Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent Decree Monitor Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on independent monitor for LAPD consent decree, firms under consideration named
Summary
Council continued consideration of the independent monitor selection to Friday after lengthy debate about the council’s role, transparency and negotiations with the Department of Justice; two firms were identified as frontrunners.
The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday continued to Friday its consideration of an independent monitor for enforcement of the Los Angeles Police Department consent decree, after a long floor debate about process, timing and the council’s role.
City officials said negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice were ongoing and that the administration expected to present a recommended monitor — and a second choice — on Friday. Council members raised concerns about transparency, selection criteria and the time available to review proposals before a court filing due Monday.
City staff said 19 proposals were received in response to an RFP. During the floor discussion the city identified two firms under active consideration: Kroll Associates (New York) and Public Management Resources (San Antonio, Texas). Staff cited the selection criteria embodied in the consent decree: law-enforcement expertise, monitoring experience, methods for obtaining information that minimize impact on LAPD operations, coordination with the city and DOJ, an objective technology methodology, established independence, and understanding of the consent decree’s scope.
Several council members — including Hernandez and councilmember Wax — warned against being hurried into a final selection without adequate time to vet finalists and hear public feedback. Councilmember Ridley-Thomas asked staff to prepare options the council could use if it did not agree with the administration and DOJ’s recommendation. City negotiators told the council they believed they were “very close” to an agreement with DOJ but cautioned that public disclosure of detailed negotiations could impede that process.
After debate, the council voted to continue the item to Friday to allow staff and DOJ more time to reach a joint recommendation and to present a contract outline and a preferred and alternate choice. The vote to continue passed on the council floor.
The council instructed staff to bring back the recommended number one candidate, a recommended number two, and contract terms; staff said they expected to have the contract back to council in the following week. Council members also discussed the fallback process under the consent decree if the city and DOJ cannot agree — the city and DOJ would each submit names to a judge for selection.
No final appointment or contract amount was adopted on Wednesday; the council’s action was strictly a continuance to permit further negotiation and presentation on Friday.
