In a letter to the City Council, Bass said the proposed measure would create "bureaucratic confusion" and result in "ambiguous direction and gaps."
A proposed ballot measure that would change aspects of the Los Angeles Police Department’s disciplinary system was in doubt Tuesday following Mayor Karen Bass’ decision to veto the plan.
The mayor’s veto could lead to the measure being removed from the November ballot. The City Council can override the mayor’s action with 10 votes. The council is currently on summer recess until July 30.
In a letter to the council issued Monday, Bass said the proposed measure would create “bureaucratic confusion” and result in “ambiguous direction and gaps.”
“Over the past few months, I’ve met with hundreds of LAPD officers about the future of the Los Angeles Police Department. Police officers shared their collective frustrations about the entire LAPD discipline system, arguing the need for a more fair and better-defined process,” Bass said in her letter. “Additionally, I’ve met with many city officials and community leaders who also want to work toward these shared goals.
“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 continued.
On July 2, the L.A. City 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, raising similar concerns as Bass.
Councilman Tim McOsker, who spearheaded the ballot proposal, in a statement to City News Service said the mayor’s veto was a “discouraging surprise.”
“As an author of this motion, prior to yesterday, I had not receive a call regarding any concerns about this ballot measure from the mayor or her office. Questions or concerns about ‘creating bureaucratic confusion’ due to ‘ambiguous direction and gaps in guidance’ could have been easily addressed,” McOsker said.
“The people should be allowed to decide whether or not this ballot measure deserves to pass; instead voters would have the opportunity taken from them by this 11th-hour veto so close to the November ballot process and during our legislative body’s recess,” the councilman added.
If the council fails to override the mayor’s action, they won’t be able to make major changes in the system until the 2026 election, McOsker noted.
The proposal aims to expand the police chief’s ability to fire officers for serious misconduct and change the composition of the department’s Board of Rights.
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 outlines ways officers can be de-certified.
The proposal would also change the 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.
Since the all-civilian option was approved by voters in 2019, in what was billed as an effort to increase accountability, all-civilian boards have actually removed fewer officers found to have committed serious misconduct, and they were also more lenient by reducing penalties, according to a report from the City Attorney’s Office.
In June, as part of the council’s deliberations on the proposal, LAPD leadership warned the measure would create a two-tier disciplinary system where 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, previously approved the proposal. But in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, the LAPPL Board of Directors reversed its support.
“The mayor recognizes that our discipline system … is broken and needs to be fixed. We agree and we are evaluating the best path forward to creating a fair and impartial system that treats command staff in the same manner as police officers,” the statement read.
