Pravin Visakan: Charter Amendment C will lead to ineffective reform of LAPD misconduct
Charter Amendment C is a positive sign that the city is trying to address the Los Angeles Police Department’s underlying problems. However, it doesn’t really do much to increase officer oversight. (Creative Commons photo by ahisgett via Flickr)
By Pravin Visakan
May 14, 2017 8:48 p.m.
The Los Angeles Police Department has a troubled history with officer misconduct.
The city is trying something new to address this problem, however. Charter Amendment C, an initiative on the May 16 municipal ballot, represents a well-intentioned, but ineffective attempt to tweak the formula of internal police misconduct reviews.
The measure would give officers accused of misconduct a choice when being reviewed by the LAPD’s Board of Right’s panel, the group that reviews disciplinary charges to officers of the department: They can either be reviewed by a usual panel consisting of two officers and one non-officer, or by a board with all non-officers.
But upon closer look, the measure is an ineffective way to police our officers. The board itself is hamstrung by its specific powers and role within the department. Even if this were not the case, officers may actually face stricter judgement from their peers on the board than from non-officers.
Police reform is a pressing issue for our city, with incidents in the past such as the Rodney King riots or the Rampart scandal, and incidents in the present claiming a large stake in the public consciousness. It’s important that the city is taking steps to address the issue.
And at first glance, their measure seems to make sense. The Boards of Rights acts as a internal judiciary board for cases of misconduct. However, the specific powers and duties of the board mark it as the wrong place to make such adjustments.
The board cannot initiate an investigation into police misconduct. They are only called upon when the chief of police independently finds that an officer needs to be fired, demoted, or suspended for over 22 days. If the case involves a potential firing, an officer is automatically given a hearing; in the case of lesser punishments, the accused officer can appeal the punishment to a board.
In both kinds of hearings, the board is reactive: It only hears cases already deemed punishable by the department. By design, it only judges results of these investigations and usually minimizes the punishments. The chief cannot enact a stricter punishment than the one imposed by the board.
Bringing more people from outside the police department onto these boards might seem like a good way to decrease bias, on the surface.
However, a report by LA’s chief legislative analyst found the non-officer members “consistently more lenient” with their judgments. From 2011 to 2016, the board completely acquitted 39 officers whom the chief recommended be fired from the department. In each of these cases, the non-officer voted to let them off. The report also found that non-officer board members voted for reduced punishments in every case in which an officer was recommended for dismissal and found guilty of some kind of misbehavior.
[Related: City officials should use traffic violations for safety, not revenue]
In scenarios where the chief calls for demotion or suspension, officers have the option to invoke review by a Board of Rights. Charter Amendment C would give accused officers an additional measure of control: the choice between two different board compositions, two officers with one non-officer or all-civilians. Given the choice, it is unlikely that an officer would opt for the less lenient option. Even if the non-officer board is found to be stricter in its hearings, an officer will be free to opt for the old option. At best, this means the measure could have a negligible impact on the outcome of these hearings.
Of course, the measure seems to account for this by requiring the LAPD to submit a report evaluating the effectiveness of the new board composition after two years. However, the results of such policies can be muddied.
Joanna Schwartz, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said it can be difficult to concretely quantify a department’s record with respect to misconduct. She cited outreach surveys and the statistics on the number of public complaints as other possible indicators of police behavior.
None of this is to say that the system can’t be improved. The chief legislative analyst had alternate suggestions for overhauling the Boards of Rights, including allowing a trained attorney to represent the police department at misconduct hearings. Currently, officers have access to legal counsel, while the department is represented by a high-ranking officer, who doesn’t necessarily have any experience in advocacy. This shifts the outcome in favor of the accused officer. Additionally, the report recommended opening hearings to the public, making it more difficult for the board to make biased judgments.
But the changes Charter Amendment C proposes are not effective ways to combat police misconduct. At best, changing the board’s composition would have a limited effect. At worst, making it all-civilian may exacerbate a problem with lenient rulings.
Los Angeles is a city with issues. Oversight of the police is an issue with major implications for the health of the city. The measure is a positive sign of a city attempting to address its problems, but the exact details of the measure doom it to failure.
