The Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) notorious disciplinary system is on the brink of major reform, and members of the Los Angeles Police Commission expressed concern Tuesday about being left out of the discussion.
The five-person commission appointed by the mayor to provide civilian oversight was responding to a City Council proposal that would give the LAPD chief the power to summarily fire officers suspected of misconduct, potentially reforming a process that critics say has seriously undermined accountability efforts.
The City Council’s tentative plan, which must be approved by Los Angeles voters in November, focuses on a disciplinary board made up entirely of civilians that would review cases of officers suspected of misconduct and decide whether to fire or discipline them.
The proposed reforms would do away with the committee made up entirely of civilians and add a sworn member of the ministry as one of the three representatives.
Split-team setups used to be the norm, but since 2019, officers have been able to choose which type of review panel they face, with all-civilian reviews proving more lenient.
Department officials have previously said that of 27 hearings held last year for officers the police chief wanted to fire, in 11 cases the all-civilian hearing boards handed down light disciplinary measures against the defendants.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Chair Rasha Gerges Shields said she would like to see more opportunities to give input on changes to disciplinary procedures.
Shields said city leaders should think carefully about a controversial element of one of two proposals the City Council is considering: using binding arbitration to resolve disciplinary cases. Studies from around the country compiled in a report by the city’s chief legislative analyst have found that such an approach tends to favor employees in disciplinary matters.
Commissioner William Briggs rhetorically asked why the City Council couldn’t repeal the 2017 ballot measure known as Charter Amendment C, which created a system of civilian-only disciplinary boards without calling for a public vote.
“I don’t know why they’re putting this off,” he said.
At the start of the meeting, Briggs announced that Tuesday would be his last day as a volunteer. He and Maria “Lou” Calanche, an entertainment industry lawyer, are the longest-serving commissioners and the only ones appointed by former Mayor Eric Garcetti.
“It’s unfortunate that the committee wasn’t able to participate in these discussions. There’s a lot of stuff we’re dealing with that we can provide insight into,” Calanche said.
Interim Chief Dominic Choi said the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for LAPD rank-and-file officers, has expressed support for binding arbitration and giving the chief the authority to fire officers for misconduct.
The Conservation League did not respond to multiple messages seeking comment on the council’s action.
The plan, backed by City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, who chairs the powerful Public Safety Committee, was approved by a divided vote at a committee meeting a few weeks ago. It would require disciplinary committees to have two civilians and one police officer on the board, a structure the police union first proposed in the late 1990s.
The City Attorney’s Office is drafting final language for the reform proposal, which is expected to be voted on by the full City Council in the coming weeks, clearing the way for it to appear on the November ballot.
Police officials say an all-civilian committee allowed officers accused of misconduct to remain on the force, despite the chief’s demands for them to be fired.
Officials say Los Angeles is one of the few cities in the state where officers accused of serious misconduct have the right to an administrative hearing before being fired.
Supporters say adding sworn officers to the commission would add a perspective from someone who has been on the job and would understand the impact of allowing officers who lie or steal to stay on the job.
The proposed reforms would also allow for the immediate dismissal of officers who commit serious misconduct, such as excessive use of force, racial bias or misconduct, which could result in the loss of their badges. Officers would be able to appeal their dismissal to an arbitrator.
Under the Los Angeles City Charter, LAPD disciplinary hearings are conducted like mini-trials with evidence and witnesses. The proceedings are secret, and critics say the department’s history is filled with cases of problem officers who kept their jobs and kept their paychecks despite evidence of misconduct that eroded their credibility and prevented them from performing basic police duties.
LAPD officials estimate there are about 70 such officers currently on the payroll.
Some opponents of the City Council’s proposal say they worry it would concentrate too much power in the hands of the police chief and leave the disciplinary system open to abuse to punish disgruntled officers or settle old scores.
Critics of the reform efforts say police are charging officers based on circumstantial evidence and that civilian boards are less likely to fear clashing with higher-ups than police officers.
A referendum following the Rodney King beating in 1992 established the Los Angeles Police Department’s Disciplinary Board, consisting of two officers and one civilian. LAPD watchdog groups proposed it as a reform, but surveys over the years have shown that the public tends to be more supportive of the police, raising questions about whether those selected for the board adequately represented the public’s interests.
Some hearing committee members, known as hearing officers, have complained that they are not selected to hear cases based on their views on policing.
City Councilmen Hugo Soto Martinez and Tim McCosker formed an unlikely alliance last year to call for scaling back civilian involvement.
But Soto-Martinez opposed Rodriguez’s plan, arguing against tying police to a specific configuration and raising concerns about the lack of data on a panel of two civilians and one officer.
Like Shields of the Police Commission, he questioned the use of binding arbitration for officers challenging their firings or suspensions, pointing to studies and testimony from city and police leaders across the country that show the outcomes typically favor law enforcement.
McCosker acknowledged longstanding concerns from officers that the disciplinary system is biased in favor of police departments and said changing the composition of the board may not be effective.
“The way to avoid a lenient system is not to reintroduce a biased system,” McCosker said.