Fair Rep LA

@fairrepla.bsky.social

323 Followers 301 Following

Angelenos deserve better representation. We're organizing for City Council expansion and City Charter reform that delivers more accessible, accountable, and ethical government in LA. Learn more at: FairRepLA.com

CRC 58: Includes language that requires the Chief of Police to ensure that the Police Department supports and protects the constitutional rights of all persons,specifically their rights to assemble and protest; includes a provision that states that the Chief of Police can directly remove officers if they have engaged in misconductThe Committee requested that this recommendation bepresented to Council forconsideration, and instructed the CLA to report on the need to Meet and Confer with labor on this matter.The Committee noted and filed this item without discussion.Currently, there is no veto process for Board of Rights (BOR) decisions. Once a BOR has made a decision in apersonnel matter, the Chief may uphold the decision of the BOR, or impose a lesser penalty.Charter Section 1070(f) allows an officer removed from the Department as a result of a BOR to file a request with the Chief of Police to have the matter reheard or to be heard on the cause of the member’s removal, together with a supporting affidavit setting forth in clear and concise language the reasons or grounds for a hearing or rehearing. If the Chief determines there is good cause for a rehearing, the matter will be referred to a new BOR. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with the addition of language to the Administrative Code on constitutional protections. There may be a Fiscal Impact associated with the Chief’s ability to fire officers, depending on what appeals process the City would implement for terminated officers. Further study is required.
CRC 58: Includes language that requires the Chief of Police to ensure that the Police Department supports and protects the constitutional rights of all persons,specifically their rights to assemble and protest; includes a provision that states that the Chief of Police can directly remove officers if they have engaged in misconductThe Committee requested that this recommendation bepresented to Council forconsideration, and instructed the CLA to report on the need to Meet and Confer with labor on this matter.The Committee noted and filed this item without discussion.Currently, there is no veto process for Board of Rights (BOR) decisions. Once a BOR has made a decision in apersonnel matter, the Chief may uphold the decision of the BOR, or impose a lesser penalty.Charter Section 1070(f) allows an officer removed from the Department as a result of a BOR to file a request with the Chief of Police to have the matter reheard or to be heard on the cause of the member’s removal, together with a supporting affidavit setting forth in clear and concise language the reasons or grounds for a hearing or rehearing. If the Chief determines there is good cause for a rehearing, the matter will be referred to a new BOR. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with the addition of language to the Administrative Code on constitutional protections. There may be a Fiscal Impact associated with the Chief’s ability to fire officers, depending on what appeals process the City would implement for terminated officers. Further study is required.
CRC 57: Includes a provision inSection 1070 (Rights and Due Process Procedures) thatallows the Council to consider a personnel determinationmade by the Police Board of Rights and have the ability to veto and remand the matter back to the Board of Rights for reconsideration; the Board of Rights shall have 30 days to reconsider the action anddetermine whether to override the Council; if the Council action is overridden, theCouncil shall consider the override and shall have the same authority to act on the matter as that originally held by the Board of Rights.The Committee noted and filed this item without discussion.Currently, there is no veto process for Board of Rights (BOR) decisions. Once a BOR has made a decision in apersonnel matter, the Chief may uphold the decision of the BOR, or impose a lesser penalty.Charter Section 1070(f) allows an officer removed from the Department as a result of a BOR to file a request with the Chief of Police to have the matter reheard or to be heard on the cause of the member’s removal, together with a supporting affidavit setting forth in clear and concise language the reasons or grounds for a hearing or rehearing. If the Chief determines there is good cause for a rehearing, the matter will be referred to a new BOR.Note and File.
Present to voters in November 2026 a Charter amendment consistent with CRC 56 to sustain the Council's veto action specific to policies, regulations, procedures, and programs. This should not include personnel decisions, or reduce current Council authorities, disciplinary actions, contracts, or any quasi-judicial determinations. Expands Council's authority to amend, modify, or substitute an action taken by the Board. The Charter amendment should include language that gives the Council independent authority if the Board of Police Commissioners has not acted on a policy within 60 days.
Line out the door at LA City Hall
Hi, my name is ______________. (If you’re a constituent, say: “and I am a constituent of yours in X neighbor.”) I’m calling to make sure that – in your work on the Rules Committee – you DO NOT DELAY on the expansion of the City Council (CRC 12); enabling Council to have the power to make LAPD policy (CRC 54); and allowing the Police Chief to remove officers with histories of harm (CRC 58). As you’ve heard from other constituents, including those from LA Forward, these items are overdue for passage onto the ballot, and would all help to strengthen representation and build trust in local government. Don’t let us down: DO NOT DELAY on expansion, Council power to make LAPD policy, and Police Chief power to remove bad officers. Move these to full council now, and then to the ballot. Thank you, have a nice day.
IF YOU ONLY HAVE TIME FOR ONE CALL, PLEASE CALL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON’S OFFICE Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Council President, Council District 8: 213-473-7008 Nithya Raman, Council District 4: 213-473-7004 Katy Yaroslavsky, Council District 5: 213–473-7005 John Lee, Council District 12: 213-473-7012 Hugo Soto-Martinez, Council District 13: 213-473-7013
We thank the following LA city candidates for responding to our survey: Mayoral Candidates: Bryant Acosta Asaad Alnajjar Nelson Cheng Rae Chen Huang Tish Hyman Andrew K. Kim Adam Miller Nithya Raman Andrej A. Selivra City Attorney Aida Ashouri Marissa Roy Controller: Kenneth Mejia Council District 1 Raul Claros Eunisses Hernandez Council District 3 Christopher Robert “C.R.” Celona
Want to know where LA City candidates stand on: expanding City Council? Lowering the voting age? Ranked choice voting? Check out our Charter reform candidate survey! Find our which Charter reforms candidates: support! oppose! Think are missing! Go to: fairrepla.com/2026
Image of Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky
MOTION Per the City Charter, Section 3.1, the Mayor is the Executive Officer of the City. As the Executive Officer the Mayor has the ability to issue Executive Directives that greatly impact City operations but do not require input from the City Council thereby undermining the careful balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of city government. Once a Mayor issues an Executive Directive there is no formalized process to provide comment or to change the directive. This unilateral issuance of directives has often resulted in mixed messages that confuse City department heads and Angelenos. In order to improve the development and implementation of Executive Directives the City should amend the Charter to add an oversight role for the City Council. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be requested to prepare and present the documents necessary to place on the November 2026 ballot a measure that would amend the Charter to create an oversight role, including overturning, that may be exercised by a 2/3 majority vote of the Council to change Executive Directives issued by the Mayor. Presented by: MONICA RODRIGUEZ, Councilwoman, 7th District
9 months of study and deliberation. 301 pages. All you need is 1 hour to understand what's at stake for LA's future. The LA Charter Reform Commission's report is finally here. On Thursday, City Council meets for the first time to decide what happens next. Before they do, get caught up at our teach-in: Sunday, April 26, 6 - 7 PM. Zoom link: bit.ly/FRLA426 We'll break down: how we got here, what's actually in the report, what got buried, and what you can do next!
The CRC was created precisely because big changes have ripple effects, and require a comprehensive approach. It is crucial that the full City Council be involved at the front end of the process so the Committee can cultivate consensus reforms. Sincerely, California Clean Money Campaign California Common Cause Cal RCV Fair Rep LA Generation Vote Los Angeles Hub League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers Unrig LA Wellbeing Economy Alliance California
Provide five days notice for all Committee meetings. Acknowledging the need for greater notice, the City Council required the CRC to provide five days notice for all CRC meetings. We further request that relevant agenda materials also be posted at least five days in advance of meetings. Given the limited time and capacity of Committee members and their staff, it is important that they have adequate time to prepare for meetings and engage with relevant stakeholders in advance. Provide video for all Committee livestreams/recordings. The City Council typically does not provide video of committee meetings. However, it has done so in limited circumstances when there are significant issues moving through a Committee. This includes the annual budget process, consideration of the Redistricting Commission’s proposed map, and the work of the former Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform. Committee meetings can be tough to follow for a new viewer, or someone who speaks English as a second language. Video makes it easier to follow along with presentation materials, process what is being discussed, and put faces and names to voices that might not be so familiar to your average person. Either hold meetings in the evening or provide remote public comment. The Rules Committee typically meets at 9:00 am. We ask that meetings either be held at a more accessible time, or that the Committee also take public comment via phone.
Hold at least five to six Committee meetings total, and release a tentative schedule. The Committee will need at least three to four meetings to review the CRC report, consider motions referred to the Committee, and where necessary, request reports from relevant departments. It will also need at least two meetings to review, revise, and make further refinements. We ask that a tentative schedule be issued so that elected officials, departments, and interested parties may plan for what will be considered by the Committee at each meeting.
Allow a larger and more diverse Committee to review the CRC’s recommendations. The City Council could either temporarily expand the Rules Committee to seven members, or establish a seven-member Ad Hoc Committee. A larger Committee provides better representation of the City of LA and the sentiments of the broader council. Each of our Councilmembers has unique expertise and skillsets, and to the extent that we have more voices at the table we will be able to produce better reforms.
Allow the CRC to present their report to the full City Council. The full City Council must be given the opportunity to receive and respond to the CRC’s recommendations before the matter is referred to a Committee. While we are excited about many of the reforms advanced by the CRC their current form is not ballot-ready. The Committee will need to undertake extensive efforts to produce carefully considered reforms that are viable for City Council and the general public. Jumping straight to a Committee would be a mistake. Presenting the report to the full City Council will allow a broader temperature check on major issues and allow the Committee to make revisions in a more tailored and efficient manner. The last time the full City Council had some level of discussion on the topic of Council size was in the fall of 2022, and the full City Council’s last discussion about the Charter Reform Commission’s substantive work occurred in the summer of 2024. The CRC’s report is the product of a $1 million dollar budget. No matter what anyone thinks of the CRC process, the recommendations were arrived at through nine months of extensive efforts by Commissioners, departments, and the broader public. These reforms impact fundamental issues of representation and power at City Hall. The full City of Los Angeles must be represented in that conversation before we move to Committee. Without this initial step, a majority of our Council would be left on the sidelines, and limited to either providing their thoughts in writing, introducing a motion, or backchanneling their concerns to Committee members. They would only be brought into the fold at the eleventh hour when reforms are up for a final vote, and there is limited opportunity to realistically entertain amendments. We worry that an abbreviated process will undermine consensus-building, inevitably force the City Council to dramatically limit the scope of what it is able to advance to the ballot, and negatively affect voter confide
April 16th, 2026 Members of the Los Angeles City Council 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Charter Reform Process - Council File 26-0489 Dear Honorable Councilmembers, This Council is about to enter one of its busiest stretches in recent history. In addition to the annual budget process, we will be considering Charter reform, potential amendments to Measure ULA, a number of revenue-generating ballot measures, and multiple citizen initiatives. We, the undersigned organizations, write to respectfully request that City Council engage in a thorough and inclusive review of the Charter Reform Commission’s (CRC) recommendations: