Council Move to Retain Chief Seen as Unlikely

On the eve of a scheduled vote that will decide Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams’ fate, a majority of City Council members say they are inclined to support the city’s Police Commission, clearing the way for the chief’s ouster.

Bracing for that, sources said Monday that some officials have broached the idea of offering Williams a severance package, but added that no final deal has been struck. Options under consideration range from paying Williams about $60,000, roughly the salary owed him to the end of his term, plus money for moving expenses, unused sick days and the like.

At the upper end, sources said, is a proposal to pay the chief about $830,000. The larger sum, which some council members said they would vote against, would include money to pay his legal fees, two years worth of severance pay and a pension bonus. Both figures are considerably lower than the $3 million that one council member says he discussed with Williams’ lawyers.

Through a Police Department spokesman Monday, Williams denied that he was discussing any plan to leave and said he intended to serve out his term, which runs to July 6.

One of his lawyers, Peter I. Ostroff, declined to discuss any details of offers that might be made to Williams, but confirmed that some council members have offered to seek some settlement with the chief.

“There are council members who have expressed . . . an interest in doing right by him,” Ostroff said. He added that those council members also hope that the chief still could win reappointment to a second, five-year term, a move that could only occur if two-thirds of the council votes to take jurisdiction of the issue and then overturns the Police Commission.

The first formal test of council support for that course is scheduled to come today, when a vote is set on a motion from Councilwoman Rita Walters, who has asked her colleagues to assert their authority to review the Police Commission’s conclusions. Even that could change, however, as the chief’s supporters, sensing that they are short of a two-thirds majority, may pull back to give Williams more time to lobby.

Among other things, backers of the chief said they are considering a substitute motion that would invite police commissioners to appear before the City Council, but stop short of formally asserting council jurisdiction over the matter.

Williams and his supporters have urged the council to take charge of the issue, but others have warned that doing so could jeopardize the principle of civilian police oversight, an idea that Police Commission President Raymond C. Fisher has emphasized.

As of Monday, it appeared that nine council members--council President John Ferraro and Richard Alatorre, Joel Wachs, Laura Chick, Mike Feuer, Richard Alarcon, Rudy Svorinich Jr., Hal Bernson and Marvin Braude--were prepared to uphold the commission, some because they believe that Williams has done a poor job, others because they believe that the Police Commission deserves council backing as a matter of policy.

“I have no hesitancy at all with upholding the action of the Police Commission,” said Braude, who has been a strong supporter of Williams but also has been a leading council backer of police reform efforts since the early 1990s. The reform movement, galvanized by the Christopher Commission, established stronger civilian control over the Police Department and its chief, a notion that Braude said he supports and that he believes the Police Commission has fulfilled.

Likewise, Chick, who heads the Public Safety Committee and who has long supported Williams, said she believes that the commission’s action should stand.

“I have confidence that the Police Commission has undertaken its decision-making in a carefully deliberative, thorough manner,” Chick said in a written statement. “The process that voters supported has worked and should be supported by all.”

Alarcon joined his colleagues in saying he believed that the commission, which produced a 22-page document explaining the reasons for its decision, deserved to be upheld.

“I haven’t seen anything that would change my mind,” Alarcon said. “I still believe we ought to let the Christopher Commission process work. The Police Commission, I think, did a good job.”

Some council members disagree.

Walters, Jackie Goldberg, Nate Holden and Mark Ridley-Thomas support having the council review the commission action.

“The council ought to review the matter,” Ridley-Thomas said Friday. “It’s too significant a matter to be left in the hands of a civilian board that is not accountable. We need to make sure that things have been done the way they ought to have been done.”

*

Ridley-Thomas said that if the chief sues the city over his rejection, the council would have to get involved at that point.

“Ultimately it’s going to come to us,” he said. “It doesn’t go to the commission if there’s litigation; it doesn’t go to the mayor’s office; it goes to the council. If we’re going to have to decide on it, we ought to do it with forethought.”

Two council members, Ruth Galanter and Mike Hernandez, have yet to take a firm position, though Hernandez is considered a probable vote in favor of the council reviewing the commission’s work.

Even if Galanter and Hernandez join Williams’ supporters, the chief still seems to be short of a council majority. And because it would require 10 of the 15 votes to wrest the matter away from the commission and place it under council control, Williams appears well short of the votes he needs to prevail.

The council is split on the question of a financial settlement that would allow Williams to leave office within weeks, with some members expressing tentative support for it and others concerned about the amount and about the precedent of such a payment.

“I could support a modest payment, but I would be worried if it got too large,” one council member said.

“He was elected to a five-year term,” another added. “He didn’t get reelected. Why should we pay him for that?”

A few weeks ago, Williams had greater leverage to discuss a buyout, but some initial supporters have wavered.

Alatorre said at first he supported negotiating a severance package for Williams and in fact negotiated with the chief’s lawyers to reach a deal. The chief’s lawyers deny that negotiations took place--and Williams has insisted that he never took part in any talks--but Alatorre has said that they did, and that $3 million was discussed.

Alatorre’s public dispute with the chief’s lawyers about those talks left the councilman angry, and he now says that he would be unlikely to support any settlement deal. That denies Williams a potentially valuable vote, as Alatorre is an influential council member, as well as chairman of its Budget and Finance Committee.

On Monday, Alatorre was unavailable for comment but said through an aide that he believes that the council will vote today on whether to review the commission vote. If so, Alatorre reiterated his view that Williams will fall short of the votes he needs, and that the matter should then be laid to rest.