After issuing a vote of no confidence in Beverly Hills Police Chief Mark Stainbrook, members of the Beverly Hills Police Officers Association (BHPOA), the official union representing the Beverly Hills Police Department (BHPD), are waiting for the city’s response. A total of 102 out of over 130 eligible members participated in the vote. Of those 102 respondents, 78% were in favor of the vote of no confidence.
Officer Christian Bond, the president of BHPOA, told the Courier, “An overwhelming number of members of the association participated, and voted in favor of the vote of no confidence. We’re waiting on City Council to see what direction the city will go.”
The BHPOA’s membership is comprised of all BHPD sworn personnel, including officers, sergeants, lieutenants and captains. The chief of police is not a member.
The vote was initiated after Bond sent an email to BHPOA members on June 6 listing 10 bullet-pointed concerns that had been brought to his attention by members. Several addressed an alleged lack of investment in the growth and retention of sworn personnel, including bypassing internal candidates for promotions and an overreliance on private security contractors.
Others included a “misrepresentation of current staffing levels to City Council” and the “retention of personnel who do not meet required training standards.”
“This type of vote reflects serious concerns about morale, management decisions, departmental stability, and overall leadership,” the email states. “It is intended to bring attention to these issues and initiate accountability and change at the highest level of the department.”
In response to the vote, Keith Sterling, the city’s deputy city manager, said in a statement that, “The safety and security of Beverly Hills is always the City Council’s top priority. We are currently in active labor negotiations with several bargaining units, including the Beverly Hills Police Officers Association.”
The statement continued, “We are proud that our Police Department has done an outstanding job of keeping the community safe and reducing crime over the last several years, despite the ongoing challenges faced throughout the region. The City Council is aware of the vote that was taken by the BHPOA. We take the issues raised by the BHPOA seriously and the City Manager is reviewing them with Chief Stainbrook.”
The Courier has also obtained a copy of an email response sent by Stainbrook to officers in which he directly addressed some of the concerns laid out in the vote of no confidence.
In the email, Stainbrook wrote, “[t]he City Manager, my Command Staff, HR, and I are always willing to meet with the [BH]POA Board in a ‘Meet and Confer'” and invited recipients to call him on his direct phone number.
In regard to the allegation of a lack of investment in the growth and retention of sworn personnel, Stainbrook wrote, “I always want to hire and promote from within. It is my personal measure of success to see everyone here who wants to promote get promoted.”
Regarding the assertion that personnel who do not meet training standards are nevertheless retained, Stainbrook wrote, “All BHPD sworn personnel are selected and trained according to state law and the CA POST standards. I have not been briefed on any current sworn officer who does not meet those standards.”
And in addressing the concern that current staffing levels have been misrepresented to the Beverly Hills City Council, Stainbrook wrote, “I have worked closely with our Human Resources Department to accurately account for vacant positions … I keep the City Council, and the City Manager advised of current trends, recruitment/retention trends in the region, and the contracts that other POAs and cities have approved. I do not believe there have been any misrepresentations by me.”
In the week that has elapsed since the vote of no confidence, Bond has addressed speculation that the vote of no confidence was designed as a labor negotiation tactic by the union.
“The idea that this was a negotiating tactic is completely untrue … We did this for the membership. We checked the bylaws carefully. We used a secure platform,” he told the Courier.
Bond added that to his knowledge, this is the first vote of no confidence against a chief in the city’s history. He said Stainbrook “has been aware for the past year about the membership’s concerns and did not take action.”
“This was before labor negotiations were even in sight,” said Bond. “We met with the city manager at least three months ago to let her know that there was talk of a vote of no confidence. I told her I didn’t want to go that route, but we heard back nothing. Things did not change, and the membership was pressing for the vote of no confidence.”
