Santa Ana delays police‑oversight ordinance; schedules joint meeting after heated public comments

The Santa Ana City Council on July 15 paused consideration of proposed amendments to the city’s Police Oversight Commission ordinance and voted to hold a joint special meeting with the commission and the city’s independent oversight director within 60 days.

Deputy City Manager Sylvia Vasquez presented the amendments as staff recommendations intended to align the ordinance with the city charter and state law and to reduce legal risk to the city. “These amendments…are necessary to maintain the intention of the commission and avoid conflicts with the law,” Vasquez told the council. The presentation described a shift toward an “audit” model in which the oversight director and the commission would review completed Internal Affairs investigations and recommend policy or discipline changes rather than routinely conducting separate, independent investigations.

Why it matters

The ordinance change prompted more than two hours of public comment and sustained questioning from council members about whether the proposed language would weaken independent police oversight. Community groups, the family of a man killed by Santa Ana officers last year, local civil‑rights organizations and the city’s new oversight director all urged caution — though for different reasons. The city attorney and staff said the revisions were needed to avoid conflicts with the Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBAR) and other state statutes. Councilmembers and dozens of residents said the community needs an oversight body that can conduct independent investigations and increase police transparency.

What staff proposed

City staff and the city attorney framed the changes as legal and operational fixes. Deputy City Manager Sylvia Vasquez and City Attorney Tamara Bogosian said the current ordinance—adopted in 2022 but delayed in implementation—creates a risk of duplicative officer interviews and potential POBAR conflicts under California Government Code provisions covering police employee rights. The staff presentation identified three main points: (1) clarify roles and responsibilities to align with the city manager form of government under the city charter, (2) adopt an audit model used by several Southern California jurisdictions so the commission would review completed Internal Affairs investigations and produce recommendations, and (3) add training and confidentiality requirements for commissioners to protect personnel records and the integrity of investigations.

Deputy City Manager Vasquez described operational details that would be added if council adopted the changes. The ordinance language would specify monthly commission meetings, require commissioners to attend the city’s Citizens Police Academy within 18 months and to participate in a ride‑along within roughly 90 days, and direct the oversight director to review Internal Affairs files and publish qualifying investigation summaries required by SB 1421 and related statutes.

Legal concerns and the oversight director’s view

City Attorney Tamara Bogosian told the council the ad hoc process produced the proposed language after staff and legal review. “The amendments … were prepared to further insulate the city from any challenges in the implementation of the ordinance,” she said, characterizing the changes as driven by legal risk, not politics.

Jack Morris, the city’s newly hired independent oversight director, told the council he has worked on national police oversight matters and offered an operational view of the tradeoffs between audit and investigative models. “Our primary purpose … is to bridge that divide, to increase trust between the public and the police department,” Morris said. He told the council the investigative model can be costly and resource‑intensive — describing a typical full investigation as taking dozens of hours and potentially running above the current budget — while the audit model can identify policy and training problems that reduce misconduct over time.

Public comment: widespread opposition to narrowing commission powers

More than three dozen public speakers addressed the council on item 15, and the large majority strongly opposed the staff‑recommended amendments.

Quinn Tran, a Ward 5 resident, told the council: “These changes don’t strengthen oversight. In fact, they dismantle it. A commission without power isn’t oversight. It’s merely theater and optics.” Several speakers framed their opposition around high‑profile incidents involving Santa Ana police officers since late 2024. Family members and advocates for Noe Rodriguez — who was shot and killed by Santa Ana officers on Dec. 1, 2024 — urged the council not to narrow the commission’s ability to investigate uses of force and other serious misconduct.

Representatives from CHISPA and CSO OC (Community Service Organization) said the proposed language would restrict the commission to reviewing only completed Internal Affairs investigations in certain categories, and in some cases only when Internal Affairs had sustained findings. CHISPA Executive Director Isuri Ramos said the change “will gut critical oversight capabilities and take any true oversight power away from the commission.” Several speakers specifically cited SB 1421 and Penal Code provisions that make certain officer records disclosable to the public and asked the council to explain which parts of the ordinance must change to comply with state law.

What the council did

After prolonged deliberations and several failed procedural votes, the council declined to adopt the staff amendments as presented. On the final motion, the council voted 6‑0 (Councilmember Lopez absent) to schedule a joint special meeting within 60 days for the city council, the Police Oversight Commission and the independent oversight director to review the ordinance language and proposed revisions together. The council also directed that each council member meet in advance with the city manager, the city attorney, the police chief and the oversight director so they come to the joint meeting informed.

Key quotations (attributed)

- “A commission without power isn’t oversight. It’s merely theater and optics,” Quinn Tran, Ward 5 resident and public commenter. - “These amendments…are necessary to maintain the intention of the commission and avoid conflicts with the law,” Deputy City Manager Sylvia Vasquez. - “Our primary purpose … is to bridge that divide, to increase trust between the public and the police department,” Jack Morris, independent oversight director.

Discussion vs. decision

Discussion: The council heard detailed legal analyses from the city attorney’s office and operational perspectives from the oversight director. Community members pressed the council on whether the amendments would restrict the commission’s ability to launch independent investigations, require commission review only after Internal Affairs completes investigations, and narrow the commission’s access to records and authority to make disciplinary recommendations.

Direction: The council directed staff to organize a joint special meeting and for individual council members to meet with the city manager, city attorney, police chief and oversight director in advance.

Decision: The council did not adopt the ordinance amendments at first reading and instead voted to continue the matter for a joint special meeting within 60 days (6 ayes, 0 nays; Councilmember Lopez recorded absent).

Votes at a glance

- Council vote to schedule a joint special meeting to revisit the Police Oversight Commission ordinance (motion by Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez; second by Mayor Meskwah): passed 6‑0 (Lopez absent). - Earlier attempt to adopt staff amendments with three targeted changes failed on a 3‑3 tie.

Other formal actions reported at the meeting (closed session and housing authority)

- Closed session: Reported settlements and actions: the city resolved Santa Ana v. Orange County Association for Mental Health (MHA) with no cost to the city (vote reported 4‑0 with Councilmembers Hernandez, Lopez and Penalosa absent); the city settled Arch Insurance Company v. City of Santa Ana for $340,000 (vote reported 4‑0 with Hernandez, Lopez and Penalosa absent); the council voted to join a motion for intervention in the federal Pedro Vasquez Perdomo litigation with the City of Los Angeles and others (unanimous 6‑0 with Councilmember Lopez absent). Staff said the motion for intervention would be filed the next business day. - Housing Authority: Authority approved consent calendar items 1–4 (motion by Chair, seconded by Vice Chair; vote 4‑0) and approved an update to the Housing Choice Voucher administrative plan to comply with the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (vote 4‑0). - City consent calendar: City consent calendar items 5–14 were approved (final vote recorded as 7 ayes, no nays; Councilmember Lopez recorded absent at later votes noted). (Staff noted one recusal on item 12 by Councilmember Fan.)

What’s next

The council directed staff to set a joint special meeting with the Police Oversight Commission and the oversight director within 60 days. Council members must meet with the city manager, the city attorney, the police chief and the oversight director before that session. The commission and the public will have another opportunity to comment at the joint meeting before the council considers any ordinance revisions for adoption.

Ending

The council adjourned after scheduling the joint session and taking up other items. City staff and the city attorney said they will provide the council further legal detail in the intervening weeks. Residents and community groups who spoke said they plan to return for the joint meeting and will continue to press for independent investigatory power and transparency in Santa Ana’s civilian oversight structure.