The Antelope Valley Times

Your community. Your issues. Your news.

LA County Supervisors consider seeking power to remove sheriff [UPDATED]

by •

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 12, will consider a proposal that would ask voters in November to give the panel power to remove an elected sheriff from office for cause.

The motion by Board Chair Holly Mitchell and Supervisor Hilda Solis would direct county attorneys to draft the required documents and ordinance to put before voters on Nov. 8 that would allow the board to remove an elected sheriff with a four-fifths vote.

Under the motion, such a move would be allowed “for cause,” with such cause defined as “a violation of any law related to the performance of their duties as sheriff; flagrant or repeated neglect of duties; a misappropriation of public funds or property; willful falsification of a relevant official statement or document; or obstruction of any investigation into the conduct of the sheriff by the Inspector General, Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, or any government agency with jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation.”

In a statement to the Los Angeles Times, which first reported the board’s proposal, a sheriff’s department representative called the maneuver a “politically motivated stunt” orchestrated while Sheriff Alex Villanueva is seeking reelection.

“If passed, this illegal motion would allow corrupt supervisors to intimidate sheriffs from carrying out their official duties to investigate crime,” the representative told The Times. “Creating a pathway for politicians to remove a duly elected sheriff is a recipe for corruption, particularly when `cause’ is whatever suits their political agenda.”

Supervisor Janice Hahn told The Times she plans to support the motion – – giving it the three votes needed for approval on Tuesday. Supervisor Kathryn Barger told the paper she questioned the motivations of the proposal, questioning why it only targets the sheriff and not other county leadership positions.

Villanueva has repeatedly clashed with the board during his time in office, accusing members of defunding his agency at the expense of public safety, while also rebuffing subpoenas to appear before the county’s Civilian Oversight Commission. The motion does not mention Villanueva by name, but states, “The current sheriff has been openly hostile to oversight and transparency and has tested the functionality of existing oversight structures by consistently resisting and obstructing these systems of checks and balances.”

The motion also refers to previous sheriffs Lee Baca, who was sent to federal prison on corruption charges, and Peter Pitchess, who “resisted any involvement in the first internal investigation of deputy gangs from outside the department.” According to the motion, despite board efforts to provide oversight of the department, “the board has nevertheless been limited in its ability to serve as a sufficient check against the sheriff’s flagrant disregard of lawful oversight and accountability.”

If the motion is approved, county attorneys would draft the necessary paperwork to put the issue on the November ballot, then return to the board for a July 26 vote on whether to move forward. [View the motion here.]

UPDATE: Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s re-election campaign fired back Friday, July 8 — saying the supervisors have “no business” seeking such authority. “The people of Los Angeles would be better served if the supervisors spent their time doing their jobs by reducing homelessness and improving healthcare, instead of trying to seize even more power,” according to a statement from Villanueva’s campaign. “The sheriff is an elected position, just like the supervisors. Just as the sheriff has no business asking for power to fire the supervisors, the reverse is also true.”

Villanueva’s bid for a second term is headed for a November runoff against former Long Beach police Chief Robert Luna. They finished 1-2 in a nine- candidate field in the June primary.

33 comments for "LA County Supervisors consider seeking power to remove sheriff [UPDATED]"

  1. The county supervisors are elected offiicials too, so ask each of them if they would support a law that allowed a county executive to remove them from office despite having been elected by the voters. I highly doubt any of them would support something like they are attempting to put in place for another elected county official. Even though I agree with the supervisors that the sheriff needs to go, it should be by the will of the voters in a recall election since he is an elected official.

  2. The people elect their officers in government. The people not a board of supervisors or a hospital board should be allowed to remove elected people from office nor should a court with a lawyer wearing a choir robe. If the people want someone out, they can remove them with a recall like our D.A. or defeat them like the people in a Los Angeles city council district did on June 7. The people are the boss not the pols!

    • The people also elect the board of supervisors, and one thing the people task those supervisors to do is oversee the sheriff. Villanueva has consistently refused oversight, in direct defiance of the law. When courts rule that he is breaking the law he just ignores them. How can we expect to maintain the rule of law when the top law enforcement official refuses to comply with the law himself?

      Those tasked with oversight need to be given authority. It has to be properly limited, and the four of five majority as well as the requirement that they demonstrate cause seem appropriate. Other than the Trumpian “what we need is an authoritarian ruler to act unfettered and we’ll just hope it is in our behalf” reflex responses that some people demonstrate I don’t really see anyone having a problem with this.

      • The Board of Supervisors admits that the Sheriff is the head of his department. They are the budgetary officers of the County. It does not give them the authority to micro-manage another department. Also, you can have a trend where elected officials remove elected officials. This will have no end. The Legislature could then remove the Board of Supervisors, etc.

        • “Budgetary officers”? Let me guess, you made that up because you think it sounds good. It certainly isn’t how they are defined in law by state statutes. The sheriff’s department is not an independent fiefdom, much to the chagrin of the self declared master of all he surveys. Like all county departments it is subject to oversight by the executive authority of the board of supervisors. Unfortunately, Villanueva has repeatedly and unlawfully defied that oversight, just like his pal Baca did, so it seems necessary to give that oversight some teeth.

          Especially since so many spineless knuckleheads that vote are demonstrating that they will kowtow to a strongman no matter how many laws he breaks.

  3. The people elect their officers in government. The people not a board of supervisors or a hospital board should be allowed to remove elected people from office nor should a court with a lawyer wearing a choir robe. It people want someone out, they can remove them with a recall like our D.A. or defeat them like the people in a Los Angeles city council district did on June 7. The people are the boss not the pols!

  4. The ”L.A. County Board of Supervisors” has too much power already.. The Sheriff is ”ELECTED” By the People & so are the Supervisors.. If they want to get rid of the Sheriff, the proper way is to ”RECALL” him, just like the ”D.A. Gascon” currently. The Board Of Supervisors has the authority to ”Appoint” the Health Director, where we the people have no say in that..Barbara Ferrer has been making decisions regarding Covid restrictions whick affects EVERY CITY in Los Angeles County.. I think they should FIRE her. Her ”One Size Fits All” rules affects everyone in L.A. County. Sheriff Vallenueva has been doing ”HIS JOB”, the Supervisors need to do ”THEIR JOB”!!

  5. Firing the sheriff isn’t going to change deputy gangs or TNCO infiltrating the ranks. Only thing that’s going to fix them is getting domed by a federal task force. Ask yourself who really wants Gascon out of office.

  7. It would be much better for the AV if they removed R. Rex Parris and his cast of characters.

    • You’d have better luck tearing out all the asphalt that people get robbed on every day and converting it all back to sheep ranches. Did you know they’re actually crossfeftile with pronghorn “antelope?”

  8. We give into this and next they will be taking the role of appointing officials like Los Angeles. That board has enough power already and look how bad of a job they are doing.

    • One quarter the population of the State (40 million)
      Four times larger than the second largest county in the US (2.5 million)
      ONE HUNDRED TIMES the size of the average US county (100,000)

      The existence of the County of Los Angeles is a categorical failure of our own republic and this nation’s federal system

      • How’s that now? The seemingly endless expansion of LA Metro has had a lot of driving forces over many decades, and I don’t really see how any of that relates to failures of the republic or the federal system. Urbanization happens; that’s just how humanity rolls apparently.

        • Elected officials run and accept their posts in bad faith knowing one person cannot possibly duly uphold the obligations of a county-level office to its constituency with one this large. One man cannot faithfully delegate and oversee the execution of the responsibilities of his office to as many people as are required to police 10 million. There should be at least 20 times as many Sheriffs and their departments in all of Southern California as there currently are. 5 representatives to rule 10 million people in a county is a violation of the spirit of the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution. Funny how you have a political hot take on every article published by this outlet, yet you don’t understand the principles behind gerrymandering. Also funny how that anybody who hears “domestic Violence,” thinks man-hitting-wife, so they don’t understand that regular carjackings and gang violence, let alone rioting, means federal troops should be deployed to our streets instead of promoting sodomy abroad. Nope, take all guns. Funny how ignoring the Law (US Constitution) depends on each successive time it was ignored before.

          • While I agree with most of your points I don’t really see how it relates to a “failure of the republic.” The republic has certainly never shown any commitment to restricting growth. Quite the opposite. In most ways the current condition of LA county is an outcome of the success of the republic, IMO.

            But let’s move on towards discussing prospective solutions to the genuine issues.

            The county is too big for five district supervisors to be responsive to their constituents; with two million constituents per district that certainly seems to be an obvious truth. So what’s the solution? Currently there is a push to revise state law to have seven member boards in larger counties. 1.4 million constituents each is less than two million, sure enough, but that doesn’t seem like it really resolves the issue. More of a watering down than a solving.

            Should the county be broken up? There is no process for that currently. Do you have a proposal? I personally don’t, as I see no way to do it that wouldn’t likely lead to people being worse off than they are. While it is hard to find five people competent to be a board of supervisors for a county of ten million, finding fifty to serve competently on boards for ten counties of a million each is a daunting task and I have no doubt that at least ten million people end up with an absolute clown car. One or more of the new smaller counties winds up a bankrupt hellhole of chaos and the rest end up stuck with that for a neighbor.

            I think we need to focus on making the best of the current form, myself, but if you have a good suggestion I’ll listen. I do acknowledge there is an issue, simply rooted in the immense size of the county.

          • LOL…obviously that should have been “at least one million” that wind up with a clown car.

  9. “questioning why it only targets the sheriff and not other county leadership positions”

    What’s good for the goose….

  10. We have an elected official. How many others should be subject to removal by a “panel”? How about the DA? Seems people aren’t enamored with his track record.

    • How many? All of them.

      Most positions filled by elected officials are governed by some sort of impeachment procedure, and those that aren’t certainly should be. The requirements are generally stringent, and this proposal is in keeping with that. If the sheriff breaks the law or violates his oath of office there should be some way to remove him without waiting for the next election. And sure, the same should apply to the DA, though “some people aren’t enamored” isn’t likely to be included under “removal for cause.”

      We’ll have to see what the details of this proposal are when it goes on the ballot, but as described it seems a generally good idea.

      • The nattering nabob of negatism and Biden [removed] Tim Scott is full of [removed] as he/she always is…the welfare sponge should get a job and stop living his/her life in this room

        • Same nonsense, different day. You make wild accusations and call colorful names because the actual substance of my comments is too far over your head for you to debate it. Do you think that makes what you say resonate with anyone but similar clowns to yourself?

          • Confucius say bat notice skim when many small pot. Not even hawk see stolen stew from a cauldron.

            In other words, one can clip more from a bigger coin (if that helps you understand it better). Political centralization is an euphemism for social stratification.

          • Sure. However no “political centralization” went into making LA county the size that it is, it just grew.

      • Very dishonest and corrupt law enforcement organization. At least this current sheriff isn’t in Federal prison like good old Lee Bacca and Tanaka. If you are dishonest and withhold info, lie, let persons who wear a badge break the law in your presence but arrest others for the same behavior than you are part of the problem. A criminal with a badge is worse than one without one. What goes around comes around. LASD as dishonest as can be.

        • Baca and Tanaka happened to be in charge when the feds investigated. That I think is the only reason they are in prison and Villanueva isn’t.