Keep Police & Fire Chiefs under Council
The No campaign framed direct Council authority as citizen control and police accountability. The Yes campaign called it Council politics. Voters chose to keep the existing structure.
The thesis
In 2016, an organized political bloc fought to keep the Police and Fire Chiefs under direct elected-Council control. The same political current later helped shrink and redefine the police role.
The starting point was explicitly political. Thomas Small, Meghan Sahli-Wells, Alex Fisch, Kelly Kent and Deborah Wallace jointly signed the No-on-Measure-CA argument and rebuttal. Their filing said communities should directly control Police and Fire, invoked earlier allegations of racialized policing and misconduct, and argued that democratic oversight of first responders mattered more than managerial efficiency.
The opposing campaign described the same structure differently: it warned that chiefs should not have to curry favor with Councilmembers and urged voters to “keep council politics out of the police and fire departments.” Voters nevertheless rejected Measure CA 64.65% to 35.35%, preserving direct Council authority over the chiefs.
This was coordinated campaign activity, not a later reconstruction. Contemporaneous reporting described a Culver City Community Coalition No-on-CA campaign with overlapping endorsers and Democratic Club support. Sahli-Wells tied the fight to national police-accountability concerns; Small framed it around accountability, transparency and citizen power. This site describes that campaign language as progressive or left-of-center in orientation; that ideological label is analysis, while the campaign statements and affiliations are documented facts.
By 2020 Small was on the Police Liaison Subcommittee. On July 13 he moved File 21-30, establishing the use-of-force and broader public-safety review framework; Sahli-Wells seconded and all five Councilmembers voted Aye. The City later described the review as examining how to shift resources and reduce reliance on law enforcement. Later records show eight sworn positions eliminated, expansion of non-police crisis response, and a 2026 discussion about dispatching some 911 calls to the Mobile Crisis Team.
For police, that creates a two-front problem: crime outside the building, politics inside it.
Thomas SmallKelly KentAlex FischMeghan Sahli-WellsFreddy PuzaBubba FishYasmine-Imani McMorrin
Discuss dispatching 911 calls to MCT
File 27-248 placed the feasibility of dispatching 911 calls to the Mobile Crisis Team before the Standing Public Safety Subcommittee. Posted minutes remain draft.
The record in eight numbers
What changed between those endpoints?
These are descriptive figures and official actions, not a political score.
64.65%voted No on Measure CA in 2016
5–0July 13, 2020 vote on File 21-30 public-safety review; Small moved
8sworn police positions eliminated in FY2021/22
$1.5Mallocated for Mobile Crisis Intervention
3–22023 vote excluding Reimagining Public Safety; Puza and McMorrin opposed exclusion
3–22026 vote creating the broader Public Safety Subcommittee; Puza, Fish and McMorrin in favor
10–6current weekday MCT hours on the City website
27-2482026 file on feasibility of dispatching 911 calls to MCT
Daily-life lens
Public-safety restructuring is not abstract when a resident needs help.
The City has not yet adopted a final 911-routing policy in File 27-248. But the practical stakes are measurable: dispatch rules, response time, operating hours, co-response criteria, and whether a call stays with Police or Fire or is routed to a civilian/clinical team.
3:40CCPD average emergency response time reported in 2024.
48,311CCPD calls for service in 2024.
0.23%of 2024 calls were associated with a use-of-force incident.
Class 1CCFD’s ISO Public Protection Classification.
The baseline matters. CCPD’s records also show extensive de-escalation, procedural-justice, anti-bias and crisis-intervention training. CCFD is CFAI-accredited, operates three engines, a ladder truck and three paramedic rescue units, and assigns 20 personnel per shift. These statistics document workload, training and operational performance during years of continuing Council oversight and policy change.
Read the record
Shorter pages. One question at a time.
Each page starts with the same thesis and then drills into one part of the record.
2016 campaign
Measure CA materials
The official arguments, rebuttals, campaign organization and the competing ideas of democratic control versus Council politics.
Open the campaign archive →2016–2020
Thomas Small
Measure CA, direct chief oversight, Police Liaison membership, verified roll calls and the launch of the public-safety review.
Read the Small record →2022–2026
Freddy Puza
Reimagining Public Safety, police-equipment votes, the 2026 subcommittee vote and the current public-safety structure.
Read the Puza record →Policy pathway
What “reimagining” meant
Sworn staffing, non-police response, alternatives to incarceration, General Plan policy and the 2026 911-dispatch discussion.
Follow the policy chain →Performance baseline
Police & Fire
Response times, force data, training, accreditation and staffing—the operational baseline beside the policy debate.
See department data →Primary sources
Open the records yourself
Measure CA filings, Legistar matters, Council summaries, Police/Fire reports, General Plan records and current MCT information.
Open the source index →Current endpoint
What exactly was before the subcommittee on September 1?
File 27-248: “Update and Discussion of Feasibility to Dispatch 911 Calls to the Mobile Crisis Team.” The September 1, 2026 minutes are still draft, so this site does not represent the discussion as a final policy decision.
The City’s live MCT page says the service is for non-emergency mental-health calls, is not law enforcement, is voluntary, and currently operates Monday–Friday, 10 AM–6 PM. It also says physical-safety and life-threatening situations are beyond the team’s mission.