Council refers proposal for independent Rampart inquiry to Public Safety Committee after divided debate

The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 22 considered competing proposals on whether to create an independent outside inquiry into the Rampart-area police scandal and how any such review should be constituted.

Councilmember Wax moved that the council adopt the concept of an independent outside inquiry and refer it to the Public Safety Committee for 30 days so that the committee could formulate details (appointments, membership, scope). Wax argued that an outside panel of jurists, legal scholars, clergy and criminal justice experts was necessary to restore public confidence and to examine issues that an internal investigation could not reach, including potential involvement by outside agencies such as the district attorney.

Public comment included support for an outside review. Leonard Shapiro said the independent review was necessary and questioned why it took the council so long to reach that conclusion. Several councilmembers expressed broad agreement that civilian oversight and an independent review were needed, but they differed on whether to act now or first let the newly resourced Police Commission and inspector general proceed.

Councilmember Misakowski urged caution and asked the council to let existing charter-mandated mechanisms (the Police Commission and the inspector general) take the first step. Misakowski noted that the voters had enacted Proposition F (the police commission reforms) and that the commission had already begun seeking outside experts as part of its review; she recommended sending the matter to the Public Safety Committee without adopting the independent-inquiry concept on the floor so the committee could work out whether additional outside action was necessary and avoid creating overlapping, competing panels.

Other councilmembers urged a prompt, visible response to restore community trust. Councilmembers and public speakers pointed to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Police Protective League informing the council that both organizations supported some form of outside review.

After debate and a vote on a procedural motion, the council voted 8 ayes and 6 noes to send the matter to the Public Safety Committee under the Misakowski approach (refer to committee without adopting the independent-inquiry concept on the floor). The councils action sends the question to the Public Safety Committee for the committee to define scope, appointing authority and membership, and to coordinate with the Police Commission, the inspector general, and any ongoing board of inquiry and criminal investigations.

What happens next: The Public Safety Committee will take up the matter and consider whether a separate independent panel is needed in addition to the Police Commission and the inspector general, who have been funded and directed to work on related reviews. Committee members were instructed to return with proposed scope, membership and timelines for any additional outside review mechanisms.

The transcript shows substantial council agreement on the need for independent civilian oversight: the disagreement concerned timing and structure (use existing charter bodies plus outside experts vs. creating a separately established independent commission immediately). The vote to refer to committee preserves both paths while giving the Police Commission and inspector general additional time to continue their work.