Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council fails to reappoint Amalia Mejia to Police Oversight Commission after 4-3 vote; supermajority requirement cited
Summary
The Santa Ana City Council voted 4-3 against reappointing Amalia Mejia to the Police Oversight Commission. Supporters emphasized her academic background and local roots; opponents said her conduct showed anti-police bias. Clerk noted a supermajority of five votes was required for the appointment to carry.
A motion to appoint Amalia Mejia to the Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission failed after a 4-3 vote, with Mayor Amezcua and Councilmembers Pena Losa and Visera voting no. The council had been asked to reappoint Mejia to the civilian oversight body.
Councilmember Bailenson spoke against the reappointment, saying, "I cannot in good conscience support the reappointment... The commissioner has demonstrated a clear anti-police bias that undermines this responsibility," and cited a call for protestors to submit complaints after a UCI protest as evidence of activism rather than impartial oversight. Supporters, including Councilmember Hernandez, defended Mejia and described her expertise: "She is a PhD candidate at UCI. She's a Santa Ana resident and was born and raised in this community," Hernandez said, noting Mejia's public outreach to residents about avenues to file complaints. Councilmember Lopez and Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez also spoke in Mejia's favor, emphasizing diversity of viewpoints and the commission's educational role.
Madam Clerk later announced that, under the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the appointment required a supermajority of five affirmative votes to carry. A motion by Councilmember Hernandez, seconded by Councilmember Lopez to appoint Amalia Mejia received four votes in favor and three opposed; the clerk declared the motion failed for lack of the required five affirmative votes.
Outcome and context: The commission seat remains unfilled pending further council consideration or alternative nominations. The discussion highlighted competing views on how a civilian oversight body should balance independence, impartiality and outreach to residents with complaints about police conduct.
