officers - The Black Vault

FD·350 (Rev. 5-8·81)
(Indicate page, name of
newspaper, city and state.)
(Mount Clipping in Space Below)
. PERSPECTIVE ON POLICE
Who Say~ They Cap.'t
·Fire the Chief?
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Date: FRI MAR 15 1991
Edition: METRO SECTION 1
PAGE 7
WHO SAYS THEY CAN'T FIRE
irt!e: THE CHIEF?
Character: CIVIL RIGHTS
or
The Police Commission
does have the power and
the grounds to discipline
Gates. All it really needs
is the will.
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 rankand-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 Servi~e
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
proceedin~s 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
po:wer 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 otherwi~e punish-Chief
Gates for violation of the spe- .
cific 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 cit,Y qf Los Angeles
today. This, members of the commission,
is the ca:;;e 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 susceptiple to chokeholds
thari "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 tlie department. The taxpay.:
ers had to pay more than $8 million in
claims against the Police Department
.last year. The State Department of Fair
Employment arid 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 en­
.couraged. 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
serv .
state ent that a man arreste ·
killing o fficer Tina Kerbrat 'was an
El Salvadoran drunk . . . a drunk who
doesn't belong here" .. cle.arly violate?
Section 240.15 of the police manual,
which states that '!discourtesy under
any circumstance is indefensible."
Fourth, the :COPlmission may reason­
, ably conclude' that Chief Gates has
1 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 dignit'y 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 damp.ge, 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 Qn 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 .. ~ut that
is no reason to abdicate your responsi~
bility to initiate such action if you
1/DOJ
l;>elieve as representatives of the people
of Los Angeles that it is warranted.
Thank you.