The Right Stuff

Few were surprised when Mayor Richard Riordan picked Bernard C. Parks to be the 52nd chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Within hours of the Police Commission’s decision to deny Willie L. Williams a second five-year term as chief, Riordan had signaled his preference for Parks’ leadership style by recommending that the commission appoint Parks interim chief while the search for a permanent successor was underway. It was generally assumed at the time that the mayor was trying to give Parks a “leg up” over potential rivals for the department’s top job. Now, with the City Council expected to quickly confirm him, Deputy Chief Parks is only days away from occupying the “corner pocket”--the sixth-floor, Parker Center office of the chief of police.

The question is whether the city’s politicians will give Parks the authority--and freedom--to do what has become a highly politicized job.

The mayor’s early and consistent support of Parks was by no means the only factor that made his nomination likely. More than any of the other candidates, Parks had prepared himself to assume the almost incomprehensibly complex responsibilities of the chief. His breadth of experience in command positions within the Police Department is unmatched. Not only has Parks commanded many highly visible operations involving uniformed and detective personnel; possibly more important, he has also served as a commander of many of the department’s behind-the-scenes support activities, tasks that consume a majority of the chief’s time.

Parks’ commitment to excellence in law enforcement and his openness to new law-enforcement ideas are illustrated by his active participation in profes- sional police organizations that run the gamut from the ultratraditional International Assn. of Chiefs of Police to the cutting-edge progressiveness of the Police Executive Research Foundation. Such participation is unusual for members of an organization known for its past insularity. His legendary 12- to 14-hour workdays are only one indication of his dedication to the LAPD, law enforcement and the people of Los Angeles. His performance as an LAPD command officer has won him broad support across the political spectrum as well.

The mayor has thus made what appears to be a wise choice. By nominating Parks, he is recommending a man with the personal and professional attributes to successfully lead the LAPD. Will Parks fulfill the mayor’s expectations? More important, can he?

History isn’t terribly helpful here. Parks will serve under rules spelled out in Proposition F, which voters adopted 2-1 in 1992. The chief no longer enjoys Civil Service protection, and is thus more vulnerable to the political winds. After his nomination by the mayor and confirmation by the City Council, he will serve “at the pleasure of the city.” At any time, he may be removed by the Board of Police Commissioners, with the mayor’s concurrence.

The City Council can also initiate proceedings to oust him by a two-thirds vote of its members and, after a hearing, may actually fire him, if a two-thirds majority agree. The council can overturn any Police Commission action by a similar two-thirds vote. In addition, the City Council, as the city’s legislative arm and as a collection of 15 powerful individuals with sometimes clashing interests, can wield great political influence upon the chief.

This influence can result in a Police Department far more responsive to the will of the people than it has been in the past. It can also stymie management of the department or interfere with holding the chief accountable, especially if council influence splinters into competing political interests. The latter is best illustrated by the Police Commission’s attempt to discipline Williams, which was overridden by the City Council.

The kind of political power that can now be brought to bear on a chief of police is greatly magnified by his loss of Civil Service protection, which, in the past, virtually guaranteed him lifetime tenure. It is thus necessary that those who possess such power use it sparingly and judiciously.

Parks has already outlined an ambitious agenda to guide his first few months in office. Ranking high on his list is a planned reorganization to streamline the department’s command ranks to ensure greater accountability. It has been reported that he favors stripping his top-level command officers of their Civil Service status so that he can appoint his own managers. Such a team would serve at the chief’s pleasure and be directly accountable to him. If, for example, Parks assigns one of these managers the task of developing a system for keeping track of officers with significant personnel complaints, and the two agree beforehand that such a system should be developed within six months and it is not, the chief would have the authority to replace the manager without fear of Civil Service restricting his options.

Command accountability is essential if the department is to move swiftly in the direction of reform. The Police Commission, the mayor and the City Council must support the chief by subordinating their provincial or parochial interests should command restructuring or individual reassignments not please them. The chief is the expert in these matters and, within reason, must be given a free hand.

Some of the other items on Chief Parks’ departmental agenda entail substantial costs. Surveys, an important first step in identifying community attitudes and concerns, whether contracted out or done in-house, are expensive. Revamping the much-maligned crime lab and contracting out lab analyses, whether done in the county sheriff’s lab or privately, are also quite costly. But such costs will be small when contrasted with the cost of wasted human resources. The cost of personnel idled by or rendered inefficient by delayed ballistic tests or DNA analyses or some other essential lab service can be overwhelming. Accordingly, the chief, within existing legal constraints, needs to be given the flexibility to implement his department’s budget in a way to gain the maximum operating efficiency. Again, provincial and parochial political interests must not be allowed to frustrate overall community-service needs.

Just as Parks has emphasized the need for command accountability within the LAPD, so, too, must he be held accountable. But this entails two steps. First, it must be made clear which standard he is being held accountable to, and it must be agreed that this standard is attainable. Second, if the chief is to be held responsible for achieving this or that objective, he must be given the necessary authority to do so. That authority cannot be diminished, removed or otherwise tampered with without also absolving him of responsibility.

In Parks, the city has an individual superbly qualified to be its new chief. Whether he will be a success in the job may depend far less upon his performance than upon how his many bosses view their responsibilities toward him and his Police Department.*