The system is rigged
At the risk of sounding like a presidential candidate, this is what the League has been saying about the discipline system and what the League has been trying to fix. The City Charter gives an officer the right to a trial by a three-member panel known as a Board of Rights when accused of misconduct. The Board is made up of one civilian and two LAPD captains or above. The Charter states that an officer shall not “be suspended, demoted in rank, suspended and demoted in rank, removed, or otherwise separated from the service of the department (other than by resignation), except for good and sufficient cause shown upon a finding of guilty of the specific charge or charges assigned as cause or causes after a full, fair, and impartial hearing before a Board of Rights.” (emphasis mine)
The structure of the Charter’s discipline system is sound and fair. It only becomes unfair when those who participate in it cheat. Any system can be rigged by those in power if there is a willingness to do so.
How do we know the system is rigged? Well, four command staff officers have filed separate lawsuits alleging that the Chief, or other high-ranking command staff, has told them that when the Chief orders an officer to a Board of Rights, they are to terminate the officer. So much for the impartial hearing. And now we have a fifth command staff officer who made a similar allegation in a Notice of Claim (prelude to a lawsuit) filed with the City.
The League has filed a lawsuit asking that the Board of Rights system be declared unconstitutional because the command staff board members are unfairly influenced by the Chief and other high command staff officers. The League has also attempted to influence the Mayor to put a Charter Amendment on the ballot that changes the Board of Rights members to all civilians. The Mayor isn’t interested, so the lawsuit must proceed.
A recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece castigated the League’s desire for an all-civilian board, claiming that the League is only doing this because civilians are more lenient than command officers. This reflects a complete misunderstanding of what the League is trying to accomplish. Claiming that the League is asking for civilians because they are more lenient is like criticizing those who prefer jury trials to lynchings because jurors are more lenient.
The three Board of Rights members are in effect an officer’s jury. When board members are told by the Chief, or other high-ranking officers, that when he sends an officer to a Board of Rights they are to terminate that officer (or else face retaliation), that is a lynching, not a trial. The central issue is not civilians; the central issue is having board members who are not subject to the Chief’s influence. In other words, board members who are under the Chief’s command, and whose assignments and promotions depend on the good will of the Chief, can be influenced by those who want to cheat; it is more difficult to influence civilians who are not part of the Chief ’s chain of command. So the League is not arguing for civilians per se, the League is arguing for board members outside the influence of the Chief of Police. That is not asking for leniency, that is asking for fairness.
The Chief, of course, denies attempting to influence board members and points to the fact that some officers who go to Boards of Rights are not terminated. That does not prove that there is no attempt to influence board members. It does prove that there are board members with enough backbone to act ethically in spite of risking career jeopardy. For that our members should be grateful. Additionally, with five lawsuits to defend that share the same issue, it is likely that the cheating has stopped, at least temporarily, to build a better track record for the upcoming trials. The League’s fear is that it will be business as usual after the lawsuits conclude. A more permanent solution is needed.
Again, it is not the structure of the Board of Rights system that is at fault. It is a good system, based on the military system, that was set up 85 years ago by former Chief William Parker. It was meant to protect honest police officers from arbitrary discipline by management that was at that time crooked. Vice operations were protected for money, promotions were for sale, and honest cops who wouldn’t go along with the program were fired without cause. Parker cleaned up the Department, and the Board of Rights system was an integral part of accomplishing this.
The League is not interested in throwing out the baby with the bath water. The Board of Rights system is a fair system, if not subverted. The problem is, how do you protect the system from those who want to cheat? A partial answer appears to be placing persons on the board who are as insulated as possible from retaliation. It is a shame that this means sacrificing the expertise of command officers because higher management cannot be trusted to allow the system to function without interference.
Unfortunately, the tipping point has been reached. Officers overwhelmingly do not trust the disciplinary system. Assurances from the Chief that the system is fair fall on deaf ears. Significant reform with safe guards built in are necessary to build trust back into the system.
Rigging the system, the League believes (as do most officers surveyed), is not limited to the Board of Rights system. The problem is suspected in the investigation of personnel complaints, administrative hearings and use of force boards. As evidence develops, the League will expand its demands for reforms and safeguards.
All that being said, the League knows that there are many ethical and fair persons in all of these systems. In fact, much of our information comes from the foot soldiers who see these injustices, are offended and provide us with information. It is also unprecedented that so many commanding officers are filing lawsuits in protest of these unfair practices. These lawsuits are all separately filed and are not financed by the League.
Let’s hope that the moon, sun and stars have lined up in such a way that will result in true and effective reform. In the meantime…
Be legally careful out there.
