LAPD Disciplinary Reform Measure OKd for April Ballot

The City Council agreed Friday to place a measure on the April ballot that would reform the Los Angeles Police Department’s disciplinary policies.

The proposed changes include removing the double jeopardy defense that prevents reopening a disciplinary case against an officer even if significant new evidence surfaces. The new policy would also end the one-year statute of limitations after the filing of a disciplinary complaint.

Revising police disciplinary procedures means amending the City Charter, which requires a public vote. With the ongoing Rampart corruption scandal, some council members had urged putting the question on the November general election ballot.

“After Rampart, are you going to sit tight and let some officers walk who should be punished? That will be the case with an April vote,” said Councilman Nate Holden.

All but one of his colleagues, however, decided to approve Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg’s motion to push the measure back to April. The vote was 12-2, with Holden and Councilman Nich Pacheco in opposition.

Before the vote, several Los Angeles police officers told the council that they oppose the proposed charter amendment because it would also cut city funding for the LAPD’s officer representatives.

Those officials serve as advocates for other officers who face disciplinary proceedings. The amendment would require the rank and file, or the union, to pay for that service.

“There needs to be a check and balance within the system, and I think officer representation is that check and balance,” said Officer Corina Lee, who works in the unit. “We just want to make sure these officers’ concerns are addressed and that they do get an impartial hearing and are not targeted by political agendas or issues.”

Officer representation “is of vital importance to the Los Angeles Police Department, to the very core of it,” added Officer Joe Ward.

However, LAPD spokesman Cmdr. David Kalish said the issue had already been negotiated last month during contract talks, with the agreement that it would be on the ballot measure.

“We’re a bit baffled,” Kalish said. “Part of the agreement was to move forward on reform issues.”

The LAPD, he said, is the only police agency “where officer representation, including police officers who serve as investigators, are paid by taxpayers.”

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who heads the council’s Public Safety Committee, said the officer representatives “can’t be lost. It’s just a matter of who will pay for it.”

The council also took action on two other police-related matters.

It referred a proposed $4.7-million “police integrity” package to improve LAPD oversight to a council committee. And it agreed to a polygraph program that would test all new LAPD recruits during interviews and officers who request transfers to special units.

The integrity money is part of a package proposed by Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, who said more supervisors and other support are necessary to prevent a repeat of the Rampart scandal. The original plan spanned five years and would cost $9.2 million.

Goldberg, however, lobbied for further study, adding that the city “can’t just go throwing money at the problem.”

The $4.7 million would include reassigning 122 patrol positions to supervisory roles, she said. The staffing upgrades should be examined, Goldberg said, because simply creating more supervisors will not address the problem of supervisors who abide by the “code of silence.”

The Personnel Committee, headed by Goldberg, will study the matter early next month.