Although Police Chief Willie L. Williams repeatedly told his bosses in writing that he never received free accommodations in Las Vegas, receipts from Caesars Palace reveal that he and his family were given "comped" lodging, phone calls and room service valued at more than $1,500, according to the Police Commission's confidential investigation of the chief.
On at least one occasion, the accommodations were approved by Henry Gluck, the chief executive officer of Caesars World Inc., the documents reveal.
The documents obtained by The Times publicly disclose for the first time why the commission, in an extraordinary move, unanimously concluded that Williams had misled them. The file contains new details about the controversial inquiry, including the disclosure that Williams allegedly asked an aide to obtain tickets to Universal Studios two days before he was sworn in as chief in 1992.
That same aide, Officer Jerry Hallinger, said not only that he had obtained nearly two dozen complimentary admissions on that occasion, but also that he had called Universal Studios an average of about twice a year to obtain similar freebies for the chief and his family. Because Williams steadfastly denied soliciting or receiving free tickets, the commission was faced with contradictory accounts and a lack of documentation. As a result, the allegation was deemed "not resolved."
Williams would not comment in detail Thursday. But his lawyer, Melanie Lomax, defended the chief and denounced the unauthorized release of the secret personnel records, saying it is part of "an ongoing outrage intended to discredit the chief."
The Police Commission investigation of Williams erupted into public attention earlier this year and sparked one of the most heated political controversies of Mayor Richard Riordan's Administration. While the public furor has diminished in recent weeks, questions about Williams' candor continue to mar his relationship with the rank and file, strain his rapport with the mayor and dog his effectiveness as he tries to restore the LAPD's tarnished image.
The file reflects the intensity of the feud between Williams and his commission bosses and dramatically illustrates their growing distrust of the chief over the course of the five-month investigation run by a former head of the Los Angeles FBI office.
By the time it was over, all five commissioners had concluded that Williams' explanations "were inherently implausible" and that he had deliberately misled the board.
The file's point-by-point recitation of Williams' statements, written and oral, features the chief first denying the Las Vegas allegations outright, then blaming enemies, specifically the city's police union, for leveling "politically inspired" charges against him.
Official Reprimand
Interviewed under oath by the board in April, Williams said he thought the commission had only wanted information about potentially illegal or unethical behavior. According to documents contained in the file, Williams contended that he did not view the rooms as free because he and his wife had spent enough on slot machines to receive complimentary accommodations--a perk available to anyone, he argued.
But the commissioners did not accept his explanations, and in May concluded that Williams had lied to them. They voted to give him an official reprimand.
"Your responses to the board . . . were neither accurate nor forthright and were misleading," the board concluded in its reprimand. Williams' conduct, the commissioners said, violated sections of the Police Department manual "which require the highest standards of honesty and integrity of every officer, and particularly the chief of police."
After reviewing the board's work, Riordan upheld the reprimand leveled by the five commissioners he appointed. But the City Council, in a surprise move, overturned it without looking at the file in what it said was an effort to quell growing racial divisiveness over the matter.
That decision prompted two commissioners, President Enrique Hernandez Jr. and immediate past President Gary Greenebaum, to quit. They argued that their authority and the need for civilian control of the police chief had been undermined by the council.
Heightening the tension over the reprimand has been the chief's anger over the release of documents related to what he considers a private matter between him and his bosses. On Thursday, Lomax said she had advised the chief to file a lawsuit seeking damages for the latest leak.
Lomax also stressed that her client had cooperated with the commission's inquiry. Far from misleading the board, she said, Williams had assisted its investigation.
"They didn't have to subpoena anything," Lomax said. "He gave them everything. . . . This is just ridiculous."
A statement released on behalf of all five commissioners deplored the release of the documents but declined any other comment.
