Los Angeles is in a budget crisis, but the LAPD has been hiring far beyond what the city can afford and far beyond what the City Council ever approved. What began as a technical overspend has now exposed something deeper, revealing a subversion of the democratic process that allows departments and the mayor’s office to override the will of the voters’ elected representatives. Instead of following the legally adopted budget, LAPD expanded its hiring pipeline based on an informal political understanding with Mayor Karen Bass, not on any public vote or authorized allocation. The scramble now underway to cover the cost has revealed structural cracks in how the city governs itself, raising questions about transparency, accountability, and the basic integrity of civilian oversight.

The city’s current budget funded 240 new LAPD hires. That number was the product of months of negotiation, during which councilmembers worked to prevent mass layoffs of civilian employees and manage a nearly billion dollar deficit. Bass pushed for double that number, but City Council, citing financial reality, cut it in half. Days later, the mayor signed the budget while announcing that she had an agreement with Council leadership to find the money to restore the additional 240 officers within 90 days. No such funds were ever identified. Budget and Finance Chair Katy Yaroslavsky later told colleagues at a Budget Committee meeting that her committee was never consulted. “That press release that went out didn’t go through Budget. There was no conversation with Budget about that,” she said. “And I would love to find the money. Let’s figure out how to generate that new $80 million for next year. But we don’t have it yet, do we?”

Yet LAPD proceeded as if it had. Academy classes were expanded, and background checks were accelerated. By early December, the department was on track to hire 410 officers this year, far exceeding the authorized amount. LAPD leadership suggested in public hearings that they believed the mayor’s June announcement signaled approval. Councilmembers were taken by surprise and made clear they had never authorized anything beyond 240.

Covering the cost of those hires for the remainder of this fiscal year requires about $4.4 million. Next year, the ongoing cost for the additional officers is estimated at roughly $33.5 million, an amount that exceeds the budgets of some entire departments. No revenue source has been identified to pay for that structural obligation. The reserve fund is already strained. The city is asking workers to take five furlough days in the next six months. Departments like Public Works and Recreation and Parks are struggling to maintain basic services with limited staff and aging infrastructure.

That is why even strong supporters of LAPD expansion are sounding the alarm. Councilmember Tim McOsker, who has represented the police union in the past, called out the department’s behavior bluntly. “We have to be grown ups here. Every dollar only has 100 pennies,” he said. “And the document, the budget, has to mean something. I mean, everyone’s worst fear about a department running rogue, and I think if you listed the departments that are most likely to run rogue, we’re looking at them right here.”

Mayor Bass has now formally asked the Council to locate the $4.4 million needed to pay for the unauthorized hires through the end of the fiscal year. In an interview on AirTalk with Larry Mantle, she argued that without additional officers the city will pay more in overtime, struggle with response times, and risk being unprepared for the World Cup and other major events. She said offer letters must go out immediately to keep the January academy class on track. The mayor did not explain why the department was allowed to hire beyond the budget in the first place or why no funding plan was produced during the 90 day window she announced in June.

This scramble reflects a core truth about the city’s finances: Los Angeles can fund almost anything if elected officials decide it is a priority. The issue is not capacity but political will. As the City Controller has repeatedly noted, the same budget that is now being searched for $4.4 million for police hiring could have located $4.4 million for other critical services. That amount is more than double the entire budget of the Youth Development Department, which is now being eliminated and consolidated. It could fund streetlights, sidewalk repairs, animal services, or unarmed crisis response. Residents across the city have been asked to make sacrifices to close the deficit, and city workers are short staffed and facing furloughs. Yet the political system is now mobilizing to find millions for hires the Council did not approve.

The larger issue is not simply the size of the police force. It is the erosion of democratic process and budget governance. Under the City Charter, the Council controls hiring levels through the budget and departments are not permitted to exceed that authority on the basis of informal political understandings. When a department acts as if a press release is the same as a public vote, it undermines the separation of powers and the basic promise that taxpayers’ money will be spent according to rules they can see and influence. The fact that these choices are being normalized after the fact through an emergency funding request only deepens concerns that the guardrails meant to restrain executive power are being ignored.

All of this is unfolding as the Charter Reform Commission decides whether to include policing and public safety in its work. The Personnel and Budget Committee of the Commission is holding a study session on how the Charter structures LAPD oversight and budget authority, with public comment opportunities on December 11 and December 16. Residents can send written input to ReformLAcharter@lacity.org and advocacy groups like LA Forward have prepared toolkits to help people navigate the process.