Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor And Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves MOU amendment to pilot flexible schedules for LAPD sworn personnel after closed‑session bargaining
Summary
The council approved Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 24 — implementing a flexible work schedule for specified sworn Los Angeles Police Department personnel — following closed‑session bargaining instructions. An amendment incorporating another council motion passed unanimously; the final item passed 10–3.
The Los Angeles City Council approved a negotiated amendment to MOU No. 24 — Amendment No. 1 — to allow a flexible work schedule for specified sworn members of the Los Angeles Police Department, including lieutenants and below.
The council initially met in closed session to receive and provide bargaining instructions. The City Attorney advised that bargaining instructions and certain related motions are appropriate for closed session discussion; if council desired to approve the MOU it would then do so in open session. Following the closed session, the council convened in open session and took public action on Item 30, MOU No. 24, Amendment No. 1.
Councilmember Misakowski moved approval of the amendment in open session. The council first voted on an amending motion incorporating a Ridley‑Thomas motion; that amendment passed on the roll call 13–0. On the item as amended the council recorded a final vote of 10 ayes, 3 noes, and approved the amendment and MOU implementation. The Mayor was to be notified of the council’s action.
Why it matters: The change implements a pilot or program of flexible scheduling for specified sworn personnel, which will alter work patterns for certain LAPD units. Several council members raised concerns about the adequacy of public notice and potential operational effects — including fatigue, response times and implementation logistics such as payroll and scheduling systems — before casting their votes. One member discussed an incident involving a fatigued officer as part of his explanation for voting no.
Public input: The chair declared the public hearing both open and closed, and no members of the public came forward for this item. Most of the debate took place in council chambers and in closed session among council and bargaining teams.
Implementation and follow‑up: The council’s open session approval follows bargaining instructions provided in closed session and is subject to the terms negotiated by the city’s bargaining representatives. The council record indicates staff and the appropriate departments will oversee implementation consistent with the approved MOU language and bargaining outcomes.
Votes: An amending motion that incorporated the Ridley‑Thomas proposal passed 13–0; the amended item passed 10–3. The action will be forwarded to the Mayor for signature or further action.
