The San Diego City Council voted 5-1 on Tuesday to agree with two findings in a grand jury report on the city’s rollout of its voter-approved police oversight commission. The council had initially planned to agree only in part with those findings. Councilmember Jennifer Campbell cast the lone no vote and did not speak during the discussion.
The vote addresses the city’s response to the grand jury, not the commission’s underlying authority. Measure B, approved by 75% of voters in 2020, was intended to expand the Commission on Police Practices’ role in investigating officer misconduct complaints, according to KPBS. Six years later, the commission still cannot independently investigate many complaints it receives.
The grand jury report made four findings. City law required officials to respond to each by agreeing, disagreeing in part, or disagreeing. Tuesday’s vote changed two planned responses from “disagree in part” to “agree.”
Why the Commission’s Authority Remains Limited
The commission’s permanent operating procedures remain the subject of negotiations between Mayor Todd Gloria and the San Diego Police Officers Association, which represents sworn officers, according to KPBS. Until those talks conclude, the commission continues to operate under interim rules rather than the full authority contemplated by Measure B.
Independent Budget Analyst Charles Modica, whose office coordinates the city’s responses to grand jury reports, told the council that some matters could not be discussed publicly. “There are some things that are still subject to, frankly, closed session discussions as well,” Modica said, adding that ongoing labor negotiations made a more detailed public response difficult.
The slow timeline isn't new. The city didn't appoint the commission's first slate of members until mid-2023, and the commission's proposed operating procedures weren't finalized until 2025, according to earlier reporting by The San Diego Union-Tribune. The commission also lacked a quorum for years and churned through several leadership changes before its current executive director was hired in January, per the same KPBS account.
A Fight Over File Access and a Missing Police Chief
The limits also extend to how investigators access police records. The Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit shares documents and information that state law allows the commission to receive, but the commission does not have independent access to the software where investigation files are stored. Instead, the department shares records through a Google Drive.
Internal Affairs Unit head Jud Campbell said the underlying software “does not have a setting that can filter out the CPP's access to information that state law deems confidential,” according to KPBS. Council President Sean Elo-Rivera questioned the department’s response to a grand jury recommendation on file access and urged officials to consider software with more suitable capabilities. He also pointed to the department’s plans to use license plate readers and AI to help write reports while pressing officials on the limits of file sharing.
Elo-Rivera also criticized Police Chief Scott Wahl for missing the council meeting and sending a deputy in his place, KPBS reported.
A Pattern Documented Over Multiple Years
A June San Diego County Civil Grand Jury report identified stalled labor negotiations, staffing challenges, restricted police-record access and delays in obtaining information as continuing barriers, according to the Union-Tribune. The commission was still operating under interim procedures approved in 2021, and investigators lacked direct access to internal affairs databases, relying instead on the department to provide files, the newspaper reported.
The commission’s work under those interim rules has been limited. As of July 2025, it had three investigators but could review the Police Department’s internal affairs investigations and issue policy recommendations, the Union-Tribune reported, attributing the delay in expanding its role to a state-mandated meet-and-confer process over proposed changes affecting working conditions. In 2024, the commission formed a policy committee and issued nine recommendations to update the department’s vehicle pursuit policy, according to that report.
What Measure B Authorized
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters’ official Measure B summary said the commission could review and advise on police investigations and discipline, while the police chief would retain authority to impose discipline. The Commission on Police Practices’ official report says it forwards complaints within the Police Department’s purview to the department, but does not review every department complaint investigation. Oakland offers a different California example, not a direct comparison: voters’ 2016 Measure LL established both a Police Commission and a Community Police Review Agency, according to the Oakland City Council’s enabling ordinance. That local structure does not establish what rules San Diego can adopt.
The grand jury also urged the City Council to conclude meet-and-confer negotiations with the police union and two other city employee unions. Police reform advocates have accused the city of slow-rolling Measure B’s implementation. The council’s revised responses acknowledge two grand jury findings, but do not resolve the broader gap between the commission’s voter-approved role and its current limits.
