LOS ANGELES TIMES
•   FRIDAY. MARCH   15,  1991
Commentary
PERSPECTIVE ON POLICE
Who Says They Can't Fire the Chief?
The Police Commission
does have the power and
the grounds to discipline
Gates. All it really needs
is the will.
By GEOFFREY TAYLOR GIBBS
The following is from a statement made
on behalf of the John M. Langston Bar
Assn., which represents about 900 African-American attorneys in the Los Angeles area, at Thursday's Los Angeles
Police Commission hearing.
We believe that the law of this
city clearly states that Chief
Gates does not enjoy civil-
service protection with respect to the
commission's ability to discipline him or
remove him from office, but instead that
Chief Gates is subject to basically the
same disciplinary process as a rank-
and-file officer. Moreover, we believe
that the commission may reasonably
take such action.
The authority for our belief is in the
Los Angeles City Charter and Administrative Code and in the 1991 official
Police Department Manual.
Section 199 of the City Charter states
that the police chief is subject in appointment to the charter's Civil Service
provisions, but that the separate provisions regarding police officer discipline
"shall apply to the chief of police with
respect to his right to office . . . and the
proceedings for his removal, suspension
and discharge."
Section 22.216 of the administrative
code sets forth specific grounds for the
discipline of the chief of police and
provides that the commission has sole
power to determine those grounds.
"Failure on [the chief's] part to comply
with [the commission's] instructions or
incompetence, dishonesty, discourtesy
or neglect of duty, as determined by the
commission, shall constitute adequate
grounds for [the chief's removal]. . .."
Members of the commission, we ask: Can you not
reasonably find that Daryl
Gates has been discourteous
to the citizens of Los Angeles?
Allow us, then, to argue to
the commission that if you so
choose, you may reasonably
discipline—remove, suspend
or otherwise punish—Chief
Gates for violation of the specific laws of this city.
We were pleased to share this information with a few community leaders
Wednesday and we are pleased to share
it with the entire city of Los Angeles
today. This, members of the commission,
is the case against Daryl Gates.
First, the commission may reasonably
determine that Chief Gates has failed to
follow its instructions. In 1982, this
commission officially reprimanded Chief
Gates for remarking that "some blacks"
may be more susceptible to chokeholds
than "normal people." A reprimand is
also an instruction to avoid repeating the
censured behavior. Chief Gates has
made so many similar statements since
1982 that we will not bother to recite all
of them here. He has therefore clearly
failed to follow the commission's instructions.
Second, the commission may reasonably determine that Chief Gates has
demonstrated incompetence in the management of the department. The taxpayers had to pay more than $8 million in
claims against the Police Department
last year. The State Department of Fair
Employment and Housing found that
the department discriminates against its
Latino officers.
Chief Gates has created a climate in
which brutality by a" small minority of
his department is tolerated, if not encouraged. The commission has the right
to ask whether these facts are consistent
with the competent management of the
department.
Third, the commission may reasonably conclude that Chief Gates has
demonstrated discourtesy to the citizens
of Los Angeles, who he is sworn "to
serve and to protect." Chief Gates'
statement that a man arrested for the
killing of Officer Tina Kerbrat "was an
El Salvadoran drunk ... a drunk who
doesn't belong here" clearly violates
Section 240.15 of the police manual,
which states that "discourtesy under
any circumstance is indefensible."
Fourth, the commission may reasonably conclude that Chief Gates has
neglected his duty according to Section
270.25 of the police manual, to only
make statements after using considered
judgment. Representing the city of Los
Angeles, Chief Gates testified before the
U.S. Senate that casual drug users
"should be taken out and shot." He later
insisted that he was not being facetious.
Finally, the commission has no choice
but to conclude that Chief Gates has
neglected his duty, according to Section
320 of the police manual, to respect the
individual dignity of others. As this city
and the nation reacted in shock to the
brutal beating of Rodney G. King and
Mr. King lay in grave condition, perhaps
suffering permanent brain damage, this
was Chief Gates' apology to Mr. King:
"He's on parole. He's a convicted robber.
In spite of the fact that he's on parole
and a convicted robber, I'd be glad to
apologize."
This statement in itself, implying that
the Police Department may attach a
lesser value to the life of a citizen if he is
a parolee, is so patently outrageous and
so wholly inconsistent with the duties of
a chief of police that the commission
must take action against Chief Gates for
no other reason than that he would
think he could make the statement.
We believe that the commission does
have the power to discipline Chief Gates
and does have the grounds upon which
to do so. We recognize that Chief Gates
has the right to a hearing and the right
to appeal in court any disciplinary action
that the commission may take. But that
is no reason to abdicate your responsibility to initiate such action if you
believe as representatives of the people
of Los Angeles that it is warranted.
Thank you.