LAPD chief says he won’t serve a full second term
L.A. needs to hear more about Michel Moore’s performance and plans before he’s reappointed.
If Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore’s request for a second term is granted, he doesn’t plan to serve the full five-year term. Instead he will step down after “two or three years,” he told the Los Angeles Times editorial board.
That’s important for Los Angeles to know, and he should reiterate it at Tuesday’s Police Commission meeting, at which the public is invited to offer comments on his request. His disclosure may affect the calculation for the five-member commission, which has the authority to grant or reject reappointment. Serving the full five years would mean that Moore’s tenure would outlast newly elected Mayor Karen Bass’ first term, limiting her opportunity to put her own stamp on the Los Angeles Police Department. That would be odd, given Bass’ career-long critique of policing practices and commitment to reform.
If Moore leaves after two years, Bass would have a better opportunity to reshape the department with plenty of time to pick a chief who she believes is best-suited to carry out her vision.
The point isn’t that Moore’s commitment to step down early makes him more or less worthy of reappointment. The point is that a decision so weighty — who will serve as chief of police in the nation’s second-largest city — shouldn’t be made without a broad and public discussion. Los Angeles’ 4 million residents need to know exactly what’s on the table.
Although reappointment is not a public decision (unlike a vote for sheriff, thank goodness), it’s still meant to be a transparent and public process, with clearly stated benchmarks.
Two police commissioners, one shy of the majority needed to grant the reappointment request, already said they supported Moore’s reappointment even in advance of any formal discussion. The commission originally scheduled the vote for Tuesday, which is far too soon after the Dec. 27 request for even a fig leaf of evaluation and deliberation. It’s appropriate that the commission, at Bass’ direction, has delayed the vote, but until when? It shouldn’t be rescheduled before a more thorough examination of the LAPD’s performance under Moore.
The issues for discussion should include crime numbers, use of force (and resulting city payouts to plaintiffs), public confidence and officer morale. They should include continuing problems such as officer drunk driving, and mistakes like the one that leveled part of a neighborhood in a fireworks explosion in South L.A.
And the commission should give particular attention to the LAPD’s mishandling of protests following the killing of George Floyd in May 2020.
There are undoubtedly many other issues that should be considered as well, and the commission should name them — after consulting with the public and with policing experts.
Moore’s first term concludes in June. The commission has until late March to make its decision.
Among Moore’s reasons for stepping down early is because a second term would expire in mid-2028 — just days before the Olympics, which Los Angeles has been selected to host. The international event can be a magnet for crime and acts of terrorism. It requires thorough police preparation and consistent leadership to deal with security and to protect public expression and protest rights. It elevates police visibility and can expose police abuses, as in the case of past events such as the 2000 Democratic National Convention, in which police conduct resulted in costly civil rights lawsuits and contributed to imposition of a 12-year federal consent decree and court-monitored reforms.
The Olympics is no time to be changing police chiefs, Moore told the editorial board last week, and of course he’s correct. The City Charter does not permit him to stay on after a second term concludes, so he wouldn’t be able to hold over a few weeks, during the Olympics, for the sake of continuity.
He says he wants to continue leading the department for two or three years to rebuild it, and to establish a leadership succession plan. He noted that of the department’s 70 captains, nearly 50 achieved those positions within the last two years. He needs them and other top staff to develop for a few more years so that leaders can emerge.
In the meantime, the commission might well ask why a majority of captains left while Moore was chief, and why current succession plans are insufficient.
Moore said he hopes the reappointment process will move forward “without a great deal of distraction to the organization or the city.”
That’s fine, but an open process that includes probing questions about Moore’s plans and performance is not a mere distraction. It’s an essential part of the reappointment process. William J. Bratton and Charlie Beck, the only LAPD chiefs so far to have won reappointment, both had many weeks of appropriate public discussion and evaluation before they were granted second terms. Moore’s request requires no less.