$$$ GIFT FOR COPS' UNION DESPITE DEAL, CITY FUNDING DEFENSE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT CASES.

Byline: Beth Barrett Staff Writer

City officials have continued paying for the defense of Los Angeles police officers accused of misconduct, despite a deal with the police union to end the practice, the Daily News learned Monday.

The deal hinged on sweeping reforms to the police disciplinary system, which voters approved last April. The city agreed to pay the Police Protective League $6.5 million over 18 months for it to take over the defense work. Of that, $3 million has already been paid to the union.

But the department has continued to pull officers from normal duties to defend accused officers because of a dispute over exactly what the agreement says and the failure of the City Attorney's Office or other city officials to resolve the disagreement.

``The records during negotiations speak for themselves, that the union agrees all representation was covered,'' Chief Bernard C. Parks said. ``The language in the charter is unambiguous. There is no effort by the department to do more than what is in the charter.''

Union officials said they are gradually taking over some defense work but acknowledge they are conserving their city-financed defense fund.

``We put (the $3 million) in a trust fund,'' said union President Mitzi Grasso. ``I have no idea how much has been spent but (in) the report I saw a couple of months ago, it was far less than what we thought it would be.''

The dispute got swept up in the battle between the chief, who is seeking a second five-year term, and the union, which has waged a costly and intensive campaign to have him replaced.

``No money has gone into the campaign against the chief; the money is earmarked for officer representation,'' Grasso said.

The union claims that Parks is pressing for a broad interpretation of the charter change to cover all misconduct issues - from investigation to formal Board of Rights disciplinary hearings - to ``bust'' the union financially by forcing it to provide representation at all stages.

``That's totally untrue,'' Parks said.

City Administrative Officer William Fujioka, who negotiated the agreement, said he thought the agreement was clear: After a transition period all boards and due process hearings, known as Skelly proceedings, would be the union's responsibility.

``The league was required to take over new cases,'' he said, adding that continued representation by the department of accused cops ``would not be consistent with the agreement.''

``We wanted (the defense reps) back in the field as a gain to the city,'' Fujioka said.

Since May, 233 boards have been started, with LAPD defense representatives involved in some capacity in 217 of them. At any one time, up to three dozen officers - earning on average more than $66,000 a year - can be involved in boards, LAPD officials said.

Since October alone, 92 boards were started, with defense representatives assigned in some role to 85 of them, according to records.

On Monday, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo received a formal request from Parks for a legal opinion on the defense representation matter.

Delgadillo spokeswoman Ana Garcia said the city attorney asked for some points of clarification, and that the office will draft the opinion.

Mayor James Hahn, who was the city attorney when the city entered the agreement with the union, declined comment through his spokeswoman Julie Wong.

Union officials said if they're forced to provide representation for Skelly proceedings and other preliminary proceedings, including investigative interviews, of which there are some 8,000 a year, they will run out of money.

``You can't do that for $6 million,'' said the union's general counsel, Hank Hernandez, who contended that the union's contract with the city still requires such pre-board representation by LAPD officers.

Hernandez said the union already is concerned Parks will send so many officers to boards that the union won't be able to afford even them.

``If the chief sends 1,000 cops to boards, that will break me,'' he said.

The legal dispute centers around a provision in Charter Amendment 1 passed by voters April 10, 2001, that provided sweeping changes in the LAPD disciplinary system, including a provision that officers would have to provide at ``his or her expense'' representation at boards.

The LAPD argues that an earlier memorandum of understanding between the city and the union requires renegotiation of all forms of department defense representation assuming passage of the charter amendment.

The union says the memo of understanding refers strictly to boards of rights, as described in the charter amendment.

While Hernandez said the union won't argue if the LAPD stops sending defense representatives to boards, where the union also is providing lawyers, it will fight ending LAPD representation of officers in pre-board proceedings.

``Department management is trying to make us look bad,'' Hernandez said. ``They're not abiding (by the charter). Who's assigning the defense reps? It's management. We will not be blackmailed into giving up our contractual rights to these other representatives.''