Judge Upholds City Council’s Reinstatement of Chief Gates : Government: The ruling is a crushing defeat for the Police Commission. It could have ramifications for other agencies overseen by appointed panels.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Monday that the City Council acted within its authority when it preempted the Police Commission’s move to place Police Chief Daryl F. Gates on a 60-day leave of absence.

The ruling by Judge Ronald Sohigian, which leaves Gates in place as chief, could have major ramifications for control of the 8,300-member Los Angeles Police Department--as well as other city agencies that are overseen by civilian commissions appointed by the mayor.

“The (City) Charter gives the council the power to act as it did,” Sohigian wrote in a 49-page opinion.

Furthermore, Sohigian wrote, the commission “is not an independent or separate agency of the government . . . under the City Charter.” And, while much of the debate has centered on “civilian control of the police,” the judge said such talk was “sloganistic in the extreme” given the fact that the council is elected by the people.

Sohigian’s ruling was a decisive victory for the City Council, the city attorney’s office and Gates, and a crushing defeat for the Police Commission appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley and for various civil rights groups that have been calling for the chief’s ouster since the March 3 police beating of Rodney G. King.

The judge suggested that the Police Commission, in its handling of the Gates matter, had left the city vulnerable to a successful lawsuit by the chief. Sohigian said that if the council had not intervened and tried to settle matters with Gates, “major, bitter and potentially damaging litigation was imminent.”

In addition, the judge ruled that:

* The City Charter clearly gives the council power to settle lawsuits and the commission’s power is subordinate to that of council.

* There is “lack of persuasive evidence” that Gates’ attorneys and those for the city were guilty of collusion in reaching a settlement agreement.

* The commission order that put the chief on temporary leave was set aside.

* The settlement agreement between Gates and the city should be upheld in all of its provisions, including one that Gates be restored to office and drop all damage claims against the city.

* There was no conflict of interest on the part of the city attorney’s office in advising both the council and commission on what action should be taken regarding the chief.

* The Police Commission had no right to hire a private attorney to represent it in the dispute with Gates when the city attorney’s office already was representing it.

Although the judge ruled that the City Charter gives the council the power to settle lawsuits, he left unresolved the larger issue of which agency--the council or the commission--will ultimately control the Police Department.

Bradley said that he was “shocked and dismayed” by the ruling and that it undermines the city’s traditional commission form of government.

“I think this decision cannot be permitted to stand,” Bradley told a City Hall press conference. “It has to be challenged.”

The mayor added that “no action, no decision of these commissions is ever going to be authoritative if the City Council, in each and every case, can simply arbitrarily say, ‘We reject your action and we will step in and settle the matter.’ That’s why the integrity of the civilian commission system of government in this city is on the line.”

Meanwhile, at Parker Center, Gates told reporters that he “didn’t pop any champagne” after learning of Sohigian’s ruling. He also said that he had no animosity toward the commissioners and stressed that it was important that everyone involved in the controversy “get back on track.”

Senior Assistant City Atty. Frederick Merkin, who represented the city attorney’s office in the dispute, hailed the ruling.

“Chief Gates now has a settlement, which was his goal,” Merkin said. “The city of Los Angeles and the chief have settled and it’s a binding settlement in good faith. I hope it means the end of litigation but one never knows.”

Officials of various civil rights groups that formed a coalition to intervene in the case expressed disappointment at the ruling.

Joseph Duff, president of the local chapter of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, said, “The judge went out of his way . . . to not look at the evidence in an expansive way, to give the benefit of the doubt to the city attorney, the benefit of the doubt to Chief Gates on each and every occasion.”

John Mack, president of the Urban League, said, “This doesn’t mean that the big ballgame has been lost. . . . We do feel that the rights of the Police Commission have been abrogated.”

It was unclear whether the coalition would appeal the ruling.

Councilman Michael Woo, the only council member to call for Gates to resign, complained that the ruling has thrown civilian oversight of the Police Department “out the window.”

“Essentially, the judge has confirmed the authority of the City Council to pull the rug out from under the Police Commission,” Woo said. “I think it raises the basic question of who is running the LAPD.”

Monday’s decision, which came after more than 15 hours of court hearings, climaxed a bitter battle that plunged city government into turmoil after the videotaped police beating of King.

After weeks of public protests and counter-protests, the Police Commission voted early last month behind closed doors to place Gates on involuntary furlough for 60 days, pending an investigation.

Gates’ departure from the chief’s office at Parker Center--a seat of power he has held for 13 years--was as dramatic as it was unprecedented.

After receiving his orders to leave the building, Gates packed two satchels and left his office vowing to return.

Minutes after learning that Gates had been placed on leave, City Council members denounced the mayor and his Police Commission, one councilman calling the move a “naked power grab.”

The chief threatened to sue the city, but the council came to his defense, agreeing on a 10-3 vote to settle any lawsuit by the chief--even before it was filed--in an attempt to overturn the commission’s decision.

While the council is empowered to settle lawsuits, the City Charter allows the commission to hire, discipline and fire a police chief.

The mayor swiftly condemned the council vote and questioned its legality. His staff and Police Commission members began working on a strategy to attack it.

When Gates and attorneys for the city went to court to have Sohigian ratify their proposed settlement, a coalition of civil rights groups stepped in to fight it.

The council and city attorney’s office came under fire from the Police Commission and civil rights groups for trying to settle the lawsuit before it was filed. Hillel Chodos, a private attorney representing the commission, called the proposed settlement a sham.

But Sohigian said that “the evidence does not show collusion, improper motive or corrupt intention on the part of the City Council or the city attorney. There is no basis to invalidate or decline enforcement of the settlement.”

Critics of the settlement complained that the council and lawyers for Gates had hammered out the agreement behind closed doors before the suit was even filed.

But the city lawyers explained that many threatened lawsuits are settled outside of court.

They said they first learned that Gates was thinking about filing a suit on April 4--the day he was placed on temporary leave. The following day, the council took up the matter and it was during that meeting that City Atty. James K. Hahn and Gates co-counsel Jay Grodin talked by phone and concluded that a settlement could be worked out.

The next day, a Saturday, Gates’ attorneys delivered a copy of the lawsuit to a deputy city attorney, who in turn drew up the settlement.

Police commissioners maintained that they had been betrayed and that the city attorney had engaged in conflict of interest by advising both the commission and the City Council while giving the commission the green light to place Gates on leave.

Merkin denied the charge, noting that his office had sent several legal memos to the commission--including one on the morning that they took action against Gates--warning the commissioners to withhold action until they could get private counsel.

Commissioner Melanie Lomax gave two of the legal memos to a lawyer for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference--which was trying to intervene in the legal battle--triggering complaints that she had leaked confidential documents. She strongly denied that her action was improper, but she became a lightning rod in the debate that ensued.

In his ruling, Sohigian said he found nothing improper about the settlement between Gates and the city. He called it “reasonable, proper, in good faith, fair and voluntarily and bindingly entered into by all parties.”

Sohigian also said that the city attorney’s office “acted properly, without conflict” in the entire matter.

The judge said it was “rational and prudent” for the council to step in and settle the dispute with Gates. Had it not done so, Sohigian said the city would face a substantial risk of adverse outcomes “on a number of momentous questions.”

He said these questions included: whether the commission had the power summarily to deprive Gates of his office without complying with the Charter; whether the commission’s action placing Gates on leave was supported by the Police Department manual; whether Gates was deprived of property without due process, and whether the commission violated state law by assigning Gates to his home without an opportunity for an administrative appeal.

Commission members could not be reached for comment Monday. Attorney Chodos said he had not talked to them.

After hearing the judge’s ruling, council President John Ferraro said the council’s strained relationship with the commission will not improve unless Lomax resigns.

Ferraro, who first called for Lomax’s resignation earlier this month after the controversy over the leak arose, said: “If she was anyone with integrity she would resign now because of . . . the complete defeat she has caused for the commission.”

Councilman Marvin Braude welcomed the ruling, saying it is significant because it tips the balance of power toward the City Council in disputes with appointed commissions. “I think it means that in a democratic society, the elected officials have to have the ultimate responsibility and be ultimately accountable,” he said.

Councilman Hal Bernson, a strong supporter of Gates who also has called for Lomax’s resignation, said the ruling does nothing to “make things happier” between the council and the commission.

Councilwoman Joy Picus, a Gates supporter, said Sohigian made a “good decision” that “certainly vindicates the authority” of the council.

Beyond reinstating Gates indefinitely, she said the ruling can be viewed as shifting ultimate authority for key City Hall decisions from appointed citizen panels to elected City Council members.

“It does call into question the authority of the commission, (but) I’m not unhappy about that,” she said. “Not only is the (Police Commission) unaccountable to the people of Los Angeles, but currently (it) is in disarray.”

A spokesman for City Atty. Hahn declined comment at City Hall, saying, “It was all said in court.”