The Los Angeles City Council spent a large portion of a special meeting on Sept. 18, 2000, debating a proposed consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice over reforms at the Los Angeles Police Department and gave its negotiating team direction to continue talks with DOJ while insisting on limits to outside control.

Council members and staff debated the monitor’s precise powers, timelines for required upgrades and audits, and how to preserve local authority over day-to-day police operations. City Attorney James Hahn and the council’s negotiating lead, Mr. Deaton, told the council that the mayor’s office, the city attorney and negotiating team had agreed language that keeps the monitor’s role primarily to reporting and leaves enforcement steps — including returning to court — to DOJ if the city failed to remedy faults after notice and opportunity to cure.

Why it matters: The council is weighing federal oversight of the LAPD following the Rampart scandal against the city’s need to retain operational control. Members repeatedly said they want outside validation that reforms are carried out, but not an open-ended federal takeover that would replace the police commission, the mayor or the chief in managing the department.

Key points from the meeting: negotiators were authorized to continue talks with DOJ; the council asked negotiators to seek a fixed horizon for ending the agreement (a proposed five-year default was discussed, with cures and reporting requirements); and council members asked for clearer written limits on the monitor, including that the monitor report publicly to the council, the police commission and the mayor and not exercise directive operational control.

Council members also pressed for a practical sequencing of reforms. Staff said certain technical elements — notably a department-wide data system known as “Teams 2” — will take substantial time and money to build and should be phased in. The council directed negotiators to seek realistic implementation schedules and to return with specific, time-bounded plans for how data systems, audits and staffing changes will be funded and staged.

The council recorded procedural votes late in the session tied to drafting choices; the meeting adjourned with direction to the negotiating team to pursue the chartered package and return with any remaining unresolved items. The negotiating team was asked to report back promptly if DOJ rejected the city’s proposals so the council could reconsider next steps.

What the council did not decide: final adoption of a consent decree. Members approved giving negotiators authority to refine the city’s proposed language and to aim for a consent-decree-style agreement that includes a monitor with reporting duties, an opportunity-to-cure process before enforcement, and public reporting to the council and police commission.