January 19, 2001

Jennifer Orff , Legal Editor

Los Angeles Daily Journal

915 E. First St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re:	Justice 2001: The Los Angeles Police Department: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Dear Ms. Orff:

Recently the Beverly Hills Bar Association presented the latest program in its Justice 2001 series at the Museum of Tolerance which was broadcast on "Which Way L.A." on KCRW. The discussion surrounded the Los Angeles Police Department, the Rampart problems and the Consent Decree that was resultantly entered. A discussion panel, (2001 Panel) moderated by Warren Olney, included Chief Bernard Parks of the L.A.P.D., Nick Pacheco, a Los Angeles City Councilman, Richard Drooyan, General Counsel of the Rampart Independent Review Panel, Kelly Martin, Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Riordan, Gerald Chaleff, President of the Police Commission, and Ted Hunt, an attorney representing the Police Protective League.

Each panel member was asked to describe the most important problem facing the Los Angeles Police Department and the solution. Drooyan mentioned a lack of credibility. Martin suggested there was no problem as did Parks. Hunt suggested the need to accommodate the culture of the police officers while Pacheco and Chaleff focused on the need to provide safety in the neighborhoods.

The report of the Rampart Independent Review Panel (Rampart Panel), focusing solely on the Rampart issue, suggested that officers in a "crash unit" had developed an independent subculture where the ends justified the means. They resisted supervision and control and ignored LAPD's procedures and policies. Department managers then ignored warning signs and failed to provide leadership, all of which resulted in the corruption of the Rampart scandal.

Parks' analysis was that the Rampart corruption scandal was an isolated incident. He noted that the original estimate of 99 tainted prosecutions had grown only to 108 over a year after the eruption of the scandal. Whereas the predicted tens of thousands of affected prosecutions forecast by the media had not come to pass. The 2001 Panel did not disagree.

Nevertheless, the reaction to the corruption scandal seemed to please no one. The initial scrutiny coming only after the fact was initially done internally. Later, the facts were reviewed and evaluated by an independent review panel and resulted ultimately in a Consent Decree involving the Attorney General of the United States and the City Attorney.

The Consent Decree implies that the Los Angeles City Police Department so lacked in integrity that it could not be entrusted to enact proper reforms itself. This, however, belies the fact that the corruption appeared to be an isolated incident and there was no proof, explicit or implied, that there was wider spread corruption. The Consent Decree has wrongfully smeared the vast majority of officers and supervisors who carry out their thankless tasks with extreme honor and dedication.

Neither the police officers nor the public who are most affected by the Consent Decree are parties to the Decree. Hunt suggested that, for this reason, the Decree does not adequately take into consideration the police officers point of view and culture. Officers are offended by the process of independent review and the Consent Decree. As a result, officers are leaving the force in droves for other nearby forces which do not have such a stigma.

Finally, and most importantly, the public itself is unsatisfied because the report of the Review Panel and the Consent Decree have caused an adverse reaction among police officers. The resulting loss of officers has weakened police presence both figuratively and actually in the neighborhoods.

Ultimately, the question is one of integrity: creating, preserving and recognizing it. The culture of the police officer must include an ongoing means for scrutiny. Without ongoing scrutiny, problems grow undetected until they explode as they did with Rampart. Preserving integrity requires that leadership, which in this case begins with Chief Bernard Parks, review and act on information gathered in the scrutiny process. The process and the response must be continuous and contemporaneous.

Finally, oversight bodies must not over-react. The review and Decree should have taken pains to remind the public of the integrity of the Police Department and the isolated nature of this incident. Credit must be given where due. Internal scrutiny must be ongoing and proactive. In this case internal scrutiny ultimately did occur albeit only after the scandal.

As with any enterprise, the success and failure begins and ends with integrity. The person at the top, Chief Parks, is the only one who can create and preserve that integrity. Based on the aftermath of the Rampart scandal, his final grade on integrity is still in the balance. He should be given passing grades for investigating and reacting to the Rampart scandal and for the vast majority of the police department which was uninvolved. His grade for allowing Rampart to grow undetected, of course, is a failing grade. However, by following the recommendations of the Rampart Independent Review Panel and Consent Decree, he should be able to restore the perception and reality of an outstanding police force that over recent years has made Los Angeles a safer place.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth G. Petrulis

KGP/ct

cc:	Chief Bernard Parks

Nick Pacheco

Richard Drooyan

Gerald Chaleff

Kelly Martin

Ted Hunt

Burt Tigerman

9/KGP/Misc/128.f1