American law enforcement follows two different models when it comes to the selection of senior executives.

Traditionally, municipal police chiefs are appointed by mayors and county sheriffs are elected by the people. So while police chiefs are accountable to mayors and city councils, sheriffs answer directly to the voters.

Los Angeles police chiefs had open-ended tenure under civil service protection until shortly after the riots in 1992, when voters approved Charter Amendment F. This change was a key recommendation of the the Christopher Commission, which examined the LAPD after the 1991 Rodney King incident. Under the civil service process, the chief of police answered to five bosses rather than the mayor and could not be fired without cause. Charter Amendment F limited the police chief to a five-year term, renewable once by the civilian Police Commission.

Charter Amendment F made the LAPD chief directly accountable to the Police Commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor, thus giving the mayor complete control over hiring and firing of the chief of police.

Seventeen years after the Christopher Commission recommended sweeping changes to the LAPD; it is time for city leaders to explore making the LAPD police chief position an elected rather than appointed position. With an elected chief, the public will better be able to directly hold the chief accountable. In California, elected sheriffs, by legislative design, are responsive and accountable to the public. Making the chief position elective gives residents in Los Angeles a direct say in the kind of policing they want to have in the community, adding a needed check to the city's political system.

Political considerations, mayoral interference, and council meddling in police affairs will become a thing of the past. Rather than the chief being subordinate to the political needs of the mayor and council, he or she will be free to do the job as the voters have directed, and will know up front that re-election depends on doing a good job, not gaining political favor.

In Los Angeles, the voters have long supported the election of the L.A. county sheriff. Sheriff Lee Baca and his predecessors have been repeatedly rewarded with re-election because the people are satisfied with their performance. By contrast, after Charter Amendment F was passed and before Chief William Bratton came on board, the LAPD had a succession of one-term chiefs whose performance was substandard.

Few positions in Los Angeles have more power and impact on the citizens of Los Angeles than the police chief.

As law enforcement professionals, we want the best public safety system in place for the residents of Los Angeles. Every day we look for ways to make our departments more efficient while we stretch every dime of taxpayer money. Electing the chief of police will bring more accountability, increased public scrutiny and oversight to the position.

Paul M. Weber is president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.