Since its establishment on November 15, 2022, the Santa Ana Police Oversight Commission has been in limbo, unable to investigate complaints or policies due to the absence of a director. Now, with a director finally in place, we stand at a pivotal moment ready to fulfill our mandate and address the pressing issues that have gone unaddressed for far too long.
However, just as we prepare to act, unexpected, proposed amendments to the ordinance threaten to undermine our investigatory powers—changes most commissioners, including myself, were not informed about. City officials claim these amendments are necessary to align with state law and the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (POBAR), warning of potential lawsuits if we do not comply. Yet, if lawsuits are the concern, we must have an open discussion about the $24 million spent by the city on lawsuits against the Santa Ana Police Department from 2010 to 2020, highlighting the cost of misconduct without effective oversight. Civilian oversight of police is inherently uncomfortable because it forces accountability and poses questions that those in power would rather avoid. Nonetheless, it is essential to ensure community safety.
Despite these challenges, the commission is actively collaborating with community organizations like OCRRN, OCJF, Western State College of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic, Public Law Center, and SAPD to revamp the U-visa policy. This initiative aims to enhance practices, better define helpfulness, and improve community safety, underscoring our potential to strengthen community relations.
I recognize the commission’s limitations. Budget constraints mean we cannot investigate every case. But we can—and must– have the authority to review use-of-force incidents and police shootings, as well as other cases covered under state law. Senate Bill 1421 and Senate Bill 16 make it clear that the public has a right to know about serious police misconduct and deadly force. Nowhere does it state that an oversight body must wait until Internal Affairs finishes its work before reviewing. That is a local policy choice, not a state mandate.
What is at stake here? If these amendments pass, our role will be reduced from investigators to auditors. That means we could still examine policies but lose the very investigatory powers the community fought for when this commission was created. If we fail them, how can we expect them to trust us if we cannot deliver accountability? Audit and accountability are not synonymous. Oversight without the ability to investigate is oversight in name only, not practice.
Too often, recent city council meetings have looked more like performances than leadership. If the goal is to ensure safety for the city, governance must meet community members where they are. I have observed city staff present as a single voice with the police department when I brought up questions about the military equipment report, which obscures responsibility instead of clarifying it. Even when the council directed us to review the military equipment policy, we received no instructions or guidance. Unless commissioners personally watch every meeting, we are left out of the loop.
This is not how oversight should function.
The problems extend beyond policy. Even before these amendments were introduced, there were efforts to remove me from the commission. The mayor and two council members, Phil Bacerra and David Penaloza, attempted to remove me from the commission. Councilmember Penaloza accused me of “manufacturing complaints,” a political tactic that has fueled mistrust. These attempts reveal the deeper issue: silencing dissenting voices on the commission.
Related Articles
Assembly Bill 1178 will undermine transparency and police accountability From hidden tapes to ballot battles: The ugly side of redistricting Courts keep striking down California laws infringing on free speech, gun rights California kids deserve real, healthy food — not half-baked policies Redistricting: Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it ethical The question before us is simple: will the City Council support a commission with real investigatory power, or will it weaken oversight under the guise of legal necessity? True accountability requires independence. Deferring to Internal Affairs is not independence. It is yielding oversight to the very department we are tasked with examining.Oversight will never be easy or comfortable. The City Council must choose: will Santa Ana embrace accountability, or retreat to business as usual? There will no longer be a joint meeting with Council and the Commission. Instead, the amendments will be discussed at the next Oversight Commission on September 11, followed by a Council work session on September 16. In the meantime, commissioners are also meeting individually with the city manager, director, police chief, and city attorney before the next meeting. I urge residents to attend these meetings as public opinion is both crucial and necessary.
Amalia Mejia serves on Santa Ana’s police oversight commission.
Hence then, the article about amalia mejia oversight without power is no oversight at all was published today ( ) and is available on The Orange County Register ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Amalia Mejia: Oversight without power is no oversight at all )
Also on site :
- How Nashville’s Music Row Went MAGA in 2025
- Stunning ISS Photo of Florida, Cuba Captures & 039;Moonglint& 039;
- This 22-year-old college dropout is generating $700,000 a year from ‘AI slop’ videos that people sleep through