LOS ANGELES - We are pleased that several of the recommendations made by the Police Commission's Independent Review Panel closely track the ACLU's calls for reform repeatedly made over the years, but are disappointed in some of the details -- or lack of details -- in the Report. We agree with many of the findings of serious problems, but there is a disjunction between the Panel's findings of grave problems going to heart of the functioning of the police department and the Police Commission, and the Panel's mostly tepid recommendations for change.

We are disappointed that the Panel failed to recommend the creation of a civilian complaint review body, opposed greater independence of the Inspector General's Office, rejected the proposal that all five members of the Police Commission be full-time appointees, and supported the failed method of Mayoral appointment of all Commission members. Too often the Report exhorts the mayor and Commission members to work more closely together, without providing institutional changes to ensure this happens. Nor does the Report address fully the systemic problems in the criminal justice system, including the district attorney's office, the city attorney's office, and a court system that appears in many cases to have lost its devotion to impartiality and justice.

Broad changes called for by the ACLU that the Panel has also recommended include:

' Strengthening civilian oversight

' Changing the culture of the LAPD

' Establishing meaningful community policing

' Allowing whistleblowers to report misconduct to the Inspector General's office under assurance of anonymity

' Revamping the way in which officer involved shootings and use of force are investigated

Mere tinkering won't fix the problems. We urge city leaders to act quickly to ensure that adequate measures are adopted to strengthen civilian oversight of the LAPD, inject accountability into the department, and implement community policing - all of which are necessary to restore essential public confidence in the police.

When we and other civil rights groups filed a lawsuit, Williams v. California, against the State of California in May, we brought to light the fact that many students in California lack the basic tools they need to learn, such as books, trained teachers, adequate space, and clean, well-maintained buildings. We hoped that this administration would recognize the failure of previous administrations to carry out these duties and would seek to remedy these failures.

Instead, we were met with stonewalling, resistance, and evasions. The state did not even want the case to proceed and argued essentially that it had no responsibility to the tens of thousands of children in public schools in California today who are denied the basic tools they need to learn - children predominantly from communities of color and from economically struggling communities. The state insisted on this position despite the fact that its own Constitution requires it to take such responsibility, that its courts have upheld that responsibility, and that its elected officials routinely promise to carry out statewide educational measures.

Today's ruling in Williams v. California defeats the state's claim that it is not ultimately responsible for assuring that all children enjoy equal educational opportunities. The ruling is a stinging rebuke to Governor Davis' attempts to fight the lawsuit that is seeking only to assure that no child in California go to school without textbooks, qualified teachers, and adequate facilities. We question why a governor who has asserted that his top three priorities are "Education, education, and education" would so strenuously resist this effort to examine the system's failures and insist they be fixed.

We can now proceed with our case and with the vital work of creating a system that's accountable to every child in California, a system that gives every child the tools she needs to learn.

The Rampart scandal hammered home the serious problem of police officers failing to come forward to report crimes committed by their fellow officers. Police officers seldom come forward because they fear retaliation from their co-workers; other officers fear retaliation from the top command. This makes the 'code of silence' possible.

It is therefore astonishing that, just days after the signing of the federal consent decree, members of the Police Commission would propose rules to limit the Inspector General's access to information and to make it more difficult for him to keep confidential the identity of people making complaints. Increasing - not decreasing - civilian oversight is the key to reforming the LAPD.

Through the years the ACLU has represented whistleblowers in police departments, most recently officers who came forward with information about misconduct and racist statements made by police in Riverside. We have seen firsthand that supposedly confidential reports to Internal Affairs are not, in fact confidential. The reporting officer soon finds himself an outcast, suffering reprisals from fellow officers and supervisors alike. Oftentimes, the reprisals are life-threatening; back-up mysteriously fails to arrive in dangerous situations.

This proposal would eviscerate the Inspector General's office. It is absolutely essential that the office be allowed to gather information about misconduct confidentially, and investigate wrongdoing. Of course, if after a thorough investigation disciplinary or criminal charges against an officer are brought, the identity of the witnesses must be made known to ensure the accused's rights of due process.

The ACLU strongly opposes the proposed rules, and urges the Police Commission to reject them.