Mayor Bass Needs a New Chief. That Chief Needs Bass’ Support

GUEST COMMENTARY - In this city, it’s become a story, seemingly, as old as time: the relationship between the mayor and the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The power of these two positions is significant.

Before the turn of the century, we witnessed how Mayor Tom Bradley used his power to force the ouster of Chief Daryl Gates. And, right after the start of the millennium, I personally experienced how the power of a Chief of Police can hold a mayor accountable and, ultimately, play a part in his unwilling departure.

Old dynamics; new day. Before the end of the year, Mayor Karen Bass will select the next chief. And, that person’s life will be forever changed. The job is not solely about fighting crime. I view the Chief’s role as not just a protector but an advocate of all things that allow him or her to protect the community and keep lawful order.

When the mayor’s politics get in the way of the chief’s advocacy, the relationship fails. Having observed these relationships from as far back as the days of Mayor Sam Yorty and Chief Bill Parker, this philosophy has remained consistent.

Mayor Bass’s recent veto on the city council ballot measure to rework LAPD’s disciplinary process displayed an understanding of the chief’s job and potentially the roots of a strong relationship with whomever she appoints.

Proponents of the measure claimed it would give the chief more power, but it surreptitiously limited the list of fireable offenses and would’ve steered the process away from the chief of police and towards binding arbitration that favors the accused— not the department or the community. But, one veto does not a relationship make. There are a number of things the mayor can do to put her new chief in a position to succeed.

The Times recently mentioned that when it comes to identifying crime trends, it likes its police departments to be “nimble”1. It’s my belief that we should leave gymnastics to the olympians and snuff out these trends before they become trends; hence, the recent Israel-Palestine protests at our local universities. You can bet that the decision of school administrators to allow the encampments went against every bit of advice that their campus police offered, but they did it anyway.

This is part of a trend that showed its ugly face in 2011, when Occupy Wallstreet staged a similar takeover at city hall with some on our council telling the protestors to, “Stay as

long as you need”. They did, and 30 tons of trash later, taxpayers were left on the hook for at least $4.3 million.

The point here is to— on matters such as these— listen to your chief or at least provide him or her an audience.

Before the mayor moves forward with building this relationship, it would be wise to look back and examine the recent history of the department.

Though the Times mentions LAPD’s “hard-won reforms”, it must accept the fact that the department was operating secretly under a “Stop and Frisk” policy that started in the early 2000s and still has remnants that exist to this day, like pretextual stops2.

This all occurred during the implementation of the consent decree, which now, in hindsight, seems hollow. I mean, how much reform could it be responsible for if the “Stop and Frisk” violated the very constitutional rights the decree— now dubiously— sought to protect?

History shows our late Mayor Richard Riordan was leery of the consent decree, before ultimately approving it. He would later write in his autobiography that it was the worst mistake he made as mayor. Now we know why. There needs to be an acknowledgement that the “Stop and Frisk” is still part of LAPD's present and an investigation is needed to ensure it becomes part of the past.

Mayor Bass should also give her chief every resource that is available to him or her. That could start with deployment and the infamous LAPD schedule that allows officers to work three or four days a week, meaning they only work approximately 150 to 200 days a year— not counting vacation. The Times rightfully called for the abolishment of this policy in 2007, citing high overtime costs and fewer officers on the streets (20 to 30% less cars deployed). The city’s chief administrative officer raised those same concerns in a report the previous year. And, the Police Protective League pitch that it would improve recruitment was a farce because, the same recruitment problems still exist at LAPD more than 20 years after the three-day workweek was put into effect.

The new chief could also benefit from some help coming from the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. He’s expected to get behind a “Crime Bill Package” that, when implemented, would curb or correct the many flaws of Proposition 47 statewide. While we’re on the topic of trends, one should take a look at the political tea leaves that shaped to form an all-out rebellion against the crime-friendly initiative. San Francisco’s pro-Prop. 47 District Attorney was recalled during his first term. And, according to the Times, our own “look the other way DA”, George Gascon, faces an uphill battle in his quest to be re-elected after 75% of county voters went against him in the primary.

If that isn’t enough, anyone who has been confronted with a plexiglass shield as they tried to purchase deodorant or other products from a neighborhood store, sees and feels the negative impact Prop. 47 has made on their safety and their quality of life. For Prop. 47 supporters to push unsubstantiated claims that repealing it would target the constitutional rights of minorities, is both irresponsible and disingenuous. That’s especially because many of these same people sat unaware as the unconstitutional“ Stop and Frisk” arrived here from the East Coast and was left at their doorstep. But, somehow, they’re less perturbed about that.

Amending Prop. 47 would give our city a tremendous chance at a “do-over” as the department’s voice as well as the mayor’s was sorely missed during the debate that brought the ill-informed idea to our city in 2014.

I’ll say it again: When the mayor’s politics get in the way of the chief’s advocacy, the relationship— and in this instance, the city— fails.

Here’s hoping that Mayor Bass can have success navigating this complicated relationship, where others have failed. Her veto is a good start. And, putting the weight of her office behind the repeal of Prop. C, which removed an essential amount of the chief’s authority from the disciplinary process, would be a welcome next step.

Below are a list of recommendations that would enhance a new chief’s ability to be successful.

Returning the departments work shifts to 8 hour shifts to be compatible with the city’s existing workload.
Oppose any future efforts by electeds and union officials to weaken the discipline system under the label of “reform”. Support the Mayor’s veto of the most recent council efforts to approve a charter amendment changing and weakening police discipline.
Support the repeal of Prop C, hopefully eliminating the debate over the number civilians on the board of rights and, in the interim, clean up the recently-reported performance deficiencies that have been identified in the board of rights process 3.
Move to amplify and clarify all “police stop” requirements as well as the long-term court approved standards of “probable cause”, even after the passage of AB 2773.
Assess the effectiveness of LAPD’s two pension systems… While both propose to keep officers in service for longer periods and extend their careers, they are also very expensive, and it may be counterproductive to have the systems competing against each other.
Monitor the Department of Justice ( DOJ) Part 1 Crime Index: Voluntary Reporting… Currently the department is considering adjusting Part 1 crime reporting based on the DOJ’s new criteria. This will be the second or third such adjustment since 2003. Subsequent to the 2003 changes the city was notified that thousands of serious Part 1 assault, domestic violence and some property crimes were reclassified as Part 2 crimes. If the reclassification exercise is merely moving Part 1 crimes to Part 2 crimes, this is a manipulation of crime stats and not a true crime reduction 4 5 6.
Re-establish and emphasize honesty and ethical standards, particularly among supervisory and high-ranking personnel as to both their on duty and off duty conduct.
Re-establish Risk Management reviews of field incidents, use of force, discipline, and promotional decisions.
Re-establish uniform and equipment standards
Re-establish command presence via field tactical training , verbal command skills, physical control techniques and the principles and tactical use of cover and concealment.