Two weeks after the city council killed most of the proposed charter reforms brought to it, the council killed off the two most striking exceptions that had survived the original massacre.
“It’s almost laughable,” Councilman Hugo Soto-Martínez said. “We have nothing to show for it. A years-long process, and engaging the entire city, and we have nothing significant to show for it.”
The Charter Commission organized its proposals into four themes, and participants in the process were particularly frustrated that none of the measures highlighted under the theme “Strengthen Democratic Voice and Representation” were approved for the ballot two weeks ago, most prominently expanding the size of the city council. Proposals for ranked choice voting and to lower the voting age to 16 in municipal elections (city and school board) were also both popular and rejected. However, a related proposal by Soto-Martinez — to allow for non-citizen voting in municipal elections — was approved. But on June 30, it was also pulled from the ballot.
Under the theme “Rebuild Trust Through Accountability,” the one major reform approved two weeks ago was to give the city council the power to set Los Angeles Police Department policy — even as three other LAPD reforms were put off, including one allowing the police chief to fire officers for harmful misconduct. Now that reform, too, is off the ballot.
Although both proposed measures were taken off the ballot, the processes and rationales involved were strikingly different. Soto-Martínez agreed to pull his proposal, recognizing the need to educate and build consensus before putting it on the ballot for a future election. The vote to withdraw it was unanimous, even as he pushed back against arguments pushed by other council members, some of which he characterized as “fearmongering.”
As Random Lengths News has noted before, non-citizen voting, while rare today, has a long history in America. But history is not exactly America’s strong suit these days, so civic education can take time.
“Until legal, structural and implementation questions are fully addressed, I don’t believe we should ask voters to decide on a proposal that could create confusion or undermine confidence in our electoral system,” Councilman Tim McOsker told Random Lengths, explaining his support for the delay.
In contrast to the unanimous vote to delay non-citizen voting, the LAPD oversight proposal fell victim to a narrowly-passed (8-6) motion for further study from McOsker, who previously represented the police union when in private practice. His purported rationale, reported in the LA Times, was to take a closer look and come up with “a more comprehensive set of proposals.
“Police structure and reform is so critically important,” he told the Times. “I don’t want to do one little piece [where] we don’t understand what it does and what it doesn’t do.”
But giving the city council the power to set policy is hardly a little piece, and it’s very clear what it does — the proposal specifically excludes the kind of micro-managing that is legitimately a labor relations concern. What’s more, the Charter Commission already did consider a comprehensive set of proposals, and this was the only one that made it all the way through the process, including approval by the city council two weeks earlier.
McOsker told Random Lengths that his positions on both measures were similar. “These were two fairly significant charter proposals, and I believe changes of this magnitude deserve a thorough public discussion before they are placed before voters,” he said.
“Referring that proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee is not about shelving reform — it is about giving it the careful, comprehensive review it deserves so we can bring forward stronger, clearer proposals,” he explained. “I continue to support meaningful reform, but I don’t believe we should make changes to the structure of police oversight without fully understanding how they affect the roles of the council, the Police Commission and the chief of police.”
But two council members vehemently disagreed in comments following an hour-long private special session, just before the vote was taken.
Soto-Martínez spoke first, saying he was “deeply disappointed that after months of having conversations through the Charter Reform commission, here in council, and rules [committee]” that it was being put off again.
“Of all things that have come out of [the]Charter Reform commission, that was the number one issue that was discussed by the public,” he said. “When folks came and discussed how they want to see their city changed, this was number one. It’s been discussed, investigated, legal analysis and just the last time that this issue came up, there was one concern and that was the concern brought up by Mr. McOsker whether this required a meet and confer,” with union representatives over work-rules. “That’s been answered and it’s clear to me that it does not,” Soto-Martínez said. “So I guess what I’m asking is, what is the holdup? Why the delay? Why are we holding back the city from making progress?”
Councilwoma Euniss Hernandez also urged the council to “put this in front of the voters this November,” adding, “Nobody is trying to get involved in the disciplinary, nobody is telling anybody when they can use a gun or not. We want a general policy at having a voice to say something about that.” In fact, there is specific language about what the council cannot do.
As for the Police Protective League’s threats to sue and spend money to oppose the measure at the ballot, Hernandez took that as a given. “LAPPL is going to do what they do. They are going to threaten and invest in campaigns, and they will always do that,” she said. “The chokehold that they have on this body is wild to me. We literally started going broke because of the promised raises. There are a lot of things that we continue to give and give and give. We’re just asking for a little bit of a voice at the table, in drafting ordinances that will make the department better serving for our city. Nobody wants to create more liabilities, keep paying out lawsuits because of LAPD,” she said. “Please give the voters an opportunity to give us a vote at the table when it comes to certain LAPD policies.”
In conclusion, she said, “Yes, like LAPPL in their letter wrote, this will bring more accountability.” But she also noted that the city attorney said it did not trigger the meet and confer process. Therefore, “Colleagues, I urge you to put this in front of the voters.”
But eight council members, led by McOsker, refused to let that happen. And so we must wait another two years, at least, while the bodies and the lawsuit payouts keep piling up.