . . . “

No doubt Los Angeles should greatly fear such an outcome, but that is not the issue with this proposed reform. It would not substantially remove protections that police chiefs have from needless political interference. It would tear down that rigid wall of alienation that has divided community from police.

After all, with passage of Charter Amendment F, Los Angeles police would still benefit from civil service protections that are among the most desirable anywhere. Many safeguards enable officers to enjoy a law enforcement career that minimizes outside political interference and maximizes career opportunities. That will not change under this reform.

NO. 1 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR: On the contrary, the atmosphere under which cops could do good work would be enhanced. Charter Amendment F would help nurture a new partnership between citizens and their police. A citizen representative would become a member of police disciplinary panels to help understand and reduce officer misconduct. A reinvigorated and independently staffed Police Commission would finally be able to do the work for which it was created. The process of selecting, or removing, a police chief would be brought out into the sunlight, and a thoughtful new procedure of appointment, or discharge, would be created. Ten-year term limits would apply to any new chief--and to civilian police commissioners.

The essence of these measures, recommended by the Christopher Commission, is not to strip the Police Department of its independence but to forge a new alliance between people and police. The aim is not to subject the department to the grip of politicians but to free it from bureaucratic rules that give undue protection to police managers who are unaccountable to the people.

A new spirit of cooperation between community and police is desperately needed as Los Angeles confronts its future. Opponents of this reform like to point to high crime rates in the East as evidence that Los Angeles already enjoys a superior police force and therefore doesn’t need any of these changes. But with each new drive-by killing, with each rise in violent crime statistics, it is clear that Los Angeles is not immune to the national epidemic of drugs and mayhem. This makes it doubly clear that what won’t work anymore is the old relationship between people and police--the police remote, above it all, uncommunicative and sometimes even sullen; the people not thought of as partners but as subjects to be ruled.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the campaign against Charter Amendment F is that any police officers oppose the change. The visceral opposition of Chief Daryl F. Gates is no surprise. Gates, after 14 years in the job, takes all criticisms of the department personally and regards the June 2 vote as a referendum on his tenure, if not his character. Much more significant is the fact that his two predecessors as chief, Tom Reddin, a private security consultant, and Ed Davis, a Republican state senator from Santa Clarita, both have endorsed Charter Amendment F.

So should all other law enforcement professionals. This reform will make for a better Police Department. And it will help make Los Angeles a better place. Charter Amendment F protects and serves police officers better than anything that has come down the pike in a long time. If it fails on June 2, the losers will not only be the citizens of Los Angeles. The cops will lose, too--and they will lose big.