The Chief Who Cried ‘No’

Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks has no problem saying no. The problem is that when “no” is a standard response, pretty soon people start thinking that you oppose things just because you can. So when Parks correctly raises doubts about a community program of dubious value, his response is seen as more stonewalling by a chief fighting community input at every turn.

A prime case in point was Parks’ and the Police Commission’s opposition to giving more influence to the citizen Community Police Advisory Boards. In this case, his “no” is wise; the 18 appointed advisory boards, while meant to advise and work closely with police, were never intended to dictate police procedures. The boards were heavily promoted in 1992 and 1993 by Parks’ predecessor as police chief, Willie L. Williams, as part of his community policing program. They had no power (and rightly so) over decision-making on how to patrol an area or on how to attack crime, even though some board members wanted exactly that authority.

But Parks’ appropriate resistance to a more prominent role for Community Police Advisory Boards follows another “no” that was less thoughtful. He has persistently fought reinstatement of one of the most popular community policing programs ever, senior lead officers. Senior lead officers were experienced officers who were freed from some of their patrol duties to work directly with communities. They became a trusted “face” for the department in uniting with neighborhoods to fight crime. The program was more than popular; it was an effective and much beloved community policing tool.

Chief Parks and others have let it be known that they believe the community advisory board concept was oversold by Williams and other proponents. Community input should come from a variety of sources, not just from 18 advisory boards. By contrast, the senior lead officer program had done much to increase confidence in the police, before Parks changed the way that the lead officers operate. A recent plan by Parks to give the lead officers mobile telephones was a tepid and disappointing response to those who wanted the original program restored.

When Parks opposes community advisory boards and a strong senior lead officer program with equal vigor, it’s easy to see why some neighborhood activists worry that the chief wants to police the community by fiat. When the chief is seen as a naysayer on anything related to community policing, it undermines the very community support on which the chief and the LAPD depend.