COUNCIL UNABLE TO AGREE ON WILLIAMS' SEVERANCE.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy and Rick Orlov Daily News Staff Writers

After haggling for two hours behind closed doors Tuesday on a severance package for LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams, City Council members emerged with no agreement and called for a meeting today with the chief's lawyers.

Sources inside the closed session said some council members wanted to pay Williams up to $420,000 if he agreed not to sue the city. But others, bolstered by a city attorney's opinion that the city has a strong legal position, wanted to pay him much less or nothing at all.

Councilmen Hal Bernson and John Ferraro said they are not convinced the chief has a case because he is not legally entitled to anything once his term ends.

``I don't think the city has done anything to demean the chief,'' Bernson said. ``I don't believe the way for the city to operate is for you to pay to avoid litigation. If that's the case, everyone is going to sue you.''

Councilman Joel Wachs continued to insist that Williams should receive no severance.

``We have paid him nearly a quarter-million dollars a year for five years, and he is eligible for a $60,000-a-year pension (from Philadelphia),'' Wachs said. ``If he wants to sue, let him sue. That's his prerogative.'' Johnny Griggs, an attorney for the chief, said he plans to attend the council meeting today and that a decision on whether to file a lawsuit will be deferred until the council acts.

``We have been invited to give our evaluation of the litigation,'' Griggs said. ``We will be there. As long as there is a dialogue that is productive, we intend to see it through. We don't take the issue of litigation lightly.''

With some council members voicing opposition to a large severance, supporters of Williams won a postponement in the vote Tuesday. They convinced the others that the chief's attorneys should be allowed to explain that the city could have much larger legal bills and damages, and that council members could face depositions if the city forces the chief to sue.

``It's going to be much worse,'' Councilman Nate Holden predicted, adding that Williams will allege in court that Mayor Richard Riordan tried to get him to demote two assistant chiefs and promote others.

However, sources said representatives of the City Attorney's Office told the council Tuesday they believe the city has a ``very good'' case to show it treated Williams fairly and legally.

Sources inside the closed session said severance packages ranging from $60,000 up to $420,000 were discussed. The conditions for payment would be that the chief leave his post before his term is up July 6 and that he agree not to sue.

``I think the council and the mayor want to be fair and let the man leave the city's employment with dignity,'' Ferraro added. ``But there's also concern about the responsibility that the council members have on the city treasury, and we have to be careful we're not giving something away that we really shouldn't give away. There's quite a bit of difference of opinion.''

Ferraro said the options presented to the council by Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton and City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie including one that would give Williams credit so he could immediately draw a $19,000-a-year pension rather than having to wait five more years.

That proposal is worth about $95,000.

Ferraro said another proposal would add Williams' five years in Los Angeles to his 28 years in Philadelphia for a much larger pension.

Other options submitted by city administrators include paying Williams a year's salary, $173,000, and paying him the more than $100,000 he has lost on the value of his Woodland Hills home since he bought it for more than $500,000 in 1992, sources said.

Combining options pushes the possible severance package as high as $420,000, sources said.

``I think it's a small minority that supports the $420,000,'' said one council member.

``I couldn't go for that,'' said another.

Yet another said the proposal to pay Williams for the drop in value of his house is ``outrageous'' and would likely cause a public uproar if it were approved.

``Everyone and his cousin has lost money in the real estate downturn,'' the council member said.

The buyout proposal is complicated by pension rules that require the chief to work at least five years before he can be vested, one source said.

``My guess is there is no majority at any amount of money,'' said Councilman Richard Alarcon. ``Every day I'm less and less inclined to support any buyout.''