By Veronica Miller
LOS ANGELES, CA- The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is asking voters for the power to be able to remove the elected Sheriff, Alex Villanueva, from office.
Through a change in the county’s charter, the Board of Supervisors would need approval from the voters to be able to have the authority to be able to remove the Sheriff; if the measure passes, the board would then need four of the five Supervisors to vote in favor of the removal.
The LA Times states that “under this proposal the board would have the authority to remove a sheriff for serious misconduct, including flagrant or repeated neglect of duties, misappropriation of public funds, willful falsification of an official statement or document, or obstruction of an investigation into the sheriff’s conduct by the inspector general or Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.”
This plan was proposed by Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Hilda Solis, who have been vocally critical of Villanueva. They believe this plan is needed because the board has been “limited in its ability to serve as a sufficient check against the sheriff’s flagrant disregard of lawful oversight and accountability.” 
Supervisor Kathryn Barger spoke out against the timing of the proposal since Villanueva is seeking reelection in a runoff against former Long Beach Police Chief Robert Luna.
The Sheriff’s Department, through a spokesperson, called this plan a “politically motivated stunt,” adding the plan is “creating a pathway for politicians to remove a duly elected sheriff (and) is a recipe for corruption, particularly when ‘cause’ is whatever suits their political agenda.”
Villanueva has been accused several times of opposing and stonewalling county watchdogs by not cooperating with their investigations.
And, just last week, Villanueva and his second in command resisted subpoenas to testify in front of the oversight commission during a public hearing about “deputy gangs.”
“Deputy gangs” have been around for decades and include deputies with alleged ties to groups that have been accused of using aggressive tactics and violence, according to the community.
Andrés Kwon, an attorney and organizer with the American Civil Liberties Union of California, stated, “Villanueva’s defiance of subpoenas and other resistance to oversight underscore the need for the Board of Supervisors to have the proposed powers.”
Kwon added, “Villanueva wasn’t the first, he certainly won’t be the last—unless we act now.”
So let’s take a look at Holly Mitchell and Hilda Solis.
A recent quote from Holly Mitchell:
And then there’s Hilda Solis who voted to put a defund the police to the tune of $900 million per year measure on the ballot.
So these leftist LA Supervisors want to pass a law that gives them the power to kick Sheriff Villanueva out of office with a simple 4 out of 5 vote.
Ad hominin… comment should be deleted…
Note the use of names, the ‘research’ that was likely involved to produce the “quotes” and background context, the “leftist” label as to the LA BOS…
If this post is left to stand, fine… but so should those who do the same, “the other way”…
I could easily go ‘ad hominin’ against the poster… but it would either ‘not see the light of day’, or be deleted with an admonition from “Moderator”…
And I strongly suspect this comment won’t see the light of day…
Seems like ‘moderation’ is being used in a very weird way…
Keith wants to put this on the BOS rather than looking at the big picture here.
The first problem is you have the weirdly archaic system where the BOS controls budget and policy for the county including the Sheriff’s Department but they have no authority over the sheriff. So what happens if they ask the sheriff to submit to oversight and the sheriff tells them to go pound sand? They could cut the budget for the sheriff’s department, I suppose but it doesn’t seem to be a good system.
You raise the issue of white supremacy but ignore the prevalence of Proud Boys and Deputy Gangs – effectively white supremacy groups operating in the LA Sheriff’s Department.
This article I think lays it out pretty well – link
It’s a mess and to a real extent, Bill is correct, you are throwing mud at people rather than diving into the complex issue and the archaic powersharing between two elected bodies that don’t really mesh at this point.
Not to be argumentative, or ‘contrarian’, having two elected bodies “that don’t really mesh at this point”, is the point of what representative democracy is all about… if they “mesh” all the time, that is the essence of ‘totalitarianism‘… think about it…
Particularly over the last couple of decades, people are strongly divided… division is our greatest weakness, and our greatest strength… not in the way we’ve experienced it, as in the ‘double bell curve’, where folk concentrate on the second deviation either right/left, conservative/progressive (choose your analogy), of where we are/should strive to be.
You appear to want ‘reforms’ that lead to hegemony, totalitarianism, control/power, rather than rational, ‘what’s best for the ‘weal’ of the people [everyone](rather than the ‘will’ of the people, at any given point of polling)… I can’t get there…
In your riposte you have done pretty much exactly what Keith O did… two sides of the same second deviation coin…
One thing I would point out – there are normally checks and balances. So if the President commits misconduct, the congress has the ability to remove the president from office. In this case, the board of supervisors does not have any ability to do that under the current law and are seeking from the voters a means to do precisely that.
There are checks and balances… the electorate…
On that, we somewhat agree… but,
is one thing… giving the BOS a unilateral power to cancel one ‘election’ for someone ‘duly elected’, under the guise of ‘we were elected’, so we should be empowered to do it, is counter-intuitive…
“High crimes and misdemeanors” is the standard for the “removal from office/impeachment” not “policy differences”…
With the rise of the ‘constitutional sheriffs’ movement and their close connection to the domestic terrorist Oath Keepers group, I think that it is long past time for sheriffs to be under the oversight of elected county officials.
This is a huge problem and it is going to increase. The only lever the counties have is funding and there is no way they can cut funding for public safety. 4 out of 5 is a high bar to get booted out. This is long overdue.
Does that include “duly elected” sheriffs?
The part about,
is interesting… I don’t believe a County BOS should be the “watchdogs”… should be Grand Juries and/or “the public”… not another “elected body”, except to raise flags, and ask the Grand Jury or the public to recommend/act on those ‘flags’…
The “resisting subpoenas” thing is truly troubling… reminds me of a former “chief executive” who has (and his minions, and no, that’s not an ad for a movie)… but the remedy, in my view is NOT within the ‘pay grade’ of the BOS… too political… more a matter for the voters… and/or the Courts… that behavior is unacceptable, clearly.
What if the majority of folk elected as BOS were “Proud Boys”, “Oath Keepers” … and the Sheriff was a “progressive”? Should the ‘weird’ BOS be able to dismiss an elected Sheriff?
Be careful what you advocate for.
That said, if you are advocating for an appointed Sheriff, rather than elected, you should fully understand what that might mean, if tables were reversed… and you should act locally, State-wide to ensure that the laws are changed to have the Sheriff (or DA, or head of Elections, etc.) be “appointed”… depends how much faith you want to put in the ‘hands of a few’… could lead to a scenario you might just cringe as having…
Think “National Socialist Party”… that did not turn out well…
They provide the budget. Seems they’d have oversight for that reason alone.
Note the headline… not just budget… “power to remove sheriff”
I have been opining as to the topic. In,
you have moved the goalposts… whatever… I don’t believe I said anything about ”funding”… Keith O did… no push-back from you on that…
As to “funding” I will opine that is within the BOS purview… and, depending how they choose to ‘de-fund’, the elected Sheriff will be the elected Sheriff. I opine that they cannot ‘de-fund’ that elected position… the Sheriff may not have any employees, staff, resources, but still, an elected officer… is that what you suggest? I think, NOT.
Separation of powers… good thing…
But, you’re missing my ‘thrust’… I do not know how anyone who have read my posts on this could have missed it.
But, I’m just an igornt inginear… only one Poli Sci class in college, not a business owner, and only 35 + years in public service… so yeah, discount my perspectives, flaunt your own, and feel free to ban me from posting.
Haven’t seen anything that would warrant this comment. Just different perspectives, which is the way it’s supposed to be on here.
Taking another tack…
If the BOS was suggesting a power to ‘impeach”, I’m listening, if it were for “high crimes and misdemeanors”… yet, in David’s post, he has a false analogy…
The US House of Representatives, have the power to “impeach” (bring charges against) the President… however, those charges are “tried” in the US Senate (separate body), presided over by a member of the Supreme Court (yet another separate body)…
The President cannot be removed from elective office without 3 separate bodies involved…
In the LA situation, it appears that they want to be the ONLY body involved to remove an elected official… would they feel that way with one of ‘their own’? No other elected or judicial bodies?
False analogy…
There is another option available to the voting public:
A recall election is a procedure by which, in certain polities, voters can remove an elected official from office through a referendum before that official’s term of office has ended. Wikipedia