Mayor Karen Bass has vetoed a referendum proposal to overhaul the Los Angeles Police Department’s disciplinary process — a measure that could result in its removal from the Nov. 5 ballot.
In his veto letter to the City Council, Bass said the proposal, which would have allowed the police chief to fire officers accused of serious misconduct, “risks creating bureaucratic confusion” within the LAPD.
Bass said the proposal, which would also have reshuffled the makeup of the department’s three-member disciplinary committees, provided “ambiguous direction” and “gaps in guidance.”
“I look forward to working with each of you to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review with officers, the department, and other stakeholders to ensure fairness for all,” she wrote. “The current system remains in effect until this collaborative review is complete and can be submitted to the voters.”
Bass issued her veto during the council’s summer recess, when meetings are canceled for three weeks. The deadline to rework the ballot proposal text has already passed, City Clerk Holly Wolcott said.
“If the council does not override the veto or take no action, the measure will be removed from the ballot,” Wolcott said in an email.
The council’s next meeting is scheduled for July 30. It is not yet clear whether it can muster 10 votes to override the mayor’s veto.
In issuing the veto, Bass effectively sided with LAPD brass, who warned last month that the proposal would create a two-tiered disciplinary system, with some infractions resulting in termination by the chief and others being referred to a disciplinary panel known as the Board of Rights.
Police board members appointed by the mayor also criticized the referendum proposal, saying they felt excluded from the deliberations. At least one commissioner expressed concern that the proposal would create a binding arbitration process to resolve cases where an officer files an appeal against his or her firing.
City Councilman Hugo Soto-Martínez expressed similar concerns, saying mandatory arbitration would lead to more lenient punishments for officers accused of serious misconduct. Soto-Martínez, who voted against the proposal last month, had also argued that the range of infractions that could lead to termination by the police chief was too narrow.
A Soto-Martínez aide said Tuesday that his boss supported the veto.
City Councilman Tim McOsker, who spearheaded the ballot measure, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the mayor’s action, saying it threatens the most significant reform of the LAPD’s disciplinary system in more than two decades.
If the council fails to override the veto, the next opportunity for major reform won’t come until the 2026 elections, McOsker said.
“This veto would bring us back to the status quo for at least two years,” he said in an interview.
McOsker said he is still exploring options to address the mayor’s veto. During council deliberations last month, four council members — Soto-Martínez, Nithya Raman, Eunisses Hernandez and Curren Price — supported a proposal to seek additional amendments to the ballot measure.
Soto-Martínez criticized the decision to allow a police chief to fire officers for some offenses but not others, saying it would create “ambiguity” in the disciplinary system.
The proposal was defeated by a vote of 9 to 4. If it had passed, it would have effectively killed the ballot measure for this year’s election, since the deadline for making significant changes had passed.
The proposal Bass rejected had been presented as a way to undo some of the changes made by Charter Amendment C, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2017 that paved the way for all-civilian disciplinary panels at the LAPD.
The voting proposal would have overhauled the system, ensuring that each panel would consist of two civilian members and a commander.
Representatives for the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents about 8,800 rank-and-file officers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Last month, the union released a statement saying the referendum proposal struck “the right balance” on disciplinary issues, ensuring that officers fired by a chief have access to an appeals process with binding arbitration.
