LAPD Reform: The Chief’s Honeymoon Is Over : Mayor worries, Williams makes a move and top aide goes--is reform alive?

All is not well in police-reform land. The wisdom and clear sense of direction contained in the Christopher Commission recommendations suddenly seem clouded by controversy, bubbling ill will and surfacing doubt about Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams’ 18-month-old stewardship. City Hall, right up to the mayor himself, is known to be concerned, and of course the City Council is having its say. The net result is substantial concern about the future of reform in the Police Department.

CHIEF WILLIAMS: City Hall is worried about this veteran law enforcement professional mainly because Williams--who was hired from Philadelphia by then-Mayor Tom Bradley after the 1992 riots--appears to have made so little progress in getting control of the deeply encrusted LAPD bureaucracy. This is certainly true; however, that task might not be one for a mere mortal, even if Williams had many levers with which to massage and maneuver and lead the LAPD. He doesn’t. City Hall needs to understand this, keep pressing and give Williams the support he needs: It must keep its cool.

Maybe the leverage situation changed at least somewhat the other day when Williams demoted his No. 2 and created a new assistant chief’s position that he could fill with someone more to his liking as his alter ego. That was the right move to make, even though Williams handled it about as daintily as a middle linebacker. The dumpee--Deputy Chief Bernard C. Parks--is a talented police professional and widely respected. Even so, it is Williams and no one else who at the end of his five-year term will be held accountable for the LAPD reforms and everything else and thus is manifestly entitled to his own team; everyone, including Parks and any second-guessers on the City Council, must respect that.

CITY HALL: It is refreshing to see a mayor actually involved in the governance of the city; not so long ago Los Angeles had a mayor and a police chief who felt their paychecks didn’t even require them to talk with each other. Regarding the LAPD, Mayor Richard Riordan’s continuing commitment to both reform and community policing is to be applauded and supported.

But if there is one nagging worry about the mayor, it is that this energetic but sometimes impatient man tends to equate getting things done in the private sector, where the boss issues a command and people (usually) jump, with getting things done in the public sector, where the rank-and-filers, safely in the womb of civil service, figure (usually) they’re going to outlast the boss and do as little as possible in the meantime. If Riordan thinks dealing with the City Hall bureaucracy is tricky, he should switch desks with Williams for a few days and see how tough it is at the LAPD. Patience, Mr. Mayor.

POLICE COMMISSION: Riordan’s still relatively freshly appointed Police Commission hasn’t come into its own yet. There’s certainly no reason to write it off at this point. In fact, we’re reliably informed that the commission expects to have an important new position up and running soon. That’s the office of inspector general, a function strongly recommended by the 1992 Christopher Commission report to monitor progress of the LAPD reforms. It’s almost two years down the road now and the City Council still hasn’t gotten this done.

The Police Commission believes that this new office can advance the reform process within the LAPD in the way the Kolts Commission has done for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department--by issuing public reports on what’s gotten better and what hasn’t.

The Kolts people have been doing a great job with these semiannual reports, which are issued whether anyone likes it or not and which are notable for their independence, clarity and positive attitude.

The Police Commission must provide the same periodic report cards: There would be no better proof that LAPD reform isn’t withering on the vine.