Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge council to oppose nominee to Police Commission amid allegations of Islamophobia and misconduct
Summary
Public commenters at the Sept. 16 Los Angeles City Council meeting urged members to oppose a Police Commission nominee they identified as Earl Southers, saying his record shows bias against Muslim and Black residents.
Public testimony at the Sept. 16 Los Angeles City Council meeting included repeated, forceful opposition to a nomination for the Police Commission that commenters identified as Earl Southers (transcript spelling varies). Speakers described the nominee as "Islamophobic" and said his placement on a police‑oversight body would harm Muslim and Black residents. Several commenters said a petition opposing the appointment had collected about 2,500 signatures.
Why it matters: The Police Commission provides civilian oversight of the Los Angeles Police Department, and appointments to that body shape the city’s approach to policing, oversight and discipline. Commenters urged councilmembers to consider history and community confidence in making appointments.
What speakers said: Multiple residents and organizers at the podium said Southers would be a threat to civil‑rights protections and noted public complaints about his prior statements and conduct. One commenter said Southers is “islamofóbico, autoritario y protector de abusador de niños,” and another said his record of the policing and public statements posed a special risk to Black and Muslim Angelenos.
Council and process notes: The transcript records that some members of the council and the public had earlier removed or delayed related agenda items amid protest and public mobilization; speakers told the council they removed the item because of community pressure. The meeting record does not show a final confirmation vote for the nomination during the session excerpts provided.
What was not decided: The council did not vote on a final appointment in the transcript excerpt provided; public commenters demanded that councilmembers vote against the nominee, but the meeting record in the provided transcript does not show the final outcome of any nomination vote.
Clarifying note: The transcript contains multiple spellings of the nominee’s name and of some councilmembers; quotations and attributions in this article use the phrasing provided by speakers during public comment and identify those speakers as residents or commenters when no official role was given in the record.
Next steps: Petitioners and community organizations said they would continue to lobby councilmembers; the council may schedule committee review or a final vote at a later session that is not included in this transcript excerpt.
