$45 MIL PRICE TAG TO REFORM LAPD.

Byline: Rick Orlov Staff Writer

After six months of closed-door negotiations and briefings, the Los Angeles City Council publicly debated the proposed federal court consent decree for LAPD for the first time Tuesday - and its potential $45 million a year in added costs.

City Attorney James Hahn, a key negotiator, strongly recommended that the city submit to oversight of the police by a federal judge and monitor, arguing the Los Angeles Police Department cannot be successfully defended against charges of systematic violation of civil rights.

```Given what has happened in the Rampart Division, I don't believe we would stand a chance of winning a federal lawsuit,'' said Hahn, a candidate for mayor. ``And the Department of Justice has made it clear that without us agreeing to this, they are prepared to file in federal court.''

A bare council majority voiced support for agreeing to the consent decree, but with four members opposed and Council President John Ferraro ill, the decision could depend on Valley Councilmen Joel Wachs and Alex Padilla. They are undecided and both votes would be needed to override a veto by Mayor Richard Riordan, who opposes the consent decree as undermining city authority over the LAPD.

The council scheduled only one public hearing on the consent decree and could push for a vote as early as next week. Wachs and others called for a series of hearings around the city despite federal threats to sue if the city failed to accept the consent decree oversight by the end of the month.

Some council members questioned the rush to sign the consent decree and Hahn's unwillingness to defend LAPD in court.

``You can't win if you don't try,'' said Councilman Hal Bernson, who voiced concerns over agreeing to a consent decree as he cited his experience as a member of the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is under such a court order.

``Believe me, you don't want a consent decree. If you agree to this, you will regret it the rest of your lives.''

Among the key concerns about the consent decree are the scope of authority of the federal monitor, the duration of federal oversight, how complaints against officers are investigated and the reporting requirements to prevent officers from engaging in racial profiling.

Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton said the consent decree would cost $20 million to $35 million to implement, and $30 million to $45 million annually to carry out - about half the cost of operating the city's libraries, for instance.

Key expenses would be for a new computer system to track complaints, an expanded internal affairs unit, a new audit office under the chief of police as well as the costs of the federal monitor and that staff.

The council did not take action on the 84-page proposal, instead scheduling a single public hearing at 10 a.m. Monday to begin going through the specifics of the proposal. The council also put the topic on its agenda for today, when it expects to hear from Bill Lann Lee, the Los Angeles civil rights attorney who heads the Justice Department's civil rights division.

Wachs said more hearings are needed around the city to get more public input, but no action was taken with members saying they wanted to see how the proceedings developed.

The nearly two-hour session, however, did show where council members stand on the need for a consent decree - which has been opposed by Riordan and Chief Bernard C. Parks, who prefer a contract or memorandum of understanding that would not give the federal government an ongoing role.

Supporting a consent decree are council members Laura Chick, Mike Feuer, Ruth Galanter, Jackie Goldberg, Mike Hernandez, Cindy Miscikowski, Mark Ridley-Thomas and Rita Walters.

Opposing it are Bernson, Nate Holden, Nick Pacheco and Rudy Svorinich. Wachs and Padilla are undecided. Council President Ferraro has been ill and the date of his return to work is uncertain, aides said.

Hernandez said he was troubled by the costs of the reforms being proposed and how they would affect other city programs. ``I know we have to have some way to make sure the reforms are carried out, but I don't know if we need to spend all this money and I want to know the impact on other programs.''

Svorinich said he felt the city had to maintain control of the LAPD. ``When I was elected in 1993, it was to turn Los Angeles around. Now, I'm being asked to turn over the LAPD. It doesn't seem right.''

Holden also questioned what the Justice Department was alleging. ``They say they've been looking at the LAPD for four years. Well, why didn't they find out the problems in Rampart Division and (former Officer Rafael) Perez. What are they doing about problems in the FBI and INS? They should clean their own house first.''

Miscikowski, who chairs the council's Public Safety Committee, said what matters is to finally reform the LAPD. ``All of us carry the responsibility for not seeing the reforms proposed in the past were not put in place. The only reason not to do this is the sin of pride.''

Goldberg said deadlines for reforms are needed. ``This is like when you were in college. If you didn't have a deadline, your term papers would never have been turned in.''

She argued that the city had repeatedly failed to deal with the internal LAPD problems. ``It's the culture. It's the culture. It's the culture. We have been trying to deal for years with the problem of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing. Until we deal with that, we will continue to have a code of silence.''

LAPD TAKEOVER?

THE ISSUES

Here are the key points in the proposed consent decree being considered by the Los Angeles City Council:

--Whether to have a consent decree or seek a variation, such as a memorandum of understanding.

--Whether to have a federal monitor, and the role of that person.

--Creation of a tracking system of complaints against police officers.

--Whether to require investigation of all cases involving categorical uses of force; the city says it should be only those cases involving medical treatment.

THE COST

Here are the major costs estimated in the proposed consent decree being considered by the Los Angeles City Council:

--Computer tracking system of complaints: First-year cost of $15 million to $25 million, with annual costs of $30 million to $45 million after the first year.

--Transfer investigation of complaints from Robbery-Homicide to Operations: First-year cost of $500,000 to $1 million, with annual costs of $3 million to $4.5 million.

--Require reports of any time an officer conducts a search: One-time cost of $15,000 to $20,000, with annual costs of $200,000 to $500,000.

--Establish a telephone hotline for complaints: One-time cost of $100,000 to $500,000.

--Internal Affairs conducting more investigations: One-time cost of $500,000 to $1.5 million, and ongoing costs of $8 million to $10 million.

--Internal Affairs to conduct sting operations on officers: One-time cost of $500,000 to $1 million, and ongoing costs of $3 million to $5 million.

--Require reports on all traffic stops: One-time cost of $100,000 to $500,000.

--Require reports on all pedestrian stops: One-time cost of $100,000 to $500,000.

--Publish a manual on dealing with confidential informants: One-time cost of $10,000 to $50,000.

--Increased training of supervisors: Ongoing costs of $500,000 to $2 million.

--Quarterly audit of complaints: One-time cost of $500,000 to $1.5 million, with ongoing costs of $3 million to $5 million.

--Reports on misconduct to the Los Angeles Police Commission: One-time cost of $100,000 to $500,000, and ongoing costs of $2.5 million to $5 million.

--Require periodic financial disclosures: One-time cost of $100,000 to $500,000, with ongoing costs of $500,000 to $2.5 million.

--Audit police officer supervisor training: One-time cost of $500,000 to $1 million.

--Review of use-of-force cases: Ongoing costs of $500,000 to $4 million.

--Community outreach programs: One-time cost of $100,000 to $500,000.

--Federal monitor operations: Ongoing costs of $500,000 to $2 million.

- Source: City of Los Angeles 

COUNTING VOTES

The City Council needs eight votes to approve the consent decree for the Los Angeles Police Department and 10 votes to override a possible veto by Mayor Richard Riordan, who opposes agreeing to federal oversight.

City Council members in favor of consent decree:

Laura Chick, Mike Feuer, Ruth Galanter, Jackie Goldberg, Mike Hernandez, Cindy Miscikowski, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Rita Walters.

Council members opposed:

Hal Bernson, Nate Holden, Nick Pacheco, Rudy Svorinich.

Undecided:

Joel Wachs, Alex Padilla.

Absent:

John Ferraro is ill.

CAPTION(S):

2 boxes

Box: (1) LAPD TAKEOVER? (See text)

(2) COUNTING VOTES (See text)