Yes on Two Charter Amendments

It was inevitable that the new Los Angeles City Charter would invite revisions, and the first two of these are on the ballot April 10. Charter Amendments 1 and 2 both involve public safety and both deserve approval, though No. 1 is a close call.

Charter Amendment 1 would make two beneficial changes regarding police discipline. First, it would remove the statute of limitations in the charter that restricts the time the department has to take disciplinary action against an officer accused of misconduct. The ballot measure would also lift a ban on double jeopardy, which has precluded disciplinary action for any incident in which an officer has already been investigated, even when significant new evidence comes to light. Police misconduct should always be punished.

Another provision of the amendment, however, would give the police chief more control over which information arising from disciplinary actions becomes part of the public record. Police officers are justifiably concerned that, say, a home address or other confidential personnel information may somehow be made public. But both the Christopher Commission report and the terms of the federal consent decree make clear that strong civilian oversight requires more, not less, public information on police discipline.

Charter Amendment 1 does not address police reform in a major way. The proposed reform does not strengthen the civilian oversight provided by the Police Commission and inspector general. It does not improve the way citizen complaints are gathered or how internal-affairs officers investigate those allegations. It would, however, make it easier to crack down on bad cops, and that is reason enough to vote yes, as long as voters remember that police reform remains unfinished.

Charter Amendment 2 would reward police officers and firefighters who work more than 25 years with additional pension benefits, beyond the current maximum, which is frozen at 25 years. For those who stayed on, the pension they might otherwise receive would be put in a special deferred fund. This attractive incentive would encourage experienced officers and firefighters to stay on the job at a time when retention and recruitment are difficult. The proposed charter reform requires the change to be cost-neutral to the city, and when the details were worked out the administrative costs of the additional pension payments would come from the deferred retirement funds themselves. Voters should strongly approve this measure to send a message: Experienced police officers and firefighters are valued and appreciated. Those who are willing to stay deserve bigger pensions.