EDITORIAL : POLICE TAX IS A COP-OUT THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL IS DODGING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THE ?7 BUDGET.

IN a fit of political nervousness, the Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to prepare options for a tax to hire more police, an indication that council members fear that their earlier decision to slow police expansion might not sit well with voters.

The council's vote to prepare options for raising taxes - including a property tax or a special assessment district - for the Nov. 5 ballot came one day after members reduced the police expansion from the 710 officers requested by Mayor Richard Riordan to 450 officers in next year's budget.

(Perhaps coincidentally, the council's decision to seek a tax increase came on the same day that a statewide survey reported that Los Angeles County residents believe crime prevention as the top priority, along with education reform.)

The council's claim that a new tax is the only way to afford the police expansion is disingenuous. The council has repeatedly failed to wring every penny of wasteful spending out of the budget. As Riordan rightly observed, there is plenty of fat in government that can be trimmed to pay for more police.

For example, Riordan earlier proposed eliminating nearly 1,100 municipal positions, of which 740 are vacant. These include 117 higher-level staff positions.

Another option the council has ignored is to prioritize city services and cut from the bottom. Then it could have asked voters for a tax increase to pay for services - such as well-stocked libraries, clean parks and numerous recreation opportunities - that are desirable but not as vital public safety. That's how a logical system of priorities would work.

Instead, the council has voted to continue paying for what it considers the essentials of life, such as an army of bureaucrats and bloated council staffs, and pleaded poverty to avoid paying for what the public really wants - police protection.

That's the council's oldest ploy. For 20 years, police strength failed to keep up with population growth because the council and former Mayor Tom Bradley refused to maintain the LAPD's old share of the over-all city budget.

Since his election, Riordan has tried to reverse that trend. As a result, the city has 1,500 additional officers on the force.

The public's not stupid. Obviously there's a cost to rebuild the police force. The coming year's budget for police is $1.2 billion, and the additional officers could cost the city up to $200 million more annually by 2000.

But Councilman Michael Feuer's contention that the only honest way to pay for more officers is to persuade constituents to raise their taxes simply sidesteps the real issue of failed leadership.

In Riordan's words, ``It is up to us as leaders, elected by the public, to find a way to pay for this without raising taxes. Every time we're faced with a decision, we shouldn't wimp out and ask the voters to pay more taxes.''