LOS ANGELES—The Los Angeles City Council agreed June 25 to place a measure on the November ballot that would change the police discipline process and expand the chief’s ability to fire officers for serious misconduct.
In an 11-to-2 vote, council members directed the City Attorney’s Office to place a measure on the November ballot that would make the proposed changes in the City Charter.
Council members Hugo Soto-Martinez and Eunisses Hernandez voted no, and council members Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Kevin de León were absent during the vote.
Currently, the chief of police can recommend that an officer be terminated, but ultimately the decision is left to the Board of Rights, a three-member panel that serves as a quasi-judicial body, hearing evidence related to charges of misconduct, determining guilt and deciding penalties.
The new proposal would allow the chief to fire officers outright for engaging in sexual misconduct, fraud, excessive force, or abuse on duty, among other violations listed in SB 2, a state law that highlights ways officers can be de-certified.
Mr. Soto-Martinez and Councilman Tim McOsker teamed up last year to help formulate the proposal, but they ultimately disagreed on Tuesday’s vote, with Mr. Soto-Martinez raising concerns about limiting those offenses to what is described under the law.
“I don’t think that it gets us to what we had originally wanted for there to be—the ability to terminate police officers when they engage in misconduct,” Mr. Soto-Martinez said. “But I think the voters will have the ultimate word, and we'll see where the chips lay in November.”
Mr. McOsker, who voted in support, said, “Based on those facts, what this language does is it gives us greater clarity, not less clarity, because now we know the list of things, the types of things that the chief can do, and they’re very expansive to immediately or directly fire.
“It’s very clear that if the chief so chooses they can send somebody to Board of Rights with a recommendation of termination, if it’s less than those. We’re adding to the chief’s power and not detracting from it.”
Additionally, the proposal would change the composition of the LAPD’s Board of Rights from two sworn officers and one civilian member to one sworn officer and two civilian members. And it would repeal an option that gives officers facing disciplinary action the right to request an all-civilian Board of Rights panel.
Again, Mr. Soto-Martinez criticized that aspect of the proposal because he worries it would create a “two-tier system,” where some officers may be fired but many officers who engage in serious misconduct will keep their jobs. According to the councilman, the Board of Rights process has proven to be an “absolute disaster” over the years.
The councilman requested that the proposal be sent back to committee to address his concerns, but his motion to do so did not garner enough support.
The Board of Rights was enacted by voters after the 1992 riots.
The new proposal would create a process to appeal if officers are terminated by the chief, under what is known as binding arbitration—similar to court procedures in which evidence is presented and a judge issues a ruling.
The council is looking to correct elements of Charter Amendment C, approved by voters in May 2019. One of its goals was to increase police accountability, but an analysis of almost four years of Board of Rights hearings showed the opposite is true—with all-civilian boards removing fewer officers found to have committed serious misconduct. The all-civilian boards were also more lenient by reducing penalties, according to a report from the City Attorney’s Office.
Council members also want to address the issue of “problem officers” keeping their jobs and continuing to collect paychecks while they are prevented from conducting their regular duties—often placed on desk or administrative work.
The proposal has recently been criticized by members of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners.
Commissioner Rasha Gerges Shield said last week that she wished for a greater opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal. She took issue with using binding arbitration, which she called a “controversial element,” to resolve disciplinary cases.
Commissioner Maria Calanche added, “It’s unfortunate that the commission couldn’t weigh in on these discussions. There’s a lot that we deal with that could’ve provided insight.”
The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing the department’s rank-and-file, had previously said it supported binding arbitration. The L.A. Times reported that the union also backed giving the chief of police the power to terminate officers with cause.
“The council voted to maintain a civilian majority on the Board of Rights panels that rule on police officer discipline matters,” the LAAPL Board of Directors said in a statement Tuesday. “They also codified the state definition for serious misconduct into the proposed ballot measure and officers who are terminated by the chief for serious misconduct will be accorded binding arbitration as their due process appeal of that termination.
“We believe this strikes the right balance,” the statement continued.
