LA Dog Trainer Examines Police Chief Term Limits

Whenever reasonable people begin to question the wisdom of letting someone of Antonio Villaraigosa’s integrity control police chiefs who hail from corruption-ridden cities like Boston and Philadelphia, the Democrats are sure to exhume Warren Christopher's 1991 report to reiterate the value of its neutered police department.

Between 1938 and 1991, civil service protections and police chiefs like William Parker prevented the kind of activities that have, since 1991, turned Los Angeles into one of America’s fastest declining cities. Instead of explaining LA’s corrupt history or why LA now has the worst crime, pollution, public schools, highest taxes, and worst roads in America, they hawk Christopher’s report.

The problem with the Christopher Commission Report was that it was written by then-Mayor Tom Bradley’s personal friend and attorney, Warren Christopher. Christopher was directed not to investigate the Rodney King arrest in 1991, but to help his client (Bradley) convince voters that the LAPD Chief’s civil service protections had caused the Rodney King beating. Had an investigator like Dan Walker examined the arrest, he would have likely arrived at the same conclusion made by the Ventura County jury – that officers who arrested King had followed the same brutal use-of-force policies that were required by Mayor Bradley since 1983.

Had Bernie Madoff’s own attorney investigating the alleged pyramid scheme, Madoff would not be in jail today – which brings us to today’s LA Times editorial regarding proposed changes of term limits for LAPD Chief William Bratton. Presented below is the Times opinion (italics), with my comments.

A proposal to do away with term limits on the police chief ignores L.A.'s history.

LA’s history begins much earlier than 1991 – even before LA Mayor Frank Shaw ordered LAPD Captain Earl Kynette to bomb Harry Raymond’s car in 1938. Without civil service protections, corrupt mayors controlled their police chiefs as easily as Villaraigosa now controls his. Unlike the period between 1940 and 1990, LA’s politically-appointed ethics commissioners (Democrat lawyers) handle what were once known as criminal corruption charges.

At the height of his influence, Los Angeles Police Chief Ed Davis was asked whether he would consider running for mayor. Why, the chief responded with characteristic mischief, would he give up all his power? Years later, Davis, by then retired, testified before the Christopher Commission and recommended that the city's police chief, whose job was protected by civil service rules, instead be limited to two five-year terms as a way of recalibrating the balance of power between the chief and his civilian bosses. His proposal was accepted by the commission and approved by voters the following year, earning Davis the gratitude of the city and the everlasting enmity of Chief Daryl F. Gates, who was forced out by the reforms of that period.

While Davis recommended limits of two five-year terms, he did not suggest that LAPD’s chiefs should lose civil service protections that protect them from political influence or corruption.

The term limit for the position of police chief has since served the city well. After Willie L. Williams' first term, the Police Commission chose not to reappoint him to a second. Same for Bernard C. Parks, Williams' successor. By contrast, the commission was satisfied with William J. Bratton's performance and offered him a second term, which he accepted. Each transition was controversial but orderly and professional. Decades of contentious relations between City Hall and Parker Center gave way to relative calm and police acceptance of civilian oversight.

Police commissioners are appointed by the Mayor. When LA cops begin to uncover unsavory activities related to the Mayor or his friends, Chief Bratton’s there to resolve problems they way they did in New York and Boston. In those cities, you don’t get to be chief of police unless you are willing to play along.

Now comes City Councilman Herb Wesson with a proposal to upend that progress by eliminating the term limit. His motives are at least partly understandable: We like Bratton too. And we don't think much of term limits, at least for elected officials. But rules should not be designed to suit individuals. Rather, they should protect the city over the long term, and the term limit for the chief grows out of Los Angeles' troubled history, not just its recent past.

Term limits are problematic for corrupt officials – especially when they find a chief they can trust. Why change a chief who already knows how to roll over on command?

As Davis' impish observation underscored, the police chief has held a position of extraordinary influence in Los Angeles life.

For good reason.

That man -- there has never been a woman in the office -- commands an armed force of thousands, the largest of all city departments and the most visible. Some chiefs have been admirable, some corrupt or racist.

Being a pro-segregationist Democrat-controlled city, racism was rampant throughout LA’s history. The progeny of LA’s pro-segregationist politicians now control LA’s public schools, where half of all black 9th graders will not graduate, go to jail, or get shot. LA’s corrupt chiefs of police ended with civil service protections and William Parker in 1950, and resumed with Bernard Parks after civil service protections ended.

Some have protected the city; others have ravaged it. The Christopher Commission properly recognized that history with its recommendation for a term limit.

Once again, the Times earns its reputation as LA’s premier dog trainer.