Mayor Karen Bass has vetoed a proposed vote on a measure that would have overhauled disciplinary procedures for the Los Angeles Police Department, a move that could have removed the measure from the Nov. 5 ballot.

Inside her Veto letter Mayor Bass said the proposal, introduced to the City Council, would allow the police chief to fire officers accused of serious misconduct and “threaten to create bureaucratic chaos” within the LAPD.

Bass said: suggestionThe move will also review the composition of the ministry's three-member disciplinary committee, which it said had led to “ambiguous instructions” and “gaps in guidance.”

“I want to work with each of you to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review with officers, police departments and other stakeholders to ensure it is fair for everyone,” she wrote. “Until this joint review is completed and put before voters, the current system will remain in place.”

Bass issued the veto during the City Council's summer recess, during which City Council meetings are suspended for three weeks, and City Clerk Holly Walcott said the deadline to amend the ballot proposition language has now passed.

“If the Legislature does not override the veto or take any action, the bill will be removed from the vote,” Walcott said in an email.

The City Council's next meeting is scheduled for July 30. It's unclear whether they will be able to muster the 10 votes needed to override the mayor's veto.

By vetoing the bill, Bass effectively sided with LAPD brass, who warned last month that the proposal would create a two-tiered disciplinary system in which some violations would lead to firing by the chief and others would be sent to a disciplinary committee known as the Board of Rights.

Members of the mayoral-appointed Police Commission also criticized the ballot measure, saying they felt excluded from the discussion, with at least one commissioner expressing concern about the proposition's creation of a binding arbitration process for resolving cases in which officers challenge their firings.

City Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez expressed similar concerns, arguing that binding arbitration would lead to more lenient sentences for officers accused of serious misconduct. Soto-Martinez, who voted against the proposal last month, also argued that the scope of crimes that could lead to firing by the police chief was too narrow.

An aide to Soto-Martinez said Tuesday that her boss supports the veto.

City Councilman Tim McCosker, who spearheaded the ballot proposal, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the mayor's actions, which he argued threaten the most significant disciplinary reforms to the Los Angeles Police Department in more than two decades.

If Parliament fails to override the veto, Mr McCosker said the next opportunity for major reforms would not come until the 2026 election.

“This veto action puts us back to the status quo for at least two years,” he said in an interview.

McCosker said he is still considering how to respond to the mayor's veto. Four city council members — Soto Martinez, Nitya Raman, Eunis Hernandez and Karen Price — voted in favor of the bill during last month's City Council meeting. suggestion Request additional changes to the ballot measure.

Soto-Martinez criticized a decision that allows police chiefs to fire officers for some infractions but not others, saying it creates “ambiguity” in the disciplinary system.

The proposal failed by a 9-4 vote. If it had passed, it would have effectively killed the ballot measure for this year's election because the deadline for making significant changes had passed.

The proposal, which Bass rejected, had been touted as a way to roll back some of the changes brought about by Charter Amendment C, approved by voters in 2017, which paved the way for the LAPD to establish a civilian-only disciplinary board.

The ballot proposition would restructure the system so that each board would include two civilian members and one commander.

Representatives for the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents about 8,800 rank-and-file officers, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The union issued a statement last month saying the ballot proposition strikes the “right balance” on disciplinary issues and allows officers fired by the chief access to a binding arbitration appeals process.