CHIEF: THE FIX IS IN PANEL: NO, IT'S NOT : WILLIMAS, COMMISSION DISPUTE FAIRNESS OF REHIRING PROCESS.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams has accused the Police Commission of improperly deciding not to rehire him for a second five-year term, and says the commission is planning a sham evaluation to justify the action.

The chief's attorneys, in a letter to the commission, said the performance evaluation process that Williams faces is nothing more than ``window dressing.''

The letter was made public Thursday by the commission, which denied the accusation and said it plans a thorough and fair review before any decision is made on whether to rehire the chief.

Williams' attorneys, Peter Ostroff and Johnny Griggs, questioned the ``fairness and lawfulness'' of the criteria that the commission says it will use to evaluate Williams.

``As a threshold matter, we are extremely skeptical about whether the issue of Chief Williams' employment will (or can) receive fair and objective treatment on the merits from the Police Commission,'' said the letter, dated Jan. 27.

The letter renewed concern among city officials that Williams was laying the groundwork for a lawsuit if he is not given a second term.

Williams was home recovering from laryngitis and would have no direct comment, a spokesman said.

While responding to the letter, the Police Commission made public Thursday the written criteria it plans to use to evaluate the chief's performance, and commission members strongly denied the chief's accusations.

``We take great exception to that. I think that's just a false accusation,'' the commission president, Ray Fisher, said about the ``window dressing'' charge.

At a Parker Center news conference, Fisher and Commissioner Edith Perez said the panel has not yet decided whether to give Williams another five years as chief when his current term expires in July.

But they said they are concerned about the confrontational tone taken by the chief and his attorneys in their letter.

``It was an attack on what we were doing and our good faith,'' Fisher said.

``I don't think that's constructive. I don't think that's helpful. We will make the evaluation. We will try not to be drawn into a litigation battle,'' Fisher said.

The commission has asked to meet with Williams on Feb. 4 to get his own position on how well he has met criteria.

Williams' attorneys said the chief is willing to attend the meeting but added: ``We believe that such a meeting is meaningless at this point.''

The commission plans to evaluate how well Williams has controlled and prevented crime, how well he has cooperated with and followed directions from the commission, and how well he has established himself as the ``trusted and respected'' leader within the department and in the community. Those are among 24 criteria posed by the commission.

In comments that Griggs and Ostroff said are made on the chief's behalf and ``with his approval,'' the attorneys called the criteria ``unsatisfactory in their entirety'' - too subjective - and said the commission provided no objective and measurable standards for evaluation.

Challenging the commission's claim that it plans to make the decision based on specific criteria, the attorneys said: ``We have been informed by the commission and others that the `assessment' has been made, and the conclusion to terminate the employment of Chief Williams has been reached.''

To support that claim, the attorneys quoted from a January 1995 memo from the then-president of the commission, Enrique Hernandez Jr., threatening the chief with termination for ``significant deficiencies.''

``If these deficiencies are not corrected in an expedient and thorough manner, the Board of Police Commissioners will consider termination of your five-year contract prior to its expiration,'' the memo said. ``At this present time, the board does not have an intention to renew your contract to serve as chief of police after the initial five-year term.''

The memo went on to say the decision not to renew the contract was not final.

Fisher said the memo simply put the chief on notice to improve his performance. Three of the five current commissioners were not on the panel when the memo was written, so it is not necessarily an indication of the commission's current position, Fisher said.

``The commission that sits today will evaluate the chief based on the performance that we are familiar with. That is our job,'' Fisher said. ``That is exactly what the Christopher Commission and the voters asked us to do.''

As for the criteria, Perez said they are based on the chief's own strategic plan and goals for the department.

``We have to make judgments and necessarily some of those judgments have to be subjective,'' Fisher added. ``We will obviously consider objective data to the extent some of those criteria can be measured.''

Fisher said the commission has until April 7 to make a decision on the chief's tenure, but he hopes to make the decision by the end of next month.

Williams' attorneys said the nature of the criteria and the fact that they are just being articulated at the end of his term ``reinforce the view that the commission has already made its decision and is now engaging in a window-dressing exercise.''

The attorneys said that, since the election of Mayor Richard Riordan, the commission has failed to evaluate the chief, as required by law, by doing a year-end final performance review.

``The commission has failed and refused to evaluate the chief pursuant to the method required by law, despite his requests, thus depriving him of significant rights,'' the letter said.

Some city officials said the escalation of the conflict between the chief and his civilian bosses makes it more unlikely the chief will be granted another term.

``How does this help the chief?'' asked a council member who has supported Williams. ``When somebody's in an adversary position with the people making the decision, it seems hard for the people doing the evaluation to have goodwill.''

Councilman Richard Alarcon said the chief's charge that the commission has prejudged the process is ``unwarranted.''

``It seems they (commission) have worked very hard to maintain an objective attitude,'' Alarcon said.

Councilwoman Laura Chick said she was dismayed by the contentiousness, saying it echoes the bitter dispute between former chief Daryl F. Gates and the police commission that tried to remove him five years ago.

``To me it is just kind of an echo of a bad dream,'' Chick said.

Fisher said the commission is trying to avoid a repeat of the Gates conflict.

``I have concerns that we might get into that situation, but we're trying to avoid that situation,'' Fisher said. ``It's unfortunate if it becomes confrontational.

``We don't want it to polarize the city, but we're going to do our job as we're expected to,'' Fisher added.

Griggs said in an interview that the dispute is not good for the city.

``I believe that for the city of Los Angeles the foreseeable future looks bleak,'' he said.

``Chief Williams has been under unfair attack for quite some time. I think it's tantamount to blaming the victim to focus on his defensive act as an act of war,'' Griggs said. ``The chief stands by it (the letter) and I stand by it, and it's only the beginning.''

Griggs declined to comment directly on the likelihood of a lawsuit.

``The chief in all fairness will see the process through,'' he said. ``He wishes to be reappointed as police chief. If that is impossible, he wishes to see that justice is done.''

Fisher said the commission will carry on with its evaluation without worrying about a lawsuit.

``We will evaluate the chief's overall performance and how the chief can lead the department in the future,'' Fisher added.

Commission lists standards used

in judging chief

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Thursday released 24 criteria it said it would be used in evaluating Police Chief Willie L. Williams to decide whether he should get a second, five-year term.

The commission said that, among other areas, it will rate the chief's ability to:

Articulate a vision for the department and clear and consistent goals, including improving the department's credibility and accountability as an effective and fair law enforcement agency.

Establish the chief of police as a trusted and respected leader within the department and the community.

Establish and maintain a management structure and operation that provides effective leadership, control and accountability.

Cooperate with the commission and manage the department consistent with the commission's direction.

Deploy departmental resources to effectively and efficiently reduce crime and the fear of crime.

Provide for the continuing implementation and reassessment of the strategic plan, public safety plan and the Christopher Commission recommendations.

Maximize efforts to implement a community policing model in Los Angeles.

Maintain clear, consistent, accurate and timely communications with the commission, the department, the mayor, the City Council and other law enforcement agencies.

Maintain effective, informative and consistent communication with the community at large and with the media.

Develop and implement effective strategies to eliminate all forms of bias and disrespect among employees.

CAPTION(S):

Box

Box: Commission lists standards used in judging chief (See text)