SR 01-12-2021 7A
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: January 12, 2021
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 21
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lane Dilg, Interim City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to establish a Public Safety
Reform and Oversight Commission
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading
an ordinance adopting Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.50 to create and
establish an 11-member Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission.
Summary
The City of Santa Monica has long been committed to fair, safe, and effective
community policing. In the wake of national and community-wide calls for racial justice,
reforms to law enforcement and divestment/investment in strategies to enhance public
safety and community wellbeing, in the summer of 2020, the Interim City Manager
appointed a 15-member Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee (PSRAC) to facilitate
a community engagement process and make recommendations in response to calls for
reform. Following review of recommendations put forth by members of the PSRAC
(“PSRAC Recommendations”), on September 8, 2020, the City Council directed staff to
return with a draft ordinance based on the PSRAC Recommendations to create and
establish an 11-member police commission.
Consistent with Council direction, staff now recommends that the City Council introduce
for first reading an ordinance (Attachment A) adopting Santa Monica Municipal Code
Chapter 2.50 to create and establish an 11-member Public Safety Reform & Oversight
Commission (“Commission”) to, as described in detail below, promote, in partnership
with the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD), best practices in community-based
policing for the fair treatment and safety of all and work with SMPD and experts to
recommend as appropriate proposed reforms to SMPD policies and practices. Staff
7.A
Packet Pg. 198
2 of 21
further recommends that an Inspector General be retained to facilitate the work of the
Commission.
The proposed ordinance is intended to follow and implement the PSRAC
Recommendations, which are included as Attachment B. Differences between the
PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed ordinance are described below and also
identified in a side-by-side comparison contained in Attachment C.
Background
Following the worldwide civic demonstrations that occurred in reaction to the killings of
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and too many others, the City Council
gave direction in June 2020 to engage the community and explore implementations of
proposed reforms in Santa Monica. After an open call for participants which yielded
more than 100 applications, on July 10, 2020, the Interim City Manager appointed 15
individuals with diverse knowledge and expertise as advocates for racial justice,
residents, business owners, law enforcement officers with a commitment to public
safety reform, mental health providers, and social services providers to a Public Safety
Reform Advisory Committee to the Interim City Manager (PSRAC) to advise on
proposals for public safety reform.
Working together with City staff, the PSRAC facilitated several community input
processes, including but not limited to a community listening session on July 22, 2020,
and reviewed local, regional, and national proposals advocating for changes to policing
and the ways that cities conceive of and allocate funds to achieve public safety. All full
committee meetings were live streamed to the City’s YouTube channel and
preserved there for viewing afterwards. Following initial presentations from SMPD and
the Community Services Department, as well as the community listening session, the
PSRAC created six working groups to allow for deeper analysis of key issues to be
considered for reform. The six working groups were focused on: Use of Force, Alternate
Response Strategies, Community Engagement, Police Culture and Training, Budget
Allocations, and Civilian Oversight.
7.A
Packet Pg. 199
3 of 21
Each working group met with subject matter experts and community stakeholders,
reviewed efforts that have been undertaken regionally and nationally, and consulted
with relevant City staff to assist in the development of recommendations to the Interim
City Manager. The PSRAC Recommendations document was generally endorsed by
the non-law enforcement members of the PSRAC. The creation of a Civilian Oversight
entity was a centerpiece of the PSRAC Recommendations for two reasons: first, there
was a clear desire from the community and committee members to increase two-way
engagement with the SMPD in ways that would build both trust amongst community
members and accountability within the department. Second, the broad range of reforms
included in the PSRAC Recommendations were developed with recognition that it would
take months to rewrite policies and change practices, and that the recommendations
required more than a one-time action, but rather ongoing engagement and a continued
commitment to organizational change. Further recommendations will continue to be
reviewed and implemented by staff as directed by Council on September 8, 2020, in
coordination with the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
June 9, 2020
(Attachment D)
Signed onto the Obama Foundation Mayor’s Pledge to engage
the public in review and reform of police use of force policies
September 8, 2020
(Attachment E)
Approved recommendation from the Public Safety Reform
Advisory Commission to develop an ordinance that would create
a civilian oversight commission.
Discussion
The creation of civilian oversight bodies with respect to local policing has been shown to
provide benefits to both communities and police departments. When done well, civilian
oversight helps to protect civil rights, support effective policing, ensure greater
accountability, manage risk of lawsuits, build bridges between the police and the
communities they serve, and increase confidence in police when they are seen as
responsive to their civilian oversight body. In 2015, the federal government made its first
formal recommendation for civilian oversight as “important in order to strengthen trust
with the community” via the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The
7.A
Packet Pg. 200
4 of 21
recommended ordinance is consistent with best practices identified by reform
organizations and police commission models in other jurisdictions.
The Ordinance is drafted to accord with the PSRAC Recommendations unless
otherwise stated. Its provisions have been drafted by the City Attorney’s Office in
coordination with the City Manager’s Office and Human Resources Department to
ensure that the Commission as envisioned by the PSRAC is responsive to Santa
Monica’s needs and in alignment with budget and staffing realities as well as existing
Memoranda of Understanding for City staff.
As the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) has
noted, with respect to community police commissions, there are “several possible paths
to success. Oversight must take into consideration core values and principles; must
allow for flexibility and context; stakeholder input, experienced practitioners input.”
Similarly, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing found that: “Some form of
civilian oversight of law enforcement is important in order to strengthen trust with the
community. Every community should define the appropriate form and structure of
civilian oversight to meet the needs of that community.”
As described by NACOLE, the primary models for civilian oversight commissions are as
follows:
1. The investigation-focused model involves routine, independent investigations
of complaints against police officers, which may replace or duplicate police
internal affairs processes, though non-police civilian investigators staff them.
2. The review-focused model concentrates on commenting on completed
investigations after reviewing the quality of police internal affairs investigations.
Recommendations may be made to police executives regarding findings, or there
may be a request that further investigations be conducted. A review board
composed of citizen volunteers commonly heads this model, and they may hold
7.A
Packet Pg. 201
5 of 21
public meetings to collect community input and facilitate police-community
communication.
3. The auditor/monitor model focuses on examining broad patterns in complaint
investigations including patterns in the quality of investigations, findings, and
discipline rendered. Further, in some cities that use this model, auditor/monitors
may actively participate in or monitor open internal investigations. This model
often seeks to promote broad organizational change by conducting systematic
reviews of police policies, practices or training, and making recommendations for
improvement.
These models are not mutually exclusive, and, as explained below, several
commissions are some hybrid of these models.
In 2016 and 2017, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
collaborated with the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) to conduct an electronic
survey and in-person roundtable to develop a better understanding of civilian oversight
programs in the 69 MCAA agencies in the United States, which represent the 69 largest
law enforcement agencies in the country. Of the 52 agencies that responded, 41 had
some sort of civilian oversight or review program. The report expressly noted that
significant variation of oversight across jurisdictions made it difficult to make broad
generalities, further supporting that while community oversight is considered best
practice, the contours of that oversight are tailored to particular communities and their
law enforcement agencies.
The most common review boards were review focused. Twelve of the agencies reported
a hybrid model. NACOLE webinar and training information also reports on the popularity
of hybrid models nationwide, which reflects the importance of each city developing
oversight programs that match their unique local needs.
What NACOLE Model Most Closely Fits
7.A
Packet Pg. 202
6 of 21
Investigative 20% Totals 28 agencies
Reviews Police Actions
40%
Auditor/Monitor of policy,
training, and investigations
10%
Other
30%
Totals 12 agencies
Source: Stephens, Darrel W. Ellen Scrivner and Josie F. Cambareri. 2018. Civilian
Oversight of the Police in Major Cities. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services.
The following section provides a summary of commission models employed in
neighboring jurisdictions.
Los Angeles County Police Oversight Bodies
Burbank (1950)
5 members, appointed by
City Council
The Police Commission, on behalf of the community of
Burbank at the direction of the City Council, shall
provide civilian oversight to advocate best law
enforcement policies for the greater good of the
Burbank community.
The Commission monitors the Burbank Police
Department to achieve and maintain a culture of
respect and professionalism through accountability
and transparency in all of its actions.
Long Beach (1990)
11 members, appointed by
Mayor and City Council
The Citizen Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) is
one of six chartered commissions established to
provide feedback and input to the City Manager,
Mayor, and City Council on specified matters. The
CPCC investigates allegations of police misconduct
and reviews the service provided by members of the
Long Beach Police Department.
Los Angeles City (1920)
5 members, appointed by
Mayor; City Council
confirms
The Board of Police Commissioners serves as the
head of the Los Angeles Police Department,
functioning like a corporate board of directors, setting
policies for the department and overseeing its
operations. The Board works in conjunction with the
Chief of Police, who acts as a chief executive officer
and reports to the Board (but is appointed by the
7.A
Packet Pg. 203
7 of 21
Mayor).
Los Angeles County (1916)
9 members, appointed by
Board of Supervisors,
based on recommendation
by the Executive Officer, in
consultation with County
Counsel
The purpose of the Civilian Oversight Commission is
to improve public transparency and accountability with
respect to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, by providing robust opportunities for
community engagement, ongoing analysis and
oversight of the department's policies, practices,
procedures, and advice to the Board of Supervisors,
the Sheriff's Department and the public.
Inglewood (2004 - currently
inactive)
11 members, 2 appointed
by Mayor; 2 appointed by
each Council Member; 1
appointed by Chief of
Police
The purpose of the Citizen Police Oversight
Commission is to provide a means for prompt,
impartial, and fair investigation of all citizen complaints
brought by individuals against the Inglewood Police
Department, and to provide for community
participation in setting and reviewing police
department polices, practices, and procedures.
Pasadena (2020 -
Commissioners not yet
appointed)
11 members, appointed by
City Council and Mayor.
One from each Council
district; one at large
(Mayor nominates); 3 from
community organizations.
The purpose of the commission is to enhance,
develop, and strengthen community-police relations
and review and make recommendations regarding the
ongoing operations of the police department to the
chief of police, city manager, and/or city council.
In November 2020, SMPD reached out to the California Police Chiefs Association to
collaborate on an electronic survey to get a better understanding of oversight programs
in California. The survey was open from December 7 to December 15, 2020 and
received 30 responses. Of those, five responders had existing oversight programs and
four were at some stage of development. While the outreach was limited by time and
number of responders, some trends in response were similar to the larger survey
outreach by COPS and MCCA described above. The most common oversight programs
were review focused, with hybrid models as the next most common. 45% of
respondents (5) had a review focused model and 36% (4) had or were in the process of
creating an oversight program that would likely be classified as a hybrid model.
7.A
Packet Pg. 204
8 of 21
Additional findings of note included:
Format of Oversight Program
Inspector General 2 agencies
Oversight Commission 2 agencies
Combination or Other 6 agencies*
*Note: excluded 2 responses that responded as not having an oversight program.
What types of incidents does oversight program examine?
Internal policies and practices 2
Internal and external policies and
practices
2
Use of Force 2
Other 5*
*Note: excluded 1 response that responded as not having an oversight program.
Here, the other category included citizen complaints, ability to receive information on
officer-involved shootings or significant cases, policies, training; use of force, weapons
discharge, and finally all matters but primarily post investigation.
Finally, when discussing unintended consequences, the responding agencies both cited
issues with the hired auditor, both in regards to exceeding scope and the importance of
the quality and objectivity of the auditor. When reporting on benefits, many agencies
cited increased community trust and legitimacy, as well as increased community
engagement.
A key consideration when structuring a police commission is how to grant the
Commission access to the information that they need to make their work impactful
without compromising law enforcement or personnel information. Many larger
jurisdictions have hired a full-time Inspector General (IG) to serve as an independent
employee with the ability to view internal documents and provide data at the appropriate
level to their affiliated police commission. In Sacramento, the IG is based out of the
Office of Public Safety Accountability; both the City and the County of Los Angeles have
dedicated Offices of Inspectors General.
7.A
Packet Pg. 205
9 of 21
Details of the authority and access levels of the aforementioned Inspector Generals can
be found in Attachment E.
Proposed Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission
Following Council direction that staff bring back an ordinance based on the PSRAC
Recommendations to establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
(“Commission”), staff recommends establishing a Commission as follows:
Membership
As directed by Council on September 8, 2020, the Commission would comprise 11
members, to be appointed by Council. While the PSRAC Recommendations
contemplated 3-year terms, the proposed ordinance calls for staggered 4-year terms,
consistent with City Charter Section 1002. Consistent with the PSRAC
Recommendations, members of the Commission should have a significant commitment
to the public safety and wellbeing of the City, as well as knowledge of or experience
with law enforcement, public safety policies and issues, or social services policies and
issues. Sworn officers and nonsworn employees of the SMPD are not eligible to serve
as commissioners.
The PSRAC recommended that eligibility to serve on the Commission extend to
individuals who reside, work, are a student, or own property in the City. Consistent with
Council direction, this language is included in the draft ordinance. However, this
recommendation varies from most other City boards and commissions, for which City
residence is required for membership. Moreover, in 2018, voters approved an
amendment to the City Charter expanding eligibility to serve on three City boards and
commissions to “residents” of the City rather than “qualified electors” – aligning this
eligibility requirement with the remainder of the City’s non-charter boards and
commissions. This measure ensured that membership on all City boards and
commissions was open to non-citizen residents as well as eligible voters. Recognizing
this recent step forward in inclusive representation, and to provide consistency with
other City boards and commissions, staff recommends that Council require that
members of the Commission be City residents.
7.A
Packet Pg. 206
10 of 21
The PSRAC recommended that the Commission include “a young adult, 18 years of
age or older, for a one-year term, and two additional non-voting positions for
participating members under 18 years of age.” Due to the sensitive and at times
disturbing/graphic nature of the information that will be shared with Commission
members, staff from the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and Police
Department concur that all members (whether voting or non-voting) should be over the
age of 18. Given the significance of staff’s concern related to minors serving on the
Commission, staff’s proposed ordinance incorporates the spirit of the PSRAC
recommendation but alters it to provide that two of the 11 Commission members must
be between the ages of 18-22 at the time of appointment, and that both have the ability
to vote on commission matters.
Inspector General
The PSRAC Recommendations placed high importance on promotion of transparency
and access to data, specifically asking that the Commission “have access to City data
and information needed to carry out its duties.” To achieve the goals set forth for
promotion of transparency and to ensure that the Commission can succeed in fulfilling
its purpose, staff recommends and has incorporated into the proposed ordinance that
an Inspector General be retained to support the work of the Commission.
The Inspector General would be retained by the City Manager’s Office, either by
contract with an entity similar to OIG Group, which is leading the independent review of
the events of May 31, 2020, or as a limited term employee. The Inspector General
would report to and receive direction from the Commission.
Prior to beginning work, the Inspector General would be required to satisfy background
check requirements sufficient to enable access to criminal history and other law
enforcement sensitive information as well as SMPD disciplinary records and personnel
files, including the disciplinary records and personnel files of sworn SMPD officers.
7.A
Packet Pg. 207
11 of 21
In order to facilitate the Commission’s work, the Inspector General would also be given
access to SMPD data and records regarding uses of force, stops, arrest, convictions,
and such other matters as the Commission may request, which data and records could
be disclosed to the Commission to the extent permitted by State and Federal law.
Staff Support
In addition to the Inspector General, the Commission would receive staff support as
provided to other City boards and commissions. Specifically, the Commission would
receive support from a staff liaison from outside of the Police Department as well as
from a Deputy City Attorney, both of which would have these responsibilities added to
their current duties.
In addition to the above, the Police Chief or their authorized representative would attend
each Commission meeting.
Training
Pursuant to the proposed ordinance, all members of the Commission would be required
to receive training relevant to providing oversight of law enforcement. This training
would include the SMPD Community Academy to provide all members with a
foundational basis for understanding the scope and activities of the SMPD, as well as
other training identified by the Commission and within the scope of the available budget,
which may include programs offered by the National Association of Civilian Oversight of
Law Enforcement, the Association of Local Government Auditors, or other similar
bodies.
Powers and Duties
The proposed ordinance sets forth the following powers and duties for the Commission:
• Review SMPD policies and practices and make recommendations regarding
those policies and practices to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council.
7.A
Packet Pg. 208
12 of 21
The commission is expected continuously to evaluate best practices in
community-oriented policing and is empowered to make recommendations to the
City Manager, City Council, and the Chief of Police as appropriate.
Following community engagement through and review of the recommendations
of the PSRAC, the Santa Monica Police Department is undertaking review of its
policies related to use of force and related topics. The Commission would be
empowered to review and make recommendations regarding these and other
policies and practices of the SMPD to ensure that the Department continually
strives for and achieves best practices.
• Working through the Inspector General, receive information relating to any
violations of procedures or policies in connection with disciplinary investigations,
proceedings, and actions, and make recommendations regarding any such
violations to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council.
The City’s current practice regarding investigations into misconduct among sworn
police staff is that such investigations are handled exclusively through the
SMPD’s Internal Affairs Division, with limited exceptions. State law imposes strict
limitations both on how disciplinary investigations are conducted (Public Safety
Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Government Code Sections 3300-3313)
and on access to peace officer disciplinary records and personnel files (Penal
Code Sections 832.7-832.8). Further, any additional oversight may require the
City to meet and confer with employee organizations depending on the oversight
proposed. The Commission will be able to review compliance by SMPD with
policies and procedures governing disciplinary proceedings and actions via
reports produced by the Inspector General at their request and will have the
ability to make recommendations back to the Chief of Police, the City Manager,
or the City Council as appropriate regarding perceived violations of policies or
procedures.
7.A
Packet Pg. 209
13 of 21
• Collaborate with the SMPD to sponsor and promote ongoing interaction and trust
building between the SMPD and community members, including providing
channels and opportunities for ongoing dialogue between the SMPD and
community members in both organized and informal settings.
The Commission will have the ability to create and lead their own community
engagement efforts, which could include sponsoring and/or promoting ongoing
interaction between SMPD and community members, including restorative
justice, mediation, and trust building.
Through the course and scope of their regular activities, the Police Department is
engaged with various members and member groups in the Santa Monica community.
These groups include neighborhood associations, business district organizations, non-
profits, and various religious groups. Most often, the SMPD are invited guests to these
groups in their meetings. Commission members could participate in SMPD community
engagement efforts as co-hosts, or passive participants as appropriate, with recognition
that the commission will be a Brown Act body and cannot have more than a quorum
attend any particular community meeting. The SMPD could initially serve as an
intermediary between these groups and the Police Commission and bridge the two
together so that they could form their own relationship(s) and attend meetings as the
two parties deem comfortable.
With respect to community complaints, the Commission could hold community
conversations to address incidents that do not rise to the level of thresholds for review,
potentially involving the use of a professional facilitator. SMPD staff could participate in
these discussions alongside community members, but could not be mandated to do so.
• Promote transparency and availability to the public of SMPD data and records.
State law imposes strict limitations on access to peace officer and custodial
officer personnel records, including citizen complaints against officers and
7.A
Packet Pg. 210
14 of 21
internal affairs investigation reports regarding alleged misconduct. See Penal
Code Sections 832.7-832.8. Case law has recognized a limited exception to the
confidentiality of such personnel records, holding that, absent unique, individual
circumstances, officers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their
name, salary information, and dates of employment. See International
Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, SFL-CIO v. Superior
Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 335; Commission on Peace Officer Standards &
Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 300.
Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1421 amended Penal Code Sections 832.7 and
832.8 to make certain peace officer and custodial officer personnel records
subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”). In
particular, the following records from peace and custodial officer personnel
records are now required to be disclosed:
a. Any record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident
involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or
custodial officer.
b. Any record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident in
which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a
person results in death or great bodily injury.
c. Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made
by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer
or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of
the public.
d. Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made
by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a
peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting,
investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting
of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial
officer, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false
7.A
Packet Pg. 211
15 of 21
statements, filing false reports, destruction of evidence or falsifying or
concealing of evidence.
SB 1421 defines what constitutes a record for purposes of disclosure (including
but not limited to, for example, investigative reports, video evidence, and autopsy
reports) and allows redactions of disclosable records only for specified reasons.
SB 1421 also allows limited delays in disclosure of records relating to the
discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in great bodily injury or death in
certain situations, including during an active criminal or administrative
investigation of the use of force.
Additionally, effective July 1, 2019, AB 748 requires the disclosure of video and
audio recordings (including body and dash camera footage and recordings of 911
calls) that relate to a “critical incident” -- i.e. that depict either an incident
involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial
officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial
officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury. AB 748 allows
redactions and withholdings for certain purposes specified in the statute and
allows limited delays in disclosures if disclosure would “substantially interfere”
with an active criminal or administrative investigation.
In response to PRA requests submitted by media and others, Santa Monica has
disclosed records covered by SB 1421 and AB 748 relating to 41 incidents
occurring between January 1, 1999 and March 13, 2020: 14 where peace officers
discharged firearms at persons, 25 where peace officers used force that resulted
in death or great bodily injury or where suspects suffered injuries from canine
bites, and 2 involving a sustained finding of dishonesty by peace officers. The
majority of records that Santa Monica released pertain to injuries to suspects
resulting from canine bites, such as puncture wounds. These injuries may not
meet the definition of “great bodily injury” given that neither SB 1421 nor AB 748
define this term. Nevertheless, the City disclosed such records while reserving its
7.A
Packet Pg. 212
16 of 21
right to challenge a conclusion that such injuries from canine bites constitute
“great bodily injury” within the meaning of SB 1421 and AB 748.
State law strictly limits the disclosure of criminal history information, making it a
misdemeanor to disclose it to an unauthorized recipient. See Penal Code
Sections 11105 and 11142 (state criminal history information); 13300 and 13303
(local summary criminal history information); and State law also limits the
disclosure of information relating to criminal investigations and complaints or
requests for assistance. See Government Code Section 6254(f).
State law also specifies the information that must be disclosed by a law
enforcement agency with respect to complaints and requests for assistance, with
exceptions where disclosure would endanger the safety of persons involved in an
investigation or the successful completion of the investigation or a related
investigation. Government Code Section 6254(f)(2)(A). With respect to arrests,
State law also specifies that information which must be disclosed, with
exceptions again where disclosure would endanger the safety of persons
involved in an investigation or the successful completion of the investigation or a
related investigation.
The Santa Monica Police Department makes the required information regarding
calls for service and arrests available on its website:
https://santamonicapd.org/DailyReports.aspx.
To avoid conflict with the statutory limitations on disclosure of local summary
criminal history, this information is made available only for the current 10-day
window. The SMPD also currently produces and posts in real time crime data:
https://www.crimemapping.com/map/ca/santamonica.
Through the Department website (santamonicapd.org), SMPD also produces
demographic arrests, citation, and field contact data on a monthly basis. The
SMPD policy manual is also posted and available on the website,
https://powerdms.com/public/SANTAMONICACA/tree.
7.A
Packet Pg. 213
17 of 21
In accordance with State law, SMPD reports crime statistics, use of force data, and
Hate Crime data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). SMPD is also working
to report all relevant Racial and Identity Profiling Act data to DOJ in advance of the
mandated reporting date for an agency the size of SMPD of April 1, 2023.
Pursuant to the draft ordinance, the Inspector General would have access to relevant
records and data that cannot be publicly disclosed or posted, and the Inspector General
will create and provide reports to the Commission that summarize the relevant data at
their direction. The Inspector General would provide Commission members with the
facts they need to determine whether processes or policies should be revised/
reviewed. The Commission will be able to share aggregate data with the public.
• Collaborate with the SMPD and the community to promote restorative justice.
The Commission will have the ability to conduct conversations and forums focused on
restorative justice in keeping with its broader community engagement role as a
convenor. This can include engaging with community partners to provide training and
educational opportunities regarding cultural competency, strategies for repairing
community trust, and other issues as identified by the Commission.
• Evaluate and make recommendations to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City
Council regarding ideas for implementing best practices in community-oriented
policing and reimagining public safety and wellbeing.
The Commission is expected to stay abreast of innovations in policing and of legislative
trends both locally and across the country that relate to police practices. To do this, the
Commission can perform their own research, engage subject matter experts, and invite
relevant City staff to participate in Commission meetings to discuss the efficacy of a
particular policy change in Santa Monica.
7.A
Packet Pg. 214
18 of 21
• Review and make recommendations to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City
Council regarding the proposed budget for the SMPD.
Consistent with other City boards and commissions, the Commission will have a
role in the annual budget process for SMPD in alignment with the City’s budget
calendar, and can provide recommendations to the SMPD, City Manager, or City
Council throughout that process.
Initial Review of Complaint Handling
In its initial vision, the PSRAC called for the Commission “to develop, recommend and
help implement proposed reforms for handling complaints, including proposed reforms
for the intake, review, investigation, and oversight of disciplinary decisions and policies,
with an initial set of recommendations to be completed within the first 90 days.” This
language is included in the proposed ordinance consistent with Council direction. Given
that some of the data needed to complete the review as scoped by the PSRAC is
protected by state and local law, the review desired by PSRAC could proceed in two
ways: members could perform a review of existing SMPD processes and policies to
include updated Use of Force policies, or a more in depth review of the pertinent data
could be initiated upon the hiring of the inspector general facilitated by a review of
specific records as requested by the Commission. Given the time needed to hire an
Inspector General and to develop an approach, staff recommends changing the time set
in the proposed ordinance for initial recommendations to be completed to 150 days, with
the recognition that the Commission could present the report earlier should they
complete the work within a shorter timeframe.
SMPD and City staff commit to working with the Commission to develop, recommend,
and help implement proposed reforms for handling complaints, including proposed
reforms for the intake, review, and investigation of complaints, and oversight of
disciplinary decisions and policies, keeping in mind existing policies and applicable law
regarding personnel investigations and disciplinary processes. In particular, the
disciplinary appeals process is outlined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections
2.04.440 et seq. and Section 6.06 of the POA MOU. Section 6.06 B articulates the
7.A
Packet Pg. 215
19 of 21
process associated with a disciplinary appeal for a removal, demotion, or suspension.
Such appeals may be resolved via a full evidentiary hearing before the Personnel Board
or a hearing officer. The final disposition of either process is subject to judicial review,
should the employee seek such relief.
Funding and Budget
The annual budget prepared by the City Manager and approved by the City Council
shall contain such appropriations as the City Council deems necessary and appropriate
to enable the Commission to exercise its powers and provide Commissioners with
reasonable training. This will include adequate staff support from the City Manager’s
Office, City Attorney’s Office, and Police Department. Any donations or grants solicited
by the Commission shall be deposited in a special account in the Special Revenue
Fund to be expended only for the activities of the Commission.
Cooperation with Other Groups and Individuals
The Commission shall consult and maintain contact with groups and individuals who are
concerned with the planning and provision of oversight regarding law enforcement
activities and with groups and individuals who are concerned with the public safety and
wellbeing of the City and those who reside, work, are students, and own property in the
City.
Reports
The Commission shall render written reports of its activities to the City Council not less
than once every six months and at such other times as requested by the City Council.
Transition Provisions
Finally, the proposed ordinance contains transition provisions to allow for staggered
terms of Commissioners following their initial appointment:
1. The two commissioners between the age of 18 and 22 when appointed shall
classify themselves by lot such that one’s term shall expire on the second
succeeding July 1, and the other’s shall expire on the fourth succeeding July 1.
7.A
Packet Pg. 216
20 of 21
2. The other nine commissioners shall classify themselves by lot such that two shall
serve terms expiring on the next succeeding July 1, two shall serve terms
expiring on the second succeeding July 1, two shall serve terms expiring on the
third succeeding July 1, and three shall serve terms expiring on the fourth
succeeding July 1.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
adoption of the proposed ordinance. There are, however, financial and staffing
considerations of which Council should be aware.
Staff estimates a full-time Inspector General position to cost approximately $200,000-
$225,000, including benefits. This estimate is based on a review of relevant positions on
Transparent California, as well as comparison to the City salary schedule for the
Internal Audit Manager and Deputy City Attorney II positions, and would be validated,
should the position be created as a full-time position through a compensation study
conducted by the City’s Human Resources Department. Before returning with a
proposal to create this as a full-time position, however, staff would consider the cost
effectiveness of additional options, including retaining these services on a contract basis
through a group like the OIR Group, which is leading the independent review of the
events of May 31st, or as a part-time or limited term position. Budget changes related to
the Inspector General would be made by deleting one or more vacant SMPD positions
and included in the FY 2020-21 Midyear Budget report coming to Council on January
26, 2021. SMPD has also committed to allocating budgeted funds from its budget to a
training budget for Commission members that is commensurate with the training
allocations for SMPD officers.
In addition to these costs, staff anticipates that, in its initial years, the Commission
would require approximately one-third of the time of the Special Assistant to the City
Manager on Equity and Community, one-third of the time of a Deputy City Attorney, and
7.A
Packet Pg. 217
21 of 21
support from SMPD staff to support requests related to inquiries and investigations from
the Commission.
Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission
B. PSRAC Recommendations (Web Link)
C. Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed
Ordinance
D. 6/9/20 13 Item - Obama Foundation Mayor’s Pledge to engage the public in
review and reform of police use of force policies (Web Link)
E. 9/8/20 Council Meeting Minutes Approving recommendation from the Public
Safety Reform Advisory Commission to develop an ordinance that would create a
civilian oversight commission. (Web Link)
F. Written Comments
7.A
Packet Pg. 218
1
City Council Meeting: January 12, 2021 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ADDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.50 TO
ESTABLISH A PUBLIC SAFETY REFORM AND OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the City Council unanimously voted to sign on to the
Obama Foundation Mayor’s Pledge to engage the public in review and reform of public
safety and policing, including police use of force policies; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2020, the Interim City Manager, following a publicly
noticed application process, appointed a 15-member Public Safety Reform Advisory
Committee (“PSRAC”) that was tasked with crafting recommendations regarding reforms
to the City’s approach to public safety and policing, including in particular
recommendations regarding the Santa Monica Police Department’s (“SMPD’s”) use of
force policies and changes that should be made to the City’s budget to better achieve
public safety and wellbeing; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2020, the PSRAC held its first meeting and created
subgroups for six areas of key concern: civilian oversight, use of force, alternate
responses, culture and training, community engagement, and budget allocations; and
WHEREAS, the PSRAC engaged in an extensive process to receive community
input, evaluate reform proposals, and make recommendations on reforms to City policies
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
2
and practices concerning public safety and wellbeing, including meetings with residents,
community groups, experts, and SMPD representatives, and review of reports, articles
and studies concerning best practices for 21st Century community-oriented policing; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2020, thirteen members of the PSRAC issued a 25-
page document, setting out its recommendations (“PSRAC Recommendations”), with a
4-page appendix with additional detail regarding recommendations for civilian oversight,
a 15-page appendix with additional detail for recommendations regarding modifications
to use of force policies, and a 3-page appendix setting out additional suggestions from
individual committee members; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2020, the two SMPD officers who were part of the
PSRAC issued an 11-page response to the PSRAC Recommendations noting certain
recommendations they believed were already implemented or had plans in place for
implementation, certain recommendations they supported, and certain recommendations
they believed required additional review and exploration; and
WHEREAS, with respect to civilian oversight, the PSRAC Recommendations were
the establishment of a nine-voting-member (with two additional non-voting members)
Civilian Public Safety Oversight and Reform Commission whose mission would be to
promote the safety and wellbeing of people in Santa Monica in collaboration with SMPD,
help provide oversight of the SMPD, and co-produce public safety by implementing the
best practices in community-oriented policing for the fair treatment, safety, and wellbeing
of all, and whose scope of activities would include: (1) review SMPD policies and practices
and make recommendations for the improvement of public safety and wellbeing; (2)
collaborate with SMPD to sponsor and/or promote ongoing interaction between SMPD
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
3
and community members, including restorative justice, mediation, and trust building; (3)
review and provide input on the biannual proposed budget for the SMPD; (4) promote
transparency of SMPD data and publication of vital data and records to the public; (5)
evaluate ideas for reimagining public safety and wellbeing and make recommendations
to the City Manager; and (6) review disciplinary proceedings and final actions taken by
SMPD for violations of policies; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the City Council received updates on racial
equity work undertaken in Santa Monica since June 9, 2020, including a report on the
PSRAC Recommendations, and recommendations from staff on actions to be taken in
response to the PSRAC Recommendations, including a recommendation from staff that
the Council direct staff to return with a draft ordinance to create and establish a nine-
member Police Engagement and Accountability Commission to be tasked with the
following responsibilities: (1) collaborating with SMPD to sponsor and promote ongoing
interaction between SMPD and community members, including initiating restorative
justice, mediation, and/or trust building programs; engaging and educating residents,
through neighborhood associations and other community groups, to modify residents’
concept of public safety, relationship with public safety providers, and use of police
services; and developing a sustained program of community engagement; (2)
implementing and promoting a community anti-bias program to raise awareness about
biased reporting of perceived criminal behavior and reduce community calls that
disproportionately and unfairly single out individuals of color; (3) promoting transparency
of SMPD data and records; (4) reviewing and providing input on use of force policies;
and; (5) and working with SMPD, the City Attorney’s Office, the City Manager’s Office,
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
4
and experts to develop, recommend and implement a mechanism for community
accountability related to disciplinary proceedings and final actions taken by SMPD for
violations of policy; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the City Council unanimously voted to direct
staff to return with a draft ordinance to create and establish a standing commission, with
11 members, with their purview to be based on the PSRAC Recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
a proposed ordinance to establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission;
and
WHEREAS, Section 1000 of the Santa Monica Charter authorizes the City Council
to create by ordinance such advisory boards or commissions as in its judgment are
required, and grant them such powers and duties as are consistent with the provisions of
the Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.50 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code
to read as follows:
Chapter 2.50 Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
2.50.010 Findings and Purpose
The City Council finds and declares:
(a) Community-oriented policing envisions an environment where law
enforcement co-produces public safety with the community and views police as guardians
of public safety, not warriors;
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
5
(b) Community-oriented policing relies on development of trust and legitimacy
between the police and the community and this trust building involves being transparent,
promoting procedural justice, and involving the community in policy setting and oversight
of police activities;
(c) The establishment of a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
will provide a vehicle to promote, in partnership with the Santa Monica Police Department
(SMPD), the best practices in community-oriented policing for the fair treatment, safety,
and wellbeing of all; and
(d) The establishment of a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
will provide a body to work with SMPD and experts to develop, recommend, and help
implement proposed reforms for handling complaints regarding SMPD conduct, including
proposed reforms for the intake, review, and investigation of, and oversight of disciplinary
decisions and policies relating to, such complaints.
2.50.020 Creation of Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
(a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the City Charter, a Public Safety Reform and
Oversight Commission is created. The Commission shall consist of eleven members and
shall be appointed by the City Council. In addition to the requirements for appointment
of commissioners set out in this Section below, the Commission and commissioners shall
be subject to all the terms of Article X of the City Charter setting forth procedures for
appointment of commissioners, terms, and meetings.
(b) All commissioners shall:
(1) reside, work, be a student, or own property in the City;
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
6
(2) have a significant commitment to the public safety and wellbeing of the
City and those who reside, work, are students, or own property in the City;
and
(3) have knowledge of or experience with law enforcement, public safety
policies and issues, or social services policies and issues.
(c) At all times, two commissioners shall be individuals who were between the
ages of 18 and 22 at the time of appointment. These commissioners shall not be required
to have knowledge or experience satisfying subsection (b)(3) above at the time of
appointment.
(d) Sworn officers and non-sworn employees of the SMPD shall not be eligible to
serve as commissioners. Practicing attorneys who handle, or are members of firms or
entities that currently handle, criminal or civil matters involving the SMPD also shall not
be eligible to serve as commissioners.
(e) Within one year of appointment, each commissioner shall participate in training
relevant to providing oversight of law enforcement. Such training shall include
participation in the SMPD Community Academy. The Commission shall identify
reasonable additional required training, which may include programs offered by the
National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, the Association of Local
Government Auditors, or other similar bodies.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
7
2.50.030 Staff and Support
(a) The Commission shall be supported by an Inspector General, who shall be a
City employee or contractor retained by the City Manager’s Office but shall report to and
receive direction from the Commission.
(1) The Inspector General shall be required to satisfy background check
requirements sufficient to enable access to criminal history and other law
enforcement sensitive information as well as SMPD disciplinary records and
personnel files, including the disciplinary records and personnel files of
sworn SMPD officers.
(2) The Inspector General shall have access to and may review SMPD
disciplinary records and personnel files, including the disciplinary records
and personnel files of sworn SMPD officers, for the purpose of gathering
information regarding compliance with, or violations of, procedures and
policies governing disciplinary investigations and actions. To the extent
permitted by State and Federal law, the Inspector General may disclose
information and make reports to the Commission regarding compliance
with, or violations of, procedures and policies governing disciplinary
investigations and actions.
(3) The Inspector General shall have access to SMPD data and records
regarding uses of force, stops, arrest, convictions, and such other matters
as the Commission may request. To the extent permitted by State and
Federal law, the Inspector General may disclose information and make
reports to the Commission regarding these matters.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
8
(b) The SMPD, City Manager’s Office, and City Attorney’s Office shall assign staff
liaisons to assist the Commission, including to assist in obtaining City data and
information needed by the Commission.
(c) The Police Chief or their authorized representative shall be present at each
Commission meeting.
2.50.040 Powers and Duties
The Commission shall have the power and the duty to:
(a) Review SMPD policies and practices and make recommendations
regarding those policies and practices to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council.
(b) Working through the Inspector General, receive information relating to any
violations of procedures or policies in connection with disciplinary investigations,
proceedings, and actions, and make recommendations regarding any such violations to
the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council.
(c) Collaborate with the SMPD to sponsor and promote ongoing interaction and
trust building between the SMPD and community members, including providing channels
and opportunities for ongoing dialogue between the SMPD and community members in
both organized and informal settings.
(d) Promote transparency and availability to the public of SMPD data and
records.
(e) Collaborate with the SMPD and the community to promote restorative
justice.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
9
(f) Evaluate and make recommendations to the Police Chief, City Manager,
and City Council regarding ideas for implementing best practices in community-oriented
policing and reimagining public safety and wellbeing.
(g) Review and make recommendations to the Police Chief, City Manager, and
City Council regarding the proposed budget for the SMPD.
2.50.050 Funding and Budget
(a) The annual budget prepared by the City Manager and approved by the City
Council shall contain such appropriations as the City Council deems necessary and
appropriate to enable the Commission to exercise its powers and provide commissioners
with reasonable training required in accordance with Section 2.50.020(e) above.
(b) Any donations or grants solicited by the Commission shall be deposited in
a special account in the Special Revenue Fund to be expended only for the activities of
the Commission.
2.50.060 Cooperation with Other Groups and Individuals
The Commission shall coordinate its activities with other Boards and Commissions
and shall consult and maintain contact with groups and individuals who are concerned
with the planning and provision of oversight regarding law enforcement activities and with
groups and individuals who are concerned with the public safety and wellbeing of the City
and those who reside, work, are students, and own property in the City.
2.50.070 Reports
The Commission shall render written reports of its activities to the City Council not
less than once every six months and at such other times as requested by the City Council.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
10
2.50.080 Transition Provisions
(a) In accordance with Section 1002 of the City Charter, of the commissioners
first appointed to the Commission:
(1) The two commissioners between the age of 18 and 22 when appointed
shall classify themselves by lot such that one shall serve a term expiring on the
second succeeding July 1, and the other shall serve a term expiring on the fourth
succeeding July 1.
(2) The other 9 commissioners shall classify themselves by lot such that
two shall serve terms expiring on the next succeeding July 1, two shall serve terms
expiring on the second succeeding July 1, two shall serve terms expiring on the
third succeeding July 1, and three shall serve terms expiring on the fourth
succeeding July 1.
(b) Within 90 days after the first official meeting of the Commission, the
Commission shall prepare and present to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council
a set of initial recommendations regarding proposed reforms for handling complaints
regarding SMPD conduct, including proposed reforms for the intake, review, and
investigation of complaints and the oversight of disciplinary decisions and policies.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies
and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the
provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
11
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
GEORGE S. CARDONA
Interim City Attorney
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Draft Ordinance Establishing Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight
PSRAC Recommendations Proposed Ordinance Staff
Recommended
Change to
Proposed
Ordinance
Title: Civilian Public Safety Oversight
and Reform Commission (“CPSORC”)
Title: Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission (“PSROC”)
If Council wishes
to change the title,
staff also
previously
recommended
Police Engagement
and Accountability
Commission.
Preamble:
The Public Safety Reform Advisory
Committee (Committee) has developed
recommendations based on input from the
community, Committee members,
experts, and literature on best practices
for 21st Century community-oriented
policing.
We recognize that the City Council and
City Manager may have additional ideas
to help shape these proposals.
Community-oriented policing envisions
an environment where law enforcement
coproduces public safety with the
community. It views police as guardians
of public safety, and not warriors.
Community-oriented policing relies on
development of trust and legitimacy
between the police and the community.
Part of this trust building involves being
transparent, promoting procedural justice
and involving the community in policy
setting, and oversight of police activities.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that the City Council establish a Civilian
Public Safety Oversight and Reform
Commission (“CPSORC”) as a vehicle
to:
A. Promote, in partnership with
SMPD, the best practices in
community policing in our City
for the fair treatment and safety
of all.
B. Work with SMPD and experts to
develop, recommend and help
implement proposed reforms for
2.50.010 Findings and Purpose
The City Council finds and declares:
(a) Community-oriented
policing envisions an environment where law
enforcement co-produces public safety with the
community and views police as guardians of
public safety, not warriors;
(b) Community-oriented
policing relies on development of trust and
legitimacy between the police and the
community and this trust building involves
being transparent, promoting procedural
justice, and involving the community in policy
setting and oversight of police activities;
(c) The establishment of a
Public Safety Oversight and Reform
Commission will provide a vehicle to promote,
in partnership with the Santa Monica Police
Department (SMPD), the best practices in
community policing for the fair treatment,
safety, and wellbeing of all; and
(d) The establishment of a
Public Safety Oversight and Reform
Commission will provide a body to work with
SMPD and experts to develop, recommend,
and help implement proposed reforms for
handling complaints regarding SMPD conduct,
including proposed reforms for the intake,
review, and investigation of, and oversight of
disciplinary decisions and policies relating to,
such complaints.
See also recitations in proposed ordinance.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
handling complaints, including
proposed reforms for the intake,
review, investigation, and
oversight of disciplinary
decisions and policies.
Mission and Scope:
Promote the safety and wellbeing of
people in Santa Monica in collaboration
with SMPD and help provide oversight of
the SMPD. Co-produce public safety by
implementing the best practices in
community policing for the fair treatment,
safety, and wellbeing of all.
Scope of activities includes:
◦ Review SMPD policies and practices
and make recommendations for the
improvement of public safety and
wellbeing.
◦ Collaborate with SMPD to sponsor
and/or promote ongoing interaction
between SMPD and community
members, including restorative justice,
mediation, and trust building.
◦ Review and provide input on the
biannual proposed budget for the SMPD.
◦ Promote transparency of SMPD data
and publication of vital data and records
to the
public.
◦ Evaluate ideas for reimagining public
safety and wellbeing and make
recommendations to the City Manager.
◦ Review disciplinary proceedings and
final actions taken by SMPD for
violations of policies.
Community Engagement:
The CPSORC shall also have an objective
and goal of promoting positive
engagements between the SMPD and
individuals and/or community
organizations.
The CPSORC should work
collaboratively with SMPD and develop
programs that:
2.50.040 Powers and Duties
The Commission shall have the power and the
duty to:
(a) Review SMPD policies and
practices and make recommendations
regarding those policies and practices to the
Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council.
(b) Working through the
Inspector General, receive information relating
to any violations of procedures or policies in
connection with disciplinary investigations,
proceedings, and actions, and make
recommendations regarding any such
violations to the Police Chief, City Manager,
and City Council.
(c) Collaborate with the SMPD
to sponsor and promote ongoing interaction
and trust building between the SMPD and
community members, including providing
channels and opportunities for ongoing
dialogue between the SMPD and community
members in both organized and informal
settings.
(d) Promote transparency and
availability to the public of SMPD data and
records.
(e) Collaborate with the SMPD
and the community to promote restorative
justice.
(f) Evaluate and make
recommendations to the Police Chief, City
Manager, and City Council regarding ideas for
implementing best practices in community
policing and reimagining public safety and
wellbeing.
(g) Review and make
recommendations to the Police Chief, City
Manager, and City Council regarding the
proposed budget for the SMPD.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
• Promote restorative justice and healing;
• Provide channels and opportunities for
ongoing dialogue, including in both
organized and informal settings;
The CPSORC should review and consider
proposals for a voluntary mediation
program for the handling of some types
of complaints that may otherwise not rise
to traditional thresholds for review. For
example, providing for an opportunity to
mediate selected complaints of
discourtesy and bias with the purpose of
building understanding and transforming
the relationship between SMPD officers
and the communities they serve.
FURTHERMORE,
The Committee has concluded that
transparency, accountability, and the
appropriate handling of complaints of
misconduct by Sworn Officers are of vital
importance to the building of trust and
legitimacy between the community and
the police.
Accordingly the Committee recommends
that the City Council instruct that within
ninety days of the CPSORC’s first
official meeting, the CPSORC should
report to the City Manager and/or the
City Council its recommendations for
implementation of updated procedures
and policies for the review, investigation
and oversight of complaints.
The recommendations should be
consistent with the best practices for
accountability in
community-oriented policing and be
designed to address the following:
1) Transparent, effective processes to
receive and respond to external
misconduct complaints;
2) Transparent, effective processes to
receive and respond to internal
misconduct complaints;
3) Delineate policies about how and by
whom misconduct complaints are
investigated;
2.50.080 Transition Provisions
(b) Within 90 days after the first
official meeting of the Commission, the
Commission shall prepare and present to the
Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council
a set of initial recommendations regarding
proposed reforms for handling complaints
regarding SMPD conduct, including proposed
reforms for the intake, review, and
investigation of complaints and the oversight
of disciplinary decisions and policies.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
4) Develop policies for investigating and
disciplining sexual misconduct and
intimate partner violence;
5) Transparent, effective processes for
conducting misconduct investigations;
6) Ensure supervisors discipline officers
who engage in misconduct;
7) Integrate the principles of procedural
justice into disciplinary processes;
8) Use early intervention systems to track
officer behavior and address officer needs
and deficiencies at the earliest
opportunity;
9) Pursue accountability even after formal
disciplinary deadlines expire;
10) Identify, maintain, and share material
evidence relating to officer misconduct or
credibility with prosecutors in criminal
cases;
11) Inform officers of their right to file
complaints with outside agencies;
12) Establish clear protocols for
determining who investigates and
prosecutes officer-involved crimes and
shootings; and
13) Identify provisions in collective
bargaining agreements that weaken the
accountability
systems.
Meetings:
The SMPD Chief or delegate shall meet
at least monthly with the CPSORC.
The CPSORC shall meet as often as it
deems necessary to carry out its duties.
Members:
The CPSORC shall have nine
commission members. The nine members
of the CPSORC shall be appointed by the
City Council. To include representation
by young people of color, we further
propose one position be designated for a
young adult, 18 years of age or older, for
a one year term, and two additional non-
2.50.020 Creation of Public Oversight and
Reform Commission
(a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the City
Charter, a Public Safety Oversight and Reform
Commission is created. The Commission shall
consist of eleven members and shall be
appointed by the City Council. In addition to
the requirements for appointment of
commissioners set out in this Section below,
the Commission and Commissioners shall be
subject to all the terms of Article X of the City
Charter setting forth procedures for
appointment of Commissioners, terms, and
meetings.
(b) All Commissioners shall:
Staff recommends
residence
requirement to
align with Charter
language in Charter
sections 1009,
1011, 1013, and
1015.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
voting positions for participating
members under 18 years of age.
Each member shall serve for a three-year
term, after which they may be
reappointed, at the discretion of the City
Council.
The CPSORC members shall be
classified into three staggered group so
that each year three of the nine members’
terms shall expire. For the initial
appointments three Class I members
shall be appointed for a one-year term,
three Class II members shall be appointed
for a two-year term, and three Class III
members shall be appointed for a three-
year term. At the expiration of these
initial terms, the City Council shall
appoint replacements (including
reappointment) for full three-year terms.
Qualifications for CPSORC members.
Each person seeking appointment should
have the following qualifications:
o A resident, student, employee, or
property owner in the City, or a person
who otherwise has a significant
commitment to the wellbeing of the City
and its inhabitants.
o Experience with issues of wellbeing of
the City’s inhabitants, including work in
the areas of social services or public
safety.
o Knowledge or experience with law
enforcement, policing and/or public
safety policies, practices or issues.
Employees and sworn officers of SMPD,
and anyone with a direct or indirect
conflict of interest, shall not be eligible to
serve on this civilian body.
Training for CPSORC members.
Each CPSORC member shall participate
in training that covers a range of topics
relevant to providing oversight of law
enforcement issues. Such training could
include programs offered by the National
Association of Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement or the Association of
(1) reside, work, be a
student, or own property
in the City;
(2) have a significant
commitment to the
public safety and
wellbeing of the City
and those who reside,
work, are students, or
own property in the
City; and
(3) have knowledge of or
experience with law
enforcement, public safety
policies and issues, or social
services policies and issues.
(c) At all times, two commissioners
shall be individuals who were between the ages
of 18 and 22 at the time of appointment. These
commissioners shall not be required to have
knowledge or experience satisfying subsection
(b)(3) above at the time of appointment.
(d) Sworn officers and non-sworn
employees of the SMPD shall not be eligible to
serve as Commissioners. Practicing attorneys
who handle, or are members of firms or entities
that currently handle, criminal or civil matters
involving the SMPD also shall not be eligible
to serve as Commissioners.
(e) Within one year of appointment,
each commissioner shall participate in training
relevant to providing oversight of law
enforcement. Such training shall include
participation in the SMPD Community
Academy. The Commission shall identify
reasonable additional required training, which
may include programs offered by the National
Association of Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement, the Association of Local
Government Auditors, or other similar bodies.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
Local Government Auditors. The City
shall provide funding so that each
CPSORC member can receive the
appropriate training.
See also Charter Section 1002.
Appointment. Term.:
The members of each of such boards or
commissions shall be appointed by the City
Council. They shall be subject to removal by
motion of the City Council adopted by at least
five affirmative votes. The members thereof
shall serve for a term of four years and until
their respective successors are appointed and
qualified.
The members first appointed to such boards
and commissions shall so classify themselves
by lot that the term of one of each of their
number shall expire each succeeding July 1st.
Where the total number of the members of a
board or commission to be appointed exceeds
four, the classification by lot shall provide for
the pairing of terms to such an extent as is
necessary in order that the terms of at least
one and not more than two shall expire in each
succeeding year.
Thereafter, any appointment to fill an
unexpired term shall be for such unexpired
period.
Staffing and Budget:
The City shall provide funding for
appropriate staff support to carry out the
CPSORC’s required activities.
The CPSORC shall be responsible for
hiring a director to support the
CPSORC’s activity.
Such person will become a city employee
and be entitled to access all information
within the scope of the CPSORC’s
activities.
The budget for the balance of fiscal 2021
shall be $______, which shall be
reallocated from the Public Safety budget.
2.50.030 Staff and Support
(a) The Commission shall be
supported by an Inspector General, who shall
be a City employee or contractor retained by
the City Manager’s Office but shall report to
and receive direction from the Commission.
(1) The Inspector
General shall be required to
satisfy background check
requirements sufficient to
enable access to criminal
history and other law
enforcement sensitive
information as well as
SMPD disciplinary records
and personnel files,
including the disciplinary
records and personnel files
of sworn SMPD officers.
(2) The Inspector General
shall have access to and may
review SMPD disciplinary
records and personnel files,
including the disciplinary
records and personnel files
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
of sworn SMPD officers, for
the purpose of gathering
information regarding
compliance with, or
violations of, procedures and
policies governing
disciplinary investigations
and actions. To the extent
permitted by State and
Federal law, the Inspector
General may disclose
information and make
reports to the Commission
regarding compliance with,
or violations of, procedures
and policies governing
disciplinary investigations
and actions.
(3) The Inspector
General shall have access to
SMPD data and records
regarding uses of force,
stops, arrest, convictions,
and such other matters as the
Commission may request.
To the extent permitted by
State and Federal law, the
Inspector General may
disclose information and
make reports to the
Commission regarding these
matters.
(b) The SMPD, City Manager’s
Office, and City Attorney’s Office shall assign
staff liaisons to assist the Commission,
including to assist in obtaining City data and
information needed by the Commission.
(c) The Police Chief or their
authorized representative shall be present at
each Commission meeting.
2.50.050 Funding and Budget
(a) The annual budget prepared
by the City Manager and approved by the City
Council shall contain such appropriations as
the City Council deems necessary and
appropriate to enable the Commission to
exercise its powers and provide
Commissioners with reasonable training
required in accordance with Section
2.50.020(e) above.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
(b) Any donations or grants
solicited by the Commission shall be deposited
in a special account in the General Fund to be
expended only for the activities of the
Commission.
See also Charter Section 1001.
Appropriations.
The City Council shall include in its annual
budget sufficient appropriations of funds for
the efficient and proper functioning of such
boards and commissions.
Information access:
The CPSORC shall have access to City
data and information needed to carry out
its duties.
Such access shall include internal SMPD
data on use of force, stops, arrests, and
such other
matters as the CPSORC shall require.
The CPSORC shall work with the SMPD
and the City staff to provide transparency
and public reporting of data that the
CPSORC concludes is in the public
interest.
2.50.060 Cooperation with Other Groups
and Individuals
The Commission shall coordinate its
activities with other Boards and Commissions
and shall consult and maintain contact with
groups and individuals who are concerned with
the planning and provision of oversight
regarding law enforcement activities and with
groups and individuals who are concerned with
the public safety and wellbeing of the City and
those who reside, work, are students, and own
property in the City.
2.50.070 Reports
The Commission shall render written
reports of its activities to the City Council not
less than once every six months and at such
other times as requested by the City Council.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
2.50.080 Transition Provisions
(a) In accordance with Section
1002 of the City Charter, of the commissioners
first appointed to the Commission:
(1) The two commissioners
between the age of 18 and 22 when
appointed shall classify themselves by
lot such that one shall serve a term
expiring on the second succeeding
July 1, and the other shall serve a term
expiring on the fourth succeeding July
1.
(2) The other 9
commissioners shall classify
themselves by lot such that two shall
serve terms expiring on the next
succeeding July 1, two shall serve
terms expiring on the second
succeeding July 1, three shall serve
terms expiring on the third succeeding
July 1, and three shall serve terms
expiring on the fourth succeeding July
1.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Differences between the PSRAC Recommendations and the proposed Ordinance [Revision 1] (4313 : Establish Public Safety
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gil Leib <gilrleib@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 6, 2021 5:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A
EXTERNAL
I am writing in support of Item 7A on the Council agenda scheduled
for January 12‐‐the ordinance to establish the Public Safety Reform
and Oversight Commission. This measure can help Santa Monica
deal with the systemic racism so prevalent in our society.
Gil Leib
601 California Ave. #104
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7.A 01/12/21
1 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Song, Wansun <Wansun.Song@cit.com>
Sent:Monday, January 4, 2021 11:02 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:In Support of Ordinance to Establish a Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission.
EXTERNAL
I support the above captioned ordinance. Community oriented policing is necessary for the police to be a partner rather
than an adversary in our community.
Wansun Song
This email message and any accompanying materials may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information of CIT Group
Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, "CIT"), and are intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient of this communication, any use, disclosure, printing, copying or distribution, or reliance on the contents, of this
communication is strictly prohibited. CIT disclaims any liability for the review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or the
taking of any action in reliance upon, this communication by persons other than the intended recipient(s). If you have received this
communication in error, please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission, and immediately delete and destroy the
communication and any accompanying materials. To the extent permitted by applicable law, CIT and others may inspect, review,
monitor, analyze, copy, record and retain any communications sent from or received at this email address.
Item 7.A 01/12/21
2 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Morgenstern <marcjmorgenstern@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 1:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: 1/12/20 Council Agenda, Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
As a member of the Public Safety Reform and Advisory Committee, I am pleased to see the Committee's
September 2020 recommendations incorporated so fully and fairly in the proposed Ordinance to Establish a
Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission. I commend the Interim City Manager and City staff for their
able efforts on it.
The proposed Ordinance faithfully reflects the Committee's intent to establish a Commission to work closely
with the Police Department to co‐produce public safety based on maximizing the Santa Monica community's
overall wellbeing and equity.
I urge you to approve the Ordinance as drafted.
Sincerely yours,
Marc Morgenstern
125 Pacific St.
310-321-2247
Item 7.A 01/12/21
3 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:George Brown <gbrown341@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 10:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for Agenda Item 7.A. -- Draft Ordinance to Establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I fully support the draft ordinance to establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission, listed as item 7.A on
the City Council agenda for tomorrow.
As a member of the Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee (PSRAC), I believe the draft ordinance adheres closely
to the recommendations made by the committee, which the City Council unanimously embraced at its September 8, 2020
City Council meeting.
There are a few issues that may arise in the discussion of the ordinance, which do not necessarily need to be resolved
immediately, but should be taken into consideration as the Commission is being formed.
Inspector General concept.
The idea of having an inspector general seems to be a useful mechanism for supporting the Commission’s work. The
Commissioners would benefit from having an experienced and knowledgeable expert who has direct access to the
information required by the Commission to enable it to do its work. It will be important that any such person be
independent and free of direct or indirect conflicts, and that their principal objective is to support the Commission’s
work. The City Council should ensure that there is a sound process for selecting the inspector general, with appropriate
input from the newly constituted Commission.
Commissioner qualifications and appointments.
I urge the Council to embrace an approach to appointing Commissioners that ensures a diverse group of qualified
members for this new body. The Commissioners should have background and experience that would allow them to be
effective in this position. They should be aware of the historical challenges our country has had with policing, and
embrace the City’s values of promoting a diverse, inclusive, and safe community for all, and attentive to the need to
dismantle racism in all its forms.
I think that the qualifications should not be limited to residents as the staff report suggests. Rather, the current
definition used in the draft, including residents, workers, students, and property owners, allows the City Council to draw
on a wide group of capable stakeholders who have an interest in the wellbeing and safety of Santa Monica residents.
I very much appreciated the honor of serving on the PSRAC and helping to move our City forward.
I commend each of the Councilmembers for your commitment to the wellbeing of all Santa Monicans and your
recognition of the need to continue to work hard on pursuing good governance, eliminating systemic injustice, and
serving our community.
Thank you,
George Brown
Item 7.A 01/12/21
4 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
2
Item 7.A 01/12/21
5 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 11:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich;
Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 1/12/21 iterm 7-A: Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission -- SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
January 11, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/12/21 agenda item 7-A: Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission
The FOSP Board supports the establishment of a Public Safety Reform & Oversight Commission, as described in the proposed ordinance, and we also support retaining an Inspector General to facilitate the work of the
Commission.
Item 7.A 01/12/21
6 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Wittig, Michele A <Michele.Wittig@csun.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 12:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar
de la Torre; Gleam Davis
Subject:Coalition for Police Reform Support for Item 7A: Draft Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Re: Item 7A Council Agenda of January 12, 2021
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
The Santa Monica Coalition for Police Reform (CPR), a grassroots group promoting local police reform since 2015,
strongly supports the proposed Ordinance to establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission. We urge you
to adopt the ordinance in its current form.
We congratulate and thank the Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee, as well as city staff who have worked so hard
to develop the recommendations that have been incorporated into the draft ordinance.
The creation of the new Oversight Commission, with the addition of an independent Inspector General, will be a critical
mechanism for helping make Santa Monica safer and more inclusive. It will ensure accountability to all residents and
visitors. We look forward to seeing this Oversight Commission created and filled with a diverse group of Santa Monicans
who can represent us all in this important work.
While we regret that it took the terrible events of the past year to spark this action, we are grateful and proud that our
city is taking major steps to make Santa Monica better, safer, and more just.
Sincerely,
Michele Wittig, Convener
On behalf of the
Santa Monica Coalition for Police Reform
Item 7.A 01/12/21
7 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
Diversity & Inclusion Committee,
Santa Monica Democratic Club
January 11, 2021
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.50 TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC SAFETY REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION.
The Diversity & Inclusion Committee of the Santa Monica Democratic Club urges acceptance of the draft
ordinance in its entirety, including the creation of a diverse Oversight Commission, as proposed by the
City of Santa Monica’s 15-member Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee (“PSRAC”).
The PSRAC was established by the Interim City Manager on July 10, 2020, to investigate and “craft
recommendations regarding the Santa Monica Police Department’s use of force policies and changes
that should be made to the City’s budget to better achieve public safety and wellbeing.”
Our Diversity & Inclusion Committee has as its mission: “…to seek constructive activism through
advocating for legislation and awareness…” The committee was formed as a response to the
unwarranted deaths of people of color by the actions of poor policies for rules of engagement by law
enforcement officials across the nation. We know their names. Some of them include
Please consider with appropriate weight our request.
With respect,
Janine Bush, Chair
Rana Kirkland, Co-Vice Chair
Ed Hunsaker, Co-Vice Chair
Angela Scott
Patricia Hoffman
Dolores Sloan
Antonella Borjas
Ericka Lesley
Kymberli Miles
Donna Brown
Jeremy Bruck
Ebony Murphy
Keith Coleman
17 July 2014 Eric Garner
9 August 2014 Michael Brown
22 November 2014 Tamir Rice
4 April 2015 Walter Scott
5 July 2016 Alton Sterling
6 July 2016 Philando Castile
18 March 2018 Stephon Clark
13 March 2020 Breonna Taylor
25 May 2020 George Floyd
Item 7.A 01/12/21
8 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ralinda Harvey Smith <ralindah@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 9:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:January 12, 2021 Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
As a member of the Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee, I would like to express my full support for the draft
ordinance listed as item 7.A on the city council agenda meeting for January 12, 2021.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Ralinda Harvey Smith
Item 7.A 01/12/21
9 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Angela Scott <appointedscribe7@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 10:58 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock;
Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject:COMMENT FOR ITEMS 2B AND 7A OF JANUARY 12 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
EXTERNAL
January 11, 2021
RE: ITEM 2B - RECALL OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEM
ITEM 7A - ORDINANCE OF THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL ADDING SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.5 TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC SAFETY AND REFORM
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
Dear City Councilmembers:
First off, I'd like to say, "Welcome Aboard," to Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and De la Torre. I look forward to
experiencing the effective change you vowed to implement.
Item 2B
As a Pico-area resident, community activist, and education advocate, I support the continued leadership of
Mayor Sue Himmelrich and Mayor Pro-Tem Kristin McCowan. Mayor Himmelrich’s reputation as a voice that
represents Santa Monica’s diverse community is exemplified in her profession as an anti-poverty attorney at
Western Center on Law & Poverty representing. Considering more than 70% of residents are tenants, it’s
reassuring to know Mayor Himmelrich has an extensive background in housing and rent control. As we
navigate our way through this time of COVID-19 and civil unrest, Mayor Himmelrich’s policy insight is
invaluable.
She successfully spearheaded reform efforts to streamline our financial infrastructure by establishing an audit
committee. In an effort to improve the opportunities for marginalized residents, foster children in impact
cases, and students with special needs, Mayor Himmelrich sponsored Measures GS and GSH to raise money for
affordable housing and school improvement. Following the May 31 riot here in Santa Monica, Mayor
Himmelrich reached out to Black leaders/influencers to help address issues of systemic racism and public
safety concerns.
Her efforts led to the formation of the Black Agenda as well as the launching of the after-action review of the
May 31 mayhem. Instead of resting on laurels of past successes, Mayor Himmelrich continues to fight for
affordable housing, access to high-quality education, and decent living wages. Mayor Himmelrich has all the
characteristics of a strong leader – the kind of leader who will safely guide us through these unchartered
waters.
I fully support Mayor Pro-Tem Kristin McCowan. As a second-generation Santa Monican of Black and Italian
ancestry, Mayor Pro-Tem McCowan has the innate ability to view all issues from a Social Justice lens of equity.
Her previous experience working for FEMA, the Obama Administration, and Mayor Garcetti has more than
Item 7.A 01/12/21
10 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
2
equipped Mayor Pro-Tem McCowan for the difficult road ahead. More importantly, Mayor Pro-Tem McCowan
is a passionate advocate for systemic change. I believe Mayor Pro-Tem McCowan will effectively address
reimagining public safety, access to affordable housing, improve healthcare access, and economic stability –
issues that have disproportionately affected people of color during this pandemic.
ITEM 7A
Like many others, I regret the unfortunate events from May 31, 2020. This tragic event is a sore reminder of
the systemic racism that exists within law enforcement agencies. At the same time, this incident proved to be a
catalyst, igniting change in our beloved city. As an unapologetic advocate for criminal justice reform and
member of the Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee, I believe transparency and accountability are pivotal
in our work to reimagine public safety. The City Staff made a diligent effort in developing this robust Ordinance
based on the Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
I strongly urge the Council to approve the Ordinance to Establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission. Creation of an Oversight Commission that is diverse and inclusive of Santa Monica’s varied
communities is a crucial first step in addressing continued issues of implicit and explicit bias, racial profiling,
and microaggression that our community often experiences when dealing with SMPD. Among this inclusive
and diverse group of commissioners, at least two commissioners should be between the ages of 18 and 25. I
also believe adding an Inspector General as a conduit between the Commission and SMPD will meet the need
for an expert in law enforcement.
Accepting the Ordinance in its entirety based on the recommendations of the Public Safety Reform Advisory
Committee exemplifies the City Council’s commitment to reimagining community policing and creating a safer
and just city.
Respectfully,
Angela D. Scott
Pico Area Resident and Activist
Angela D. Scott
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make
progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
Item 7.A 01/12/21
11 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Wise <kwise2@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 12:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:public comment on City Council Meeting agenda item 7.A. January 12, 2021
EXTERNAL
Comment on Item 7.A. Public Safety Oversight Commission
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
I write to express my strong support for the proposed ordinance creating a Public Safety Oversight Commission. I urge
you to pass this ordinance without removing any of its provisions.
I also urge that in the creation the commission, you recruit the widest array of Santa Monicans including those with not
only different cultural, ethnic, racial, demographic and economic and points of view to serve.
With thanks to the members of the Public Safety Advisory Committee and the staff that wrote the ordinance from their
recommendations.
Sincerely yours, Karen Wise, Santa Monica, CA.
Karen Wise
kwise2@gmail.com
Item 7.A 01/12/21
12 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:jbartholomew4@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 12:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:First Reading - Ordinance to Create an Oversight Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilperson,
When you review the ordinance to create a Public Safely Reform and Oversight Commission tonight, I hope that you will
keep in mind the public response to the killing of George Floyd last spring. Good relations between the community and
the police are a high priority.
I read the section on the shape and form of the proposed ordinance, in the Staff Report 4313 on the Introduction and First
Reading of an Ordinance to establish a Public Safely Reform and Oversight Commission.
I see one glaring need in the ordinance. There needs to be one member in the Commission who is elected by Santa
Monica residents. Granted, I see a lot of community outreach provided for by the Commission and ongoing by the
SMPD. However, community relations would be well served by the election process for selecting one of the
Commission's members. The conversations would be more inclusive and free-flowing, and I believe that these
conversations would tap into a broader perspective on public needs than would organized meetings. I think that such
public discussions would provide for more genuine and inclusive public involvement in the dialog between the public and
the SMPD.
I am very happy that the formation of an oversight commission has reached this stage in its development and am hopeful
that a meaningful conclusion will be reached. Thank you for all your work!
Jan Bartholomew
Member of the Santa Monica Religious Society of Friends, Quakers
Resident and property owner in Santa Monica
Item 7.A 01/12/21
13 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Medlin <jmsamurai48@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Salary of Inspector General for New PUBLIC SAFETY REFORM & OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
EXTERNAL
Agenda, 12 Jan 2021, Ordinance Item 7, deals with the newly proposed PUBLIC SAFETY REFORM &
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION. The Staff report, page 20, states the new public volunteer Commission to be
managed by a new Inspector General - "Staff estimates a full-time Inspector General position to cost
approximately $200,000- $225,000, including benefits." How is it that a new Commission of Voluntary
members requires an “Inspector General” with a salary of $200,000 after the City fired over 200 people last
Fall?
Thank you,
John Medlin
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7.A 01/12/21
14 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Angela Scott <appointedscribe7@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:19 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock;
Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; Lane Dilg
Subject:COMMENT FOR ITEM 7A OF JANUARY 12 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
EXTERNAL
RE: ITEM 7A - ORDINANCE OF THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL ADDING SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.5 TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC SAFETY AND REFORM
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
Dear Councilmembers and Interim City Manager Dilg.
Like many others, I regret the unfortunate events from May 31, 2020. This tragic event is a sore reminder of
the systemic racism that exists within law enforcement agencies. At the same time, this incident proved to be a
catalyst, igniting change in our beloved city.
As an unapologetic advocate for criminal justice reform and member of the Public Safety Reform Advisory
Committee, I believe transparency and accountability are pivotal in our work to reimagine public safety. The
City Staff made a diligent effort in developing this robust Ordinance based on the Public Safety Reform
Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
I strongly urge the Council to approve the Ordinance to Establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission. The creation of an Oversight Commission that is diverse and inclusive of Santa Monica’s varied
communities is a crucial first step in addressing continued issues of implicit and explicit bias, racial profiling,
and microaggression that our community often experiences when dealing with SMPD. Among this inclusive
and diverse group of commissioners, at least two commissioners should be between the ages of 18 and 25.
I also believe adding an Inspector General as a conduit between the Commission and SMPD will meet the need
for an expert in law enforcement.
Accepting the Ordinance in its entirety based on the recommendations of the Public Safety Reform Advisory
Committee exemplifies the City Council’s commitment to reimagining community policing and creating a safer
and just city.
Respectfully,
Angela
Angela D. Scott
Item 7.A 01/12/21
15 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
2
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make
progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
Item 7.A 01/12/21
16 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Matt Stauffer <govaffairs@smchamber.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:Item 7.A - Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to establish a Public Safety Reform and
Oversight Commission
Attachments:Chamber to City Council re Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission 1-12-21.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please see the attached joint letter from the Chamber of Commerce and Santa Monica Travel & Tourism,
related to tonight's agenda item 7.A and the representation of the business community on any public safety
reform and oversight commission.
Thank you,
Matt Stauffer
Executive Vice President of External Affairs
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
(310) 393‐9825 ext. 1116
Item 7.A 01/12/21
17 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)
January 12, 2021
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Item 7.A - Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to establish a Public Safety Reform and Oversight
Commission
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members:
As you consider the creation of a public safety reform and oversight commission, we ask that you ensure that any such
commission has adequate representation from the business community.
The existing Public Safety Reform Advisory Committee has recommended that commission members “have a significant
commitment to the public safety and wellbeing of the City, as well as knowledge of or experience with law enforcement.”
Our local businesses clearly meet this requirement.
Santa Monica’s local businesses were on the front lines of the civil unrest that erupted last summer and have a unique
stake in ensuring that Santa Monica is a safe and inclusive place to visit, live, work, and play.
We respectfully ask that you consider business representation on any public safety reform and oversight commission.
Thank you,
Laurel Rosen, President/CEO Misti Kerns, President/CEO
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Santa Monica Travel & Tourism
Becky Warren, Elevate Public Affairs, Chair Damien Hirsch, JW Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot, Chair
Jeff Klocke, Pacific Park Albin Gielicz, Resident
Len Lanzi, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles LLP Neil Carrey, Baker & Hostetler, LLP
Dave Rand, Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP Jan Williamson, 18th Street Arts Center
Julia Ladd, Macerich/Santa Monica Place
Ellis O’Connor, MSD Hospitality LLC
Peter Trinh, Lanea/The Craftsman
Jamarah Hayner, JKH Consulting
Damien Hirsch, JW Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot
Item 7.A 01/12/21
18 of 18 Item 7.A 01/12/21
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Written Comments (4313 : Establish Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission)