During the last few years, the Los Angeles Protective League launched a campaign to fix the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) disciplinary system. The league piggybacked on the notion that the disciplinary system is corrupt after several commanding officers came forward alleging that they are pressured––in fear of retaliation–– into terminating employees who are directed by the chief of police to Board of Rights (BOR) hearings with a recommended action to terminate. The Board of Rights system is a disciplinary process unique to the LAPD and governed by 1070 of the Los Angeles City Charter to adjudicate disciplinary matters without the chief’s interference. Unfortunately, the league may have missed the mark. It is not the disciplinary system that is corrupt but the people who misuse the system for political or personal reasons. It has been argued that if civilians are selected to preside over BOR hearings instead of sworn commanding officers, the system would be more equitable thus preventing interference from the chief. However, let’s not forget that civilians are appointed by politicians, like Mayor Eric Garcetti, and are thereby susceptible to political influence as well. And given the political anti-blue climate today, those who endorse civilians to serve on BOR hearings should be careful what they ask for.
As in the case of a decorated sergeant, a cancer survivor, who was repeatedly retaliated by the Department for exercising his first amendment rights while off-duty through social media. During his last disciplinary complaint, the sergeant selected civilian board members to adjudicate the charges believing he would get a fair hearing. Unfortunately, board members were very reluctant to side with the employee on controversial first amendment issues or perhaps they just followed Mayor’s Garcetti’s political narrative, to ensure they were selected in future administrative hearings.
Or in the case of a decorated detective who selected a civilian board, composed of liberal attorneys, believing that civilian board members would be fair and unbiased in seeking the truth of the matter. After all, this detective became a target when she accused the Department of discrimination. During the proceedings, the detective learned that the board members had an unethical ex-parte communication with the Department’s board representatives, which is strictly prohibited under 1070 of the Los Angeles City Charter laws. During this meeting, the Department representative discussed matters with board members that clearly prejudiced their decision toward the adjudication of the detective’s case. Once again, board members either lacked the knowledge in the application of administrative law or they caved into the political narrative that all cops who are directed to administrative hearings by the chief are guilty until proven innocent. Even though the detective was found NOT GUILTY on the principal charge, board members found her guilty on an additional administrative charge, which was used as a retaliation strategy to force the detective to quit and retire. History has shown that although the detective was NOT terminated, she will be a continuous target of future disciplinary action, just as many others have been in the past.
The moral of the story is that civilian oversight over administrative hearings can also be manipulated for political purposes. For this reason, every law enforcement officer should diligently challenge the disciplinary process every step of the way to document any deviations of administrative practices and law. They must report all violations of due process from the initiation of the complaint to the adjudication of charges including the penalty imposed. They must also speak up at the appropriate time rather than doing so when it is too late risking losing all appeal rights afforded under administrative law. Never assume that civilians will not allow themselves to be influenced by political anti-blue narratives or that they have the necessary training and experience in applying administrative law during disciplinary hearings. For these reasons, law enforcement officers must carefully select experienced representatives who aggressively protect their rights––and discard those who do not care about their case other than to be financially compensated for legal representation, and who oftentimes have no intention or the time to perform.