The Los Angeles Police Department’s much-maligned disciplinary system is on the verge of a major overhaul, and members of the Los Angeles Police Commission expressed concern Tuesday about being left out of the discussion.
The five-member commission, appointed by the mayor to provide civilian oversight, was reacting to a City Council proposal that would give the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department the power to fire policemen for suspected misconduct and reform a process that critics say has severely undermined accountability efforts.
The City Council’s tentative plan, which would require approval from Los Angeles voters in November, focuses on a disciplinary panel composed only of civilians that would review the cases of officers accused of misconduct and decide whether they should be fired or punished.
Under the proposed reforms, all civilian panels would be eliminated, and a sworn member of the department would be included as one of the three representatives.
At one time a split structure used to be the norm. However, since 2019, officers have been able to choose what type of panel they will face, and the all-citizen route has proven more lenient.
Department officials previously said that 27 hearings were held last year for officers the chief wanted to fire, with 11 of the cases, all civil panels, giving light discipline to the accused.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Commissioner Rasha Gerges Shields said she wanted more opportunity to consider disciplinary changes.
Shields said city leaders should think twice about a controversial element of one of two proposals considered by the council, which calls for the use of binding arbitration to resolve disciplinary cases. Research done across the country — summarized in a report by the city’s chief legislative analyst — shows that such an approach tends to favor employees in disciplinary cases.
Commissioner William Briggs sarcastically asked why the City Council couldn’t repeal a 2017 bill, known as Charter Amendment C, that created a disciplinary panel for all citizens, without a popular vote.
“Why they are throwing this issue out on the street, I don’t know,” he said.
Briggs announced at the beginning of the meeting that Tuesday would be his last day in the volunteer position. Entertainment attorney and Maria “Lou” Calanche is the longest-serving commissioner, the only remaining person appointed by former Mayor Eric Garcetti.
“It’s unfortunate that the commission couldn’t take these discussions into consideration. There are a lot of things we could have learned from,” Calanche said.
Interim Chief Dominic Choi said the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union of the LAPD’s rank-and-file, has expressed its support for binding arbitration and giving the chief the authority to immediately fire officers for misconduct.
The Protective League did not respond to multiple messages seeking comment about the council’s action.
A plan backed by Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, who chairs the powerful Public Safety Committee, was approved by a split vote at a committee meeting a few weeks ago. It would require the disciplinary panel to have two civilians and one police officer. The police union first proposed this makeup in the late 1990s.
The city attorney’s office is preparing final language for the reform proposal, which is expected to be voted on by the full council in the next few weeks, clearing the way for the matter to be put to a vote in November.
Department officials say the all-citizen panel allowed the cops accused of wrongdoing to remain on the force, even though the chief had sought their dismissal.
Los Angeles is one of the few cities in the state that gives officers accused of serious misconduct the right to an administrative hearing before they are fired, officials said.
Supporters say including a sworn officer on the panel would provide the perspective of someone who did the job and thus could understand the implications of allowing officers who lied or stole to continue working.
The reform proposal also allows officers to be fired for serious misconduct — including excessive force, racial bias and dishonesty — which could result in the loss of their license to carry a badge. Officers can appeal their punishment to an arbitrator.
Under the city’s charter, LAPD disciplinary hearings are like mini-trials with evidence and witnesses. The proceedings are secret, and critics say the department’s history is littered with cases of problematic officers who kept their jobs and continued to receive salaries despite evidence of misconduct that undermines their credibility and prevents them from performing even basic police functions.
LAPD officials estimate there are about 70 such officers currently on the payroll.
Some opponents of the City Council’s proposed measure say they worry about concentrating too much power in the chief’s hands because it could open the door to abuse of the discipline system to punish biased officers or settle old scores.
Critics of the reform effort say the department is bringing cases against officers based on circumstantial evidence, and that civilian panels are less likely than officers to fear confrontation with top officials.
An LAPD disciplinary panel composed of two officers and a civilian was created in a referendum held after the beating of Rodney King in 1992. LAPD watchdogs touted this as a reform, but it didn’t happen for years. research has shown Citizens are more cooperative with police, raising questions about whether those selected for the panel adequately represent the public’s interests.
Some panelists, known as hearing examiners, have complained that they have not been selected to hear cases based on their stated views on policing,
Council members Hugo Soto-Martinez and Tim McOsker formed an unlikely alliance last year to call for reducing citizen participation.
But Soto-Martinez opposed Rodriguez’s plan, saying she disagreed with binding the department into a specific framework and said she was concerned the panel, which consisted of two civilians and one officer, had no data.
Like the Police Commission’s Shields, he questioned the use of binding arbitration for officers who appeal their terminations or suspensions, and cited studies and testimony from cities and police leaders across the country that suggest the outcomes generally favor law enforcement.
McOsker acknowledged concerns raised by officers for years that the disciplinary system is tilted in the department’s favor, so changing the composition of the panel may not work either.
“The way to escape a liberal system is not to reintroduce a partisan system,” McOsker said.
