Historic Crossroads for Los Angeles Policing : Reorganizing L.A.’s future: Vote ‘Yes’ on police reform (F)

If a metropolis could design the perfect opening gesture to welcome an incoming police chief--especially one who will be beset with a troubled department in a tense and divided city--it could scarcely do better than to order up a major law-enforcement reform.

And that’s exactly what’s offered in Charter Amendment F. For as Los Angeles prepares for the succession of Philadelphia’s Willie L. Williams to the position of chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, the voters have a historic opportunity to make their contribution. They can vote “yes” and establish a new philosophy of policing in Los Angeles, or they can vote “no” and leave the city with the same old insulated and arrogant police/community structure that (caused such) serious trouble in the first place.

Defeat would place a dark cloud over the future of the department; passage--especially by a healthy margin--would give Williams a clear and positive mandate--and give the city a huge lift.

Opponents argue that the reform would politicize the department, that the political hacks will all but move into Parker Center and then, you know, there goes the neighborhood.

No. That’s a divisive scare tactic.

Almost all cities have a measure of civilian control over the police--and basically this is what Charter Amendment F would provide. Actually, it would give the police chief a measure of independence by (providing for five-year terms, though the police commission, under a complex mechanism, can remove the chief during that term. In other cities, removal can be by the mayor alone.) The proposed Los Angeles system is thoughtful, careful, professional.

Too bad the police situation in Los Angeles is already so politicized. There’s almost enough electric static and friction between the police and community right now to run the Blue Line. But the fault is not that of the proposed Charter amendment. In our view, the current police chief has contributed greatly to the politicization. The new chief and the new reform are just what’s needed to ground all the negative energy.

The LAPD has many excellent police officers. Their main problem is not their ability or potential but their leadership and management. The most severe problem this department has had over past years is a badly outdated philosophy of policing.

Williams as the new chief and Charter Amendment F very likely are a big start to answering that problem. Once better management and a better system of civilian accountability are in place--and with the new philosophy of neighborhood policing at work citywide--the new chief and his police department can then assess the complex and difficult question of manpower.

Los Angeles is now one of the most under-policed cities in the nation. Can it put many more officers on the streets through a more aggressive program of freeing up desk-bound officers? Or does Los Angeles need to pay more for its policing--and hire more officers? If so, how many? And how rapidly should they be recruited, trained and deployed?

Unless police reform passes, and until Williams has had the chance to see what his troops can do and what the city’s true law-enforcement needs are, there is no ready answer to that. But unless Charter Amendment F passes, there may never be an answer, because the public will very likely remain deeply divided about its police.

A great deal is at stake on Tuesday. Vote “Yes” on F and help your city as well as your police.