L.A. County officials are on track to blow a voter-imposed deadline to create a new Ethics Commission – unless they succeed in coming up with yet another ballot measure to make it work.
@robertlgreene.bsky.social has the details
And only county counsel can render legal advice. So the Ethics Commission and the elected officials they investigate would have the same lawyer. Not a recipe for independence.
Despite Measure G, only the Board of Supervisors can appoint commissioners, including an Ethics Commission. Only the executive officer can appoint department heads, including a new Office of Ethics Compliance. So elected officials, who the body would oversee, would have control over its members.
The GRTF has asked for its own lawyer. So far, they haven't gotten one.
(*cough* county counsel)
The county's Governance Reform Task Force had almost finished their work on the Ethics Commission proposal before someone told them it would violate the county charter. Despite voter approval of Measure G. WHO told them? Whoever it was also told them they can't say who it was.
In 2024, voters approved a Los Angeles County charter amendment to create an independent Ethics Commission. In 2026. They probably didn't know they'd have to approve it a second time, just a few weeks before 2026 is over. My report:
haynesfoundation.org/rg-ethics-re...
I feel like forcing military officers to choose between defying orders given by civilian leadership or committing war crimes will be a defining moment in whatever ultimately happens to our democracy.
REPORT RE: 2028 LOS ANGELES OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES ENHANCED CITY RESOURCES MASTER AGREEMENT The Honorable City Council of the City of Los Angeles Room 395, City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Honorable Members: On February 26, 2026, the Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2028 (LA28) issued its version of a draft Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement (ECRMA) and proposed term sheet to the City Administrative Officer (CAO), Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), the Mayor's Office of Major Events (OME), and our Office. Our Office has prepared proposed changes to that draft and distributed those proposed changes to the same parties. We write this report to bring to your attention a critical issue - the need to ensure that the ECRMA is clear and unambiguous on the most important foundational point: No LA28 legacy for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games (2028 Games) can be funded unless and until all City of Los Angeles (City) costs are reimbursed because taxpayer dollars cannot be the source of funding a private foundation accountable only to itself and not to the public. The changes proposed by our Office are predicated on the oft-repeated promises of LA28 and the public statements by LA28 and the City - namely, that the 2028 Games will be held at no cost to the taxpayers and that all costs of both LA28 and the City necessary or desirable to support the 2028 Games will be paid first before any additional
surplus or "profit" is available to fund a private legacy fund for LA28.' The changes our Office proposed also: 1. Align the ECRMA's terms with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and the Games Agreement? (attached as Exhibit A); 2. Uphold the zero-cost principle and promise to this Council and the public; 3. Provide transparent audit rights and procedures in response to the heightened risk exposure to the City and LA28 especially given the recent claims against LA28's chairman, Casey Wasserman; and 4. Improve clarity and manage risk by reducing ambiguity. The core tenet for the creation of LA28 and the 2028 Games is that the 2028 Games will be "at no cost to taxpayers".3 Thus, the ECRMA must be drafted with the clarity and precision necessary to ensure that both LA28's costs and the City's additional costs are all fully reimbursed before LA28 can retain any of the extra revenue for its own private account/legacy fund. The City has no control over LA28's expenses, which are paid first, including the salaries, bonuses, and vendor amounts LA28 may choose to expend. Neither party has any control over what the City's extraordinary expenses ultimately will be even if there are no weather-related issues, security incidents, emergencies or other unanticipated contingencies. Nor does either party have any control over the timing or actualization of federal reimbursement to the City. The last LA28 budget was for $7.15 billion, but LA28 acknowledges that the latest budget does not include the City's estimated $1 billion of security funding. Although the City's security cost could potentially be reimbursed by federal funding set aside for law enforcement agencies dedicating services related to the 2028 Games, the City will be competing with multiple agencies for those tunds, and, as a result, may not receive sufficient funding to tully reimburse the City for its own use of law enforcement resources. Thus, there are two remaining issues in the ECRMA that must be resolved…
The Honorable City Council of the City of Los Angeles Page 3 exceed $1 billion? In either situation, this Office believes that all surplus funds must reimburse the City and its taxpayers first as promised before any surplus funds are available for a legacy or tribute fund. The risk that the City's taxpayers will be left with the responsibility for 2028 Games expenses while surplus funds in excess of LA28's (and a portion of the City's actual) costs are retained by LA28 to fund a private legacy foundation is a legal and financial risk that flies in the face of the Games Agreement and the promises made to the public.4 Moreover, state law (California Government Code section 53069.8) requires that the City maintain the contractual right to receive full reimbursement of its actual costs in providing supplemental law enforcement services. Separately and independently, the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the Games Agreement already obligate LA28 to pay for City services provided by other City departments, such as Recreation and Parks, Sanitation, and Transportation, which will inevitably incur significant costs in direct support of the 2028 Games. The ECRMA as drafted by LA28 limits the obligation to reimburse City costs before LA28 is permitted to create its own legacy fund with the surplus. The ECRMA is the primary mechanism that the parties previously agreed would serve as the vehicle ensuring all City services are paid for prior to transfer of any surplus funds to a legacy organization and ultimate dissolution of LA28. This agreement is the final stop on this road and no further deferral of this fundamental issue is possible. The City requires unambiguous language in the ECRMA to foreclose any scenario in which funds might go back to the wealthy backers and investors of the LA28 organization without reimbursing taxpayer-funded extraordinary costs. The failure to make this point crystal clear in the ECRMA diminishes the City's ability to recover these costs and could res…
The Honorable City Council of the City of Los Angeles Page 4 available to fund any amounts to the Legacy Entity described in Section 8 of the Games Agreement. No Surplus will be used for, on behalf of, at the direction of, or for the benefit of the Legacy Entity unless and until (a) the OCOG has received the City's written consent acknowledging that the City has been fully reimbursed for the Enhanced City Resources and supplemental services or (b) all Dispute Resolution processes have been fully determined and concluded and all amounts due to the City as a result thereof have been fully and finally paid." If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me, Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael Dundas, or Assistant City Attorney Daniel Kreinbring at (213) 978- 8100. Sincerely, Syde Bleaten Poto HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney
Remember that overdue LA28 city services agreement?
This LA city attorney report demands that all city costs be reimbursed before any profits can be distributed to LA28 because "taxpayer dollars cannot be the source of funding a private foundation accountable only to itself and not to the public"
Six hours, with a bullet.
Mariel Garza: “The offenses outlined in the story include crimes and a possible cover-up by union officials.”
open.substack.com/pub/goldenst... h/t @goldenstateorg.bsky.social
"The stunning speed with which the Democratic establishment backed away from one of its icons, a figure long-worshipped to a cult-like degree, underscores the differences in how the nation’s two largest political parties handle accountability."
No equivocating, no excuse-making, no minimizing. Well said, @marielgarza.bsky.social
Why are candidates who are running against each other in the Council District 1 race working to help get more people on the ballot? It's all about challenging incumbent Eunisses Hernandez. My @theeastsiderla.bsky.social story. www.theeastsiderla.com/news/council...
Here's a lil' update on L.A.'s election: no one decided to run against City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez in the San Fernando Valley.
Unless she gets an extraordinarily feisty write-in challenger, she's in the clear for the June 2 election -- and a third term.
cityclerk.lacity.org/election/202...
A couple of LA City Council committees are supposed to meet at 1 p.m. on Friday to review data on a controversial practice by LAPD officers of stopping drivers by using a pretext -- a minor violation -- as the reason, in order to find a more serious violation.
The top executive at L.A.'s Department of Water and Power is stepping down after nearly two years. She's heading to Puerto Rico to become CEO of the electrical company LUMA.
w/ @noahmgoldberg.bsky.social
www.latimes.com/california/s...
I finally have a photo that's not from the 90s (thank you, @bokchoy-baobei.bsky.social), and I have finally broken my X habit. Maybe it's time I actually posted something.
Hello, Bluesky.
