DECREE STILL HAS LAPD POLICING OWN COPS.

Byline: EARL O. HUTCHINSON

AT first glance, when the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Richard Riordan caved in and agreed to the Justice Department consent decree, it appeared that Police Chief Bernard Parks was the big loser.

For months, Parks had defiantly urged Riordan and the City Council to resist the Justice Department demands for sweeping reforms in the Los Angeles Police Department. It took the threat of a ``pattern and practice'' civil rights lawsuit and the even more unthinkable prospect of a complete department takeover of the LAPD for officials to broker the deal.

Under the terms of the settlement, LAPD officials agreed to audits, integrity checks and computer tracking to weed out rogue cops. A federal judge will oversee and monitor their progress in completing the reforms.

Some police critics openly worry that Parks will do everything possible to sabotage the agreement. They needn't worry.

A calm and composed Parks announced that he would accept the decree. This was an easier concession than many might think for him to make. Indeed, Parks made the point that the department has already made many of the reforms including implementing a computerized system to track problem officers, toughening discipline for department violations, an improved system for filing and investigating citizen complaints, and a less combative role with the inspector-general.

But Parks was in a conciliatory mood for two other big reasons. He will be responsible for initiating and implementing the reforms. In effect, this means that he still retains firm control over LAPD policy and operations. The other reason is that the two most crucial reforms call for the LAPD officials to eliminate racial profiling and to reduce the use of deadly force by officers. These are by far the two problems that have poisoned relations between police and minority communities, and sparked deadly racial turmoil and civil unrest.

The consent decree, however, requires only that the department collect racial statistics on anyone subjected to traffic and pedestrian stops. Though Parks has adamantly resisted racial data collection, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the California Highway Patrol and nearly every other major police department in California now keep racial stats on unwarranted traffic stops. They do not complain that this is an undue burden that hampers police work. In fact, many police officials say that this gives them the chance to prove that they don't racially profile blacks and Latinos for stops and arrest.

The consent decree does not tell the LAPD officials what, if any, action, such as officer retraining, discipline, and policy guideline changes, they must take if they finds patterns of racial profiling within the department. It requires only that they post whatever data they collect on the department's Web site twice yearly for public scrutiny.

The Justice Department also recognized that the most volatile issue that damages police credibility is the use of deadly force by officers. The Christopher Commission in 1991 identified dozens of officers who had numerous excessive force complaints against them. It tactfully labeled them ``potential problem officers.''

The officers were accused of beating, kicking and shooting suspects. The commission blasted the department for doing nothing to control or discipline the officers and not holding their supervisors accountable for their actions. It recommended firmer discipline procedures to weed out problem officers and better screening procedures to prevent troublesome applicants from ever wearing an LAPD uniform.

A follow-up report almost two years later on these problem officers revealed that nearly all of them were still on the job and there was no indication that any of them had even undergone the intensive counseling or training that the commission recommended.

The LAPD's Board of Inquiry's own report issued several months ago also confirmed that officers at the Rampart station beat, kicked and shot suspects, and supervisors did little or nothing to punish them.

Without ironclad procedures to swiftly and severely discipline abusive officers, it is impossible to ever fully restore public confidence in the LAPD. There must be a strong system of checks and balances that gives the Police Commission the power to mandate and enforce specific penalties for officers who use excessive force. Problem officers are not just a danger to the department but a danger to the community as well.

Unfortunately, the consent decree mandates only that police officials create a new unit within the department to investigate shootings. This dumped the problem back into the lap of the LAPD officials. It is still the department investigating itself.

The consent decree was hailed as a major breakthrough for police reform in Los Angeles. Maybe. But the real test is whether the LAPD itself can and will make the crucial reforms on the hot-button issues of racial profiling and the use of deadly force. If it can't, the consent decree will amount to much less than meets the eye.