Kaye, memo, 1991-05-15, to distribution |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 5 of 5 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & MCAULIFFE M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Distribution FROM: Ronald o. Kaye TIAL DATE: May 15, 1991 RE: Interview with Jack White I. INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, May 14, 1991, I attended an interview of Mr. Jack White, Chief of the District Attorney's Investigation Section. Mr. White has 27 years of experience on the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), and was the Commander in charge of the Police Commission's staff from 1975 to 1985. In general, I observed the interview and did not take an affirmative role in asking questions to Mr. White, but on occasion I encouraged and helped steer Mr. White in a direction which would further our goals. Mr. White has a very clear and thoughtful perspective on structural problems affecting the LAPD, and it may be time well taken to interview him further on these matters. The focus of the interview was on: 1. The complaint process; 2. The adjudication of disciplinary actions; 3. The Rodney King "aberration." Nevertheless, Mr. White emphasized that the structure of the LAPD and its interaction with the Police Commission are critical to all of these issues. I have taken extensive notes on the other related issues, but have focused this memorandum on the structural issues relevant to our chapters of the report. II. ISSUES OF STRUCTURE Mr. White feels that the LAPD acts independently from the control of the citizenry, and therefore, suffers from a lack of political accountability. Theoretically, the Police Commission should be the entity which instills a sense of external morality upon the LAPD. In reality, however, the LAPD maintains moral standards which are purely internal and has little influence from external forces. Mr. White emphasized that violence (i.e., beating with batons) is not viewed by the LAPD as something which requires disciplinary action. Although the Rodney King incident goes way beyond what Mr. White considers reasonable violence, "some thumping" is a matter of course for the LAPD. Activities such as theft and bribery, on the other hand, violate the LAPD's internal moral code. Thus, Mr. White emphasized that you cannot allow the LAPD to establish its own moral code, for the department needs external input. Mr. White believes that this external sense of morality must be instilled by a civilian force. This force should be the Police Commission. Nevertheless, in its current state, the Police Commission is seen as a "joke" by the LAPD. The inability of the Police Commission to place Chief Gates on 60-day mandatory leave reveals the ineffectiveness of the Police Commission. The ability of the City Council to override the Police Commission supports the well-known sentiment in the LAPD that the only true - 2 - power in Los Angeles stems from the City Council and the Mayor's Office, and the LAPD (i.e., Chief) can disregard the Commission almost entirely. Although theoretically the Police Commission should have significant control over the practices of the LAPD, as a practical matter, the Commission is politically powerless. For example, the Commission cannot fire the Chief without a substantial showing of cause. To fire the Chief, the Commission must prove that the Chief was either discourteous, dishonest, neglected his duty, or failed to follow orders of the Commission. The political reality, in the opinion of Mr. White, is that the Commission cannot fire the Chief. Mr. White feels that the only way in which the LAPD can achieve some sense of civilian control, thereby being sensitive to the public's external morality, is to restructure the Police Commission and the Chief of Police through amendments to the City Charter. The first step in changing the LAPD's moral code would be to eliminate the Chief of Police's civil service protection. The Police Chief should serve at the pleasure of either the City Council, the Mayor, or the Police Commission. Next, the Chief should be accountable for everything that happens in the LAPD. Otherwise, the Chief maintains his "free wheeling" status, and retains a sense of autonomy and impunity. Preferably, Mr. White believes that the Commission should have the utmost authority with regard to the LAPD, and consequently, should oversee all the Police Chief's duties and decisions. Mr. White did express some reservation in this structural change, due to the fact that the - 3 - Commissioners are vulnerable to the political whims of the Mayor. A group of five Commissioners, however, may be able to counteract any type of underhanded efforts by the Mayor to control the • Commission's decisions as to the LAPD's and the Chief's activities. The next step to~ard lessening the violent practices of the LAPD, according to Mr. White, is to have the Commission actually run the LAPD. The Commission should be a civilian entity which represents the Los Angeles community in its ethnic and political make-up, it should appoint and be able to fire the Chief, and it should sit on the promotional board. The Chief should make recommendations about who should be promoted, but the true promotion of officers to higher ranks should come from a civilian authority. Thus, there should be no police officers on the Commission. The existence of police officers on the Commission may undermine the independence of the Commission's decision-making, due to internal politics and competition between officers. Mr. White believes that the Commission should remain as a five-person body, and should retain the staff which now serves its functions. This staff consists of 60 available officers, and 6 full-time staff members with a commander in charge. In addition, the Commission should remain a part-time entity, for with sufficient authority, the Commission will be able to implement its decisions even with the limited amount of time it spends in session. - 4 -
Object Description
Title | Memoranda interviews: White, Jack and Reva Tooley, 1990-09-19 - 1991-05-22 |
Description | White, Jack and Reva Tooley, 1990 September 19 - 1991 May 22. PART OF A SERIES: A critical component of the Commission's investigation centered on the idea that governance of the LAPD was shared between the Office of the Chief of Police, an administrative body, and the Board of Police Commissioners, a citizen body. To better understand the dynamic between these two entities, the staff of Heller, Ehrman, White, & McAuliffe researched the history of the Los Angeles City Charter, focusing primarily on its provisions regarding the distribution of power and the structure and organization of the LAPD. Included in the series are reproductions of reports, dissertations, article clippings, excerpts from city documents, and charter amendments related to the charter's conception and development over time. The series also includes several summaries of expert witness interviews regarding the effectiveness of this structure. |
Coverage date | 1991-04-29; 1991-04-30; 1991-05-14; 1991-05-15; 1991-05-22 |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date created | 1991-04-30; 1991-05-15; 1991-05-22 |
Date issued | 1990-09-19; 1990-10-10; 1990-11-11; |
Type | texts |
Format | 38 p. |
Format (aat) |
articles memorandums |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
File | Memoranda interviews: White, Jack and Reva Tooley |
Box and folder | box 21, folder 15 |
Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
Filename | indep-box21-15 |
Description
Title | Kaye, memo, 1991-05-15, to distribution |
Description | Ronald O. Kaye (Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe), memorandum, 1991 May 15, to distribution, re Interview with Jack White. |
Subject (personal name) | White, Jack |
Coverage date | 1991-05-14; 1991-05-15 |
Creator |
Kaye, Ronald O. Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
Date created | 1991-05-15 |
Type | texts |
Format | 4 p. |
Format (aat) | memorandums |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
File | Memoranda interviews: White, Jack and Reva Tooley |
Box and folder | box 21, folder 15, item 5 |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text | ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & MCAULIFFE M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Distribution FROM: Ronald o. Kaye TIAL DATE: May 15, 1991 RE: Interview with Jack White I. INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, May 14, 1991, I attended an interview of Mr. Jack White, Chief of the District Attorney's Investigation Section. Mr. White has 27 years of experience on the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), and was the Commander in charge of the Police Commission's staff from 1975 to 1985. In general, I observed the interview and did not take an affirmative role in asking questions to Mr. White, but on occasion I encouraged and helped steer Mr. White in a direction which would further our goals. Mr. White has a very clear and thoughtful perspective on structural problems affecting the LAPD, and it may be time well taken to interview him further on these matters. The focus of the interview was on: 1. The complaint process; 2. The adjudication of disciplinary actions; 3. The Rodney King "aberration." Nevertheless, Mr. White emphasized that the structure of the LAPD and its interaction with the Police Commission are critical to all of these issues. I have taken extensive notes on the other related issues, but have focused this memorandum on the structural issues relevant to our chapters of the report. II. ISSUES OF STRUCTURE Mr. White feels that the LAPD acts independently from the control of the citizenry, and therefore, suffers from a lack of political accountability. Theoretically, the Police Commission should be the entity which instills a sense of external morality upon the LAPD. In reality, however, the LAPD maintains moral standards which are purely internal and has little influence from external forces. Mr. White emphasized that violence (i.e., beating with batons) is not viewed by the LAPD as something which requires disciplinary action. Although the Rodney King incident goes way beyond what Mr. White considers reasonable violence, "some thumping" is a matter of course for the LAPD. Activities such as theft and bribery, on the other hand, violate the LAPD's internal moral code. Thus, Mr. White emphasized that you cannot allow the LAPD to establish its own moral code, for the department needs external input. Mr. White believes that this external sense of morality must be instilled by a civilian force. This force should be the Police Commission. Nevertheless, in its current state, the Police Commission is seen as a "joke" by the LAPD. The inability of the Police Commission to place Chief Gates on 60-day mandatory leave reveals the ineffectiveness of the Police Commission. The ability of the City Council to override the Police Commission supports the well-known sentiment in the LAPD that the only true - 2 - power in Los Angeles stems from the City Council and the Mayor's Office, and the LAPD (i.e., Chief) can disregard the Commission almost entirely. Although theoretically the Police Commission should have significant control over the practices of the LAPD, as a practical matter, the Commission is politically powerless. For example, the Commission cannot fire the Chief without a substantial showing of cause. To fire the Chief, the Commission must prove that the Chief was either discourteous, dishonest, neglected his duty, or failed to follow orders of the Commission. The political reality, in the opinion of Mr. White, is that the Commission cannot fire the Chief. Mr. White feels that the only way in which the LAPD can achieve some sense of civilian control, thereby being sensitive to the public's external morality, is to restructure the Police Commission and the Chief of Police through amendments to the City Charter. The first step in changing the LAPD's moral code would be to eliminate the Chief of Police's civil service protection. The Police Chief should serve at the pleasure of either the City Council, the Mayor, or the Police Commission. Next, the Chief should be accountable for everything that happens in the LAPD. Otherwise, the Chief maintains his "free wheeling" status, and retains a sense of autonomy and impunity. Preferably, Mr. White believes that the Commission should have the utmost authority with regard to the LAPD, and consequently, should oversee all the Police Chief's duties and decisions. Mr. White did express some reservation in this structural change, due to the fact that the - 3 - Commissioners are vulnerable to the political whims of the Mayor. A group of five Commissioners, however, may be able to counteract any type of underhanded efforts by the Mayor to control the • Commission's decisions as to the LAPD's and the Chief's activities. The next step to~ard lessening the violent practices of the LAPD, according to Mr. White, is to have the Commission actually run the LAPD. The Commission should be a civilian entity which represents the Los Angeles community in its ethnic and political make-up, it should appoint and be able to fire the Chief, and it should sit on the promotional board. The Chief should make recommendations about who should be promoted, but the true promotion of officers to higher ranks should come from a civilian authority. Thus, there should be no police officers on the Commission. The existence of police officers on the Commission may undermine the independence of the Commission's decision-making, due to internal politics and competition between officers. Mr. White believes that the Commission should remain as a five-person body, and should retain the staff which now serves its functions. This staff consists of 60 available officers, and 6 full-time staff members with a commander in charge. In addition, the Commission should remain a part-time entity, for with sufficient authority, the Commission will be able to implement its decisions even with the limited amount of time it spends in session. - 4 - |
Filename | indep-box21-15-05.pdf |
Archival file | Volume67/indep-box21-15-05.pdf |