Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics Censure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates charter censure procedures, refers ordinance to ad hoc committee
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council extensively debated proposed procedures to implement section 209 of the new city charter on member censure, then voted to send the draft ordinance back to the Charter Implementation Ad Hoc Committee for further work and clearer criteria.
The Los Angeles City Council debated whether to adopt formal procedures for censuring a council member under section 209 of the city’s new charter and, after nearly three hours of discussion, agreed to refer the draft ordinance back to the Charter Implementation Ad Hoc Committee for additional work.
City Attorney staff member Pete Echeverria told the council the ordinance “simply provides that the council may adopt procedures for censure” and described key elements of the proposal: a resolution stating reasons for censure, referral to a committee that would give notice to the member who is the subject of the resolution, an opportunity for that member to respond, and a requirement that adoption of a censure resolution would need a two‑thirds vote of the full council.
Supporters of framing a procedure said that specifying rules now would supply due‑process protections and avoid ad‑hoc, potentially politicized handling of future motions. Councilmember Joel Feuer summarized that the choice before members was whether to “put in place procedures so that we know the rules going in, or do we allow for a potentially more politicized process” later.
Opponents argued the draft lacked clear, objective criteria and risked being used as a political tool. Councilmember Nate Holden warned it could be exploited “because of their political ambition” and said he could not support a measure that created an opportunity for colleagues to act on personal or political motives. Councilmember Mike Wax and others said the phrase “highest standards of personal and professional conduct” in the charter is subjective and urged either clearer criteria or further deliberation. Wax noted that staff research, presented by Rebecca Avila of the City Ethics Commission, found jurisdictions typically adopt either broad language or no specific criteria, and that crafting objective standards is difficult.
Several members suggested alternatives including raising the supermajority threshold beyond two‑thirds, limiting censure to violations of the oath of office, or explicitly excluding certain private matters from eligibility for censure (for example, exercise of First Amendment rights or protected characteristics). Councilmember Joel Bernsen said he favored adding a requirement that findings demonstrate a violation of the oath of office; Councilmember Gloria Molina (Miss Goldberg) urged adoption of the procedures as drafted so the council would not be forced to scramble for rules after July 1.
After extended debate about politics, standards and due process, the council agreed — without additional formal amendment — to send the ordinance back to the Charter Implementation Ad Hoc Committee for further work and stakeholder input. There was no final adoption of censure procedures on the council floor; members asked the president to appoint or direct an ad hoc group to refine criteria and protections for any future ordinance.
Why it matters: The charter now allows the council to adopt a resolution of censure by two‑thirds vote. Whether the council specifies objective criteria and procedures affects how future allegations against members would be handled and shapes the balance between accountability and political risk within the council.
