Why All the Williams Bashing? : LAPD chief was given a five-year term--so give him the support, too

“Full implementation of this report,” wrote the Christopher Commission, “will require action by the mayor, the City Council, the Police Commission, the Police Department, and ultimately the voters.” Note how this 1991 report didn’t put it all on the shoulders of the police chief. But that’s the impression one gets these days as the sniping at Willie L. Williams continues.

Although Williams is barely more than halfway though his five-year term as chief, and no final verdict on his performance can rightly be rendered, there are those who would prematurely do just that. Indeed, some are suggesting that when he comes up for renewal in 1997 the city will want a new chief. Some even want the talent search to begin now. This rush to judgment is unseemly and unfair.

There’s no question that although he remains a popular figure in many circles, not everyone in Los Angeles likes the style of this career police officer from Philadelphia. And Williams hasn’t done all he could to help himself; he sometimes evidences a tin ear for local political nuance. But even his worst critics concede that Williams has improved the perception of the LAPD in communities that in the past had little use for the department--no small achievement.

It’s obvious that some people would have preferred this important post to have gone to a career member of the LAPD, not an outsider. And undoubtedly Mayor Richard Riordan would prefer to have his own man running the LAPD, not someone picked during the previous Administration.

For its part, the Los Angeles Police Commission has appeared to walk a proper line: Commissioners try to support the chief while not alienating the mayor who appointed them. It hasn’t been easy, but the task perhaps will ease once the commission begins to issue periodic public reports on implementation of the Christopher Commission recommendations. For now, hardly anyone is clear on the state of the reforms.

Surely a lot still needs to be done. But whose fault is that? The office of chief of police is a circumscribed one--it is not all-powerful. The chief here, unlike counterparts in many other cities, cannot, for instance, demote top commanders, rocket a subordinate to a top spot or bring in a trusted expert from the outside. And many reforms require actions that the chief cannot take by himself. For instance, back in 1991 the Christopher Commission report called for creation of an inspector general’s office to investigate citizen complaints; only now, in the April election, will Los Angeles voters decide on a City Charter change that would make such an office possible.

Thus the performance of the chief should be evaluated on the basis of what he is empowered to achieve, not on the basis of whether he reaches goals that are the province of the City Council or the Police Commission or even the mayor’s office. This chief faces a very difficult job, and the wisest course is to support Williams as fully as possible. The proper time for the performance evaluation is in 1997.