Measure to alter LAPD discipline has wide lead
Charter amendment OKs all-civilian reviews
A ballot measure that would significantly change the way the Los Angeles Police Department handles serious officer misconduct was leading by a wide margin Tuesday night, despite misgivings from some community activists that it would result in more lenient treatment for problem cops.
With more than a third of precincts counted, voters were solidly behind Charter Amendment C, which would add more civilians to the panels that review officer terminations. The measure was championed by the police officers’ union and backed by Mayor Eric Garcetti and every member of the City Council.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents about 9,800 cops, has long called for changes to the three-member Boards of Rights, arguing that their disciplinary proceedings are sometimes unfair to officers. Currently, each board consists of one civilian and two LAPD command staff ranked captain or above.
Union spokesman Dustin DeRollo said the strength of Charter Amendment C in early returns shows that voters “want to see officers get a fair shake when it comes to discipline.”
“We’re pleased that the voters are choosing increased civilian oversight and are going to help fix our
broken disciplinary system,” he added.
Opponents have called Charter Amendment C a City Hall giveaway to a politically connected union that would send the LAPD’s reform efforts backward. Peter Bibring, director of police practices for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, called the measure a “deceptive” piece of legislation.
“Many voters thought they were voting for greater police accountability when in fact this does just the opposite,” he said.
The LAPD has been grappling with the right approach to discipline since the 1991 videotaped beating of Rodney King by officers, an incident that became a national embarrassment for the department and helped spark devastating riots a year later.
Garcetti’s team began working behind the scenes with the union on changes to the disciplinary process two years ago. Advocacy groups that were locked out of those talks — including Black Lives Matter — portrayed the measure as the product of a backroom deal.
“The ball has been hidden from the general public since 2015,” said Pete White, executive director of the Los Angeles Community Action Network, one of the groups campaigning against Charter Amendment C. The measure “was strategically timed to give the opposition the least amount of time possible to mobilize and respond.”
Charter Amendment C would give officers the option of having their disciplinary cases heard by boards composed entirely of civilians. They could also continue to choose the current setup.
The move to all-civilian panels had been long sought by the union, which put at least $839,000 into the campaign for Charter Amendment C. If the measure ultimately passes, the City Council will need to draft an ordinance implementing the changes, said Council President Herb Wesson, who helped place the measure on the ballot.
Wesson said he wants to spend the coming months finding ways to make the pool of civilian panelists more racially and ethnically diverse — and look at bringing retired officers into the process.
“I think that people do want to begin a serious conversation about reform,” he said. “And I think this is what cracks the door open to have a larger conversation.”
Charter Amendment C would represent one of the biggest changes to police disciplinary practices since 1992, when voters passed a measure adding civilians to the Boards of Rights. That measure was initially resisted by some police officers.
In recent years, officers began voicing concerns over the presence of commanding officers on those panels. They argued that high-level officers feel pressure to follow the chief ’s recommendations in disciplinary cases, rendering the process unfair to those accused of misconduct.
Foes of Charter Amendment C have also complained about the Boards of Rights process, noting that disciplinary reviews are conducted in secret and asserting that the civilians are not representative of the larger public. Nevertheless, they said Charter Amendment C was not the solution.
Opponents pointed to a city report, issued in January, that concluded that civilians have been “consistently more lenient” than their sworn counterparts on the Boards of Rights. They criticized city leaders for sending the proposal to voters in a low-turnout election.
In many parts of the city, including South L.A., Charter Amendment C was the only item on the ballot.
Charisma Johnson, a voter who lives in Echo Park, said she wrestled with her decision on Charter Amendment C. Johnson said she didn’t know if an all-civilian panel would do a better job than one that includes two commanding officers. But she voted in favor because she wants “something to change.”
“If you vote no, nothing will happen,” she said.
Opponents of the measure were heavily outspent by the union-funded campaign. The union sent several campaign mailers to voters featuring endorsement messages from Garcetti, Wesson and Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn.
Opponents never managed to put an argument against Charter Amendment C on the ballot. Highprofile critics of the proposal, including Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), went public with their opposition just before the election.