Voters to Decide Whether to Give LAPD Chief Right to Fire Officers

The Los Angeles City Council has agreed to place a measure on the November ballot that would alter the police discipline process and broaden the chief’s authority to dismiss officers for serious misconduct. The decision was made in an 11-to-2 vote, with council members instructing the City Attorney’s Office to include the proposed changes in the City Charter on the ballot.

Council members Hugo Soto-Martinez and Eunisses Hernandez voted against the measure, while council members Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Kevin de León were absent during the vote.

Currently, the chief of police can recommend an officer’s termination, but the final decision rests with the Board of Rights, a three-member panel that serves as a quasi-judicial body. The new proposal would grant the chief the authority to directly fire officers for offenses such as sexual misconduct, fraud, excessive force, and abuse on duty, as outlined in SB 2, a state law regarding officer de-certification.

Mr. Soto-Martinez raised concerns about limiting the offenses to those specified in the law, stating that it may not achieve the original goal of terminating officers engaged in misconduct. However, Mr. McOsker supported the measure, emphasizing that it provides clarity on the chief’s powers to take immediate action.

The proposal also includes changes to the composition of the LAPD’s Board of Rights, increasing civilian membership and repealing the option for officers to request an all-civilian panel. Mr. Soto-Martinez criticized this aspect, fearing a “two-tier system” that may allow some officers to keep their jobs despite serious misconduct.

The council aims to address issues with previous initiatives, such as Charter Amendment C, which failed to increase police accountability. The new proposal introduces a process for officers to appeal terminations through binding arbitration, similar to court procedures.

Members of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners and the Los Angeles Police Protective League have expressed differing opinions on the proposal, with concerns raised about the use of binding arbitration in disciplinary cases.

Overall, the council’s decision to maintain a civilian majority on the Board of Rights panels and incorporate state definitions of serious misconduct into the ballot measure has been met with mixed reactions from various stakeholders.