Mayor Karen Bass took the unusual step this week of veto a ballot measure proposed in November Rewrite the disciplinary process for Los Angeles police officers. Assuming the City Council doesn't override her veto, the mayor's decision means voters won't be able to consider police accountability this year.
Okay, but if Angelenos want to try again on police reform, Bass and the City Council must use the next two years to develop a stronger proposal that will increase public confidence that officers will be held accountable for misconduct and officers’ trust that they will be treated fairly. And they shouldn’t wait until just weeks before the 2026 ballot deadline. Although city leaders had seven years to plan a well-crafted reform proposal, the City Council put it off until the last minute and submitted a rushed proposal.
The reforms in the November ballot measure were not terrible, just… DisappointingIt would have allowed the police chief to fire officers accused of certain types of misconduct and would have restructured the makeup of the department’s three-member disciplinary panels on the Board of Rights. And it would have created a binding arbitration process as the final level of appeal. Taken together, they were a half-step forward, but a far cry from what is needed.
Still, there were significant disagreements over the details of the proposal, including whether the changes would ultimately strengthen the disciplinary system or result in even milder penalties in some cases. And the process was so rushed in the days leading up to the deadline to put the measure on the ballot that there was little time for advocates and experts to weigh in. Bass, in his veto lettersided with skeptics, saying the proposed measure “risks creating bureaucratic confusion” within the Los Angeles Police Department.
It is important to get police reform right this time because City Hall has misled the public before.
In 2017, the council, on behalf of the union representing rank-and-file officers, passed a ballot measure that significantly weakened the disciplinary process. Voters were misled into believing they were toughening police discipline by allowing Rights Boards to be comprised of three civilians, rather than one civilian and two police officers. They may have thought civilians would be tougher on police officers accused of wrongdoing, but they were wrong.
As a result, the police chief is often unable to fire officers who have committed serious misconduct. Some are deemed so tainted by dishonesty or unreliability that they cannot testify in court without undermining the case, and are assigned to non-law enforcement positions that should be filled by less expensive civilians. The Los Angeles Police Department has nearly 70 officers on its payroll that the chief would have fired if he had been allowed to do so, the LAPD estimates.
Following the passage of Charter Amendment C in 2017, council leaders promised a thorough review and overhaul of police practices and policies, including the disciplinary system. That never happened.
Bass must do better than previous city leaders. He has a long history of observing and criticizing the Los Angeles Police Department. He now has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the department. He is expected to select a new police chief this fall, and other key positions need to be filled as well. Fixing the broken police discipline system so that the next chief is not hampered by its shortcomings should be central to that transformation.
The disciplinary bill was developed by Council members Tim McOsker and Hugo Soto-Martinez, but this work is too important for the mayor to sit on the sidelines. Now that she has vetoed the first proposal, Bass should take a public leadership role in developing a more comprehensive reform package that reflects her vision for a safer and more just city.
