The City Council Tuesday authorized the Los Angeles Police Department to hire a police administrator II, a position intended to unify and shape internal messaging.<\/p>\n
Deputy Chief Jonathan Pinto of LAPD\u2019s Human Resources Bureau said the position, which pays an annual salary of $191,000, will involve developing and executing communications plans, and will report directly to Police Chief Jim McDonnell.<\/p>\n
LAPD public information officer positions are focused on external communications, dealing with the media, but McDonnell, as part of his reorganization of the department, requested a position for an internal communications director.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe ask is from Chief McDonnell, so that we as a department have an actual internal advisor that can work on the messaging for internally with our employees,\u201d Pinto said.<\/p>\n
Council members voted 10-5 to support the LAPD\u2019s requested position. Council members Monica Rodriguez, Hugo Soto-Martinez, Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado and Nithya Raman voted no.<\/p>\n
Tuesday\u2019s opposition seemed to center on McDonnell\u2019s previously stated refusal to enforce the state\u2019s ban on federal agents wearing masks while performing their duties. Soto-Martinez asked Pinto whether the LAPD has had internal conversations about federal illegal immigration enforcement in the city.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere seems to be a lot of lack of confidence right now with LAPD, especially with the mutual aid request,\u201d Soto-Martinez said, adding that the chief said he was not going to enforce a mask ban in the city.<\/p>\n
Last week, during a news conference discussing 2025 crime data, McDonnell said the LAPD would not enforce a mask ban on federal agents as established by state laws SB 805 and SB 627.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reality of one armed agency approaching another armed agency to create conflict over something that would be a misdemeanor at best or an infraction doesn\u2019t make any sense,\u201d McDonnell said previously.<\/p>\n
Pinto told council members that McDonnell has been very transparent with reporters and residents on the department\u2019s stance regarding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in the city.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we made it very clear over the years with Special Order 40 that we do not look at immigration status during the course of the scope of our duties. But for public safety, we are called to scenes to provide assistance to protect our community members,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Under questioning from Soto-Martinez, Pinto said the department has a candidate for the position who is currently being vetted, but he declined to provide that person\u2019s name.<\/p>\n
Rodriguez shared Soto-Martinez\u2019s concerns, and described McDonnell\u2019s remarks as \u201creally problematic.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s causing greater consternation among members of our public and our community that are being affected,\u201d Rodriguez said.<\/p>\n
She cited concerns with the process in voting against the position, emphasizing the importance of transparency.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen the chief has been here, there\u2019s been a very defensive response to very simple questions around accountability that would be asked of any other department,\u201d Rodriguez said.<\/p>\n
She encouraged Pinto and McDonnell to return to the council to have a deeper conversation about LAPD messaging and communication.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not about whether or not anyone feels appreciated or not,\u201d Rodriguez said. \u201cEvery city employee for the work that they do in service to this public and in service to the people of Los Angeles is deeply appreciated, but we\u2019re also the fiscal stewards, and we are also the policymakers, not of the department\u2019s policies, but when the state or anyone advances a change of law, we expect everyone to honor it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance last year to enact a similar mask ban in the unincorporated areas of the region patrolled by the Los Angeles County Sheriff\u2019s Department. Sheriff\u2019s officials have said they will not be enforcing SB 627 and SB 805 while the measures are being challenged in court.<\/p>\n
\u201cCurrent federal law will not allow us to enforce the proposed ordinance on federal agents. Should the courts decide differently, we will adjust accordingly,\u201d the LASD told LA Public Press in January.<\/p>\n
The Los Angeles County District Attorney\u2019s Office told LA Public Press that it would only review cases referred by law enforcement.<\/p>\n
The laws made California the first state in the nation to prohibit federal law enforcement officers, including ICE agents, from hiding their identities, and required non-uniformed federal law enforcement to visibly display identification information, including agency, name or badge number during enforcement duties.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court in a bid to overturn the laws.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit alleges that the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act threaten the safety of officers facing harassment, doxing and violence while carrying out enforcement duties. The DOJ also says the laws violate the Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause, under which states have no power to control the operations of the federal government.<\/p>\n
\u201cLaw enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,\u201d U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a previous statement. \u201cCalifornia\u2019s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The City Council Tuesday authorized the Los Angeles Police Department to hire a police administrator II, a position…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":344486,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5123],"tags":[1582,276,29787,110366,6283,2961,4530,224,5337,71628,6130],"class_list":["post-564214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-los-angeles","tag-ca","tag-california","tag-communication","tag-concerns","tag-council","tag-la","tag-lapd","tag-los-angeles","tag-losangeles","tag-messaging","tag-position"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116008948247205854","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/564214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=564214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/564214\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/344486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=564214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=564214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=564214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}