Free the LA Times Reporters
by LA Police Commission President Rick J. Caruso

June 19, 2003

For the second time in the past few months, the Los Angeles Times has expressed editorial concern regarding the authority of the Police Department’s Inspector General. This time those concerns appeared under the banner, “Free the Inspector General.” But, it seems that responsible journalism, not to mention basic logic, require at least some exploration of the shackles you feel should be removed from the Inspector General.

Before answering that question, it is important to understand exactly what the Inspector General’s role is. In its benchmark 1991 report, the Independent “Christopher” Commission recommended that, “…the Police Commission staff include an Inspector General who would be responsible for overseeing the receipt of citizen complaints, monitoring the progress of complaints through the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) investigative process and auditing the results of IAD’s investigations.” That report also recommended that, “The Inspector General would report to the Police Commission under the supervision of the Chief of Staff, and would have a small staff to assist in the performance of duties related to citizen complaints.”

Since the Christopher report, the City Charter has been amended twice, once establishing the position of Inspector General and the second making the Inspector General report directly to the Board of Police Commissioners. In 2000, the Board established work rules for the Inspector General to ensure that there was a clear understanding of the IG’s authority, duties and responsibilities. Those work rules clearly state that the IG “…is empowered to initiate and conduct investigations of the Department, without limitation as to the type of activity of the Department, including ongoing and in-progress matters...” The only restriction is that the IG must inform the Commission of those investigations and that the Board may direct the IG to cease an investigation.

There have been suggestions that the LAPD’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) should be more like the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office of Independent Review (OIR). After comparing and contrasting the two, I disagree with that approach. While the goal of each office is similar, that being oversight of a law enforcement agency, the structure of the two agencies could not be more different. The Sheriff is an independent, elected public official who relies on the County Board of Supervisors primarily for budgetary purposes. The Office of Independent Review reports directly to the Board of Supervisors, which provides the OIR with a public platform for its views. But, the Board cannot force change within the Sheriff’s Department.

Contrasted with that ability to influence, but not direct, is the City system of governance that places the Board of Police Commissioners at the head of the Department. As the Chief’s immediate supervisor, the Commission has the ability to hear the Inspector General’s views and, where appropriate, order change within the Department. This system places the Inspector General in a very strong position, a position that would be diluted if it were moved away from the authority of the Board to order change.

So, exactly what is it that the IG should be freed from? The bottom line is that nearly every one of us works for and is answerable to someone. Ironically, the best example of that is found in the media itself. Our founding fathers recognized that a well-informed populace was a cornerstone of democracy. That principle was so important to them that they crafted a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press.

But, as any reporter knows full well, even those guardians of the public’s right to know must answer to their editors. So, is an editor infringing on freedom of the press every time he or she exercises supervisory discretion over a reporter? Of course not, because it is the editor’s job to make sure that limited resources are used wisely. So too, the Commission exercises its authority over the IG—not to hide information from the public, but to make sure the power of that office and its limited resources are used wisely. Perhaps some IGs have found that oversight inhibiting, but those are the realities of the adult world—everyone works for someone.

And it is wholly appropriate for the IG to work for the Commission, a five-member board of community members who are the head of the Police Department.