LAPD OFFICIAL'S LETTERS CALLED SECOND-GUESSING.

Byline: Jaxon Van Derbeken Daily News Staff Writer

Letters written by the LAPD's chief of staff chastising individual command officers on disciplinary cases have prompted an inquiry by the Police Commission's inspector general.

Command officers contend the letters - by Assistant Chief Ronald C. Banks and called ``Banks-O-Grams'' by one critic - amount to second-guessing and intimidation of commanders charged with making impartial decisions on the fate of officers accused of misconduct.

Banks said that the letters amount to clearing the air about disciplinary matters and that he and Chief Willie L. Williams decided to send them after the command staff officers agreed that ``feedback'' on cases could be beneficial.

``It is not my fault if they are attaching intimidation and punitiveness to this,'' he said.

Letters regarding 11 cases that have been heard since January have been sent to command officers who sit in judgment on disciplinary tribunals known as Boards of Rights.

The letters carry disclaimers that they are not intended to be punitive and that they were sent only after command staff officers at a retreat last year indicated that it ``might be beneficial for the chief of staff to provide feedback to Board of Right (BOR) members on adjudications and penalties.''

One of the letters, obtained by the Daily News, acknowledges ongoing discussions about the content and meaning of the letters with command officers.

``Recent discussions with the COA (Command Officers Association) verified the value of such a process when no punitive connotations are implied in the communication,'' Banks states in the letter. ``The following comments are offered as constructive input for consideration in future deliberations.''

The president of the Command Officers Association, Capt. George Aliano, said the letters carry implied threats to staff officers who don't go along with the chief's ideas. He said that command officers did meet with Williams earlier this year and raised formal objections about the letters.

``We said, we don't like our people getting these letters,'' Aliano said. ``They are intimidating, they send out the wrong message, they should be independent boards.''

Command officers are the ones who examine the evidence, question witnesses and come to the conclusions in the case, Aliano said.

``We said if we get feedback, we don't mind, for example, can you point out something (that was) missed,'' Aliano said. ``But the message is, if you don't want to get one of these things, you had better make the kind of decisions that the department wants.''

``I guess for feedback, it has to be a little more in-depth, it has to deal with the issues of the case,'' Aliano said. ``Otherwise, what's the point? The feedback has to be meaningful. This is not feedback, this is a message.''

``Anybody who comes before that board, has to have the feeling that that board is not going to be intimidated, chastised, criticized or anything,'' Aliano said.

One letter indicates that the chief of staff reviewed the case file and found that the disciplinary panel may have not made its decision based on the ``preponderance of evidence'' standard dictated by the process. Another letter talks about a comment made at a board meeting by a captain and concludes: ``That is not a management perspective that we want to advocate under any circumstances.''

Aliano questioned the value, other than to intimidate, of sending such a letter.

Bill Harkness, president of the Police Protective League, said he met with the Los Angeles Police Department's newly appointed inspector general, Katherine Mader, and formally protested the letters.

``I call them `Banks-O-Grams,' '' Harkness said. ``They are basically criticism of Board of Rights findings that were detrimental to the department and chastising command officers for doing their jobs at Board of Rights - they are interfering with the process.''

``I think it stinks,'' Harkness said, adding that the union has long complained about the disciplinary process and its reliance on command officers who are duty-bound to the chief.

Mader said in an interview that she is looking into the Harkness complaint and a host of other issues related to discipline.

``I have met with Bill Harkness, that was one of the issues he did bring to our concern,'' Mader said. ``It is an issue of concern that we're looking at.'' Diane Marchant, an attorney who represents the Police Protective League, said that she has fought to get copies of the letters but the city has refused, explaining that they are privileged under the department's right to critique itself.

``My problem is that officers, at some point, are entitled to an impartial decision-maker, and clearly the Board of Rights procedure is not enough,'' she said, adding that the letters prove that disciplinary boards are not neutral, but instruments of department policy and philosophy.

``What you get is the management point of view, but it is not an impartial hearing,'' Marchant said.

Marchant had filed a suit in June 1995, claiming the city did not properly handle the disciplinary proceedings that led to the firing of Officer Doug Iversen, who shot and killed a tow truck driver in South Central Los Angeles.

Iversen was prosecuted twice, both times by then Deputy District Attorney Katherine Mader, and acquitted. Ultimately, Iversen was fired.

Marchant said she hopes to obtain the letters to challenge the entire disciplinary process as unfair to accused officers like Iversen.

Banks said command officers approved getting such feedback last year, but they probably didn't envision getting one of the critical notes themselves.

Some command officers have called Banks to tell him they are comfortable with the communications and were not intimidated, Banks said, while others have instigated internal debate about how discipline should be administered.

``This is an educational process on both sides,'' Banks said. ``To me, it is ludicrous to hold him responsible without being able to provide feedback and without letting them know what his disciplinary philosophy is.''

Banks said he discussed the matter with the City Attorney's Office, which advised that the letters could be sent as long as they don't involve a ``stifling of the process.''

``I don't understand how they are being intimidated, the decision is already rendered, these communications are rendered after that decision have been made,'' he said.

``I challenge anybody to indicate how they are going to be used against them,'' Banks said. ``I'll be glad to stop sending them, and it will save me a lot of work and we will have nobody accountable for discipline.''