Supervisors-Villanueva showdown on Tuesday’s agenda, a motion seeks path to oust sheriff

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will consider an unprecedented motion on Tuesday, July 12, that could create the framework to allow them to remove an elected sheriff from office for cause.

The removal 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. The measure, if approved by voters, could empower the board to remove an elected sheriff by a vote of four of the five supervisors.

The re-election campaign for Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who has clashed with supervisors repeatedly during his stormy four-year tenure, has condemned the motion, declaring that 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,” read 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.”

In the motion, county supervisors would create rules under which voters in November could empower the supervisors to remove the sheriff from office “for cause.” Those causes are 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;
• 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.

The motion also refers to previous sheriff Lee Baca, who was sent to federal prison on corruption charges, and Peter J. Pitchess, who “resisted any involvement in the first internal investigation of deputy gangs from outside the department.”

According to the motion, despite 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 by the board of supervisors, 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.

It’s not clear whether the motion could be passed unanimously. Supervisor Janice Hahn said she plans to support the motion — giving it the three votes needed for approval on Tuesday. But Supervisor Kathryn Barger has challenged the motivations of the proposal, asking why it only targets the sheriff and not other county leadership positions.

Over the past four years, Villanueva has repeatedly clashed with the Democrat-dominated Board of Supervisors over funding and policy matters, fought back against claims of “deputy gangs” within the agency, defied subpoenas to appear before the Civilian Oversight Commission and refused to enforce the county’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate among his deputies and department employees.

Last week, county lawyers filed legal action demanding that the sheriff cooperate with the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) ongoing investigation into alleged internal Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department gangs. “Although the OIG ordinance makes clear that the sheriff must cooperate with the OIG and provide documents and information in the manner requested by the OIG, the sheriff has refused to cooperate with the OIG’s requests for access to critical records and record systems,” the petition filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court states.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, or a representative, has not responded to the filed petition.

Villanueva has dismissed supervisors’ challenges to his methods as politically motivated and has lashed out at “progressive” policies and politicians, most notably Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón, and assailed movements to “defund” law enforcement agencies.

Villanueva, though a registered Democrat, has spurred support among conservative groups. The Republican National Committee issued a statement last week blasting the supervisors’ motion as “another prime example of how Democrats like to change the rules when they don’t get their way.”

“Not only is Sheriff Villanueva an elected official, he’s one of the few who has been willing to stand up to the board for reducing law enforcement funding and effectively endangering the lives of Angelenos,” according to the RNC. “… This decision from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors would attempt to bully the elected sheriff into doing what they want and would be yet another blow to a free and fair democracy, thanks to California Democrats.”

The political standoff appears to have helped solidify Villanueva’s support among many of those working for him, exemplified by his endorsement by the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.

However the motion turns out on Tuesday, it’s possible that Villanueva may no longer hold his office if voters approve the concept in November. Former Long Beach Police Chief Robert Luna is challenging him in the November runoff for the sheriff’s role.

Luna contends the sheriff’s department is being “mismanaged” by Villanueva and said he will work to restore trust in the agency. He also touts his position as an outsider with no connections to the sheriff’s department.

“Growing up in East Los Angeles, patrolled by the sheriff’s department, opened my eyes to examples of both good and bad policing, and inspired my 36-year career in law enforcement,” Luna said in a candidate statement.

He said he will work to “modernize” the sheriff’s department and its jail system and improve the mental well-being of deputies and employees.

Villanueva finished first in the June primary, with just over 30% of the vote, and Luna finished just behind, with nearly 26%, in a crowded field of challengers, most with extensive law enforcement experience. The one-on-one battle promises to be fascinating, as both candidates are seen as traditional law-and-order proponents.

City News Service contributed to this report