Looming Vote on Chief Puts Police Panel in Crucible

They have been pilloried by state Sen. Tom Hayden and City Councilman Nate Holden as puppets of the mayor. They have been threatened with lawsuits by lawyers for Police Chief Willie L. Williams, who reports to them but who has told associates that he does not trust them. Their integrity has been questioned, along with their competence, their commitment and their resolve.

And yet, the five members of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners--all volunteers, all charged with oversight of the department that historically has been the city’s most controversial--have remained steadfast in their determination to render the most closely watched decision of their professional lives.

By the end of this week, the five relatively anonymous members of the Police Commission are expected to cast their ballots for or against Chief Williams, arguably the most popular public figure in Los Angeles. It will be a defining moment for the commission, a diverse group that includes a Latina real estate lawyer, a leading civil rights advocate and criminal defense lawyer, a conservative car dealer, a gay businessman and an African American corporate attorney.

And though the board members say they have resented some of the attacks on them and their work, they show no signs of wavering.

“It’s a hard process, and there are elements that are frustrating,” said Raymond C. Fisher, president of the board. “But you get a chance rarely in life to undertake something with great public benefit. That is gratifying.”

Which is not to say that it has been easy, either for the commissioners or for the chief.

Williams, who came to Los Angeles amid great fanfare in 1992, lately has been the subject of withering criticism, and his performance is being considered in the full light of public scrutiny. He remains enormously popular with the public, but the city’s political leadership has grown increasingly dissatisfied with his management of the Los Angeles Police Department.

For their part, the commissioners have been thrust from anonymity into the glare of the city’s political spotlight.

Peter I. Ostroff, one of Williams’ lawyers, is unsparing in his criticism of the panel. Far from being impressed with its diversity or its claims to be fulfilling the city charter, Ostroff views the group as hopelessly biased against Williams and intent on dumping him.

Responding to Fisher’s contention that the chief’s lawyers’ attack on the Police Commission represents a fundamental challenge to the reform process, Ostroff said: “We are not contending that the institution is flawed but rather that the inmates are flawed.”

Among other things, the chief’s attorneys have argued that the commissioners are preparing to ax Williams at the behest of the mayor who appointed them, Richard Riordan. The mayor and the commissioners deny that.

“The first thing I insist upon from my commissioners is independence,” Riordan said. “To this day, I only know the party affiliation of two of them, Bert Boeckmann and Ray Fisher, and one comes from each party.”

In fact, four of the commission’s five members said they voted against Riordan when he ran for mayor in 1993. And two of the commissioners, Fisher and Edith R. Perez, not only voted for Riordan’s opponent, Mike Woo, they donated time and money to defeat the man who would later appoint them to serve as police commissioners.

“I gave a ton of money to Woo,” Perez said. “That’s a matter of public record.”

Likewise, Fisher said he was an early supporter of Linda Griego, who ran for mayor but did not make the runoff. When Griego was eliminated, Fisher said, he turned his backing to Woo.

As for Riordan? “I did not vote for him and did not support him,” Fisher said.

*

As the commission enters the final phase of a long process intended to assess the chief’s performance, its members are working double duty--waging a quiet but extensive outreach effort to gauge community support for the chief while conducting a closed-door evaluation of his performance.

Early in the process, the commission met with Williams. Given the tense atmosphere, both sides had their lawyers present. Fisher described those sessions as valuable, providing the commission with the chance to have a “candid, personnel-type discussion with the chief.”

Ostroff struck a different tone.

“It is so bizarre to sit there with these five commissioners who have one person to manage--and can’t shoot straight in doing that--trying to criticize Chief Williams, who has a police force with [12,000] employees,” Ostroff said.

Although Fisher would not comment on what was said during the meetings, Ostroff said Boeckmann at one point grilled the chief about his failure to learn Spanish despite his promise to do so. That, according to Ostroff, is illustrative of what he sees as a petty, vindictive approach to rating the chief.

Commissioners counter that comments such as that illustrate their frustration: that Williams’ lawyers publicly attack the board for its handling of the evaluation process while insisting on Williams’ privacy rights. That, say some commissioners and others, preserves the chief’s ability to distort the proceedings and vilify the commission.

“I’m troubled that the commission is at a disadvantage, because we, as a citizen oversight body, are not supposed to engage in campaigning for or against anything with regard to this reappointment process,” Fisher said Friday.

To assess the community’s feeling for Williams, commissioners have struck out in ones and twos, meeting with church leaders and law enforcement officials, City Council members and police advisory boards. Perez has concentrated on Latino groups, T. Warren Jackson on African American organizations, Boeckmann and Art Mattox on other civic organizations and Fisher on local political leadership.

The result: The commissioners say they now have a solid grasp of the community’s feelings toward Williams. They will not publicly discuss what they have learned, but others say that at least some of the commissioners, like most observers, have come away impressed by the chief’s overall popularity but convinced that his support is wider than it is deep.

Armed with the public’s feelings, the commission began meeting a week ago to compare notes and to begin working through an extensive list of criteria meant to gauge Williams’ effectiveness.

According to Fisher, the board has finished discussing their meetings with community representatives and has moved to working through the criteria.

Those 24 items begin with determining whether Williams has been able to “articulate a vision for the department and clear and consistent goals” and end with assessing whether he has demonstrated an ability to “efficiently expend resources through the establishment of sound fiscal and program monitoring systems.”

The commissioners view those criteria as a solid basis for judging Williams. The chief, through his lawyers, has dismissed the entire process.

Both the criteria themselves and their timing, according to Williams’ lawyers, “reinforce the view that the commission has already made its decision and is now engaging in a window-dressing exercise.”

Fisher can barely contain his exasperation at that accusation.

“We are making a decision on the merits,” he said Friday. “We’ll continue to do so.”

*

Although the decision on Williams’ reappointment will be the most closely watched decision of a Police Commission since the days of Chief Daryl F. Gates, it is just one act of a board that has steadily become more assertive since 1991, when the Rodney G. King beating plunged the LAPD into disarray and launched the modern efforts to reform the Police Department.

Among the key findings of the Christopher Commission, which analyzed the LAPD in the wake of the King beating, was that the Police Commission had become too weak and the police chief too strong.

“In practice, the Police Commission’s authority has proved illusory,” the Christopher Commission’s final report said. “A number of structural and operational constraints greatly weaken the Police Commission’s power to hold the chief accountable and therefore its ability to perform its management responsibilities, including effective oversight. As a result, real power and authority effectively reside in the Police Chief.”

Mindful of that view, commissioners in recent years have not been shy about making their demands on the Police Department. Mattox, for instance, strongly urged creation of an anti-discrimination unit and commissioners approved one that would report directly to them, despite Williams’ objections that it should come under his command.

Perez has questioned the department’s cultural and language training programs; Boeckmann has cracked down on budget expenditures; Jackson has raised questions about proposals for a new work schedule and about the department’s explanations for falling arrests.

And Fisher has prodded Williams and the rest of the command staff for clearer, more forthright reports in area after area. When those reports have fallen short of the commission’s standards, Fisher and his colleagues have publicly aired their frustrations.

The result has been occasional tension between the LAPD’s top brass and the department’s policymakers. In recent months, that tension has been ratcheted even higher by the addition of Inspector General Katherine Mader, who reports to the commission but who reviews the work of the department, particularly in areas related to discipline. Predictably, some high-level LAPD brass see Mader as an intrusive extension of the commission’s power.

Some city leaders worry that the commission’s efforts to assert its authority have tested both the panel and the process of Police Department oversight.

“It’s a monumental task and one that would be difficult for any group of citizens,” said City Councilwoman Laura Chick, who chairs the Public Safety Committee. Chick added that she is concerned that the commission occasionally has strayed too far in the direction of micro-managing the city’s police force.

Said Chick: “I assume that the commission would agree with me that they would look forward to a day when they wouldn’t have to be dealing with so much of the day-to-day running of the department.”

*

Over the next several days, commissioners will negotiate a political and legal minefield.

Williams’ lawyers sought to have the board disqualified from the task of evaluating the chief, but were rebuffed by the city attorney’s office. They have prepared a lawsuit and are ready to file it if Williams is not rehired. They are negotiating for a possible buyout, and the chief’s strongest City Council ally, Holden, has made it clear that he wants to review whatever the commission decides to do.

Board members were hoping to make a decision early in the week. Then Williams asked for more time to present new information. Commissioners gave him until Thursday, meaning a decision probably would not come before Friday.

None of the participants in the high-stakes drama are under any illusions about the next few weeks. They are likely to be complicated, emotional and trying--no matter what the outcome. If Williams is not picked for a second term, there is the possibility of racially divisive reaction; if he is tapped for another five years, there could be turmoil within the Police Department.

The chief has responded to those mounting problems by declining to discuss his reappointment in public. He refers all questions to his lawyers and pledges to keep up his working relationships with board members even as his future hangs in the balance.

For their part, commissioners say they are trying to shrug off the distractions. But each of them admits it has been difficult.

“It’s really taking a toll on all of us,” said Mattox, one of the board’s longest-serving members. “It sometimes makes you wonder: What is the benefit of being a commissioner?”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Members of the Board

Here are the five members of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners.

Raymond C. Fisher

Position: President

Appointed: August ’95

Background: After graduating from Stanford Law School, where he was President of the Stanford Law Review, Fisher worked as a clerk to federal appellate Judge J. Skelly Wright and then United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. He is the senior litigation partner in the Los Angeles office of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe. His clients include Bank of America, Toyota and Clint Eastwood.

*

Art Mattox

Position: Vice President

Appointed: August ’93

Background: A graduate of USC, Mattox is a global account manager with Xerox Corp., responsible for negotiating contracts and developing sales strategies. He is the first openly gay Police Commissioner, and was one of the leading proponents of an independent, civilian anti-discrimination unit for the department. Prior to his appointment, he served as a reserve police officer.

*

Herbert F. Boeckmann

Position: Commissioner

Appointed: August ’93

Background: Although he is the commission’s most conservative member, Boeckmann also was the only board member to serve under Mayor Tom Bradley. He is owner and chief executive officer of Galpin Motors, Inc., the nation’s largest Ford dealership. As a commissioner, he has been instrumental in budget oversight. He attended college at USC.

*

T. Warren Jackson

Position: Commissioner

Appointed: June ’96

Background: Jackson is the commission’s newest member and its only African American. A graduate of Harvard Law School and the son of a Philadelphia police officer, Jackson works as assistant general counsel for Hughes Electronics. As a commissioner, Jackson leads the panel’s task force on community policing, and he has become an influential voice on personnel issues, partly because of his background in labor law.

*

Edith R. Perez

Position: Commissioner

Appointed: August ’95

Background: The only woman and the only Latina on the board, Perez is one of its most outspoken and active members. She is a native of Acambay, Mexico and graduated from Boalt Hall Law School at U.C. Berkeley. Perez serves on the boards of a number of community organizations and chairs the commission’s Language Police Task Force, Budget Task Force and Use-of-Force Task Force.