LA City Council accepts Bass’ veto of LAPD disciplinary ballot measure
Councilman Tim McOsker, who spearheaded the ballot proposal with Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez, requested the item return to council next Tuesday. As a result of a 7-7 split, his motion failed.
By JOSE HERRERA, City News Service
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday, July 30, passed on the opportunity to override Mayor Karen Bass’ recent veto of a proposed ballot measure intended at changing the disciplinary process for LAPD officers —including expanding the chief’s powers to fire officers for misconduct.
On July 15, Bass vetoed the council’s approval of a measure placing the matter on the November ballot, but the 15-member council could have reversed the veto by lassoing 10 votes in favor of an override.
Returning from its monthlong summer recess Tuesday, council members considered extending their discussion whether to override or allow the mayor’s veto to Aug. 14, which would have left the proposal off the November ballot, as there is an Aug. 9 deadline to place measures on the November ballot.
An override would mean that voters could check in on the proposal this November. But the council did not delay the item, and failed to override it, meaning voters will not get another chance to weigh in until 2026.
Councilman Tim McOsker, who spearheaded the ballot proposal with Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez, requested the item return to council next Tuesday. As a result of a 7-7 split, his motion failed.
While Soto-Martinez assisted with the proposal, he ultimately opposed it due to alterations introduced by McOsker as it would create a two-tiered disciplinary system. Soto-Martinez called for the mayor’s veto to be “received and filed” — which was approved in a 9-5 vote with council members McOsker, Bob Blumenfield, Kevin de Leon, John Lee, and Monica Rodriguez opposing.
Council President Paul Krekorian was absent during the vote.
“I was disappointed in the veto itself,” McOsker told City News Service. “My disappointment continues with a decision to receive and file, which is essentially accepting the veto on the first day that they possibly could.”
He added, “My disappointment stems from our opportunity to do the first significant reform of the discipline system in many, many years, and the opportunity to put in front of the voters the question as to whether the next chief should have the power to fire officers for serious misconduct. I think that power, that authority for the chief, would be a significant reform and opportunity to make the department more accountable than what it is today.”
The ballot proposal intended to expand the chief’s ability to fire officers for serious misconduct, and also change the composition of the department’s Board of Rights.
Currently, the chief can only 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.
The proposal sought to allow the chief to fire officers outright for engaging in sexual misconduct, fraud, excessive force or abuse on duty, among other violations.
The proposal intended to change the makeup of the Board of Rights from two sworn officers and one civilian member to one sworn officer and two civilian members. It would also repeal an option that gives officers facing disciplinary action the right to request an all-civilian Board of Rights panel.
On July 2, the council voted 11-3 to approve the proposed ballot measure, with Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson absent during the vote. Council members Hugo Soto-Martinez, Nithya Raman and Eunisses Hernandez voted against it.
On July 15, Bass broke out her veto pen.
In a letter to the council at the time, Bass said the proposed measure would create “bureaucratic confusion” and result in “ambiguous direction and gaps.”
“I look forward to working with each of you to do a thorough and comprehensive review with officers, the department, and other stakeholders to ensure fairness for all. The current system remains until this collaborative review is complete and can be placed before the voters,” Bass added.
Mcosker told City News Service that the mayor has indicated that she would like to work with the council on comprehensive reform of the discipline system because her belief, which the councilman agreed with, is that it’s broken and ineffective from top to bottom.
“I applaud the mayor for getting involved at this stage of the process, and I will use whatever role I have to advance that,” McOsker said.
City officials say there may be other ways to enact certain provisions outlined in the measure — specifically to repeal Charter Amendment C via ordinance. Charter Amendment C established the Board of Rights current composition, which data shows has resulted in more lenient outcomes for officers accused of violating department policies or laws.
The city could also prepare to expand the chief of police’s authority to fire officers through a City Charter amendment, but that too would come before the voters in 2026.
In June, as part of the council’s deliberations on the proposal, LAPD leadership warned the measure would create a two-tier disciplinary system in which some officers would be fired by the chief and others would face Board of Rights hearings.
Two members of the L.A. Board of Police Commissioners, which oversees the LAPD, previously criticized the proposal.
Commissioner Rasha Gerges Shield took issue with establishing binding arbitration and described it as “controversial” to resolve disciplinary cases. Commissioner Maria Calanche expressed frustration in that the board “couldn’t weigh in.”
The Los Angeles Police Protective League — the union representing the department’s rank-and-file — weighed in.
“We look forward to working with the mayor and council members to fix LAPD’s unfair and favoritism laden discipline system,” Tom Saggau, a spokesperson for the LAPPL, said an email to City News Service Tuesday afternoon.
“We fully support the mayor’s pledge to not enact any changes to the current discipline system until a comprehensive fix is placed before the voters in a subsequent election.”