CHIEF SHOULD BE LAST WORD ON DISCIPLINE.

Byline: EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON

LAPD Chief William Bratton hit the ceiling when the usual-suspect police critics pounded the department for the videotaped apparent beating of William Cardenas and the pepper-spraying of transient Benjamin Barker. But Bratton's anger is not just a knee-jerk defense of his officers. It's the result of his frustration over a department that's perennially hamstrung by its own impenetrable bureaucracy.

The problem is hardly new.

In an interview shortly after his 1993 federal conviction in the beating of Rodney King, LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon said he acted the way he did because there were no clear policy rules on the use of force in the Los Angeles Police Department.

In a damning 1991 report, the Christopher Commission confirmed Koon's accusation. It identified hundreds of officers who had been the targets of citizen complaints of excessive force. Some had as many as six complaints of beating, kicking and shooting suspects. Virtually nothing was done to discipline them.

Following the Rampart scandal, the LAPD issued its own internal Board of Inquiry report. The report confirmed that officers at the Rampart station beat, kicked and shot suspects. It reamed supervisors for doing little or nothing to punish them. Yet there was no public disclosure after the report of what, if any, action LAPD officials took to tighten up the supervision and discipline of officers.

Now there's the Cardenas beating and the pepper-spraying of Barker. What if the LAPD's Bureau of Professional Standards, which is investigating the beating, finds that the officers used excessive force against Cardenas, in violation of department policy? And what if Bratton reprimands or fires the officers?

That wouldn't be the end of it. The officers can promptly challenge the punishment before a three-person Board of Officer Rights made up of two top command officers and a civilian. The board can wipe out whatever punishment the chief imposes, and Bratton would be powerless to do anything about it.

Likewise, although the officer accused of pepper-spraying Barker resigned shortly after the altercation, the board might have stymied Bratton had he chosen to take disciplinary action against him.

Officers are certainly entitled to due process, and the board is a safeguard to protect cops from the whims of a corrupt, tyrannical or vindictive chief. But by the time the chief makes his decision to impose punishment, investigators -- who are also cops -- have generally conducted a time-consuming probe and made a strong case that the officer violated department policies and should be punished. If there's no punishment, it suggests that the chief lacks the power to control his troops, and that the police are engaged in some kind of cover-up.

An LAPD officer's shooting of Margaret Mitchell, a middle-age homeless woman, in 1999 is a case in point. Then-Chief Bernard Parks said that the officer used ``bad tactics,'' and the Police Commission ruled the shooting ``out of policy.'' But after long delays and foot-dragging, the Board of Rights ruled four years later that the officer who shot Mitchell was guilty of no wrongdoing and was not punished.

Those who have criticized the chief's handling of the latest incidents -- like Parks, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Police Commission's Blue Ribbon Rampart Review Panel -- would be better served pushing the City Council to consider amending the City Charter to give the chief and the Police Commission full say over the disciplining of officers who clearly violate department polices.

With the all-seeing eye of YouTube.com -- and with video recorders in the hands of anyone who can point a camera -- every twitch that LAPD officers make will likely be captured as if they're on a Hollywood soundstage. There will surely be more Cardenas- and Barker-type video incidents in the future. Thus, it's even more imperative that there be ironclad procedures that spell out a time frame for investigating complaints of abuse and clear guidelines for punishment.

The LAPD can have an impeccable record on crime reduction, sky-high officer morale and tight, efficient operations, but if the public perceives that abuse is rampant and unchecked, the department will ultimately be judged a failure. So will Bratton.

No wonder he's angry and frustrated.