Chief Mark Stainbrook Accused of Retaliation From Police Union

On June 11, the Beverly Hills Police Officers Association, supported by 80 percent of its members, issued a formal vote of no confidence in Chief Mark Stainbrook. Rather than address the concerns through open dialogue, the department’s leadership appears to have responded with retaliation. According to the union, Stainbrook used his position to spread false rumors about BHPOA President Christian Bond and attempted to interfere with Bond’s future employment by contacting the Beverly Hills Unified School District superintendent. On July 18, the union’s board followed up with a cease and desist letter formally accusing Stainbrook of unlawful, defamatory, and retaliatory conduct.

In a city where policing should be a shared responsibility rooted in mutual respect, the allegations raise serious doubts about Stainbrook’s ability to lead. When personnel feel chilled from free expression, the result is distrust. The union alleges the chief interfered with protected labor activity and defamed its president. Those are not minor procedural errors; they are threats to the department’s morale.

This is not the first time Beverly Hills leaders have appointed a chief with problematic deep‑seated leadership issues. Chief Sandra Spagnoli, heralded as the first female police chief in city history, oversaw what would become a costly legacy. Over a two‑year span, the city settled lawsuit after lawsuit accusing her of racial animus, homophobia, and favoritism toward officers with whom she allegedly had inappropriate relations. The city paid more than $2.3 million in one case alone, and ultimately faced at least two dozen claims costing to the tune of nearly $8 million.

Before Spagnoli, Chief David Snowden stepped down under a cloud of scrutiny. He came under fire for drawing a second salary from private work, and his department mishandled a high‑profile wrongful detention case involving a Black television producer. That rocked public trust and showed an agency not attentive to fairness or officer accountability.

In each case, leadership changes came only after scandal, settled lawsuits, and community pressure. The recurring pattern suggests that appointments are made without proper vetting—and officers deserve better. Competent officers—who risk their lives, serve the community, and expect fair treatment—are undermined when chiefs behave as if their loyalty lies elsewhere.

The union’s letter says they are ready to pursue every legal avenue if the conduct continues. That is not mere talk. When a chief wastes energy attacking his own officers, there is little stamina left for real reform: improving communication, recruitment, or working with City Council to address citizen concerns.

Chief Stainbrook and the city must not go down the same path others have before. A serious leader would pause, listen to legitimate concerns, and restore lines of trust and accountability. If the allegations prove true, the city must act—not cover them up. Officers deserve leadership with integrity. Public trust demands it.